“Reading, we have a problem.”
As a followup to my post about whether July 2019 was the warmest July on record (globally-averaged), I’ve been comparing reanalysis datasets since 1979. It appears that the ERA5 reanalysis upon which WMO record temperature pronouncements are made might have a problem, with spurious warmth in recent years.
Here’s a comparison of the global-average surface air temperature variations from three reanalysis datasets: ERA5 (ECMWF), CFSv2 (NOAA/NCEP), and MERRA (NASA/GSFC). Note that only CFSv2 covers the full period, January 1979 to July 2019:
ERA5 has a substantially warmer trend than the other two. By differencing ERA5 with the other datasets we can see that there are some systematic changes that occur in ERA5, especially around 2009-2010, as well as after 1998:
These kinds of changes suggest to me differences in how the satellite deep-layer air temperatures from MSU and AMSU are handled, which through the data assimilation process can affect surface temperatures.
Reanalysis datasets’ dependence upon various data sources is difficult to diagnose because a wide variety of data are included in them: surface thermometers, weather balloons, aircraft, ships, buoys, and a variety of satellites. Because the satellites are the only truly global source, they have the potential to significantly impact global-average quantities.
If the satellites turn out to be the main reason for these differences, this means how the satellites are adjusted as the orbits decay, intercalibrated with each other, and even whether certain problematic satellites are excluded from analysis, all become significant factors in the interpretation of global average temperatures from the reanalyses.
For example, the WMO’s pronouncement that July would be at or near record warmth (which is based upon the ERA5 reanalysis) would then depend on how they did their satellite data adjustments.
So, I am no longer standing by my previous statement that the current reanalysis datasets should be used for determining record warm months. At this point, it’s not even clear to me that reanalysis datasets are better for inferring record high (or low) surface temperatures than our (UAH) satellite dataset is, even though the satellite senses much more of the troposphere than it does of the surface.
This is all very preliminary, and I am open to other interpretations.
Thank you for the analysis.
Dr. Roy (or anyone else qualified to answer),
Slightly off topic, but what do you think about this story?
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/will-5g-satellite-deployment-undermine-noaa-weather-forecasting/
“The rhetoric heated up this spring as the FCC announced plans to auction off a band of the electromagnetic spectrum near the frequency that polar-orbiting satellites use to monitor water vapor.
In the months since, federal officials have negotiated behind the scenes to try to find common ground over what strength of 5G transmission signals would be allowed on that portion of the spectrum.”
I think that’s a good idea.
The “Re” in Re-Analysis, should be written in full so that everybody understands what it actually means.
“Rewriting of Historical & Current Data” Analysis.
ie not Real Data, not actual data, but what someone somewhere “thinks” it should be, probably based on some kind of model.
A C Osborn
“Rewriting of Historical & Current Data” Analysis.
ie not Real Data, not actual data, but what someone somewhere “thinks” it should be, probably based on some kind of model.
*
Maybe you tell that to Dr Ryan Maue, whose WeatherBELL data is based on reanalysis?
All data are based on models.
However some models have been verified by multiple experiments and observations, and some have not…ie not all models are created equal.
Of course all models aren’t equal.
But the data from your “experiments and observations” is data from models.
As Paul Edwards wrote, “Without models there are no data.”
“all models are wrong, some are useful”
-George Box
Models do not produce data.
Measurements produce data.
Observations produce evidence.
The scientific method uses data in controlled experiments to test a hypothesis.
Observations can’t prove anything — they can improve confidence in a hypothesis,
but can’t be used to test a hypothesis.
What comes out of a computer model is NOT real data — it is the opinion of whoever programmed the computer.
It is not a measurement.
It is not an observation.
It does not surprise me that you, Mr. Appeal to Authority Apple, do not know that.
Like most climate alarmists, and their beloved computer models, your basic understanding of science is very weak.
Piled High and deep, to be specific.
All measurements are done with a model. All of them.
DA…”All measurements are done with a model. All of them”.
Go soak your head.
Richard Greene
“What comes out of a computer model is NOT real data — it is the opinion of whoever programmed the computer.”
This is the perfect way to admit that Dr Ryan Maue’s WeatherBELL temperature series aren’t much more than “the opinion of whoever programmed the computer” he uses.
But, Richard Greene: I had to learn that while models predicting warmth all are wrong, models computing a posteriori cooling mostly are good!
Not the models are good or bad: only the ideology of those who interpret the models’ output according to their own narrative is good or bad.
DA misses the point. The “model” of a particular thermometer (and others) may be proven reliable by multiple experiments. Re analysis is more subjective and uncertain, climate models even more subjective and uncertain. To simply say “well, all data is based on models” may be technically true as DA defines it, but not particularly useful in this case.
Therefore when i originally stated:
“However some models have been verified by multiple experiments and observations, and some have not…ie not all models are created equal.”, DA seems to have missed the relevance.
I never all models are equal. And, of course, George Box was right.
You write:
The model of a particular thermometer (and others) may be proven reliable by multiple experiments.
What do you mean by “reliable?” Compared to what? All experimental measurements are done via models. I’m sure you can’t name one that isn’t.
DA-“what do you mean by reliable”…models that work(ie correctly predict results) in multiple reproducible experiments are more reliable than those that do not, by my definition.
DA-“all measurements are done with a model”…all measurements are done with some device (no measurements are done with a model unless you mean Christie Brinkley or Elle Macpherson). Models then use these measurements to predict the results of other measurements by other devices.
No measurements are done with a model…none of them.
I know of one: 36-24-36
DA,
How so?
That’s a really stupid thing to say, isn’t it?
Cheers.
“All [sic] data are based on models.”
I just counted the number of motor-cars in my drive. There are two. I do not think I used much of a model to produce this datum.
Of course, I used the assumptions of common sense, and also my basic knowledge (what a motor-car is, what a count is, etc.); and ‘everything in my head’ is a sort of ‘model of everything’* – but is that not a rather banal point?
* a coding, at least.
“I do not think I used much of a model to produce this datum.”
You used a ‘paradigm’ for your investigation. For some reason, the word ‘model’ has become confused with the word ‘paradigm.’
Perhaps we should restrict abstract use of the word ‘model’ to, ‘explanation by analogy to something simpler or more easily understood.’ And concrete use to, ‘actual embodiment of a theory in a mechanism.’ Whether computer runs count as embodiment, is an interesting question!
Barry, your eyes constitute a model. Others, with poorer eyes, might not be able to count how many cars are in your driveway. Blind people can’t count them at all. No one could count them in the dark.
Yours is a trivial example, but counting still requires a model — in this case your eyes. Others far away might need a telescope, for example.
Nigel, no, I don’t mean a paradigm. In his book Paul N Edwards wrote “without models there are no data,” and that’s what I mean, literally.
You can’t measure the length of something without a model. Or measure temperature. Or measure mass or weight.
All measurements require a model. Period.
DA-“all measurements are done with a model”…all measurements are done with some device (no measurements are done with a model unless you mean Christie Brinkley or Elle Macpherson). Models then use these measurements to predict the results of other measurements by other devices.
DA,
You’re such a dingbat. The longer you yap about something the dumber you appear. Why don’t you go back writing children’s books or something?
David Appell writes: “All data are based on models.”
He is using the word ‘model’ under his own personal definition, so wide that he regards himself as irrefutable on this point.
His use of the word is rather arbitrary or even idiosyncratic, derived though it may be from the opinion of Paul Edwards. Einstein held that “the theory decides what can be observed”, which may give some colour to David’s proposition.
Measurements are sometimes said to be of two kinds, those by effect and those by comparison. Global average temperature measurements are perhaps beyond such a simple classification, and perhaps cannot be regarded as measurements or even as data at all.
Eventually, the reported numbers are made by persons. Regrettably, for the present matter, it comes down to whom do we trust. The guys on David’s side in this matter have shown themselves to be untrustworthy.
Christopher Game says:
“…the word ‘model’…definition…”
My Dictionary has nineteen separate meanings. We are ‘overburdening a symbol’?
Apropos of one possible meaning, though, I read the following in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“Another kind of representational models are so-called ‘models of data’. A model of data is a corrected, rectified, regimented, and in many instances idealized version of the data we gain from immediate observation, the so-called raw data…[I]t is the model of data and not the raw data that we compare to theoretical prediction.”
That is rather like the adjectival use of ‘model’ in ‘model prisoner’ and ‘model answer,’ and the point that data is usually sanitized, is reasonable enough, although arguably trite. However, the reification implicit in the substantive phrase ‘model of data,’ is not helpful to anybody.
The model (that word again!) for this procedure, of making things more presentable for Judgement, is in the Common Law of England, and its Rules of Evidence. Science has long quarried for gold in that mountain of pragmatism. Francis Bacon was Lord Chancellor of England, after all!
DA,
You clearly have no idea what a model is…
A C Osborn said: August 6 at 12:51 PM
The “Re” in Re-Analysis, should be written in full so that everybody understands what it actually means.
“Rewriting of Historical & Current Data” Analysis.
ie not Real Data, not actual data, but what someone somewhere “thinks” it should be, probably based on some kind of model.
Here’s a classic of that genre:
Correcting Ocean Cooling
The claims from the European satellite, the Copernicus Climate Change Service, is July was 0.04C hotter than last year’s. Nowhere can I find what the error margins are? Any input on the Doc?
Probably the same error margin as last year , and the years before. By the way, it was 0.04 hotter compared to 2016, not 2018 .
I don’t know about the Copernicus CCS, but GISTEMP has an uncertainty of 0.17 C for their monthly numbers:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q211
This reduces to 0.05 C for their annual average.
David, please stop trolling.
So seldom on the WEB does anyone say “maybe i was wrong”.
It is nice to see.But certainly
the climate science is NOT yet settled.
Indeed! Uncertainty not only in climate theory but the monitoring system to validate it.
So we are left with a rather reasonable outcome of not getting too excited about one month or even a year.
Interesting footnote. Only one of fifty US states has had a record high temperature in the 21st Century.
For the 50 states the state record high temperature was set in:
19th Century – 3 states
20th Century – 46 states
21st Century – 1 state
Hmmm, here we are almost a 1/5th of the way through the 21st century and only 1 state? Must be that all that warming we hear about is mostly statistical mean temperatures. Warming numbers not warming days.
How about state record minimum temperatures?
19th Century – 6 states
20th Century – 42 states
21st Century – 2 states
not cooling nights either apparently.
bill hunter says:
Interesting footnote. Only one of fifty US states has had a record high temperature in the 21st Century.
Are you sure of that?
I have a few monthly state spreadsheets, and 3 of the 4 I’ve looked at (so far) have their warmest month in the 21st century. They’re in July of
for OR: 2003
for AK: 2004
for CA: 2018
David, read my post again. I am not talking about statistics, I am talking about metrics.
What do you mean by a “metric” here? A daily number? Hourly? Monthly?
And where’s the proof of your claim?
David, I understand you might be challenged. I am referring to State record highest temperatures ever recorded by a weather station within a state.
You know a “metric” that has almost assuredly never been pored over and manipulated by statistician second guessers and homogenizers.
For example: California’s record is the 134F recorded in Death Valley on July 10, 1913.
For some reason the actual url would not post so I had to shorten it.
https://bit.ly/2YNzY9Q
and
https://ggweather.com/climate/extremes_us.htm
bill hunter says:
You know a metric that has almost assuredly never been pored over and manipulated by statistician second guessers and homogenizers.
You can’t compare a thermometer reading then to one today unless you account for station moves, changes in technology and possible time of observation changes. Did the author of your article, or you, do that?
But, yes, the 1930s were a very warm decade in the US. But as a decade it only ranks 4th highest. The highest are
1st 2010s (so far)
2nd 2000s
3rd 1990s
4th 1930s
The 1930s seem to be some large natural variability and the influence of land destruction that led to Dust Bowl.
David Appell says: –You cant compare a thermometer reading then to one today unless you account for station moves, changes in technology and possible time of observation changes. Did the author of your article, or you, do that?
https://bit.ly/2YNzY9Q
I didn’t post an article David, I posted a list of the highest thermometer readings for each state in the US compiled by a NOAA committee that keeps those records.
As I pointed out the 21st century is creating new state record high temperatures at a rate one seventh that of the 20th century. Thats not just one thermometer thats all the states thermometers competing to be the top thermometer.
Lets see the last 2 decades have produced one record high temperature in one state and produced a tie of a record high temperature in one other state.
In the 1930’s in one decade, 27 states had a record temperature and of those 27 states there were 8 occasions where the record was tied in the same decade.
1930’s Record high temperature (with 1930 ties in parens) were set in:
Arkansas
Delaware
Colorado
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Kansas (one tie also)
Kentucky
Lousiana
Mississippi
Nebraska (with 2 ties also)
New Jersey
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma (with 3 ties also)
Pennsylvannia (with 1 tie also)
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
West Virginia (with 1 tie also)
Wisconsin
The most recent two decades states established a record high temperature in:
South Carolina
and in South Dakota it tied the 1936 record.
Bottom line is in the 1930’s state record temperature were being set or tied at 35 times the rate as the most recent two decades.
bill hunter…”For example: Californias record is the 134F recorded in Death Valley on July 10, 1913″.
The record for the entire US was set in 1934. The 1930s still hold the record, by a wide margin, for heat waves.
Gordon Robertson says:
bill hunter…”For example: Californias record is the 134F recorded in Death Valley on July 10, 1913″.
The record for the entire US was set in 1934. The 1930s still hold the record, by a wide margin, for heat waves.
————–
Yep all these warmists have their stupid hats on with a propeller on top when they say its getting hotter from CO2.
Funny how the deniers run and hide when you post something that shows things are not getting hotter.
Yes, the dust bowl years were hot in the central parts of North America. What else is new?
OK Svante – Hmmm, guess drought is caused by a lot of things. got some ideas as to what?
The record high temperature (daytime high) is for an individual day, anywhere within a state.
Only a pointy head PhD would not know that !
Come on Richard! No child should be left behind!
I am a pure laymen.
why are there multiple data sets to begin with? which one is ‘better’ than the other? how is the temperature averages calculated in a nutshell?
jeremy…”why are there multiple data sets to begin with? which one is better”
There were not satellite records till 1979.
The surface record is based on data from NOAA’s GHCN database. Data sets from NASA GISS and Had-crut, used by the IPCC, all come from the NOAA data base.
The NOAA data base is corrupted and disorganized. It has been fudged to retroactively decide what temperatures ‘should’ have been. It has also been fudged by cutting back real station data, up to 90% since 1990, and replacing the slashed data with temperatures derived synthetically in climate models.
UAH is the best because the scientist running UAH have integrity. Also, the sats cover 95% of the planet using high tech instruments that sample bazillions of data points per stationary scan, whereas the surface record is lucky if it covers 10% on a good day using two a day thermometer readings.
You can read about UAH on Wikipedia. It explains the satellites and pretty well takes an unwarranted dump on Christy and Spencer. Nerds have to nerd out on each other, but I’m at the end of the day I’m glad they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
WikiPedia is micro-managed by active liberals who make sure it says what liberals want said.
Only a ding bat would use WikiPedia as a reference, except maybe to look up the cast of the old Leave it to Beaver show.
In every category, the majority rules, and the majority of users, by far, are liberal.
Excuse me, but is there any evidence backing the assertion that “wikipedia is micro-managed by active liberals who make sure it says what liberals wand said.?
Jeremy, Wikipedia is somewhat undependable because it can be edited by virtually anyone. Some folks have been banned for engaging in edit wars. But as I am sure you know for an edit war to break out it takes 2 sides. Like in 2 to tango.
Wikipedia is an excellent source for a lot of stuff, but its best when it has excellent references to claims that are asserted. Of course having a reference doesn’t make it correct either. But it can provide a good pathway to learn more about the topic.
I have made many revisions at Wikipedia to remove obvious leftist bias not backed by facts and data, only to find my changes deleted with no explanation within a day, usually within an hour or two.
That was over a decade ago.
I don’t waste my time making revisions there anymore.
Excuse me Jeremy Lee, but is there any evidence backing the assertion that you are here to add value with your comments?
Wikipedia is of interest only to those who are not serious or who are interested in social information.
Many schools do not allow Wikipedia as a reference because it is unreliable. Personally, I spend the $75 per year for access to Britannica.
Wikipedia cites all its sources, so you can check them for yourself. And anyone can edit it if they find something wrong.
“A 2005 study in the journal Nature found that the information provided on Wikipedia is almost as reliable as that of the benchmark, Encyclopedia Britannica.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/is-wikipedia-trustworthy-when-it-comes-to-science/2015/08/24/74c71904-4755-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html
In your weak “Appeal to Authority” mind, Apple, you believe having a “source” makes a conclusion true.
As a leftist, what is your “source” for supporting “open borders”?
Just provide one “source”, and we will all agree open borders are best for the USA !
This is clearly a joke. Wikipedia is biased leftist BS as anyone who bothers to read a Talk tab can tell. Go to Antifa US – read the article first, for a laugh, then the Talk tab and try and claim Wikipedia is “almost as reliable” as any useful encyclopedic benchmark.Lol. This guy is controlled opposition, peoples.
argus…”You can read about UAH on Wikipedia. It explains the satellites and pretty well takes an unwarranted dump on Christy and Spencer”.
Wikipedia is a Net version of the National Enquirer, a US rag that prints propaganda and garbage.
You should know that one of the editors riding shotgun on wiki re global warming/climate change, William Connolly, is an uber-alarmist who hangs out at the Mother of all Alarmists site, realclimate.
If anyone submits an article claiming something skeptical, he will amend it to a version suitable to alarmists.
Connolley has been known to slag skeptics like Fred Singer and it does not surprise me that they slag Roy and John.
realclimate is a pathetic centre for pseudo-science being run by the head of NASA GISS, and his partner Michael Mann, who thinks nothing of throwing out sexually-based insults at eminent scientist like Judith Curry.
Mann was caught in the Climategate email scandal trying to interfere with peer review and he is the author of ‘the trick’, a deceitful method for hiding declining temperatures.
Those are Connolley’s friends at realclimate and he is an editor on the wiki.
I added Dr Spencer’s comments about the matter from his blog in April. Makes the wiki entry better. Let’s see if it lasts.
As a possible check procedure, why not compare the U.S. portion of ERA-5 reanalysis to the USCRN results. With the USCRN being state of the art data it should provide an excellent comparison for the last 15 years.
It seems the more globalized the data source the more prone it is to bias. And I get that. It is as simple as countries with less resources seek a global economic adjustment and equilibration for their benefit.
What concerns me is at this point I am not even sure humanity can measure global temperature. I would like to think the mean of all relevant data would represent humanities best guess, but that assumes no bias. I believe there is bias because in similar evaluations the global warming models lack any scenarios representative of a strong solar forcing and IMHO miss the low case CO2 sensitivity scenarios and thus bias the mean global temperature predictions up (regardless if solar ends up a strong climate forcing or not, there is enough evidence to include it in some GCM iterations). So as I see it there is potential for bias in processing complex satellite and more complex thermometer data. I also feel adding more and more data sets to the mix through time is doing a similar bias to global temperature data- what was the last correction down (except UAH) in any global temperature data? Why do they always go up through time? How it that statistically plausible? So who knows what is the best version at this point in time.
As a geologist I am starting to consider only global sea level has any actual meaning because we can track it with coral reef elevations through time and also with stable O isotopes in ice cores as a proxy. Problem is it is relatively course because we wont see anything less than a meter or so of sea level increase. But that says something about the natural system and how variable it is. Is humanity even capable of getting an unbiased high resolution measurement of global temperature?
What “strong solar forcing” do you see?
Climate models don’t assume a CO2 sensitivity, they calculate it.
The claimed global warming rate from 1940 through 2018 is roughly 1/4 of the computer game predicted (on average) global warming rate in the future, excluding the Russian model that has been near reality.
Climate models are falsified by observations.
They are the “political weapons” of smarmy climate alarmists — their beloved wild guess, always wrong, predictions of 100% bad news global warming in the FUTURE … predictions that are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the actual mild, intermittent, harmless global warming from 1940 through 2018.
Climate models are for losers, liars and liberals (I repeat myself).
Measurements and observations are for honest climate scientists.
“The claimed global warming rate from 1940 through 2018 is roughly 1/4 of the computer game predicted (on average) global warming rate ”
how can you validate this claim?
1940 through 2018:
Roughly +0.6 degrees C. warming in 78 years.
Equivalent to +0.77 degrees warming per century.
Computer games average prediction is roughly +3 degrees C. per century, in the future, (excluding the one Russian model that simply predicts future warming will be like past warming).
The average predictions are for a FUTURE warming rate per century roughly 4x the actual warming rate per century from 1940 through 1978.
This is not a “claim” it is a fact.
Case closed.
Computer games are falsified.
Only fools and leftists believe computer games (I repeat myself).
The claimed global warming rate from 1940 through 2018 is roughly 1/4 of the computer game predicted (on average) global warming rate in the future, excluding the Russian model that has been near reality.
Says who?
Some models were overstated roughly 2005 – 2015, but with the spike of the last few years, they don’t look so out of line any more. Dr Spencer did some blogging on those. Dost the short-term trend continue, however?
So many “adjusted” data sets that waste everyone’s time.
Satellites and balloons rool!
Because satellite data never gets adjusted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made
The satellite data set is all adjustment. They don’t even measure temperature.
Neither does a mercury thermometer, it measures the thermal coefficient of expansion of mercury.
Which is known accurately.
M,
You wrote –
“Which is known accurately.”
What a pointless comment. Try measuring the temperature of air using a tonne of mercury.
Or any amount you like. Calling you stupid and ignorant might offend stupid and ignorant people. You might have to work hard to become that intelligent.
Cheers.
Which is known accurately.
That depends. You might need more accuracy than a mercury thermometer can provide, in which case you need a method of measurement, viz a different model. You might want to measure temperature outside the range where the coefficient of expansion is known “accurately.” A mercury thermometer wouldn’t work on the Moon — the mercury would boil off.
In any case, you’re still using a model.
David, please stop trolling.
“Satellites and balloons rool!”
Are you kidding? The largest differences around are between satellites and radiosondes, especially in the recent 20 years. Reanalyses are intermediate since they reconciles all available data ( and surpress odd men out that doesn’t make sense in the weather model)
The evidence in the plots I showed suggest satellites are controlling long-term trends in ERA5. In the southern hemisphere, basically you only have Australia and NZ for radiosondes, so how does one reconcile a few data points from raobs with near complete coverage from satellites? I don’t know what their procedures are for this, but the above difference plots look like periods of known satellite issues are to blame.
Roy W. Spencer
Thanks Roy for your insightful diagnostic comparisons.
Suggest marking any satellite additions and/or software changes in that time period that might give clues as to possible breakpoints.
Adjustments correct for biases in the raw data. If you don’t do the adjustments, you have biased data. I don’t see why this is so difficult to understand.
Worth reading:
“Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
“Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data,” BEST
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
“Understanding Time of Observation Bias,” Zeke Hausfather, 2/22/15.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/
David, please stop trolling.
cam…”Satellites and balloons rool!”
Well stated, cam.
“ERA5 has a substantially warmer trend than the other two.”
It’s worth noting that of the three reanalysis datasets, ERA5 trend at 0.18 C/decade is closer to the various global surface datasets, e.g. GISSloti @ 0.186.
“By differencing ERA5 with the other datasets we can see that there are some systematic changes that occur in ERA5, especially around 2009-2010, as well as after 1998:”
From differencing, one can’t tell whether there is a systematic change in ERA5 rather than the dataset from which it is differenced, nor which, if either is the better approximation of reality.
It is worth considering whether in high latitudes it is better to focus on the temperature of water vapor rather than oxygen. The presence of ozone may interfere with satellite measurements.
Interesting tweet from Robert Rohde @BerkeleyEarth:
On July 31st, the highest point on Greenland’s ice sheet experienced melting for only the ninth time in 2000 years. Here are all the years that has happened, including twice in the last decade.
Directly observed
2019
2012
Seen in ice cores
1889
1192
1094
992
758
753
244
That’s right – the ice in the centre of Greenland is growing. This has always been known, and does not go close to matching the ice loss elsewhere.
But thanks for showing that despite averaging less than one melt per century, we have now had two in the past 8 years.
Oops – I didn’t look at who I was responding to. Sorry if you picked up a tone.
Midas says: – Oops – I didn’t look at who I was responding to. Sorry if you picked up a tone.
————-
yep gotta keep that group think comraderie intact since so little science holds it all together.
Hard to know what you are talking about. My comment stands without change.
Group think. . . . group think? “Group think” whats that?
In science its when the Pope gets all his scientists mulling over a celestial machine model with multiple cams and gears mumbling yep thats how it works!
Oh I see – like the way AGW deniers quote the same unthinking objections from the same websites.
Midas says: = Oh I see – like the way AGW deniers quote the same unthinking objections from the same websites.
——————
Anybody running around and looking and teaming up on the exact same ideas without validating the belief is a group thinker.
Skepticism isn’t just joining another group.
Skepticism is self-humility, having the ability to admit you simply don’t know. Only then is your mind open to learning and invention.
And of course if there is a real confidence of knowledge in a group, its incredibly easy to explain it to others and one does not need to get in silly battles detailing who is on your side and who is not all you have to do is draw up the blueprint.
I repeat – the content of my comment is the same regardless of who it is directed to. I was only worried about the tone.
And there is no such thing as a true skeptic on the denier side. Their “knowledge” comes before their “education”.
Midas says: – I repeat – the content of my comment is the same regardless of who it is directed to. I was only worried about the tone.
——————-
I was just suggesting that perhaps you should worry about tone regardless of who you are replying to. Looks a lot less like group think when you do.
—————-
—————-
Midas says: –
And there is no such thing as a true skeptic on the denier side. Their “knowledge” comes before their “education”.
——————-
You are wrong. There is a denier side. But skeptics are not on the so-called denier side. Being a so-called denier is being certain the AGW alarmism is wrong headed. Of course the folks on the AGW alarmism side if they are certain they are deniers also. They are deniers of the fact that heat transfer is not that well understood in gaseous atmospheres. We have some basic concepts but applying those concepts to an amorphous substance like a gas is quite poorly understood. Mainstream science simply builds a model of it and then spews out answers. But the answers keep coming out wrong failing to demonstrate that anything about the basic structural whole of model is right. We have a tendency to call anything about what is wrong with the structure as being temporary and explainable by some unforeseen event but we are just guessing at that. Anybody that believes otherwise has lost all skepticism and is certain about something that is all but certain.
Being a skeptic is simply believing that AGW alarmism is overrated in its probability. It includes a lot of folks still working to prove the theory. Thank goodness thats the case so that science can truly advance.
That skeptic group which spans the the two “certain” groups is much different than either certain group who has lost skepticism and thus is full on in non-learning mode.
The skeptic group would include thousands of scientists of various specialties including the physics of atmospheres. Many are actually working on proving the theory and withhold comment for personal political reasons of wanting to keep their job.
The verbal ones are only the ones who see that any personal losses they may incur are out-weighed by a perception of the costs of not speaking up.
So I would call the skeptics the smart guys whether they speak up or not. The certain guys are the dumb ones especially when they think one has to be a denier to be a skeptic, thats because these folks have given up thinking entirely.
Now thats not to impune anybody arguing for a position. Folks can have their own personal theories and argue vehemently for them. Its only when you reach out to impune somebody else as being a denier that you really reveal how stupid you are.
the smart guys are the ones working their butts off to try to find the correct answer. In my experience I have seen publicly held assumptions find themselves into politics masked as science on numerous occasions. Most often its an assumption build on an extrapolated premise. Much horror occurs to those being regulated to prevent the harm. (DDT a great example where science killed millions, Lamarckian evolution another). Those are broadly seen public examples. There are literally thousands of small less publicly known examples. I have seen graduate students on more than one occasion suddenly come upon a method of proof that evaded all the experts that has turned around science on a particular topic. Since my experience is pretty limited in scope (though far beyond the average man) I suspect that is happening almost every day somewhere over some politicized scientific untruth.
Bill Hunter wrote:
I have seen graduate students on more than one occasion suddenly come upon a method of proof that evaded all the experts that has turned around science on a particular topic.
Examples?
David Appell says: – Examples?
———
My gawd David, don’t tell me you are such a science virgin you have never seen it!
The literature is full of good graduate theses. Actually after getting a degree you either become a graduate student or you become a graduate pontificator or you simply don’t do anything.
Examples? You claimed you saw these personally. So what have you actually seen?
Bill, you’re not a “skeptic.” Skeptics engage in scientific arguments and give evidence and data for their points and counterpoints.
You’re a “denier” because you offer no evidence or science and resort to insults to try to cover that up. You come to this blog to get reassured via the “group think” here.
David Appell says: – Examples? You claimed you saw these personally. So what have you actually seen?
I have actually seen some in climate science but at the moment can’t recall as I am not as engaged in climate science. However, in fisheries science I will give you one example. Bycatch is an important consideration in fisheries. Putting back into the water fish that have been inadvertently caught and are prohibited from landing is one of the biggest issues surrounding bycatch. Is the fish going to survive. In California we have a Sebastes group of fish that live in deepwater and are subject to barotrauma effects when pulled up the water column. Tossed overboard they can’t swim down and get eaten by birds and other scavengers. So a method of getting them down was developed but disregarded by scientist saying the fish can’t possibly survive their barotrama injuries. In fact their eyes would pop and inch or more out of their head from the decompression and even the fishermen though they were blind and could not survive. So some enterprising young female grad student put a plan together for a thesis and devised a way to give these fish eye exams and ended up proving they weren’t blind.
Its not at all uncommon. A lot of research vessel time is taken up by students pursuing thesis research and out of that come discoveries.
As I said you must be a virgin at science to not have observed that.
David Appell says: – Bill, youre not a skeptic. Skeptics engage in scientific arguments and give evidence and data for their points and counterpoints.
Seems to me you are describing yourself.
Midas, didn’t greenland net gain ice the past 2 years?
No it did not. You must be reading conservative commentary instead of looking at the satellite data.
@ Midas, can you explain this then?
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2019-08-02041331.png
SMB (Surface Mass Balance) does not include calving and melting into the sea.
Melting action by the sea on ice shelves that is.
So net of the SMB and calving and melting, what’s greenland ice done this yr and past 2 yrs?
The trend is in figure 3H in
“Forty-six years of Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance from 1972 to 2018”.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/19/9239
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/19/9239/F3.large.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/y67up6ey
News report, you have to wait for scientific papers:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/greenland-lost-record-breaking-125-billion-tons-ice-single-day-180972808/
Svante, please stop trolling.
So, ice that formed 2000 years ago is still there…..and you claim Greenland is melting? What a joke. Think about what you are saying. So a bit of ice melted and refroze and you think this is proof of??????
Greenland has been losing ice for many years — about 4 trillion tons since 2002:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30879
There is no scientific expectation that this will stop.
David, please stop trolling.
“twice in the last decade” You mean like 753 and 758 in your post? Nothing unprecedented here. Imagine if it melted 3 times in one decade in the middle of summer though. That would be scary and so convincing of AGW. Let me know when the farming starts up again on Greenland, that would be …. oh wait, that’s not unusual or unprecedented either. It is truly amazing what people choose to ignore.
Almost 4 trillion tons of Greenland ice lost since 2002:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30879
This one is better;
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/19/9239
Yes; thanks.
Directly observed
2019
2012
Seen in ice cores
1889
1192
1094
992
758
753
244
Wow check out that LIA Gap!!! almost 700 years! And a mini one between the Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warming Period of 509 years.
The MWP has 5 events covering 448 years, our teensy little modern warming only has 130 years and 3 events and we are looking a whole lot more closely today than back then.
Neither the MWP or LIA were global.
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age….”
— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
That is not true. DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute) has rejected the measurements as being “inaccurate”. There were no (I repeat no) temperatures above 0 deg. C at Summit this year.
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/dmi-afviser-varmerekord-i-gronland?fbclid=IwAR0y5Bs-bwDowmjeeXzcgfQA7qkBMDel7ThCizG6dEBbUeUuDT5X5nCsrP0
Likewise, the surface ice mass balance has been positive the last 2 years.
This is in the official annual DMI reports.
Oops! 🙂
SMB has actually always been positive. The lowest SMB gain was 2011/2012 with 38 Gt.
Here is a link go the report for 2017/2018
http://polarportal.dk/nyheder/saesonrapport-2018/
Recomended reading for anyone interested on the matter.
svante…”On July 31st, the highest point on Greenlands ice sheet experienced melting for only the ninth time in 2000 years”.
The commentor must be pretty old.
That’s one of your best comments!
Dr Spencer,
Please don’t misuse the mismatched CFSR/CFSv2 reanalyses. There is a cooling version break in 2011. Listen to a weather/reanalysis expert:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanmaue/status/1158767762413670402
Btw,
Why do you ignore/avoid the NCEP/NCAR, NCEP/DOE, ERA-interim, and JRA-55 reanyses?
Is it because they agree with ERA5?
And of course, ERA5 agrees with all global surface datasets.
You dont see the obvious discontinuity in CFSR/CFSv2 and MERRA around 2010??
Make difference charts between those two reanalyses and any other surface products (You may even try your own product UAH TLT), and I swear that they will suggest a discontinuity around 2010.
Tell me how the temperature is measured above 60 degrees parallel and what is the average tropopause height based on the following data.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2019.png
As the tropopause is the location of the minimum temperature in a vertical column stretching from the earth’s surface to the top of the stratosphere, the best one could say is it is the midpoint of the pale green region. That is, about 15 km for August. To do better, you would need a map with a better temperature resolution.
You’re wrong. The light green zone in the graphic starts well below 10 km, and in winter it is about 6 to 7 km.
Above 60 degrees latitude tropopause falls even lower in winter.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
The start of the light green is NOT the start of the tropopause.
The tropopause height does not gradually drop from low to high latitudes. Rather, it drops rapidly in the area of the subtropical and polar front jets (STJ and PFJ respectively in the Figure on the left), as shown in the Palmen-Newton model of the general circulation (Fig 12.16 or Fig on left). Especially when the jet is strong and the associated front at low levels intense, then the tropopause height drops suddenly across the jet stream. Sometimes the tropopause actually folds down to 500 hPa (5.5 km) and even lower, just behind a well-defined cold front. The subsided stratospheric air within such a tropopause fold (or in the less pronounced tropopause dip) is much warmer than the tropospheric air it replaces, at the same level, and this warm advection aloft (around 300 hPa) largely explains the movement of the frontal low (at the surface) into the cold airmass, a process called occlusion .
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/cell1.gif
Deep convection (thunderstorms) in the Intertropical Convergence Zone, or over mid-latitude continents in summer, continuously push the tropopause upwards and as such deepen the troposphere. This is because thunderstorms mix the tropospheric air at a moist adiabatic lapse rate. In the upper troposphere, this lapse rate is essentially the same as the dry adiabatic rate of 10K/km. So a deepening by 1 km reduces the tropopause temperature by 10K. Therefore, in areas where (or at times when) the tropopause is exceptionally high, the tropopause temperature is also very low, sometimes below -80 C. Such low temperatures are not found anywhere else in the Earth’s atmosphere, at any level, except in the winter stratosphere over Antarctica.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/tropo.html
ERA Interim and JRA-55 do not agree with ERA5, Olof:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/era5-vs.-jra-55.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/era5-vs.-erai.png
1. Learn how to make difference charts
2. JRA-55 is said to have a slightly cooling ocean surface bias, since it doesn’t account for the shift in ratio of ship/buoy SST measurements (the latter being about 0.12 C cooler).
3. ERA-interim has a known ocean surface/SST discontinuity in 2001-2002. Use the Copernicus version where this issue has been fixed
olof r…”1. Learn how to make difference charts”
Begone alarmist troll. Kristian has the background, what is yours?
The Data They Are a-Changin’
I kinda understand that models keep changing. But in climate science it’s also data that keep changing.
Data plasticity is the reason why climate science is so well suited/prone to political ends/biases.
jarves
That is a good point. There is also another big use of climate change going beyond political agendas.
It has to do with money. In my life I have seen this done with other items. While I was growing up bacon and eggs were a normal breakfast item and considered healthy. Some “researchers” came up with the idea eggs and bacon were death foods. When something is well established the only way to undermine it is to make it “evil” and bad so that the market opens to other items.
There is some warming going on which seems to be fairly well established. How much is so much speculation, how bad is complete speculation. There is no hard or scientific data with any of the extreme conclusions of climate science (terrible heat waves, floods, tornadoes, droughts, fires, blizzards etc) but it is the way you manipulate the thought process of people with good writers and “experts” in the field to make fossil fuel use “evil” like they did with eggs (now not so evil). Now the new industries can develop to fill a created market. I just got back from a vacation in Oregon. Iowa is not the only state with lots of wind turbines. Both Wyoming, Oregon and Washington have several hundreds of these machines. This is a huge amount of income for some people. Income that exists because of fear generated in the Public based upon speculation of some experts in the field who we must trust because they are so much smarter than anyone else. It does not matter that several hundred of these machines were not spinning at all because of lack of wind and the gas turbines in Oregon were running to supply energy to the market, it only matters that the need was created and people wanting income were able to provide.
Now I think it is wise to have multiple means of producing electricity for an advanced civilized Nation like the USA, but it would not have to be by making fossil fuel industry evil. But that is how things are done.
“It has to do with money. In my life I have seen this done with other items. While I was growing up bacon and eggs were a normal breakfast item and considered healthy. Some ‘researchers’ came up with the idea eggs and bacon were death foods.”
You’re right – it does have to do with money.
http://www.americantable.org/2012/07/how-bacon-and-eggs-became-the-american-breakfast/
Craig T
Thanks. I have already read his book. Bernays was a very smart person and aware of larger group manipulations.
http://www.historyisaweapon.org/defcon1/bernprop.html
norman…”Some researchers came up with the idea eggs and bacon were death foods”.
Eggs are generally an excellent source of protein, however, when fried in bacon grease they can promote cancer.
I am from Scotland, and the traditional Scottish fare for breakfast has been incredibly greasy mixes of eggs deep fried in bacon grease with bread and tomatoes fried in it too.
I am turning green thinking of it.
Scotland has a high incidence of stomach cancer.
Bacon is cured with nitrates and when that fried crap hits your stomach acid it produces nitrosamines, a carcinogen.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/01/bacon-cancer-processed-meats-nitrates-nitrites-sausages
There is also the issue of free radical damage. Whenever foods are cooked with high heat, they can be heated to the point where dangerous chemicals are released as the product becomes oxidized. Burned eggs, meat, bacon, bread, etc., are potential risks for free radical damage.
Of course, just walking in the sun each day produces free radical damage, it is apparent as we age with aging skin. If you put a plastic milk junk out in the sun, it loses its pliability and becomes so brittle you can crack it.
Free radicals mix with healthy cells and convert them into potentially dangerous cells. Anti-oxidants such as vitamin C, vitamin E, etc., help neutralize free radicals, but not in the amounts found in the diet. Supplementation is required to the level of several grams of C a day and 400 IU of E.
Three grams of C is 3000 mg. There is 75 mg of C in an orange. You would need 40 oranges a day to reach that level of C.
“Taking too much vitamin C can cause diarrhea, nausea, and stomach cramps.”
The upper limit for adults is 2000 mg.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminC-Consumer/
All sciences have some “data plasticity.” After decades astronomers are still trying to zero in on the Hubble constant and getting conflicting results. There is no exact counting of the number of genes in the human genome; estimates vary. Neutrinos were once thought to be massless; now it’s known they do have mass.
UAH’s temperature numbers can and sometimes do change from one month to another, even for months decades ago. Their transition to v6 saw some *huge* regional changes, a few over 1 C.
David, please stop trolling.
Olof R says, August 7, 2019 at 3:44 AM:
Hehe, no. There’s a huge hump of excess warming PRIOR to 2011. You see this both in the CFS and in MERRA. In 2009-2011 they simply revert back to the more correct trajectory they were on before the hump:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/reanalysis.png
Excuse my ignorance but 0.04 Kelvin appears to be very tiny. Also how are the satellite sensors calibrated to increase the signal to noise ratio, to ensure thermal noise is minimalised?
john…”Also how are the satellite sensors calibrated to increase the signal to noise ratio, to ensure thermal noise is minimalised?”
That’s a fundamental problem with all electronic amplifiers, especially at high frequency. I hardly think NOAA would launch an instrument with such issues.
The guy who designed the satelite MSU units was an electrical engineer.
It is amusing to see how the climate denialism agenda has slowly moved from outright denial to accepting, but disputing the actual rate of global warming. I think the next stage is agreement on the rate, but arguing against any action because of cost.
cd,
You wrote –
“It is amusing to see how the climate denialism agenda has slowly moved from outright denial to accepting, . . . ”
Name one person who denies that the climate has continuously changed over the past four and a half billion years. Only a pseudoscientific GHE true believer would make such a completely witless statement!
Try denying that you are a stupid and ignorant twit. See how you get on. Good luck.
Cheers.
What a strange rant. I suspect you do not understand that the current rate of warming due to EGG is unprecedented. I know it might hurt, but that is reality. Get used to it.
Strange only in comparison to the way normal people speak. Normal for this guy.
M,
You wrote –
“Strange only in comparison to the way normal people speak. Normal for this guy.”
You can’t bring yourself to disagree with anything I wrote, can you?
Just more information free trolling, based on nothing more than appeals to your own anonymous and dubious authority.
Do you have anything useful to contribute – maybe a useful description of the non-existent GHE, perhaps?
Cheers.
cd,
You wrote –
“I suspect you do not understand that the current rate of warming due to EGG is unprecedented.”
What the heck is EGG? Is this yet another pseudoscientific GHE true believer redefinition of something else? Have you inadvertently wound up with EGG on your face, so to speak?
But seriously, maybe you could bring yourself to actually quote something I said, and provide some cogent reason for disagreement. Or maybe not.
Up to you. If you can’t or won’t, you might just look like a stupid and ignorant twit.
Cheers.
droll…”I suspect you do not understand that the current rate of warming due to EGG is unprecedented”.
Begone droll troll…on behalf of mike and dremt.
Unprecedented??? Are you still using that trash propaganda from the hockey stick?
captain droll says:
I think the next stage is agreement on the rate, but arguing against any action because of cost.
And the final stage will be, “You didn’t warn us about this in strong enough terms!”
David “Appeal to Authority” Apple is now promoted to a climate astrologer:
“And the final stage will be, You didnt warn us about this in strong enough terms!
.
.
.
REALITY:
+0.6 degrees C. warming from 1940 through 2018 = ho hum
Satellite data showing warming after 1979 mainly in higher latitudes, mainly in the six coldest months of the year and mainly at night = ho hum
” … the whole aim of practical (leftist) politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of (climate) hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
From H. L. Menckens In Defense of Women (1918).
H. L. Menckens
In Defense of Women
RG
Would you please link me to this UAH night time data.
M,
You wrote –
“RG
Would you please link me to this UAH night time data.”
What’s the matter? Have you made any effort at all to find out for yourself, or are you just trying to waste other people’s time?
Sounds like you are trolling, but feel free to demonstrate that you are serious.
Cheers.
Midas says: – Would you please link me to this UAH night time data.
————-
I don’t know about UAH, but night time data is available from some of the “hot” surface records and they are showing about 2/3rds of the warming being a result of warmer nights.
Roy has a post here with regards to an analysis to satellite data showing 80% of the warming at night.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/nasa-airs-80-of-u-s-warming-has-been-at-night/
BH
That is only for the US. It agrees with the NOAA data.
For Australia and the UK it is the reverse – daytime temps have risen more than night temps. Makes you wonder why he chose to only analyze the US.
Midas says: – For Australia and the UK it is the reverse daytime temps have risen more than night temps.
————————
Lets not be hoarding your source Midas.
So you are incapable of downloading the BOM and Met Office data?
As you are too bone lazy to do that, you will now launch into an attack on BOM and the Met Office.
Midas says: – As you are too bone lazy to do that, you will now launch into an attack on BOM and the Met Office.
—————
I don’t have time to process data, if its not already processed and charted how do you know what it says? You made a point I asked for support of it and you demurred.
And don’t project your weaknesses on me. I have nothing against BOM or the Met and in fact have said repeatedly around here their work should be regarded as part of the range of observations allowing for what exists in between being very uncertain as to where the actual results lie. I am not trying to make a case UAH is better than any of the temperature records. I would only make the case that both UAH and RSS should be more accurate because of superior sampling.
But saying they should be doesn’t get me anywhere to a point where I would be ruling the others out. This is not a game like football where somebody beats somebody else with a single point.
Often the better team doesn’t win. If you get to that point in deciding whether political action should be taken why not just use dice?
Your prickly comment demanded a prickly response.
Midas, please stop trolling.
midas…”So you are incapable of downloading the BOM and Met Office data?”
No student of science would read that corrupted trash.
” … the whole aim of practical (fascist) politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of (attacks on migrants, the press, science, teachers, the judiciary, young people, doctors, workers, etc. etc.) hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
From H. L. Menckens In Defense of Women (1918).
DM,
Are you attempting to deny, divert, and confuse by implying that the writer said things he didn’t.
Standard fare for pseudoscientific GHE true believers, I suppose.
You might win more converts to your cause if you could provide a useful description of the GHE. That might be difficult, of course, if the GHE is a fantasm.
Carry on rewriting history if you prefer. For a bit of fun, try portraying Gavin Schmidt as a world famous climate scientist, or Michael Mann as a Nobel Laureate. You never know, some of the more mentally deficient members of the public might believe such nonsensical assertions.
Cheers.
Richard GreenNewDeal says:
+0.6 degrees C. warming from 1940 through 2018 = ho hum
Wrong.
It’s 0.4 C since 1999.
It’s 0.8 C since 1975.
0.9 C since 1940.
UAH global satellite measurements indicate warming of lower atmosphere of about 0.5 degrees since 1979, ie over 40 years. This is as good a record of an accurate GLOBAL average surface Temperature TREND as any other, and I would argue the best. You say it is closer to .8 C. I do not know you are wrong, but neither do you know you are correct. But stating this as a fact is not reasonable. Stating as a FACT that the global surface temp has risen by .4 C in the last 20 years is more like ludicrous.
Incidentally, the 0.5 C over the last 40 years converts to 1.75C/2xCO2 as a quasi TSR BASE value, ASSUMING no other natural or anthropogenic forcings. But the ECS (due to mix layer and deep ocean thermal capacitance) would be about 1.37*1.75=2.4C/2xCO2…which is in the “plausible” range for both you(DA) and the IPCC. If the CO2 levels were to increase at the average constant rate of the last 40 years from here onward, this converts to about 2.1C/2xCO2 from here onward, where a doubling occurs in 200 years. Therefore we would see a 1.05C increase over the next 100 years at that given fixed rate of CO2 increase as a BASE estimate given the above assumptions. These assumptions may be wrong, but they are just as reasonable as any other, and hardly alarming, even if we wish to boost the rate of CO2 increase, as is likely.
Further, the sea level is rising at a fairly constant (and slow) rate within observed natural variations over the last 100 years. In short the climate for humanity (and the natural world) is currently great (the best in a thousand years) and is likely to to be just fine over the coming century. And if the climate does take an alarming turn, humanity will make a mid course adjustment as needed. The only thing unpleasant will be the cries of the alarmists forever warning of Apocalypse “just around the corner”.
My data are for the surface; UAH is for the lower troposphere.
You wrote:
Stating as a FACT that the global surface temp has risen by .4 C in the last 20 years is more like ludicrous.
I downloaded the global data from N.O.A.A. and did the calculation. 0.4 C warming since 2000.
Let me know what your calculation gets.
Incidentally, the 0.5 C over the last 40 years converts to 1.75C/2xCO2 as a quasi TSR BASE value, ASSUMING no other natural or anthropogenic forcings.
But there *ARE* other anthropogenic forcings going on, one of the biggest of which is anthropogenic aerosols that cool the planet. So your calculation is no good.
David, please stop trolling.
my reply to know it all Appeal to Authority Apple:
Only liars, losers and leftists use surface temperature data (guesses) when UAH satellite data are available.
The surface numbers change so much, decades after the original measurements, that the original claim of -0.3 degrees C. global cooling from roughly 1940 to 1975, which allowed some publicity hound scientists to get attention by claiming a coming global cooling crisis in the mid-1970s, has been revised, and re-revised, until the last time I looked there was almost no cooling from 1940 to 1975 !
Surface coverage is far from global, requires massive infilling, and measures economic growth and land use changes not caused by CO2.
UAH is at least close to global, with far less infilling and may not measure temperature directly, but at least measures in a stable environment.
That’s why surface data are for liars, losers and leftists, when the more likely to be global and accurate (without a lot of infilling) UAH data are available.
I estimated the 1979 through 2018 UAH warming to be +0.5 degrees C. and then arbitrarily added +0.1 degrees C. to be conservative. (you can look up “conservative” in a dictionary, I’ll wait here)
My estimate of +0.6 degrees warming since 1940 consists of UAH data from 1979 and NASA-GISS data from 1940 through 1979.
NASA-GISS shows virtually the same global average temperature for 1940 and 1979, just three one hundredths of a degree C. different (that’s as of today — it probably will be revised by tomorrow!).
According to NASA-GISS the global cooling from 1940 to 1975 has magically disappeared.
The average climate model, excluding the very different Russian model, is predicting about +3 degrees warming in the next century.
The actual warming rate from 1940 through 2018, using the best available global temperature average, is a warming rate per century roughly 1/4 of the warming rate predicted for the next century.
So, when “predicting” the future climate, does one base the prediction on the past 78 years of actual experience with rising CO2 and intermittent warming (being very conservative by blaming all past warming on CO2 when the actual percentage is unknown) … or does one WILD GUESS a FUTURE global warming rate roughly four times faster than actual experience?
You know which prediction I accept as being within reason.
You $#@&% climate alarmists want to scare people, so a warming rate of +0.77 degrees C. per century, as in 1940 through 2018, is not fast enough for YOUR non-scienrtific purpose.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Hey Mr. Apple, do you, or do you not, support the GREEN NEW DEAL ?
Your “fan club” here wants to know, and requests a simple answer: “Yes” or “No”.
Richard GreeneWithEnvy says:
Only liars, losers and leftists use surface temperature data (guesses) when UAH satellite data are available.
1) They aren’t measuring the same thing.
2) UAH has to calibrate data over a string of about a dozen different satellites, some with time gaps between that (viz they don’t overlap in time).
3) Even the head RSS guy thinks surface measurements are more reliable:
Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)
“A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets….”
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0
Richard GreeneIsGood wrote:
According to NASA-GISS the global cooling from 1940 to 1975 has magically disappeared.
False:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html
#2
David, please stop trolling.
droll…”It is amusing to see how the climate denialism agenda has slowly moved from outright denial to accepting, but disputing the actual rate of global warming”.
You’re hallucinating.
I have seen no outright denial of warming from any skeptic here. Several of us deny that CO2 has anything to do with the warming for the simple reason it is a trace gas and has never been proved related to warming in the atmosphere.
droll…”It is amusing to see how the climate denialism agenda has slowly moved from outright denial to accepting, but disputing the actual rate of global warming”.
You’re ha.ll.uc.in.at.ing.
I have seen no outright denial of warming from any skeptic here. Several of us deny that CO2 has anything to do with the warming for the simple reason it is a trace gas and has never been proved related to warming in the atmosphere.
Land Surface Air Temperature Data Are Considerably Different Among BEST‐LAND, CRU‐TEM4v, NASA‐GISS, and NOAA‐NCEI
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028355
Taking climate model evaluation to the next level.
Owing to different model performances against observations and the lack of independence among models, there is now evidence that giving equal weight to each available model projection is suboptimal.
https://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-018-0355-y/MediaObjects/41558_2018_355_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0355-y
The data models agree at the global level, within about 0.2 C (between JMA, GISS, N-O-A-A, Had-CRUT, and BEST).
The mean LSAT anomalies are remarkably different because of the data coverage differences, with the magnitude nearly 0.4C for the global and Northern Hemisphere and 0.6C for the Southern Hemisphere. This study additionally finds that on the regional scale, northern high latitudes, southern middle‐to‐high latitudes, and the equator show the largest differences nearly 0.8C. These differences cause notable differences for the trend calculation at regional scales. At the local scale, four data sets show significant variations over South America, Africa, Maritime Continent, central Australia, and Antarctica, which leads to remarkable differences in the local trend analysis. For some areas, different data sets produce conflicting results of whether warming exists………..
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028355
That paper is about regional scales, not the global scale. On the global scale — the amount of global warming — they are in close agreement.
David Appell, genius.
I’ve heard modelers say plenty of times that models do not do an good job of projecting regional climate.
Hence the invention of downscaling.
You keep amazing me, genius
I’m happy to dazzle you.
David, please stop trolling.
Olof R (August 7, 2019 at 6:44 AM) said:
QUOTE
“Satellites and balloons rool!”
Are you kidding? The largest differences around are between satellites and radiosondes, especially in the recent 20 years.
UNQUOTE
Dr. Christy made a presentation to Congress in September, 2012:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/john-christy-testimony-to-congress.pdf
Figure 2. in his presentation shows four balloon data sets and two satellite data sets.
On a rifle range one should always be impressed by “Grouping”. If all the shots fall inside a small radius one has more respect for the shooter.
UAH, RSS and the balloon guys seem to be far better shooters than 102 CMIP model runs.
I go with the observations and say BS to the models.
Good to see you support the RSS data which has a trend higher than NOAA’s.
Tell me – do “the balloon guys” have a global data set?
M,
You wrote –
“Tell me do the balloon guys have a global data set?”
What are “balloon guys”? Why would they need a data set? Why do you ask? Are you really as stupid and ignorant as you portray yourself?
Ah, questions, questions! The world wonders!
Cheers.
What purpose is served by saying:
“Are you really as stupid and ignorant as you portray yourself?”
Why don’t you read John Christy’s testimony? I found it persuasive.
You may be an authority in your own mind but to persuade the rest of us you will need to present facts and reasons to support your case.
When you offer personal abuse instead of reason and facts you are admitting that you lost the argument.
gc,
I assume you are disagreeing with something I wrote, but you cunningly refuse to say what it is.
You wrote –
“What purpose is served by saying: . . . “.
Why do you ask? Can’t you form an opinion for yourself?
You mention John Christy’s testimony, and say you found it “persuasive” – which could mean anything at all. Maybe you found the following quote, relating to the scientific method – “In the method, a claim or hypothesis is stated such that rigorous tests might be employed to test the claim to determine its credibility.”. Persuasive? Science is not about consensus or persuasion (except if you are seeking finding), but about experimental verification.
As Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
As John Christy pointed out, no claim or hypothesis related to the GHE has been “stated such that rigorous tests might be employed to test the claim to determine its credibility.”
How about trying to describe the GHE in such a way that a testable hypothesis may be proposed? How hard can it be? If you don’t like what I write – tough. If you choose to be offended – go your hardest. If you think I feel the need to persuade you and your invisible crowd, I don’t.
As to persuasion, maybe you could persuade the inconvenient laws of physics to vanish. Or you could persuade yourself that Gavin Schmidt is a world famous climate scientist, rather than an undistinguished mathematician?
I best go, before laughter induces typographical errors.
Cheers.
“As John Christy pointed out, no claim or hypothesis related to the GHE has been ‘stated such that rigorous tests might be employed to test the claim to determine its credibility.'”
Christy says just the opposite:
“When the ‘scientific method’ is applied to the output from climate models of the IPCC AR5, specifically the bulk atmospheric temperature trends since 1979 (a key variable with a strong and obvious theoretical response to increasing GHGs in this period), I demonstrate that the consensus of the models fails the test to match the real-world observations by a significant margin.”
Craig T, please stop trolling.
gallopingcamel,
I wrote about the recent two decades.
Here’a a compilation of all current reanalysis, radiosonde, and satellite datasets I’m aware of (trends 1998-2018)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AS7mxUSYUpEW7dOjyvT6BiRsYdkvMEJm
UAH v6 is the coolest cherry around. UAH 5.6 (not included, discontinued in July 2017) agrees with the other satellite products.
Since UAH 5.6 only used AMSU satellites with little or no drift (that don’t need diurnal drift correction), it is a veritable reference dataset.
The fact that UAH v6 has significantly cooler AMSU-trend than v.5.6 is not a good sign. It actually invalidates the novel AMSU drift correction introduced in version 6.
p s STAR TLT and TTT can not be found directly at NOAA/STAR. They are computed using the UAH TLT and RSS TTT formulas
Very interesting! Are you suggesting that our revered host and John Christy are trying to cook the books by discontinuing UAH5.6?
It wouldn’t be the first time.
See their saga of the minus sign from the mid-90s to early ’00s.
David, please stop trolling.
David A.
Again fair question. The literature of paleo climate is full of solar periodicity. From ~11, to ~22 to ~90 yr cycles as well as a few other intermediaries before you get to orbital parameters. They dominate natural climate systems in many lake varves or tree ring records as well as other high resolution records like speleothems. The magnetic cycles (like Hale cycle) dominate most monsoon records and is common in other paleo proxy but is ignored in GCM. It’s hard to eliminate it as a factor for 20th century climate change given the very high solar activity from ~1950 to 2000. Agreed, GCM calculate CO2 sensitivity, but if you use a model that is missing a variable (like solar forcing from UV spectrum or magnetics) then that calculation is prone to error. Hence, the need for an equal sign in an equation. If u solve for CO2 sensitivity and are missing other forcing opposite side of the equals sign then what is the meaning of that answer?
Aaron,
Thanks. For sure, the Sun varies. The question is, how much does that variance change the climate. Many scientific papers say, not very much.
The variance of total solar irradiance (TSI) over a solar cycle is 1-2 W/m2. Solar sensitivity is thought to be about 0.1 C per W/m2. So we’re looking at 0.2 C or less temperature change over a solar cycle.
That’s not much, when GHGs cause that amount of warming in a decade.
DA,
You wrote –
“Thats not much, when GHGs cause that amount of warming in a decade.”
What a load of rot! No one has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of GHGs between the thermometer and the heat source.
Surrounding a thermometer with GHGs may slow the rate of cooling very slightly, but the thermometer does not get hotter.
The GHE is a fantasy, a religious belief held by crackpot pseudoscientific GHE true believers. Are you one?
Cheers.
Temperature variations can’t be explained in terms of TSI which has hardly varied at all.
During the last solar cycle TSI varied by 0.13% (peak to peak). The corresponding “Delta T” is 0.1 degrees Centigrade.
The solar effects that seem to affect climate correlate are sunspots and cosmic rays. There are dozens of papers by Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, Jasper Kirkby (CLOUD experiment) and Nicola Scafetta (ACRIM satellite). Even though Wikipedia is biased it is still provides a convenient way to find publications by these people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Kirkby
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Scafetta
Just in case you can’t be bothered to check out the above websites at least click on this one from Svensmark:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Paleo-cosmic_flux.svg/800px-Paleo-cosmic_flux.svg.png
The variations are 5 Kelvin (peak to peak)!
Re: CLOUD
“A significant fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied variations in cosmic ray intensity do not significantly affect climate via nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.”
“Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements,” Eimear M. Dunne et al, Science (27 Oct 2016).
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/10/26/science.aaf2649
David, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, August 7, 2019 at 8:58 PM:
You said:
“You mention John Christys testimony, and say you found it persuasive which could mean anything at all.”
My apologies for not making my meaning clearer. Figure 2 in John Christy’s presentation shows 102 CMIP model runs diverging from reality as measured by two satellite and four balloon data sets.
I found that juxtaposition impressive. If you don’t agree, please explain. Here is the link to John Christy’s presentation:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/john-christy-testimony-to-congress.pdf
gc,
Thanks for the clarification.
I understand what John Christy was saying, but it wasn’t necessary. If 102 model runs produce different outcomes, then at least 101 are wrong (maybe all of them – who could know?).
Averaging 101 known incorrect results is a pointless waste of time, without some experimentally verifiable reason.
Even the IPCC admits that future climate states are not predictable. However, nobody has managed to describe the GHE in any way which allows experimental testing. The only “claim” seems to be that the average of 101 incorrect models can predict the future, which cannot be rigorously tested.
I don’t blame John Christy for treading softly, given the environment at the time.
He does not appear either stupid or ignorant to me, based on available fact. In any case, I cannot see why anyone should care what I think. Do you? Why not seek out such facts as you can, and form your own opinion?
Oh, well.
Cheers.
gallopingcamel says:
Figure 2 in John Christys presentation shows 102 CMIP model runs diverging from reality as measured by two satellite and four balloon data sets.
Have you ever wondered why that graph has never appeared in a peer reviewed journal paper?
You should.
Enlighten us then, don’t hold back. No, seriously.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/
David, please stop trolling.
Dave,
As mentioned above by others, the total solar contributions likely exceed TSI. U know the Svensmark model. Clearly solar magnetics have influenced paleoclimate even if the role in 20th century climate is unknown because industrialisation has super saturated the atmosphere with charged ions for cloud seeds compared to pristine climates, and this may have reduced sensitivity to magnetics now compared to the past. I’m not sure the role but it is plausible enough based on paleorecords that it should be in some models.
What I know about the Svensmark model is that it’s still a hypothesis that hasn’t been proven.
Nor have I ever seen a trend in cosmic rays that would cause warming. Is there one?
And even IF the Svensmark hypothesis is correct, it only means we might face MORE warming in the future, from both it and from greenhouse gases.
David, please stop trolling.
The obvious warming bias in the ERA5 dataset more than likely stems from the outspoken “AGW” philosophy on the part of the people behind it (the ECMWF/the Copernicus Programme (EU’s Climate Change Service)). Their own product betrays their agenda. Note how their data crunching model simply assumes observed warming is caused by a “strengthened GHE” (steadily less ‘net LW’ escaping the Sfc at equal temp) rather than an increased heat input from the Sun (more ‘net SW’ absorbed by the Sfc), the exact opposite of the REAL situation:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/sfc-net-lw-era5-vs.-ceres-1.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/sfc-net-sw-era5-vs.-ceres-1.png
You see how the data fluctuations here correlate quite well, but how at the same time, the direction of the overall trend in the ERA5 data is reversed relative to the CERES data, so as to make it comply with (and apparently ‘confirm’) the “AGW” narrative.
CERES has no temperature dataset. The surface radiation is not measured directly, it is computed/modelled based on a lot of assumptons (that hopefully don’t drift).
Basically you can do a transformation of this radiation data to temp, but due to the non-linear relationship one must do it with hourly and spatially detailed data to catch diurnal cycles, and further assume that there isn’t a drift in assumptions about surface emissivity, cloudiness, etc.
Kristian says:
…rather than an increased heat input from the Sun
Your graphs are poorly labeled with no context provided. Who knows what they mean.
Submit your claims to peer review and get them published in a decent journal. That’s the first step to getting your work noticed by anyone who matters.
David, please stop trolling.
Kristian’s work includes no error bars, no estimate of uncertainties and no caveats. Plenty of political commentary, though.
This is sales, not scholarship.
barry, please stop trolling.
Dr Spencer praise the NCEP/CFSR reanalysis surface data (with it’s known cooling version break 2010-2011) and thinks it is “gold standard” due to its (biased) low trend
If he sees that TLT-weighted CFSR data has a trend of 0.24 C/decade, almost twice that of UAH v6, will he still be happy?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBbbplWWkAIPjEM?format=png&name=small
The NCEP/CFSR reanalysis also produce magnificent hotspots in the tropics, well on par with the models.
Well, My advice (like Ryan Maue’s) is to stick with the most renowned and bias-free reanalyses, JRA-55 and ERA-5
“If he sees that TLT-weighted CFSR data has a trend of 0.24 C/decade, almost twice that of UAH v6, will he still be happy?”
Yes, the CFSR has a “Hot Spot” for the satellite era, while the actual observation (sonde and MSU) data do not.
This is kinda interesting. Reanalyses are spin-ups.
That means they include the very same parameterizations that the GCMs do.
Can the reanalyses be more accurate than the observations?
Probably not, and the difference is probably in the non-physical parameterizations.
The reanalyses are typically run in separate 5 or 10 year streams, each preceded by a one-year spin-up. If the streams don’t fit in the seams, it’s a sign of some emergent stuff, that shouldn’t be there in a properly working reanalysis. Back to the drawing board..
fact: the earth is 61 degrees and change.
fact: that isnt hot.
fact: most people put their a/c on 60 in the summer.
and the alarminati wonder why nobody cares. Lol.
fact: most people in the world live without air conditioning, many not by choice.
David, please stop trolling.
Here is an article quoted from the Financial Post in 2009, evidence of micro managment by liberals. Connolley was banned for doing this from Wikipedia:
William Connolley, arguably the worlds most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore, has lost his bully pulpit. Connolley did not wield his influence by the quality of his research or the force of his argument but through his administrative position at Wikipedia, the most popular reference source on the planet.
Through his position, Connolley for years kept dissenting views on global warming out of Wikipedia, allowing only those that promoted the view that global warming represented a threat to mankind. As a result, Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda, with Connolley its chief propagandist.
His career as a global warming propagandist has now been stopped, following a unanimous verdict that came down today through an arbitration proceeding conducted by Wikipedia. In the decision, a slap-down for the once-powerful Connolley by his peers, he has been barred from participating in any article, discussion or forum dealing with global warming. In addition, because he rewrote biographies of scientists and others he disagreed with, to either belittle their accomplishments or make them appear to be frauds, Wikipedia barred him again unanimously from editing biographies of those in the climate change field.
TWIT,
The article (you say) is 10 years old.
If Wikipedia rid itself of Connolley back then it should, by now, reflect the views of denialists/cranks/retards.
It does not. It provides an excellent article on climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Your interpretation therefore sounds crazy.
Interestingly, Wikipedia also notes:
“ExxonMobil has funded, among other groups, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the International Policy Network.[34][35][36] Since the Kyoto Protocol, Exxon has given more than $20 million to organizations supporting climate change denial.”
It is now being reported that:
“The Oil Giants Might Finally Pay for Pulling the Biggest Hoax of All”
“New York State is alleging ExxonMobil knew the risks of climate change and defrauded its investors by misrepresenting them.”
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28636123/exxonmobil-lawsuit-climage-change-new-york/
DM,
And your point is? You don’t actually have one?
Why am I not surprised?
Cheers.
Dr Myki says: “Since the Kyoto Protocol, Exxon has given more than $20 million to organizations supporting climate change denial.
Boy that just a drop in the bucket compared to the $150 billion economy the government has created in support of natural variability denial since the Kyoto Protocol. Thats a funding ratio disparity of 7,500 to 1.
We are just seeing the start of justice that will apply to organizations such as Exxon.
That $20 million may have bought them some time, but the amount will pale into insignificance once the penalties begin.
DM,
I don’t believe you can see into the future. You are deluded if you believe you can.
Are you stupid, ignorant, or both?
Cheers.
Bill, I’ve asked, and you don’t have any evidence that natural variability is causing modern warming.
So knock it off.
And if he doesnt, what then?
You could try blubbing like a baby – do you think that might work?
What a fool you are!
David Appell says: – Bill, Ive asked, and you dont have any evidence that natural variability is causing modern warming.
So knock it off.
————
Here David goes all in on supporting the philosophy that the deplorable public should bear the burden of proof that what the government does is wrong.
And of course David wants me to knock it off as he covets a slice of the pie that the subordinates of despots earn.
Yes Bill, the burden is on YOU to provide the science that supports your claims.
Clearly a burden you can’t lift.
David, please stop trolling.
DM,
You wrote –
“If Wikipedia rid itself of Connolley back then it should, by now, reflect the views of denialists/cranks/retards.
It does not. It provides an excellent article on climate change.”
You jest, surely!
The latest editing of the article to which you linked, was performed by an editor who is researching emergent constraints. She states –
“Emergent constraints are emergent relationships that appear when you have a group of different climate models (an ensemble) in which a mostly linear relationship appears between a variable of past climate and a variable of future climate. Using measurements of the first allows us to exploit this relationship and get a better estimate of our future climate.”
Unfortunately, comparing the past to something that hasn’t happened yet is just presumptuous idiocy, to put it mildly.
Even the IPCC admits that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
The Wikipedia article is a poorly disguised propaganda piece, pushing the IPCC nonsense. It cannot even manage to describe the GHE, nor admit that the Earth has managed to cool substantially over the last four and a half billion years or so. Full of the usual pseudoscientific GHE true believer rubbish, hoping that faith will overcome fact. A worthy successor to the foolish Connolly.
Your definition of “an excellent article on climate change.” therefore seems, and is, crazy.
Cheers.
MF, you must therefore agree that Wikipedia does not reflect the views of denialists/cranks/retards.
My point exactly.
Thank you.
DM,
You wrote –
“MF, you must therefore agree that Wikipedia does not reflect the views of denialists/cranks/retards.
My point exactly.
Thank you.”
Are you completely stupid, or just pretending?
The “denialists/cranks/retards” (along with a motley collection of fools, frauds and fakers) who subscribe to the pseudoscientific and mythical GHE are well reflected by the Wikipedia article you linked to.
Are you going to try and pretend they aren’t? You are as deranged as the rest of the people who believe the IPCC propaganda.
I welcome your thanks, but telling me what I must agree with is just as silly as it is pointless. Do you have any reason to think that others might agree with your obviously stupid and ignorant statement?
CO2 heats nothing. Anyone stupid enough to believe otherwise is welcome to try to demonstrate that particular piece of magical thinking by reproducible experiment. Good luck.
Cheers.
MF, I take it then that you think Wikipedia does reflect the views of denialists/cranks/retards.
So you disagree with TWIT.
Why didn’t you say so?
DM,
You wrote –
“MF, I take it then that you think Wikipedia does reflect the views of denialists/cranks/retards.
So you disagree with TWIT.”
You may take anything you like, although you might decide to vary your medication to your advantage.
Continuing to tell me what I think is likely to make you appear delusionally psychotic, as the perceived ability to direct the thoughts of others is usually a sign of delusional mental derangement, at least.
Carry on imagining. Don’t let facts or reality intrude into your GHE fantasy – you might become frightened and irrational.
I wish you all the best. You cannot help being what you are.
Cheers.
Flynn,
That was classic. Carry on.
Dr. Myki, horse podiatrist:
Your comments here exhibit the loss of one IQ point per week, per rigorous double blind testing, and you did not start off that high.
You ought to stay sober wile posting comments here.
Your liver will thank you.
I’ll go now, a horse is waiting for an exam.
William Connolley protected Wikipedia by insisting that entries there were based on good science with citations to peer reviewed journal papers.
Deniers don’t have any of that, and so scientists like Connolley upset them. Instead of offering countering science, they devolve into personal attacks, just like the one in the comment above.
Try Conservapedia. They have the lack of standards you’re looking for.
David, please stop trolling.
William Connolley, arguably the worlds most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore…
Haha. What a load of old cobblers.
Connolley is a libertarian who argues against too much govt interference in addressing c/c. He’s hardly an activist.
He’s become a sensation in the semi-popular blogosphere for having his moderator privileges revoked by wikipedia for reverting changes made to climate change and other articles on wikipedia. The skeptics believe he was caught propagandizing AGW. Others say he was an expert setting the record straight when ‘skeptics’ were posting nonsense, and wikipedia has no way to adjudicate expertise.
Here is an article quoted from the Financial Post in 2009, evidence of micro managment by liberals. Connolley was banned..
He’s not a liberal. He’s right-wing (libertarian).
barry says:
August 12, 2019 at 4:03 AM
Here is an article quoted from the Financial Post in 2009, evidence of micro managment by liberals. Connolley was banned..
He’s not a liberal. He’s right-wing (libertarian).
Connolley served as a parish councillor in the village of Coton (near Cambridge, England) until May 2007.[3] He stood as a Green Party candidate for either South Cambridgeshire District Council or Cambridgeshire County Council every year from 2001 to 2005.[4]
https://greenpolitics.fandom.com/wiki/William_Connolley
____________________________________________
A search on Connolley libertarian doesn’t find anything to support Barry’s claim. Here’s his blog:
https://scienceblogs.com/author/stoat
A search on Connolley libertarian doesnt find anything to support Barrys claim.
I’ve found searches to be rather limited. Here you go.
“It’s interesting because this self-professed libertarian trips over this issue all the time. Personally, I’m relatively conservative in my social views.”
https://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2007/02/14/should-libertarians-take-stron
His hero is Hayek (whose work inspired Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan), and he takes potshots at the left nearly as often as he withers uncritical ‘skeptics’. He pissed his regulars off consistently.
He was always an interesting read, because his views were very much his own, and rested on a lot of knowledge. He is impossible to stereotype. Those that do are only projecting their own views.
?????????????
I’m trying to link purepedantry & William M Connolley and I’m not finding it. If you want to explain, that’d be great, or not, It’s not all that important.
Dang it. That’s not Connolley, though it is directly linked at stoat (hence my error). He makes his ideas better known in the inline comments. Eg,
“[Bloody Hayek talking sense again. if only people would read him, rather than reading other people misrepresenting him 🙂 -W]”
https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/12/21/hayek-and-climate
And inline comments here:
https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2017/07/15/is-it-time-to-start-dismissing-economics-deniers
And this particular inline commentary:
https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2017/03/20/the-great-persuasion-reinventing-free-markets-since-the-depression#comment-1788991
“It is probably impossible to find a situation where ‘free trade’ or ‘fair trade’ actually exists. We could artificially create one, but finding one that has arisen through natural events is unlikely.
[It seems like a fine idea to aim for. So getting governments to stop being roadblocks in the way would be an excellent start -W]”
barry says:
August 13, 2019 at 3:34 AM
Dang it …
Thanks. He likes Hayek so that makes him libertarin. OK, I’ll take your word for it.
He also likes governments stopping being roadblocks to free trade. That’s a libertarian viewpoint, and Hayek was a proponent of libertarian economics.
“By 1947, Hayek was an organiser of the Mont Pelerin Society, a group of classical liberals [= individual freedom under rule of law emphasising economic freedom] who sought to oppose socialism. Hayek was also instrumental in the founding of the Institute of Economic Affairs, the right-wing libertarian and free-market think tank that inspired Thatcherism. He was in addition a member of the conservative and libertarian Philadelphia Society.”
That’s not to say that Connolley thinks there should be no taxes or government, same as Hayek.
Midas said to Bill Hunter (totality of comment) –
“So you are incapable of downloading the BOM and Met Office data?”
Which is reason enough to say to the eminently meaningless Midas –
“Begone, troll!”
Message for David A. This ESRL SURFRAD data analysis of monthly means from 1996-2018 shows the modelled / measured data is rubbish because it was modelled? Or rubbish because it was measured? Or rubbish because it was both measured and modelled? Or acceptable?
Linear plots R2 trends of measured parameter differences vs CO2 % differences between 1996-2018 (or 1999, 2001, 2004) as the various stations have different starting points for full year data
Parameter R2
DWIR 0.7855
Total Net Radiation 0.2829
Albedo 0.2158
Specific humidity 0.1314
PAR 0.1314
Net IR 0.0871
Direct normal solar 0.0766
Relative humidity 0.051
DW Global Solar 0.0119
Wind 0.0035
CO2 0.002
Net Solar 3.0E-5
I have always said you should never put data in the hands of amateurs.
Scientists here can tell this stuff is rubbish simply by noting the fact that the author is quoting values to 4 significant figures – as if that made them more believable ! LOL
Begone, troll!
Does this make you feel better Professor P:
DWIR 0.7
Total Net Radiation 0.3
Albedo 0.2
Specific humidity 0.1
PAR 0.1
Net IR 0.0871
Direct normal solar 0.0766
Relative humidity 0.1
DW Global Solar 0.0
Wind 0.0
CO2 0.0
Net Solar 0
CO2 change has zero relationship with temperature change at these sites. Take Hawaii air temperatures vs MuanaLoa CO2 readings 1958-2017: linear correlation R2 is 0.02. UAH vs ML CO2 1979-07/2019 R2 is 0.4.
And what has the ESRL crew learnt (what they have reported could be different to what they have learnt in total). Clouds is the big surface DWIR driver which we all know anyway. And DW net solar driving the dimming and brightening.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/theme2.html
And CERES/ERA TOA LWR Clear vs all sky trend differences supporting this.
And yes David, I know these measurements come from models which is why I asked you. So are these ERA/CERES and ESRL surface radiation measuremnents / models robust enough to support my conclusions about CO2 and ESRLs conclusions as stated at above web site. All the papers post 2011, related to these SURFRAD measurements, (as far back as I trolled), confirm the overall SW dimming and brightening driven by clouds.
eg Augustine etals 2013 paper “Increasing downwelling longwave
(LW‐down) of +1.5 Wm−2 per decade and decreasing upwelling LW (LW‐up) of −0.9 Wm−2 per decade produce a +2.3 Wm−2 per decade increase in surface net‐LW, which dwarfs the expected contribution to LW‐down from the 30 ppm increase of CO2 during the analysis period.”
My R2 analysis just confirms what they are saying. Does that answer your question Craig?
What does “CO2 0.0” mean?
CO2 change has zero relationship with temperature change at these sites. Take Hawaii air temperatures vs MuanaLoa CO2 readings 1958-2017: linear correlation R2 is 0.02.
Scientists can do those calculations too. Don’t you wonder why they have all concluded CO2 has an effect on temperature despite them? Aren’t you curious about that?
politics!
Bill: What efforts have you made to learn why the climate science community has concluded all of modern warming is due to man?
What books have you read?
Scientific papers?
He did read some of this:
“Recent global temperature ‘plateau’ in the context of a new proxy reconstruction”:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000216
Bill hunter says:
“I read the abstract and I am not interested in reading the entire article.”
Too political I guess.
David Appell says: Bill: What efforts have you made to learn why the climate science community has concluded all of modern warming is due to man? What books have you read?
Scientific papers?
—————–
100’s David. And even then I have a better understanding of them than you do as has been proven several times over in these threads.
You gobble up the nonsense 100% on a political basis. My stance spans the political spectrum. I don’t just gobble up the politically correct stuff and spew it back at everybody like you do without exception David.
————-
————-
Svante says: He did read some of this:
“Recent global temperature ‘plateau’ in the context of a new proxy reconstruction”:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000216
Bill hunter says: “I read the abstract and I am not interested in reading the entire article.” Too political I guess.
Ummm, possibly. Either that or ignorance. I just have no interest in proxies that assume they already know the greenhouse effect from CO2, aerosol, and ash volcanic activity. Those proxies love to use “the best science available” in kind of a bizarre circle jerk that some folks just love to jump in on and gobble up its output.
Its like tree ring proxies where the assumption is that since the tree lies near the tree line changing temperature is going to be the controlling life or death force. But any hobbyist gardener understands that temperature can be important but also sunlight, fertilizer, and water play critical roles and so the cloistered academic perhaps never gardened in their lifetime assumes the mainstream conventional wisdom that all moisture in the air is controlled by CO2 and thus cloud changes and precipitation are unlikely to change it must be a temperature signal. And any tree that doesn’t comply is basically discarded because some farmer must have came and fertilized it, watered it, or drove a tractor near it.
Sorry but one seldom finds any new nuggets of information in these kinds of “group think” studies. I may as well spend my time randomly reading nursery rhimes.
Now if you have proclaimed Svante having found some golden nugget in the tome, and expressed your belief in that nugget then I would have been motivated to read it. But no!
You suggested I read it to search for a PDO signal inside a paper written on the AMO signal, and I know enough that reading about the AMO signal was only going to give me another reason to be uncertain about CO2 forcing no matter how much they were willing to disregard it in the paper. Because really the only way to disregard is assume you now everything about everything else.
If I were looking for more reasons to be uncertain I would have read it.
Lauchlan what do you think these R2 values show?
Lauchlan Duff: All measurements come from models.
And I agree with Professor P.
Craig T, David, please stop trolling.
Is the absence of hurricanes in the Atlantic a sign of warming?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/eatlssta.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/mdrssta.png
La Nina is just waiting for an increase in solar activity and latitudinal jetstream.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
No La Nina in sight.
Nothing unusual.
That’s right, nothing unusual, just run of the mill ENSO neutral conditions with no sign of tipping in either direction.
It is already tilting.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
The SOI index is growing strongly.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
By ‘growing’ you mean returning to neutral.
ENSO 1+2 fluctuates wildly in both directions. It is the least useful of the four ENSO regions for judging what is happening. And it’s not even centered on the equator.
I wrote that you have to wait for the magnetic activity of the Sun to increase, which is now very low.
The SOI index has increased a lot in recent days.
Daily variations in the SOI mean little. That is just weather.
Midas, please stop trolling.
The height and the average temperature of the tropopause at different latitudes.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00986/o3hp7gdpg835.png
The boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere, where an abrupt change in lapse rate usually occurs. It is defined as the lowest level at which the lapse rate decreases to 2 C/km or less, provided that the average lapse rate between this level and all higher levels within 2 km does not exceed 2 C/km.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_height_of_the_Tropopause
So at a latitude of 60 degrees it is at 29000 feet or 8.8 km.
So it is only in the summer.
Below you can see the current tropopause height over North America below the 60th parallel.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f000.png
The tropopause occurs at approximately 20,000 feet (6,096 m) over the poles and at approximately 60,000 feet (18,288 m) above the equator.
Your graph was for 60 degrees north. And I still don’t know the relevance.
Graphics refer to an average temperature between 60 and 90 degrees latitude.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2019.png
The next graphic concerns the average temperature between 10 degrees north latitude and 10 degrees south latitude.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2019.png
Especially when the jet is strong and the associated front at low levels intense, then the tropopause height drops suddenly across the jet stream. Sometimes the tropopause actually folds down to 500 hPa (5.5 km) and even lower, just behind a well-defined cold front. The subsided stratospheric air within such a tropopause fold (or in the less pronounced tropopause dip) is much warmer than the tropospheric air it replaces, at the same level, and this warm advection aloft (around 300 hPa) largely explains the movement of the frontal low (at the surface) into the cold airmass, a process called occlusion .
Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
I still don’t understand the relevance to climate. I compared your chart to their first one in 1979, and there seemed to be little difference.
There is a Natgeo letter that may be relevant. According to Robinson and Catling the tropopause is going to happen at a pressure of 0.1 to 0.2 bars. As Dr. Roy’s bot choked on the URL here are some clues:
Google “Catling, tropopause”
One of the responses will contain “Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause”
Maybe that will explain at least part of the difference between tropopause altitude (poles vs. equator).
Mike Flynn:
You said:
“Averaging 101 known incorrect results is a pointless waste of time, without some experimentally verifiable reason.”
Averaging data sets makes no scientific sense and I am sure John Christy would be the first to agree with you. My take is he was trying to make the point that the models diverge from observations.
In the graph you’re referring to Christy averaged 4 balloon datasets, 3 satellite datasets and 3 reanalysis.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
We are having conniptions over a few tenths of a degree. The danger in this is that we don’t see the big picture.
This is a link to a long video that I found entertaining but near the end has a really scary slide. Life sequesters carbon so over the last 500 million years the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has trended downwards. We live in an Ice Age with dangerously low CO2 levels. Ergo, we need more CO2 and higher temperatures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWahKIG4BE4
While significant fraction of earth is pretty cold, There are lots of places on earth where temperatures are already pretty high and raising them may be a bad idea. Such as some of the warmer areas of teh tropics are at the 29-31*C already. The 35*C to 37*C is a practical upper limit for most mammals as that is what core temperature of most mammals is, meaning that those places in tropics are only as far as 4 to 8 *C away from becoming uninhabitable for mammals. Now, 4 to 8*C may or may not seem like alot, but that’s what warmmongerers are expecting. Anyways, just anna point that raising temperatures indiscriminately may not be the best idea in the world.
@coturnix: If ever the Earth warms to the point where the equator is uninhabitable [continuous air conditioning failure?], communities simply will relocate toward the poles. I suspect the opposite migration will occur when (not if) the next glaciation occurs.
An excellent idea. I trust that 1.2 billion Africans are welcome in the UK and 422 million South Americans are welcome in the United States.
As it is, millions of South Americans forced by climate change to migrate North are being refused entry to the US.
Wrong E-man, South Americans will migrate to the tropical paradise of Antarctica.
So Antarctica will warm by 50 degrees? Looks like you’ve jumped ship, leapfrogging the real science to go to the Guy McPherson camp.
Wrong again, Midas.
I just enjoy throwing the pseudoscience back in clowns’ faces.
gallopingcamel says:
Life sequesters carbon so over the last 500 million years the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has trended downwards.
But with significant evidence of hyperthermal warming along the way. Like the one we’re in now.
We live in an Ice Age with dangerously low CO2 levels.
Bollocks. Life has adjusted to the pre-industrial climate, with plenty of plant life present. We change that at our peril, requiring all species to adapt or die.
Unable to understand even the basic physics, DA goes full extremist:
“But with significant evidence of hyperthermal warming along the way. Like the one we’re in now.”
“We change that at our peril, requiring all species to adapt or die.”
DA shows what can happen to an out-of-work clown, after years of avoiding reality.
DA,
Adaptation is part of the evolutionary process, according to Charles Darwin. The Darwinian theory of evolution has not been shown to be wrong by experiment to date, so maybe it is correct, and adaptation is a natural process.
Regardless of which evolutionary theory (or other theory explaining our existence) you subscribe to, refusing to accept the fact that all plants depending on photosynthesis die if deprived of CO2 does not change the fact. No plants, we all die!
The physics of the atmosphere appear to involve chaos. This is why the IPCC states that future climate states are not predictable. The impacts of humanity on the atmosphere are likewise unpredictable. You may believe you know better. Good for you!
The universe will no doubt unfold as it should. A reasonable strategy might be to hope for the best, and prepare for the worst – based on one’s best assumptions, based on personal knowledge.
Cheers.
To understand the climate you need geologists like Robert A. Rhode at Berkeley Earth. Here is his temperature plot covering the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (aka the PETM).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
At the height of the PETM polar seas averaged 12 Kelvin above today’s temperatures. This suggests that equatorial temperatures were ~4 K above today thanks to “Polar Amplification”. These high temperatures were very favorable to mammals:
Mammals evolved a greater variety of forms in the first few million years after the dinosaurs went extinct than in the previous 160 million years of mammal evolution under the rule of dinosaurs.” Anjali Goswami (UCL Genetics).
This Mammal Explosion occurred during the PETM. Warmer is better, at least for mammals
And that leaves us to wonder who will benefit by the current warming, and who will suffer.
Our warming is 1000 times faster than the PETM’s.
David, please stop trolling.
“Life sequesters carbon so over the last 500 million years the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has trended downwards.”
And you have to admit life was simpler before the Cambrian era.
Dead on Craig. While the Cambrian “Fixed” huge amounts of carbon the big players are the marine creatures that create the carbonaceous rocks. Here is the current carbon inventory:
In atmosphere…………………….1 Giga-tonne
In oceans……………………….37 Giga-tonnes
In soils……………………..1,500 Giga-tonnes
Fossil fuels………. ………..7,500 Giga-tonnes
Carbonaceous rocks……….100,000,000 Giga-tonnes
The scary fact is that 21,000 years ago the [CO2] in the atmosphere was 180 ppm. When [CO2] reaches 150 ppm trees start to die, especially at high altitudes. Once the level falls below 100 ppm most plant die and hence most animals. At the present rate, land based life has at most 2 million years before extinction. Sea creatures may last a little longer.
I got this information from a presentation by Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWahKIG4BE4
u forgot 000 after the first two numbers, it should be: atmosphere – 1000 GtC (actually still a bit less, around 600 GtC about now), oceans – around 37000 GtC.
from Patrick Moore:
“Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions — or nearly 10 percent of global emissions — of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.”
“….nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.”
— Patrick Moore, Washington Post, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
This was after he was bought out by the nuclear power industry but before he was bought out by the fossil fuel industry. At around this same time, he was observed making a financial transaction with a man who had curved conical protuberances growing out of his head.
Unfortunately, the protuberance growing out of your forehead isn’t a horn.
I see you’ve noticed my halo. That explains your frequent hissing fits.
Erm…OK, Midas.
https://www.academia.edu/26876019/KEPLERS_MOON
Craig T, before you sidetrack the topic, does a racehorse rotate on its axis?
A racehorse in orbit or one running a track?
Jonathan Swift couldn’t write a better satire of science denial and anti-intellectualism than the Moon argument. The story probably ends with quasi-government overlords convincing us the Moon rotates as a way to enslave us.
I’m just playing Marty Feldman, saying “Frau Blucher” to frighten the (race)horse.
Unable to answer the simple question, Craig T prefers trolling over science.
Nothing new.
Good to see the teacher praising the student.
JDH, stop flogging your dead horse.
Witless trolls, begone!
Slightly O/T but possibly of interest to some:
The UK National Electricity Grid has just given the country a major, wide-spread, blackout; at a time of low demand, but with fresh, fluky winds supplying 27% of that demand. Instability due to reliance upon renewables is the obvious suspect. At any rate, the incident conforms to definite, public warnings by some electrical engineers.
Perhaps the thunderstorms and heavy rain are partly to blame.
Em,
The UK met Office employs around 2000 people.
A couple of years ago, the CEO of the Met Office said –
“We used to pride ourselves on being the best weather and climate service in the world. Now we think of ourselves as the best in the galaxy, says Varley, pointing out that for decades the Met Office has been consistently voted No 1 out of all the national weather services in the world.”
It seems odd that the best forecasters “in the galaxy” (British Met Office modesty at its best) were unable to forecast thunderstorms and heavy rain in the UK.
No wonder the BBC dumped the Met Office on the grounds of charging too much, and delivering too little.
Just as a matter of interest, the wind forecasts (short and long term) paid for and used by wind farm operators are generally based on naive persistence forecasts – no need for models, computers, or knowledge of atmospheric physics or radiative transfer equations! Just faith that someone else knows what they are doing, better than you.
Ah, well – all part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
Betting that the weather tomorrow will be the same as today will send you broke in a hurry.
cd,
As far as I know, no two days have ever had precisely the same weather. Good luck with finding someone to bet otherwise.
Maybe you are talking (in ignorance) about persistence forecasting generally, in which case the following quote from the University of Illinois might help to enlighten you –
“This makes persistence a “hard to beat” method for forecasting longer time periods.”
Are you making pointless and irrelevant comments for some reason, or are you just trolling?
Feel free to bet with me – you’ll lose.
Cheers.
I bet that in one year’s time you will still be posting the same rubbish as you did one year ago.
Ian, please stop trolling.
Similar events are common in South Australia for the same reasons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHX-Ib3Q5Q
Tried watching and noticed that the audience seemed to comprise balding, bespectacled, old men perving on the presenter.
Begone, troll!
MF, don’t tell me you watched it !!
At your age !!
Disgusting!
cd, please stop drolling.
Early reports are that 2 power generators, a major one (gas-powered), and a wind-powered generator both disconnected from the grid within minutes of each other, the gas generator going first.
The event wasn’t because of low winds, but supposedly because of a technical failure that cut the links to the grid.
barry, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn
As Feynman said
It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.
Climate change denial does not agree with experiment.
Why do you persist in your denial in the face of Feynman’s wisdom?
Em,
You have spoken like true pseudoscientific GHE true believer!
You can’t even name one “climate change denier”, can you? If you do not believe that the climate (being the average of weather – no more no less) has not been changing since the first atmosphere appeared, then you are indeed in a state of deep denial.
Tossing out random Feynman quotes, attempting to appear intelligent, is pointless, unless you actually understand what you are talking about.
In this instance, what is this “theory” you ascribe to me by implication? What imaginary “experiment” have you devised to demonstrate that a non-existent “theory” is invalid? I do not possess any mind reading abilities, so I’ll just ask you directly – are you more stupid than ignorant, or vice versa?
In your particular fantasy, what is it that you believe I am “denying”?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
“Tossing out random Feynman quotes, attempting to appear intelligent, is pointless, unless you actually understand what you are talking about.”
You really should listen to Mike on that one.
CT,
You wrote –
“You really should listen to Mike on that one.”
Thank you for the encomium. Ill treasure it forever (or maybe not?).
Cheers.
Em,
Claims that CO2 drives climate are false. The IPCC created this fraudulent idea using the correlation between [CO2] and temperature from 1850 to 1998.
This correlation is mere coincidence. [CO2] seldom correlates with temperature and when it does (as in the EPICA and Vostok ice cores) [CO2] lags temperature.
Even in the topsy-turvy world of “Climate Change” cause precedes effect.
Study the PETM. Like today, CO2 emissions caused global warming.
PS: When are you going to find that missing 150 W/m2?
DA,
You wrote –
“Study the PETM. Like today, CO2 emissions caused global warming.”
Complete nonsense, of course. The Earth has cooled since its initial molten state. Nothing has prevented this cooling. A large blob of molten rock in space has no choice but to cool.
Only pseudoscientific GHE true believers are deluded enough to ascribe magical heating properties to CO2. Additional magic is needed to turn the heating on and off as required.
Nobody has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter by using CO2, and nobody ever will, without using magic.
Neither you nor anybody else has actually managed to usefully describe the GHE, have they? How inconvenient for cultists such as yourself! Maybe you could try appealing to the non-authority of the non-scientist Gavin Schmidt, or the non-Nobel Laureate Michael Mann?
Have fun.
Cheers.
Just wrong. The theory came before the data.
M,
What a pity you cannot actually find this GHE “theory”! You can’t even find a description of the GHE which would allow the formulation of a testable GHE hypothesis, can you?
Fools of a feather flock together. A collective triumph of faith over fact – based on the rich fantasy world inhabited by pseudoscientific GHE true believers.
Keep preaching. I’m sure there must be people even more stupid and ignorant than you, who might believe your bizarre assertions. Good luck.
Cheers.
Mike, you are ranting and drooling again. Time for your medications.
Begone, psychobabbling troll!
Galloping camel
The Earth is radiating less energy to space than it receives. The imbalance matches the rate and pattern of energy accumulation in the system and the rate of warming.
The spectrum of the OLR and DWLR and the way they change over time indicates the mechanism by which the increasing temperature is due to increasing CO2 and water vapour.
Some simple physics confirms that increasing CO2 is the cause and water vapour is an amplifying feedback.
–Entropic man says:
August 10, 2019 at 9:15 AM
Galloping camel
The Earth is radiating less energy to space than it receives. The imbalance matches the rate and pattern of energy accumulation in the system and the rate of warming.–
The earth could radiate less energy than receives, and largely this warming ocean which average temperature of about 3.5 C
In addition to warming the frigid ocean, energy could used to melt ice [or melt water as it’s colder than average temperature of ocean].
We are in ice age, have been for millions of years and this not going to change anytime, soon.
Re: the ice age
from Ganopolski et al:
“…moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years.”
– Nature Letter, Jan 2016, doi:10.1038/nature16494
Humans have already emitted about 620 GtC through 2018, and are now emitting about 40 Gt CO2 (11 GtC) a year. Assuming this doesnt increase with time, the lower limit of 1000 GtC will be reached in about 35 years, the upper limit in about 80 years.
The next ice age is toast.
David Appell says: – The next ice age is toast.
———–
Lets hope so! But I think you probably meant the next glacial epoch in the current ice age known as the Quaternary. You really should study up on this more before commenting.
“Ice age” is a common colloquialism for a glacial maximum.
David Appell says: Ice age is a common colloquialism for a glacial maximum.
Yep it is for the ignorant and some of us old geezers that use the correct words so seldomly we forget what they were.
Lol
Another frog!
Begone, meaningless troll!
DA wrote (total comment) –
“All measurements are done with a model. All of them.”
Meaningless nonsense. Just more pseudoscientific GHE true believer diversion. Just more irrelevant trolling.
Who cares, David?
Cheers.
Calm down Mike – or I will get Dr Schmidt to deal with you. Or, even worse, Dr Mann!
Begone, delusional troll!
Time to prime the electrodes.
10 amps should do it.
“Change the poles from plus to minus and from minus to plus”
Where should I attach them?
Well there’s no point attaching one to each ear. Current won’t flow through a vacuum.
OK, Midas.
“A new paper published by researchers form the University of Turku in Finland suggests that even though observed changes in the climate are real, the effects of human activity on these changes are insignificant.”
https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html
“Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi, from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, in their paper published on 29th June 2019 claim to prove that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature.”
And:
“Thus, in order to come to the results matching the actual climate change the IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, Kauppinen and Malmi claim that their paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.
Not sure if I agree. Or I don’t think low cloud cover control global temperature.
So, two hundred years, it was cooler. And presumably it had more low cloud cover, then later we got less low cloud cover, and it warmed to present warmer global temperatures.
And if we get more low cloud cover in future it will cool. Or if get less low cloud cover, it will warm.
Or I always wondered what caused cooling effect of LIA, and the “answer provided” is more low cloud cover.
On topic of clouds, Iris hypothesis. Wiki:
“The iris hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Richard Lindzen et al. in 2001 that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth’s atmosphere.”
[less high clouds, more cooling] And:
“The consensus view is that increased sea surface temperature would result in increased cirrus clouds and reduced infrared radiation leakage and therefore a positive feedback.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis
Does more low cloud cover result in less cirrus clouds, as part of Iris effect? And then have additional mechanism [related to solar min} which causes more low clouds and it further reduces cirrus clouds?
OR is having more or less low cloud cover, unconnected to the amount of cirrus clouds.
What do low clouds [about 2000 meter or lower] do to ocean surface temperatures in the tropics. If lower surface temperature then Lindzen says increase cirrus clouds, and consensus view says it decreases cirrus clouds.
And tend to think low clouds have little effect upon average ocean surface temperature, though tend to think less water would evaporate from ocean surface- but there different kinds of low clouds [or low cloud rapidly growing into high cloud, is not my idea of a low cloud]
Physics and astronomy – so no education in meteorological processes then.
link was from:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Not sure what the source of the link has to do with anything. I am talking about the people who wrote this paper.
I forgot to include where got the article from. It was from instapundit.com
{it has nothing to do with what you posted}
As far as your comment goes. I am not interested much in astronomy
nor was article anything about astronomy.
The blog is written by Roy W. Spencer, who is meteorologist and I would be interested in any comments that Roy has about the article.
I am also interested any comment by the posters.
It seems to me that in terms of basic model of global climate, clouds are as important as greenhouse gases [or “other greenhouse gases” as clouds are considered to be a greenhouse gas].
But for a science which is “settled” the understanding clouds related to global climate, seems limited.
“Climate science is settled *enough*” Raymond Pierrehumbert, Slate 10/1/14
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/10/the_wall_street_journal_and_steve_koonin_the_new_face_of_climate_change.html
Gbaikie
Observations show no large changes in cloud cover in recent decades, possibly small increases in both low and high cloud.
Since low cloud cools and high cloud warms that probably means that in the short term clouds are climate change neutral.
In the long term, nobody is sure.
Regarding Ice Ages If you look at the paleo data for the last 600 million years there seem to be four strange attractors:-
Snowball – Ice to the tropics. Very low sea level. Global average temperature 5C.
Ice Age glacial – Ice to 50N. Low sea level. 9C
Ice Age interglacial – 19th/20th century conditions. 14C
Hothouse – Eocene conditions. Little or no ice. High sea level. 19C
The last 2 million years have been 90% glacial, 10% interglacial on a roughly 100,000 year cycle.
One concern of the climate scientists is that AGW will be enough to tip us from interglacial to hothouse.
–Entropic man says:
August 11, 2019 at 11:57 AM
Gbaikie
Observations show no large changes in cloud cover in recent decades, possibly small increases in both low and high cloud.
Since low cloud cools and high cloud warms that probably means that in the short term clouds are climate change neutral.–
Perhaps.
–Regarding Ice Ages If you look at the paleo data for the last 600 million years there seem to be four strange attractors:-
Snowball Ice to the tropics. Very low sea level. Global average temperature 5C.–
As I noted, old sea floors [or supercontinent] causes low sea level.
Also in our present Ice age, the average temperature of entire has gone as low as to 1 C.
What average temperature of ocean do you think Snowball earth goes to?
And are sure it doesn’t raise sea levels rather than lower them?
Pierre Humbert is nothing but a sleazy politician quite simply too stupid to even know how ignorant he is. How could anybody believe a word he says? Answer? They shouldn’t! They should demand proof! If Pierrehumbert is also too stupid to figure out how to prove what he believes so earnestly; then that just doubles down on the proof of how stupid he is.
You go straight for insults, without even trying to examine RP’s work. Shameful.
What specifically do you find wrong in his work?
Whats wrong with it? Its full of insults. there is no work in that paper at all just insults.
BH: That’s a ridiculous lie.
Can you even understand RP’s papers? Can you read scientific journals? Have you *ever* read a scientific paper?
Because I have yet to see even a glimmer of science in any of your replies.
bill hunter says:
“Pierre Humbert [sic] is nothing but a sleazy politician”.
He is a professor of physics, check out his publications on the right here:
https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/pierrehumbert
David Appell says: – BH: Thats a ridiculous lie.
Can you even understand RPs papers? Can you read scientific journals? Have you *ever* read a scientific paper?
Because I have yet to see even a glimmer of science in any of your replies.
There wasn’t a glimmer of science in my reply on Pierrehumbert because there wasn’t a glimmer of science in Pierrehumbert’s article that was linked to above.
If you think there was please write about it. And if you can’t see the insults I will help you read the article.
Bill, clearly you didn’t read the entire article, because Pierrehumbert cites the IPCC — itself full of thousands of citations — sea level data from UC Boulder, the journals WIREs Climate Change, Climate Dynamics, and Science and the National Academy Press.
David Appell says: – Bill, clearly you didnt read the entire article, because Pierrehumbert cites the IPCC itself full of thousands of citations sea level data from UC Boulder, the journals WIREs Climate Change, Climate Dynamics, and Science and the National Academy Press.
LOL! Pierrehumbert lead author on the worst of the worst IPCC reports defending his work via insults and quoting the documents he relied upon like an appeal to authority has anything to do with science and the points being made by the many good people he was insulting.
gbalkie, the Kauppinen and Malmi is the purest kind of junk. For example, they claim CO2 climate sensitivity is just 0.24 C, by…citing themselves! They don’t say where their cloud data comes from.
This paper will never come close to passing peer review and it will never be published in a decent journal. But it’s just the kind of thing deniers jump on, ignoring the thousand other papers that have already established AGW. It’s a sorry spectacle. Again.
Re: Kauppinen and Malmi
“Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming,” Climate Feedback, 7/12/19.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/
“Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.”
Maybe because increase in relative humidity could cause more low level clouds {if in solar min}.
Currently we spending a lot time in Solar Mins.
Not that agree with idea- as I have said I think we still recovering from the Little Ice Age- roughly, related to changes ocean circulation.
“gbalkie, the Kauppinen and Malmi is the purest kind of junk. For example, they claim CO2 climate sensitivity is just 0.24 C, byciting themselves! They dont say where their cloud data comes from.”
Of course IPCC said CO2 caused at least 1/2 of the .4 C recent warming. And .24 C is at least 1/2.
I believe doubling of CO2 will cause .5 C or less of warming.
Other think it’s about 1 C or more.
gbaikie says:
Currently we spending a lot time in Solar Mins.
And yet land and ocean temperatures are higher than ever.
I believe doubling of CO2 will cause .5 C or less of warming.
Based on what calculation?
Have you noticed that we’re already had 1.0 C of warming when CO2 hasn’t even increased by half yet?
David Appell says:
gbaikie says:
Currently we spending a lot time in Solar Mins.
And yet land and ocean temperatures are higher than ever.
I believe doubling of CO2 will cause .5 C or less of warming.
Based on what calculation?
Have you noticed that were already had 1.0 C of warming when CO2 hasnt even increased by half yet?
—————
gbaike’s .5 or less is where I am at also. Lost count of the various reasonableness tests I have applied, some of which may rest on shaky physics grounds, but the whole science is shaky in the absence of clear blueprint of how the system works.
With the models from a warming bias selection point of view (which always occurs in the public funding sector whether its MIC stuff or its any process that has been instituted via a lobbying process from any special interest sector of the society – which you would know if you weren’t such a virgin at all this) still have an astronomical range of individual results.
As many skeptics point out its absolutely appalling that with billions and billions of dollars poured into this boondoggle the range has not narrowed at all. If anything its getting wider as the non-special interest funded portion of the public slowly achieves funding despite the war being waged against them.
Its really quite simple David. If this were pure science the uncertainties are so great that science would be welcoming with open arms new ideas to improve our knowledge of climate.
But instead its a political war partly over special interests, partly over knowledge that this has been overhyped and total funding could shrink with a widening of ideas, meaning less to go around. If real progress were being made then funding could be maintained from that perspective and perhaps even expanded as it would begin to relieve the doubt we have the capability of understanding climate.
In fact in my experience as progress is made all political sides begin to work together asking for science to provide more information. The very fact that is not happening speaks to how ill founded the whole project is. And of course those on the side of the folks currently most funded, see it as some grand right wing conspiracy. But its not, its simply a projection of conspiracy theorists who lack any progress to point toward.
All of the criticisms of the paper are the same criticisms of the mainstream science.
No, that paper made certain claims that aren’t supportable.
Such as the authors not giving the source of their cloud data.
Shouldnt a proper paper cite its data sources, Bill?
What about the assumption that CO2s climate sensitivity is 0.24 C? For that they cited another only their own work one never published, the other two published in junk journals.
Citing ones own claims is scientific masturbation.
David Appell says: – No, that paper made certain claims that arent supportable.
Such as the authors not giving the source of their cloud data.
Shouldnt a proper paper cite its data sources, Bill?
————–
Granted! Since the paper is pre-published it should be corrected before finalized. I doubt he made the data up.
———–
———–
David Appell says: –
What about the assumption that CO2s climate sensitivity is 0.24 C? For that they cited another only their own work one never published, the other two published in junk journals.
————-
Junk journal? Sounds like sour grapes David. Looks like they have a highly qualified editorial board.
David Appell says: – Citing ones own claims is scientific masturbation.
————-
I kind of doubt that you would want to hang with that one as all the IPCC reports have lead authors quoting their own work. But I might just agree with that! Smiley!
That paper won’t be published anywhere — it’s absurd.
Authors do sometimes cite their own PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL papers.
And, yes, the two journals they do cite are well known as places that publish junk science.
David Appell says:-
That paper wont be published anywhere its absurd.
Authors do sometimes cite their own PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL papers.
And, yes, the two journals they do cite are well known as places that publish junk science.
You are such a political hack David, why should I believe any of that? The guys are citing peer reviewed journals so you come up with any unsupported nonsense you can dream up to suggest that’s not the case.
Blah, blah . . .
That’s all well and good, but what I really think we should be talking about is this:
Suppose we make a permanent lunar base on the moon. Humans being what they are, sooner or later a baby is born on the moon who experiences a roughly 28 “earth day” cycle of solar rotation in the sky. In the moon elementary school books, do we explain that the Sun rotates around the moon?
Just wondering if anybody has an opinion . . .
Are you troll?
Do you not understand frames of reference or anything known since Newton?
I would assume that anybody actually able to type coherent words on the internet would know the answer to this.
MM
You come here with your first comment, having no idea what has been discussed and what this is in relation to, and needlessly attack him.
@Midas
It is not true that I have “no idea what has been discussed”.
What has been discussed is exactly why I chose to post.
MM
If you were raised on the moon before Copernicus, then you would learn that earth does not rotate around the moon but the sun rotates around the moon every 28 days or so.
Newton ended all this debate (away from relativistic scales), so if you are confused, you are either ignorant or making a semantic rather than physical argument.
Milo:
Are you the troll and don’t know that on this site, it is high priority to argue about such things? I think you are a troll, just trying to stir up the pot.
Isn’t Jeffry Jffs the troll here? I just be calling him out for the stupid idea he states.
The troll is the person who comes up with a different name, but doesn’t have the imagination to change the initials from MM.
Midas, please stop trolling.
Can we just give this all a rest?
The Sun and Moon revolve around the Earth, the rest is fake news. Get over it.
MAGA!
Georgie
Here we have a typical anti-science Trump supporter. And the AGW deniers will tacitly support this anti-science nonsense by refusing to attack it.
Here we have Midas being pranked, but unable to realize it because he believes he is too smart to be tricked.
Nothing new.
Here we have JDH inventing excuses for himself.
Midas another leftist laying claim to all knowledge and wisdom.
Not at all. I have no knowledge of why the right has abandoned knowledge.
Midas admits: “I have no knowledge…”
Midas, you could have stopped there.
But then you would have been right, for a change….
That’s easy Midas, like Plato’s Philosopher Kings only Leftists are able to know “the good.”
JDH
That’s the best you could come up with? That has the sophistication of a 10-year-old.
Midas, please stop trolling.
M,
You wrote –
“I suppose these aren’t snarky:”
Your supposition appears correct. Why are you bothering to point out the obvious?
For example, you also wrote –
“Here we have a typical anti-science Trump supporter. And the AGW deniers will tacitly support this anti-science nonsense by refusing to attack it.”
Some might claim this was “snarky”, but it is obvious that you are merely delusional, making assertions unsupported by fact (apparently based on the belief that you can read minds), and using meaningless terms like “AGW deniers”. What in blue blazes is an “AGW denier”? Is it a pseudoscientific GHE true believer synonym for that other witless term “climate denier”?
I might point out that Nature doesn’t care what you think, be it delusional or not. Nor does Nature pay any attention to the opinions of the other seven billion or so people in the world.
Carry on believing that your opinion is important, if it makes you feel better. It is just as important (or unimportant) as anyone else’s, I suppose. Do you have any particular reason for thinking your opinion is more important than mine, for example? Should I be worried that you will smite me with some secret super power?
In the meantime, feel free to carry on as you wish. If you choose to feel offended, insulted, or annoyed, that is your choice. Nobody can control your feelings, can they?
Cheers.
It seems you believe that “nature” is a proper noun.
M,
So do others.
“Nature is actually a proper noun (Mother Nature) which is often used in its common, or uncapitalized, form: nature. There is only one Nature, and it is an abstract concept; therefore, we do not use an article with this word.” – from the Academic Success Centre, UNBC.
Do you have a point? Do I care?
Cheers.
Th academic success centre?? You had to dig deep to find that one. Why not refer to a dictionary, not of which refer to it as a proper noun. Let me guess … all dictionaries have been taken over by liberals, right?
M,
Do your have to practice being a fool, or does it come naturally.
You wrote –
“Why not refer to a dictionary, not of which refer to it as a proper noun.”
Why don’t you learn to write comprehensible English? I do as I wish.
From one dictionary –
“Mother Nature is sometimes used to refer to nature, especially when it is being considered as a force that affects human beings.”
Feel free to submit a paper to Nature, referring to Nature in the same sense as I did.
Don’t be surprised if Nature is printed in Nature as submitted.
Have fun. You will probably learn as you mature.
Cheers.
If you were raised on the moon before Copernicus, then you would learn that earth does not rotate around the moon but the sun rotates around the moon every 28 days or so.
Newton ended all this debate (away from relativistic scales), so if you are confused, you are either ignorant or making a semantic rather than physical argument.
Its semantic, mostly. You can tell because none of the nonrotators will define “rotation” or specify how to operationally determine if a celestial body rotates or not. They know doing so reveals the flaw in their thinking and claims.
Maybe they’re waiting for you to explain how the Moon’s rotation perfectly matches its orbit.
Maybe he is waiting for you to research tidal locking.
M,
Or maybe not. Who would know?
Cheers.
I already understand tidal locking.
Why is this blog suddenly chock full of See You Next Tuesdays?
Dear Pot,
Who are you callin’ black?
Regards,
Kettle
No you are!
Trump!
Politics!
Snide remarks!
You, Huffman, Flynn:
Attacks against scientists and posters.
Politics.
Snide remarks.
No you are!
Trump!
Politics!
Snide remarks!
M,
You wrote –
“You, Huffman, Flynn:
Attacks against scientists and posters.
Politics.
Snide remarks.”
This is the sort of irrational comment often made by pseudoscientific GHE true believers, of the delusional kind.
You make a series of unsupported assertions. You write one word sentences imparting no useful information. What is the sentence “Politics.” supposed to mean?
Maybe you think you are so important that you do not need to adhere to normal language conventions?
My opinion, based on your bizarre comment, is that you are not only a fool, but delusional to boot.
Cheers.
“This is the sort of irrational comment often made by … (insert description of DREMT here) …, of the delusional kind.”
“You write one word sentences imparting no useful information. What is the sentence “Politics” supposed to mean?”
As that was a direct copy of the post I was replying to and not my own words, thanks for joining with me in attacking the nonsense of DREMT. Good to have you on board! (Oh wait – it’s somehow different when he posts it, right?)
OK, Midas.
It seems only you three are permitted to swamp the blog with comments. If you want it to stop, cease this inane “please stop trolling” BS.
No you are!
Trump!
Politics!
Snide remarks!
You are only showing who the real dylsexic Cnut is.
Your aim is to kill any debate, and you’ve figured that repeating the same childish, unimaginative comment ad nauseam will do that for you.
Midas, you don’t have any “debate”. All you have are your snarky remarks attempting to pervert and corrupt reality.
Nothing new.
I’m sure you’re right.
I suppose these aren’t snarky:
“Fakers, frauds and fools. You support such bumbling fumblers”
“Did it take you much effort to achieve your present level of stupidity? The world wonders”
“dont start denying photosynthesis. Youre already denying enough science.”
“We enjoy the humor you provide, but please dont take yourself too seriously. Wackos tend to be a danger to themselves or others.”
“How many bogus assumptions do clowns have to make in order to scare themselves?”
“May the funniest clown win.”
“So you make pointless comments just for fun?”
“Begone, witless troll”
“Do you feel silly yet?”
“are you ignorant or dishonest”
“How stupid and ignorant is that? What a fool.”
No you are!
You have work to do to catch up to the trolling ability of your two friends. I suppose it feels safe for you to stick to the tried and tested.
OK, Midas.
Begone, foolish troll!
Midas, you are such a phony.
You avoided any quotes from Nate, bob, Norman, DA, fluffball, nurse, and the other clowns like “dr” myki and the child that usurps other’s names.
Clean up your act, before you attact others.
Why would I mimic others who have nothing to do with this thread and have provided me with nothing worth mimicking?
Begone, troll!
A one word message, followed by your one-word epithet.
#2
OK, Midas.
DREMT
You know you don’t have to reply to comments that are not directed at you and are of no concern to you, right?
#3
OK, Midas.
Isn’t it time you had a new thought?
#4
OK, Midas.
How about now?
#5
OK, Midas.
Troll, begone!
Still waiting …
#6
OK, Midas.
Footage of Thredbo Resort in New South Wales seeing over 80cm of snow (August 9, 2019)
https://youtu.be/kP99m3-Gboc
Some of you refer to David Appell as an idiot. He is better than that…..at the very least he is a “Useful Idiot” and sometimes I think of him as the “Magnificent Troll”. Check out this link he supplied and you will see what I mean:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
It is an article written by Patrick Moore for the Washington Post in 2006. Here are some quotes from that article together with my comments:
QUOTE 1
More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions — or nearly 10 percent of global emissions — of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.
COMMENT 1
Patrick Moore is remarkable in many ways. For example, he is big enough to publicly admit when he is wrong. This is a very rare quality, especially among prominent people.
Thirteen years later, Patrick Moore showed that CO2 has a negligible effect on global temperature using compelling scientific evidence that you can find here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWahKIG4BE4
QUOTE 2
Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants.
COMMENT 2
Like the rest of us Moore did not predict the dramatic effect that fracking would have on global energy prices. As a consequence new gas plants are being built world wide and some old plants are being converted to use natural gas.
Given the kind of man Moore is I would be happy to wager $100 that he would publicly admit he was wrong about natural gas if asked.
QUOTE 3
Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour…..
COMMENT 3
I don’t know where Moore got his information back in 2006 but I am gratified that I reached a similar conclusion seven years later after spending a week at the Oconee station in South Carolina. My estimate for the LCOE (Levelized Cost Of Energy) for this “Old Nuke” was $22/MWh which converts to $0.022/kVAh.
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/electric-power-in-florida/
Once online I showed Patrick Moore’s quote to him. His ridiculous, unbelievable answer was that the editor put words in his mouth.
Patrick Moore had a rea$on for that WaPo article — he was working for the nuclear indu$try. Who$e he denying for now?
A YouTube video is not science. Where has Patrick Moore published in the scientific literature? Anywhere?
PS: The 150 W/m2?
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/patrick-moore-editor-put-words-in-my.html
Many people here will be persuaded by Patrick Moore and the data he has assembled. For the most part he cites “Peer Reviewed” sources.
Your problem is intolerance for people who don’t agree with you. You can’t match them in argument as facts and reason are on their side. All you have is name calling and personal attacks.
That said you do occasionally come up with useful stuff like that WaPo article. Thank you for that.
GC, name calling and personal attacks like this?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-373916
Patrick Moore even misled in testimony to Congress, telling them “an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today,'” as if, was his message, CO2 doesn’t affect Earth’s temperature.
He LEFT OUT that the Sun was 4% less radiant back then, a whopping 55 W/m2 at Earth’s orbit, which makes a huge difference
How can you possibly defend that?
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/02/dr-patrick-moore-just-misled-congress.html
David Appell says: – Patrick Moore even misled in testimony to Congress, telling them an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today,’ as if, was his message, CO2 doesnt affect Earths temperature.
He LEFT OUT that the Sun was 4% less radiant back then, a whopping 55 W/m2 at Earths orbit, which makes a huge difference
How can you possibly defend that?
How can you possibly ignore that CO2 has not tracked earth’s temperatures? Making a point that CO2 was 10 times higher is perfectly legitimate as a response to runaway warming.
Bill, you ignored the question.
How can you defend Moore’s testimony?
David Appell says: Bill, you ignored the question. How can you defend Moores testimony?
For a lot of reasons:
1) One you are a political hack and you took a statement out of context.
2) I am not sure what testimony you are referring to so I am not going to go search for half a sentence.
3) Because generally speaking, Patrick Moore is a dedicated conservationist that if in half a second he believed what is passing for climate science even sounds like science he would be behind it.
4) Because Patrick Moore is deeply involved in making the world a better place, always has been, likely always will be, he does have an extraordinary good view of what has happened to the environmental movements in the US where they have become partly industries in their own rights in search of problems to grow upon and in part because of an infiltration of the movement by political sectors dedicated to the dismantling of capitalism.
5) Because Patrick Moore has dedicated himself to learn more about climate change to ensure he is on the right side.
6) Because I am not going to nanny pick any single misstatement, assuming it was one, about science he may have made because nobody is perfect, nobody gets it all right, not even the top scientists.
Is that enough reasons?
Bill: Patrick Moore lied to Congress.</b
And you couldn't care less.
But I get it. You've lied here, so you support liars like Patrick Moore.
If you didn't support lying, you couldn't be a denier.
Unlike some people David, I don’t call somebody a liar for believing something different than what I believe. I am not so stupid to completely and totally not comprehend that our knowledge is highly based upon faith and personal experience. . . .and often simply because we don’t think for ourselves and we let other do the thinking for us.
It is certainly advisable to listen to the advice of those who have intensely studied a topic, but like medical doctors hawking cures on the web via unpatented herbs and tonics its quite advisable to seek other opinions. In seeking other opinions, especially in highly esoteric, highly extrapolative studies about what the world was like 450 million years ago I would venture one could not go into a court of law and get a verdict on the basis of a legitimate difference of opinion among experts.
I am extremely hesitant to call somebody a liar unless by their immediate actions they ignore the obvious evidence sitting right in front of their face, test say ice volume from 2012 to 2018 and decide to artificially start in a December and end in a July, bolster it with a list of record low ice volume years without quantifying the quantities right in front your face. With all that hanky panky and somebody who should know better who had all the numbers in their face, probably ran those numbers and rejected them and decided to instead present a rigged response to falsely present the data like he was auditioning for a position on the climategate team. Now if you can show that Patrick Moore went through all that sort of hanky panky then I would agree he is a liar. But you haven’t come close to doing that yet.
DA, how do you feed yourself?
You do not have a job. You are unemployable.
Are you living off others?
He eats you for dinner every time.
More perversion from Midas.
Nothing new.
In response to more unnecessary denigration from JDH.
Wrong again, Midas. It’s always necessary to cancel out DA.
It’s just part of the natural order–“Truth will out”.
Your are clearly one of those people who can dish it out but cries to mommy when he gets it back.
Begone, pointless troll!
I will indeed begone, oh pointless troll.
Midas, please stop trolling.
Is the ice in Greenland melts?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif
That chart has nothing to do with ice melt.
M,
You wrote –
“That chart has nothing to do with ice melt.”
Do you havea point? If you cannot answer ren’s apparent question, just say so.
If you find his English usage confusing, maybe you could just ask him for clarification.
Your lack of common courtesy might lead others to assume you are merely a common or garden troll, of the stupid and ignorant variety. Of course you may have good reason to pretend you are such, but are keeping your reasons secret for some unknown reason.
Why the secrecy?
Cheers.
Where did I say anything about his use of the English language? His meaning was clear. Are you attempting to play the racist card?
Apparently stating a fact is now regarded as a “lack of common courtesy”, and calling people ‘stupid’ and ‘ignorant’ is not.
M,
You wrote –
“Apparently stating a fact is now regarded as a lack of common courtesy, and calling people stupid and ignorant is not.”
If you say so, I find no reason to disagree.
Cheers.
No, YOU say so, and any rational person will disagree.
Any, I guess you’ve just given yourself another excuse to deny your rudeness … no facts come from you.
Begone, stupid troll!
Your stock response when you know you’ve lost.
Still waiting for your response re his use of the English language.
Begone, troll!
It’s pretty difficult to successfully play the racist card when you are a racist yourself, isn’t it Mike.
Midas, please stop trolling.
The high above Greenland is important for the temperature in Greenland.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_arc-lea_t2anom_10-day.png
Snow is still falling in New South Wales and Victoria.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00986/17toddqluu93.png
Where are the super hurricanes in the Atlantic?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=atl&product=wv-mid
We are in Ice Age.
And I see no compelling evidence that Earth has ever had a colder ice age.
During our ice age, the average temperature of ocean, stays in the range of 1 to 5 C.
One could say an ice age causes a cold ocean or you say if ocean is cold you are in ice age.
The average ocean temperature, currently is about 3.5 C. And as far as I know it’s been about this temperature for thousands of year, and likely remain around this temperature in coming thousands of years.
If ocean were increase by .5 C the ocean thermal expansion would cause a significant increase in sea levels. In last 100 years it’s though that about 2″ of the 7 inch rise in sea level is caused by ocean thermal expansion.
What causes our global temperature of about 15 C, is that 70% of the Earth surface is ocean, and average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C,
And the 30% of land surface has average temperature of about 10 C which total average global air surface temperature of about 15 C.
Because ocean surface is warmer, it keeps land surface warmer or what keeps land dweller warm is the relatively quite thin layer of warmer ocean surface water.
What warms the world is the tropical ocean surface, which has average temperature of about 26 C.
It’s said to be the world’s heat engine.
The tropical ocean is about 40% of the entire ocean, and average surface temperature of that majority of 60% of the rest of the ocean is about 11 C.
When the Earth is not in ice age, and average ocean temperature can be 10 C or warmer. This warmer water does not have much effect upon the surface temperature of the tropical ocean, but it has large effect on the surface temperature of remaining 60% of ocean surface- or polar regions are much warmer- there is no polar sea ice, even the winter.
It is thought that what is causing our ice age [or cold ocean] is due to geological processes- plate tectonic and arrangement land masses.
Here is a chart that supports what you say:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
This is the work of Robert A. Rhode, a geologist at Berkeley Earth. Note that for most of the last 65 million years there was no permanent ice at either pole. The Antarctic ice cap formed first because it is easier to build up ice on land than on an ocean. The the age of the Arctic ice cap is still being debated but you can be sure it started after the Antarctic re-glaciation (14 million years Before Present).
The “Ice Age” we live in only has one precedent in the last 300 million years as you can see in this chart by Scotese and Berner:
https://miro.medium.com/max/660/0*3Vm0copgT8K-pcRm.gif
And an increase in the rate of weathering.
There were likely at least two snowball Earth’s, where the entire surface was frozen, and possibly several more.
In any case it doesn’t matter, because the climate change we’re creating is happening in 200 years or less, as opposed to the millennial scale of the Pleistocene ice ages.
DA, you have no photographs of all those “snowball Earths”, do you? So, you have no proof. That means it’s all “pseudoscience”.
And, we’re NOT creating any climate change.
Learn some physics, and stay away from pseudoscience.
JDHuffman
I have no photographs of you. You do not exist.
E-man, that is obviously the same illogic you use to arrive at all of your other misconceptions.
IOW, in the memorable words of Gen. Honore, you’re “Stuck on stupid.”
Nothing new.
Well we don’t need tea leaves to tell that JDH exists.
As his illogic was mimicry of your illogic, it seems your quote should be applied to you. Even more so for not recognizing his mimicry.
Begone, witless troll!
Feel free to share your worthless opinions, Midas. Doing so won’t make up for your lack of facts, but maybe it will keep you busy so you won’t hurt yourself or others.
That’s always a concern with the depraved.
JDH
You certainly get frazzled when your illogic is pointed out.
Midas, please stop trolling.
So frazzled you needed to call in the one-sentence-wonder for assistance.
#2
Midas, please stop trolling.
Bill is still lying.
I never quoted an average Arctic SIV, but its linear trend since Dec 2012 is -272 km3/yr. Statistically significant, even though, as Nate says, Bill cherry picked his interval.
Over the entire span of the satellite data the trend is -305 km3/yr, for a change of -12,300 km3.
Since 1979, 48% of Arctic SIV has disappeared.
Enough for Bill, or does he want even more?
Opps, I was wrong, I did quote an average Arctic SIV.
My apologies, Bill.
–David Appell says:
August 11, 2019 at 8:17 AM
There were likely at least two snowball Earths, where the entire surface was frozen, and possibly several more.–
Wiki:
“The Snowball Earth hypothesis proposes that during one or more of Earth’s icehouse climates, Earth’s surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago). Proponents of the hypothesis argue that it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical palaeolatitudes and other enigmatic features in the geological record. Opponents of the hypothesis contest the implications of the geological evidence for global glaciation and the geophysical feasibility of an ice- or slush-covered ocean and emphasize the difficulty of escaping an all-frozen condition. A number of unanswered questions remain, including whether the Earth was a full snowball, or a “slushball” with a thin equatorial band of open (or seasonally open) water.”
According wiki, proponents claim a snowball earth occurred earlier 650 million years ago.
I think there is a lot uncertainty regarding Earth, more than 300 million years ago and our ocean floor younger the 300 million years, or since 70% of earth surface ocean, a large portion of earth surface is younger than 300 million years.
Or all we got which is old enough is on land area.
And the theory of plate tectonics which allows us understand this past, is less than 100 year old.
Let’s look at example of uncertainty:
Large unconfirmed craters
The largest unconfirmed craters 200 km (120 mi) or more are significant not only for their size, but also for the possible coeval events associated with them. For example, the Wilkes Land crater has been connected to the massive PermianTriassic extinction event. The sortable table has been arranged by diameter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth
So got list huge impact craters and they can’t be confirmed vs old kooky idea that not even well defined.
Can anyone even answer, what is the greatest area of earth covered with ice, recently [within last 5 million years]. IE:
“Quantitative chronologies for the impressive glacial successions that occur throughout the Himalaya have, until recently, been almost totally lacking. Within the last decade two new techniques have promised to remedy this situation.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215614484_A_note_on_the_extent_of_glaciation_in_the_Himalaya_during_the_global_Last_Glacial_Maximum
Wiki: Last Glacial Maximum
“According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), permanent summer ice covered about 8% of Earth’s surface and 25% of the land area during the last glacial maximum. The USGS also states that sea level was about 125 meters (410 feet) lower than in present times (2012).”
So extent of summer ice in both South and Northern hemisphere on land was 8% of 148,300,000 sq km or about 11.8 million square km.
What is it now:
Presently, 10 percent of land area on Earth is covered with glacial ice, including glaciers, ice caps, and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. Glacierized areas cover over 15 million square kilometers (5.8 million square miles).
But question how much ice in on the ocean, what is it presently:
“Arctic sea ice extent for January averaged 13.56 million square kilometers” And Antarctic sea ice is 18 million greatest extent
greatest arctic, March 2016, 14.52 million: 14 + 18 = 32 million plus 10% glacial= 47 million square km. Or great extent polar sea ice and glacial ice is currently less than 10% of earth surface.
And during last glacial maximum, wild guess same type total being around 25%.
So back question do know in last 5 million years whether instead about 25%, it was closer to 40%. Which does NOT mean at one time, but winter furthest extent of polar sea ice.
Or English channel frozen in winter during glacial periods, likely and assumed but frozen in summer, not likely, Or vast huge summer losses sea ice, given, what furthest extent by late winter/early spring AND every year or in terms decades of time there large variation
And point is we don’t know this, even if talking about within 5 million years, and snowball is more than 650 million year ago on very different land configuration then our current planet.
Which reminds of a point, show me drawing of the snowball planet- where the equator, what the tilt of equator, where is land the masses. Was there one super continent.
Btw, since there land bridge between America and Asia, and most the the time is glacial period, do we have super continent, currently. What is difference our current super continent to past super continent.
Ohh, the answer, apparently is a supercontinent has an old sea floor. But rather artistically opinion of what counts as one continent, one say young ocean floors and old ocean floors.
So we currently living in young ocean floor world.
Wiki, Supercontinent cycle:
…
“There is thus a relatively simple relationship between the supercontinent cycle and the mean age of the seafloor.
Supercontinent = lots of old seafloor = low sea level
Dispersed continents = lots of young seafloor = high sea level
There will also be a climatic effect of the supercontinent cycle that will amplify this further:
Supercontinent = continental climate dominant = continental glaciation likely = still lower sea level
Dispersed continents = maritime climate dominant = continental glaciation unlikely = sea level is not lowered by this mechanism”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle
So, in old ocean sea floor world or Supercontinent world would gets the “continental climate dominant”
I would say most people living [in their minds] in that world currently. It’s cold so they do have excuse for being so delusional.
In my view, Land cools and ocean warms. And seems to me that in old sea floor world, global temperature should be higher, but land temperature could be quite cold.
Hmm, so we have an enormous amount of volcanic activity in the ocean and that’s related to why we have a young sea floor.
Where is most of world’s volcanic activity when you have old sea floors?
It seems it also has to be in the ocean floor. First there is simply more ocean {there is always more ocean area}.
Question if have old ocean floors, do you have more or less super volcanoes then we have currently. It seems one might have very large volcanic eruptions. Maybe less often but bigger. Or maybe a massive but constant flow, maybe building mountains that don”t even reach the surface of ocean. But anyhow, question if have Supercontinent what is it’s average elevation.
It’s our high mountains are new and being built [by plate tectonic activity]. So it seems when formed the Supercontinent could high mountains and high average elevation. And you get glaciers and they tear them down {in terms a fast erosion mechanism],
So, one has what it’s like for brief periods [during formation, and millions of years] and what like for longest/longer periods, tens of millions of years.
If lower elevation, it will get more rainfall and if higher elevation, it will be drier. Though tropical ocean is still the heat engine, but if no land masses at equator, it seems El Nino is quite different, than ours.
What is your point? Your question?
If you going to believe in snowball Earth, you should have a map of that world.
And if believe is multiple snowball Earths, have a map for each.
Why?
Here’s a map of the world 540 Myrs ago:
https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/science/2018/05/08/news/interactive-map-shows-what-earth-looked-like-600-million-years-ago-1324606/
This page has an interactive map that goes back 600 Myrs:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5692167/Interactive-map-lets-travel-time-planet-600-million-years-history.html
“Heres a map of the world 540 Myrs ago:”
No, that Map goes to 750 Myrs and 600 Myrs
and also 540 Myrs ago
Wiki said:
“…sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago)”
I looked at 540 million year map; you think that could be
a map of your snowball Earth?
I doesn’t look like a type of Earth which would be a snowball.
I would guess more likely closer to hothouse climate, though seems there some mountains [a huge mountain range] which would allow good winter skiing opportunities.
Oh, also wiki, sort of agrees:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
[That Wiki ref seems indicate around 450 million could be much cooler]
Now not sure about colored map legend, but I looked 750 million Maps, and looks you could tropical glaciers.
You enter New York city, and put in middle big mountain range.
But doesn’t look like it would have any polar caps- though possible it has one.
But reading color may right, like huge amounts of huge mountain ranges and lot level regions.
David Appell says: Why? Heres a map of the world 540 Myrs ago:
Gee David you are all over this thread like a soup sandwich. Now you must be claiming The Irish News and the Daily Mail are science journals and failed to mention they didn’t reference their maps! LMAO!!!
Bill, both articles cite their source.
gbalkie: “Paleoclimates” by Thomas Cronin says there were at least two snowball/slushball Earths from 750-580 Myrs ago, and perhaps up to four.
David, please stop trolling.
Midas wrote the following as a comment-
“You, Huffman, Flynn:
Attacks against scientists and posters.
Politics.
Snide remarks.”
I pointed out a few flaws, and that he appeared to be not only a fool, but delusional to boot.
Midas responded –
“As that was a direct copy of the post I was replying to and not my own words, thanks for joining with me in attacking the nonsense of DREMT. Good to have you on board! (Oh wait – it’s somehow different when he posts it, right?)”
Midas attempted to weasel out of his plagiarism by playing fast and loose with the truth. A direct copy? He may not be conversant with the normal use of quotes to indicate that he has, indeed, copied someone else’s words verbatim!
He has discovered the pitfalls of pretending others’ words are his own. Taking credit without attribution is the hallmark of the fraud, the fake and the fool.
Midas then compounds his delusional foolishness by asserting that I was joining him in attacking someone else! What a Wally – this is the sort of lunacy by assertion that is the usual tactic of pseudoscientific GHE true believers. In other words, deny, divert, and confuse, and never let the facts intrude on delusional fantasy.
Midas may have even convinced himself that the Earth has not cooled over the last four and a half billion years, that Gavin Schmidt is a world famous climate scientist, that Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize, and that CO2 makes thermometers hotter!
Oh well, all part of the rich tapestry of life. Maybe Midas thinks he can bend Nature to his will with the immense self nominated power of this intellect. Or maybe not.
Cheers.
Plagiarism …. hahaha. If I was going to plagiarize I would choose something intellectual. Try ‘mimicry’.
M,
You may be ignorant of the normal method of indicating that you have appropriated the words of another, or stupid enough to boast about having done it. Or maybe you now claim intellectual sloppiness as an excuse?
Here is a description of plagiarism –
“Plagiarism is the “wrongful appropriation” and “stealing and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions” and the representation of them as one’s own original work. Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty . . . ”
If you are a pseudoscientific GHE true believer, you will promptly redefine plagiarism to your own benefit. No doubt others will form their own opinions.
If you can’t actually come up with a useful description of the non-existent GHE, you might as well come up with any number of diversions to cover your ignorance. That might be viewed as stupidity, I suppose.
Cheers.
“Academic dishonesty” … hahaha – you actually believe those words qualify as belonging to academia – hilarious! Oh no – now I will not be awarded my thesis!
M,
Keep wriggling. Deny, divert, confuse. Standard pseudoscientific GHE true believer tactics, eh?
Maybe you need to brush up your diversionary trolling skills.
That way, you can avoid having to face facts – CO2 heats nothing, and the GHE is a myth.
Have fun.
Cheers.
Are you offering coaching in diversionary trolling skills?
If you won’t share your expertise then I have no one else to turn to.
M,
You wrote –
“If you wont share your expertise then I have no one else to turn to.”
As is typical for pseudoscientific GHE true believers, you try to blame your lack of competence on me!
What a fool! Do your own work, don’t expect me to spoon feed you. Are you truly so stupid and ignorant that you cannot find anyone else to look up to? Although I thank you for your compliment, I do not value it as highly as I would if it came form someone wise and knowledgeable.
I can only suggest that you apply yourself more diligently, and try to make the best use of your limited intellectual resources. I have tried my best to help you to reduce your considerable ignorance, but of course your innate stupidity has negated my efforts to a degree.
I wish you well, in any case.
Cheers.
Obviously the electrodes did not work on MF. Maybe I should attach them to a different part of his anatomy.
Careful nurse. First work out where his brain is located. Could be hard to find.
Begone, psychobabbling trolls!
MF
“I have tried my best to help you”
Indeed, you have provided great examples of diversionary trolling for me to refer to. Unfortunately I don’t seem to have your creativity in this regard. I bow down to you o Lord of the Trolls.
M,
Thank you for your misguided admiration. Feel free to boast about your stupidity, ignorance and lack of ability if it makes you feel better.
I wish you well.
Cheers.
Always happy to admit to not having your trolling ability.
Midas, please stop trolling.
Widespread snow all over the East Coast of Australia – first time in decades
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/widespread-snow-all-over-the-east-coast-of-australia-first-time-in-decades/
I liked the sub-headline: Not what the climate models predicted
Yup, we could have told them that….
If only climate models had attempted to predict weather events.
And as you claimed there is snow all over the east COAST, perhaps you’d care to find a photo of snow cover with a beach in the background.
M,
You wrote –
“And as you claimed there is snow all over the east COAST, perhaps youd care to find a photo of snow cover with a beach in the background.”
Are you too lazy and incompetent to do your own research, or just trolling?
Why should anybody accede to your suggestions?
Are you perhaps vastly important (other than in your own mind)? Is your opinion superior to others for some reason?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
No need to do my own research. I live near the beach. No snow in sight. The snow is in the mountains, not on the coast. Apparently it is Joanne Nova who was too lazy to do proper research.
M,
You wrote –
“I live near the beach. No snow in sight. The snow is in the mountains, not on the coast.”
Why didn’t you just say so? Do you have some compulsion to keep information secret and hidden?
If you disagree with something, you could always say what it is, and then provide some logical or factual basis for your disagreement. This might go against the grain, if you are a pseudoscientific GHE true believer, more interested in scoring points, trolling, and making asinine attempts at gotchas and gratuitous insults.
Still no GHE description, is there? CO2 still heats nothing. You remain ignorant and stupid. Ah, well.
Carry on.
Cheers.
Glad to see you agree that Joanne Nova is a liar.
M,
You wrote –
“Glad to see you agree that Joanne Nova is a liar.”
You are just making stuff up again. That is why you cannot quote me saying any such thing. The typical attempt at misdirection employed by the pseudoscientific GHE true believers.
Others can see plainly that your preference for fantasy over fact indicates a delusional state of mind.
You have good company in that regard. The likes of Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth, for example. Keep making stuff up if you wish – it doesn’t change reality, but the weak minded and gullible may be drawn into your fantasy. Who knows – there is probably more than one born every minute.
Cheers.
If Nova claimed there is snow on the coast when the only snow is in the mountains then she is a liar. You couldn’t challenge that beyond making an assertion and instead resorted to misdirection.
M,
You are a fool.
If you think Joanne Nova is a liar, that is your opinion. Asserting that I agree with your opinion is just nonsensical.
You didn’t ask me for my opinion. Your mind reading skills are obviously defective – you are deluded if you think you can either read my mind or force me to think as you wish.
Carry on displaying your delusional fixation.
Cheers.
Let me make this simple for you.
Nova claims A.
A is false.
Therefore Nova lied about A.
Surely you and your clan of baboons can follow that simple logic.
Midas, please stop trolling.
The whole global warming scam is based in the deception of showing only last 200 years of warming from the little ice age
as soon as you put it in the context of last 10000 years Holocene the claim turns into to a complete farce
https://i.postimg.cc/gcMv1HTm/Greenland-Ice-core-data-RB-Alley.png
That turns out not to be the case.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/
Great post Entropic man!!!!!
This undeniably establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt the vast left wing science conspiracy!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png
Here we have Real Climate, Researchers from Harvard and Oregon State and even manage to drag in the The Pages2k consortium of 80 scientists.
And of course we also have Josh Willis a decade ago caving into pressure to adjust the cooling signal he was receiving from the deep ocean on what? LOL! It all started with non-compliance with tidal gauges and how his results could not be accepted in the face of rising sea levels!
Here we have the self-proclaimed leading climate sciences regaling us with 3000 years of cooling with zero response from sea level research!!!!!
Looks like a job for the Pages 2.2K consortium!!!
Its all propaganda posing as science.
Bill, your graph is a great illustration of the problem we face. It shows about 125 m of sea level rise for a rise in the global average temperature of 5 C.
That’s 25 meters per degC.
That’s what we’re in for. That’s what will drown the world over the next couple of millennia.
David Appell says: – Thats what were in for. Thats what will drown the world over the next couple of millennia.
I am not worried in the least about it. With 3,000 years of cooling yet to show up on the sea level gauges you are actually talking about at least 5,000 years from now.
DA says: ” That’s what will drown the world over the next couple of millennia.”
DA, the oceans are much deeper than the land masses are higher. So, if all the land masses were spread out evenly, the ocean would be over a mile deep, over the entire surface of Earth. That’s why it has been said Earth is a “water planet”.
If you are concerned about the oceans filling up with sediment, you should be addressing that issue, which can be solved with engineering. But believing CO2 is a threat to sea level rise is pseudoscience.
Do you want reality, or pseudoscience?
bill hunter says:
With 3,000 years of cooling yet to show up on the sea level gauges you are actually talking about at least 5,000 years from now.
What science says 3000 yrs of cooling?
Marcott et al. does, and I take that to be the best we have on Holocene temperatures.
I expect it was a struggle between long term ice sheet adjustments lingering since the ice age, millennium term ocean expansion, and short term glacier growth.
Do you have any science on that David?
Marcott et al.:
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/marcott-et-al-2013-2.jpg
There is also the huge and slow isostatic adjustment after the ice age, which is still going on.
The modern temperature rise is of course outpacing it completely.
David, Svante, please stop trolling.
Bill wrote:
“With 3,000 years of cooling yet to show up on the sea level gauges you are actually talking about at least 5,000 years from now.”
That’s just a very poor understanding of physics.
Svante, Bill isn’t writing about IAs, he’s claiming past coolings somehow wait to lower sea level until Batman gives it the bat signal.
David Appell says: ———Thats just a very poor understanding of physics.———–
I’ll accept that. Better than no understanding.
David Appell says: ———Svante, Bill isnt writing about IAs, hes claiming past coolings somehow wait to lower sea level until Batman gives it the bat signal.————
Thats just one of your typical dead brain assumptions David. What I am getting at would be termed sealevel rise momentum that arises from the fact that the oceans lag rather dramatically in their rate of warming compared to an atmosphere claimed to be the source of heat for the warming. The longer term portion of that momentum in a science paper I read several years ago after extensive sampling of ocean heat uptake concluded that the surface ocean responded in about 10 years or so, but that there was not enough information to estimate how long the deep ocean would take to respond suggesting periods of a 1,000 years or longer.
Thus when you started cavalierly throwing around large numbers I made a facetious reply because I new it would confound you be really not more than a rote memory student of whatever you are told by whatever teacher tells you. Thats why you hand around on a blog of all places and pretend its a science paper project and everybody should footnote everything they say. For God’s sake David its a blog for casual discussion of the issues. You probably ought to disappear for a few years and write a paper on why blogs are not true science. There is a probably a healthy market out there for folks that don’t know that. Now if you could actually contribute something, like how atmospheric absorbed energy ends up at the surface rather in outerspace, bring some actual demonstrable evidence to that your contributions would probably at least match what you think they do.
climate shystering 101 – if you make a graph with highly smooth out and averaged past temperature data but use the final number as absolute value which hapens to be at higher point than average at this time , you create an incredibly deceptive hockey stick.despite the fact the past peaks were significantly higher than the present one, but the long time averiging just cuts them all off.
If you actually don’t know how these deceptive charts are made you are totally scientificaly retarded , if you know it and post it around anyway you are in on the con .
For the moment I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know it and do it because you are 100% full of climate shyte.
climate shystering 101 – if you make a graph with highly smooth out and averaged past temperature data but use the final number as absolute value which happens to be at higher point than average at this time , you create an incredibly deceptive hockey stick.despite the fact the past peaks were significantly higher than the present one, but the long time averaging just cuts them all off.
If you actually don’t know how these deceptive charts are made you are totally scientifically retarded , if you know it and post it around anyway you are in on the con .
For the moment I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know it and do it because you are 100% full of climate shyte.
Eben, you obviously think you are smart when it comes to graphs and charts. Tell us all what you think about this map of the latest sea surface temperature anomalies:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
DrM, summer is hot – so what?
As Bill Hunter said “Its all propaganda posing as science”
What happens with the charts like you show is that very tiny temperature difference is depicted in dark red color and opposite direction in blue ,
if temperatures were different in the past or will be in the future that change could not be fitted into this color chart because you cannot get any bluer or any redder ,
Another Climate shystering trick to create drama with optical illusion if you understand it.
And to be fair , Dr Roy chart is not right either , his chart has only 1.5C scale range to accommodate the short term variation and the last El Nino spike almost run off the chart. That chart should have the full range scale of known Holocene variation at the least which is 4C , to put it in the proper context
Eben: the purpose of a graph is to communicate the most amount of information possible in a succinct way.
Drawing axes to numbers were there are no data violates that and is a waste of time. We’re concerned about warming in the modern world, the one we have adapted to today, not the distant past where no one now lives.
Sheesh.
DA,
You wrote –
“Were concerned about warming in the modern world, the one we have adapted to today, not the distant past where no one now lives.’
True. Having presumably evolved to take advantage of available conditions, mankind manages to exist in a wide variety of habitats – temperatures from -50C to +50C using primitive technology, and in excess of that if modern technology is used.
Maybe you are unreasonably frightened of the unknown. Nature will do as she decrees. With any luck, mankind may survive as long as the cockroach – a long time.
Don’t worry too much – it won’t make any difference.
Cheers.
David Appell says: ———Eben: the purpose of a graph is to communicate the most amount of information possible in a succinct way.
Were concerned about warming in the modern world, the one we have adapted to today, not the distant past where no one now lives.—————-
I have to agree completely with David on this one.
The scale we should be using for a short period should include the entire range of diurnal and seasonal temperatures over the period the graph covers.
You do realize this is the temperature for Greenland up to about 1850. What do you think the graph looks like when you add in the warming at Greenland, which is at least 2x more than that of the global mean, up to the present?
Do you still trust Alley’s data?
bdgwx says:
“What do you think the graph looks like when you add in the warming at Greenland, which is at least 2x more than that of the global mean, up to the present?”
See graphs in this fact check:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
bdgwx, Svante, please stop trolling.
Eben, Bill Hunter
Speakings! of climate shyte, have you looked at your own graph.
The temperature values are from Alley, around -30C. The others have been put on with no indication of the temperature range or values they represent. Does the historical record really show temperatures around -30C around 690AD, thousands of miles from Greenland and a thousand years before centigrade thermometers were invented.
BP is “Before Present” and for paleo data the datum year is 1950AD, not the 2000AD claimed.
The graph comes nowhere near the present. The Alley data stops at 95BP, 1855AD, and there is no indication of the dates at which the other data ends.
Where are the error bars? The Marcott data has a time resolution averaging multiple readings over a moving average of 120 years and temperature confidence limits of +/- 0.2C.
Go back to Alley’ s original data and you find that he takes individual readings every 50 years with no indication of temperature confidence limits at all.
DrM, summer is hot – so what?
As Bill Hunter said “Its all propaganda posing as science”
Here is an interesting finding from the Cowton York University tool. If you zero the temp at 1979.7 and check the trend to 1998.99 ( peak of the el nino ) you get 0.159 c/ dec.
Then set the start date at 2000.1 ( zero again) and the end date at the highest el nino of 2016.95 you have a trend of 0.109 c/ dec. Or much lower than the earlier trend.
If you also extend the trend to the present day 2000.1 to 2019.8 you find 0.132 c/dec or about the same as the 40 year trend.
BTW I used UAH V 6 data for this and I may have made a mistake, but I hope someone will check. Heres the tool.
I hope Roy also has the time to look at this Cowton software data and check it out.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
BTW the York Uni tool also shows that RSS V4 is 1.57 times the trend of UAH V6, since DEC 1978. That’s 0.203c/ dec compared to 0.129 c/ dec. Why is it so? Just asking.
UAH and RSS make different choices when modeling the microwave emission data collected by satellites. Roy wrote about it here (among other places):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
Which is why the satellite data is not as accurate as many like to claim. The readings are accurate; converting the readings to temperatures involves a lot of guesswork.
And ground temperature measurements are not better.
A data-set that changes its linear trend from negative to positive or vice-versa “adjusting” it for “known underlying physics” such irrigation or UHI, is useless.
As an old professor of physics of mine used to say “thermometers
measure the temperature of themselves”. Nothing is more true than that,
Have a great day.
Massimo
Where are you quoting this “known underlying physics” from?
Hi Midas,
I was not quoting any physics indeed.
I was just using sarcasm to highlight how the world ground temperature database is corrected by this and that phenomenon (irrigation for cooling and UHI for warming, for example) and how those correction (more or less known to be valid) weight more than all the others players in computing the temperature trend since they change the trend in one direction or the other.
Have a great day.
Massimo
How about you refrain from sarcasm and write something which indicates an understanding of what the adjustments are and why they are made.
Hi Midas,
“How about you refrain from sarcasm and write something which indicates an understanding of what the adjustments are and why they are made.”
You were arguing about reliability of satellites temperature measurements because of their adjustments (which I agree with you), and I just highlighted that ground measurements are not better under that perspective because of adjustments which are dominant on the resulting trend. Since those adjustments are guessworks too, the raw measured temperatures adjusted by them are useless.
Have as great day.
Massimo
Massimo wrote:
As an old professor of physics of mine used to say thermometers
measure the temperature of themselves. Nothing is more true than that
What did your professor say when thermometers die and new ones must be used — how do you calibrate the two? What if a thermometer is moved to a different location? What if over time it’s read at different times of the day? What if it breaks and isn’t replaced? What if new technology is used to measure temperature than was used for the first several decades?
Adjustments are the science of getting useful information from nonideal raw data.
BTW, the raw data has a higher warming trend than the adjusted data.
David Appell says: –
Adjustments are the science of getting useful information from nonideal raw data.
————–
Adjustments don’t provide information. All they are are expressions of the beliefs of the researcher. Adjustments are justified if you have a reliable benchmark to work with. But few exist for weather stations. When you have a lot of money to throw around you can get people to do anything you want. Even lowering the trend. Especially when you notice that lowering the trend is lowering the 160 year trend, you know the trend folks throw in your face every day as an indicator of underlying natural warming?
BH
If you believe adjustments are decided on the spur of the moment at the whim of the researcher then you have never read how they are done. (Or read but not understood.)
Hi David,
I fully agree with Bill.
Anyways, it seems to me that you neither catched the point, what my old professor where saying is that any thermometer reports the temperature its way measuring that temperature at its own detector interface with the outer world. For that thermometers having different shape, size and technology have different behaviors and report different temperature in some circumstances even after an accurate calibration with reference temperature sources.
For example: let’s consider a last generation radiometer to measure the temperature of air by LWIR (which is one of the most complicate setup for doing it, because air radiation in the LWIR isn’t its temperature in the particular point where we want to measure indeed). For doing it, we need a target for which we know the emissivity, and we need to let it stabilize its own temperature to the air surrounding to get the measurement. But even if we know with high confidence the emissivity of the target and its thermodynamic behavior, what is really the temperature in case of a no wind day and in case of a windy day?
In the no wind day, the target reports an average of the air temperature close to it, while in windy days it reports an average on a greater volume of air which depends day by day from the wind direction.
IMHO, it’s not so easy to use the temperature parameter for establish something changing with the precision, accuracy and resolution that climate science pretend to do using statistic.
In the case of the ground temperature data-set there is also the belief that “homogenizing” few points and then averaging the results of the thermal array one could get the ground averaged temperature, which is at least an ingenuous approach (doing that, in the best case you get the average of the few measured points).
As always said, I’m not a scientist but an electronic engineer, so it happens that in some cases I need to design devices where the thermal dissipation is a critical point. Thanks to the advent of the last generation of “moderate-cost” thermo-cameras, few years ago I bought one for identify hot spots in my designs. Well, few months ago on the WEB it has been available a Chinese very low cost thermo-camera which the advertising video was amazing to me, and considering the very low cost, I decided to buy one to see if it were true that that camera was doing what they advertised (I’m an irreducible skeptic, you know).
That camera does a 2D spatial “homogenization” to transform the very low spatial resolution of the 32 by 24 points detector to get the awesome images of the advertise.
I’m sure that now you are asking yourself: So, where is the point?
Indeed, For the moment, it seems that thanks to a magic algorithm, few spatial resoluted data can be massaged to get coherent higher resolution images, but that’s not the case.
In fact, after checking my hand temperature (such it was done into the advertising video) and wondering for the incredibly awesome result, I pointed it to a non thermally homogeneous target with some small hot spots (an hand is quiet homogeneous in temperature instead) and I seen the image shown by this video here (the camera it’s exactly that):
https://youtu.be/2u_SzInwvPc?t=1516
My 200 by 160 detectrors thermal-camera in the same place shown a very reliable thermal image instead.
As Bill wrote “Adjustments are justified if you have a reliable benchmark to work with.”, and computing adjacent points from the measured ones is not a good adjustment to get a more resolute image, even using the last best performing algorithm.
NOAA in its “REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR NWS CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS” On page 7 chapter 3.1 “Air Temperature Measurement”
https://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013002curr.pdf
wrote:
“An object will be considered an obstruction if the object is greater than ten degrees in horizontal width as measured from the instrument and within 200 feet of the instrument. The instrument should be no closer than four times the estimated height of any nearby building, tree, fence, or similar obstruction.”
This means that the temperature of objects further than that lengths can be considered no way correlated to the instrument measurements.
So, NOAA says that it suffices a relatively short distance from obstacles to avoid wrong temperature measurements, but pretends to compute 5km adjacent square grids from that same measurements to “homogenize” and average the temperature. This is a paradox for me.
Have a great day.
Massimo
bill hunter says:
Adjustments don’t provide information.
Adjustments correct for biases.
How would you prefer to correct for those biases?
PS: The long-term trend is precisely the one used to calculate total warming (now 1.0 C).
Massimo PORZIO says:
what my old professor where saying is that any thermometer reports the temperature its way measuring that temperature at its own detector interface with the outer world. For that thermometers having different shape, size and technology have different behaviors and report different temperature in some circumstances even after an accurate calibration with reference temperature sources.
Yes. And this is EXACTLY the problem.
To get long-term temperature records, you have to decide how to handle these “reports of different temperatures.” That’s what adjustments do. Climate science is an observational science, and you never get the perfect data you want, so you have to use the data you have.
So how are you going to do that? How do you propose to handle different thermomerters which can’t be calibrated?
By the way, UAH and RSS have to now join up something like 12 different satellite readings, some with gaps in between them, and decide how a microwave measurement today compares to one 40 years ago and 11 satellites ago. Magic algorithms?
Are these adjustments suspect too?
I’m sorry David,
I understand that when people like you that never really worked on the field can’t neither understand where the real problem laid and can’t be fixed at all for the supposed accuracy and precision with magic adjustments. Remain of your opinion if you are glad with that. Last year I changed my job and now I’m too busy to spend too much time repeating over and over the same concept.
Have a great day.
David Appell says: – bill hunter says:
Adjustments don’t provide information.
Adjustments correct for biases.
How would you prefer to correct for those biases?
PS: The long-term trend is precisely the one used to calculate total warming (now 1.0 C).
We agree David. Adjustments correct for bias.
1) They project the bias of the adjuster in the determination to do the work to find a bias.
2) When a possible bias is found the adjuster who was biased enought to spend the resources to search for a bias now substitutes his bias.
To the casual observer the bias correction will be correct if the bias of the observer matches the correction.
The job of an auditor is to cut through all this bias and to do that one needs a complete documentation on the nature of the search for biases (as if the search is biased correcting biases will introduce a new bias by only correcting half the bias).
In climate science temperature records are closely held and they even resist legal obligations to expose their work, thats a prima facie case of the holder of the record knowing of his bias.
For instance Phil Jones saying he would rather destroy the raw data than give it to Steve McIntyre then lost the data when the court ordered him to give it to him. Dirty business.
The truth has a tendency to come out no matter how hard folks try to suppress it.
David Appell says: – Yes. And this is EXACTLY the problem.
———————
Sometimes David you hit the nail right on top of the head!
—————–
—————–
David Appell says: –
To get long-term temperature records, you have to decide how to handle these reports of different temperatures. Thats what adjustments do. Climate science is an observational science, and you never get the perfect data you want, so you have to use the data you have.
So how are you going to do that? How do you propose to handle different thermomerters which cant be calibrated?
———————-
Science used for policy in good policy making processes deal with this issue in the following manner:
The questionable observations are brought out on the table in a fully transparent and public process. Experts are invited. Panels are created using experts recommended by the public and all the stakeholders. The experts lead the discussion in meetings open to the public. The public is allowed to make comments usually in free form in line. Only when the audience includes disingenuous persons whose objective is to avoid the removal of bias who act in a disruptive manner is the public’s input regulated. Its unfortunate when that happens as anybody’s viewpoint is important. Some of the best ideas come from the non-expert audience because the interested public usually has some real hands on experience with the subject manner that is sometimes lacking in the expert panel
Ultimately the expert panel makes a decision. At a minimum this decision and the reasons behind it are fully understood. The process does not always work because of heavy influences in politics over which experts should be appointed. But if honest attempts are made to compose the panel with qualified parties recommended by the entire range of stakeholders usually the decision ends up being the correct one.
Basically the pattern of temperature corrections in climate science has been the exact opposite of this rather well proven process.
Bias is pervasive, you can see it on every blog whether its experts or amateurs. Making corrections in the closet is simply more a process of introducing bias. You show it in every thread you participate in David. People cannot read a single post of yours without knowing where your bias lays.
You probably even think this post of mine is biased. No science is not a popularity contest thus science panels should not represent the majority of any special interest group whether it be scientists or the public. Consideration of every viewpoint is worthy of consideration as long as its given in a genuine concern for finding the truth. Determining if that is the case is best judged by the words of the testimony, are they intended to inform or disrupt. Sometimes anger makes it difficult to listen but its still important to listen.
Hi Bill.
I’m Italian and one of my troubles writing here is my very bad English, that make me spend a lot of time checking if what I wrote is at least comprehensible.
Having read you last two posts, I fully agree with your argument.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO says: I’m Italian . . . .
Thanks Massimo. Your english is fine. Sometimes my reading comprehension isn’t so fine and I mistook what you were saying.
Indeed we are in agreement that the fact CO2 radiates/absorbs in the atmosphere does not mean its going to affect the surface.
No, they were specific criticisms focused on the article.
Such as the authors not giving the source of their cloud data.
Shouldn’t a proper paper give that?
What about the assumption that CO2’s climate sensitivity is 0.24 C? For that they cited another only their own work — one never published, the other two published in junk journals.
Citing one’s own claims is scientific masturbation.
David, please stop trolling.
Since we are already “Off Topic” with this talk of Paleo climate going back 650 million years and “Snowball Earth” there is an interactive website that you may like:
https://www.biointeractive.org/classroom-resources/earthviewer
Just fire up the program and you can examine Earth all the way back to the Cambrian (750 million years BP) when Bogota and London were near the south pole.
Or you may like the end of the Carboniferous (300 million years ago) when temperatures were similar to today. Back then London, Chicago and Toronto were all on the equator which may explain where all that coal and fracking gas came from.
You can watch the polar ice caps form and then melt. Awesome!
I see it shows snowball earths.
But seems comical to me.
Though I don’t imagine that they see it as humor.
gc,
You wrote –
“Just fire up the program and you can examine Earth all the way back to the Cambrian (750 million years BP) when Bogota and London were near the south pole.”
Not really. Brightly coloured computer generated animations are no more real than The Lion King, or other cartoon animations.
The “Snowball Earth” hypothesis has no particular basis, in other words it is merely speculation based on wishful thinking.
From Nature –
“The hypothesis that Earth was completely covered in ice 635 million years ago has received a serious blow. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide during that period was much lower than previously thought, according to a team of researchers.”
Unfortunately, nobody has managed to provide any better reason for a large molten blob of rock (the Earth), would spontaneously become covered with ice, than proposing a magical “cooling event”.
Very speculative. Speculating on previous crust locations is about as reliable as speculating on the origins of individual vehicles in a carpark. Where did they come from? Who knows? Where was Mt Everest when the marine fossils found higher than 6000 m were created? Good luck with supporting your guess.
I prefer a little more basis for my guesses about the past, but it really makes no difference. The past is gone – it happened, and that was that. Guessing that the future will resemble the past is generally reasonable, with the benefit that anyone can do it, and it costs nothing to guess.
For me, snowball earth is unsupported speculation.
Cheers.
Perhaps you should research paleomagnetism.
Of course you will balk at the suggestion of doing research that will explain the science for you, and instead resort to childish name calling.
M,
You wrote –
“Perhaps you should research paleomagnetism.”
And perhaps I don’t need to. Perhaps I know more about paleomagnetism than you are ever likely to. Perhaps you could quote something with which you disagree, and support your disagreement with logic or fact.
Just throwing around sciencey words doesn’t make you look intelligent.
You might appear more impressive if you could explain the role of paleomagnetism in magical “cooling events”. You might well discover that you don’t know as much as you thought.
Cheers.
If you did actually have the slightest inkling about paleomagnetism, you would know that there is no claim that it played a part in cooling. Perhaps you should use your mastery of the science of paleomagnetism to figure out which part of your comment I was actually responding to.
M,
You wrote –
“Perhaps you should use your mastery of the science of paleomagnetism to figure out which part of your comment I was actually responding to.”
Ah, I see. Do you think your importance is such that it is up to others to try to figure out what you are blathering about?
Keep being mysterious. You never know, somebody even more stupid and ignorant than yourself might believe you have the secret description of the GHE, or know the location of Trenberth’s missing heat. Good luck with that.
Cheers.
Anyone who knew the science of paleomagnetism and had read your comment would know precisely what part I was replying to. No ‘figuring out’ would be necessary.
Midas, please stop trolling.
I’ll see how specific I can be.
You say “Where was Mt Everest when the marine fossils found higher than 6000 m were created? Good luck with supporting your guess.”
Why do you disagree with the paleomagnetic evidence of the movement of the Indian subcontinent that explains how the fossils on Mount Everest come from the sea floor between the Asian continent and the north bound subcontinent?
https://www.academia.edu/18401140/The_paleoposition_of_India
CT,
Maybe you should link to a paper which actually supports your position. Speculation and hypothesis do not constitute fact. And, of course, the abstract does not mention paleomagnetism at all.
You might do better quoting whatever it is that you think favours your unstated disagreement with something I wrote.
You wrote –
“Why do you disagree with the paleomagnetic evidence of the movement of the Indian subcontinent that explains how the fossils on Mount Everest come from the sea floor between the Asian continent and the north bound subcontinent?”
Why do you think I disagree? I doubt you can quote me saying that, and if so, you are just makingg stuff up. Be that as it may, postulating that Mt Everest must have been somewhere (presumably below sea level) is not terribly helpful.
I wish you better luck with supporting your next guess.
Cheers.
“Perhaps I know more about paleomagnetism than you are ever likely to.”
“Why do you think I disagree?”
“Keep being mysterious.”
“Ah, I see. Do you think your importance is such that it is up to others to try to figure out what you are blathering about?”
“And, of course, the abstract does not mention paleomagnetism at all.”
You should have at least read the paper’s introduction.
CT,
I assume you are trying to disagree with something I wrote.
You have provided random quotes, contradicted none of them, and then tell I should do something at your behest – for no good reason at all! Don’t be silly.
The link you provided appears to refer to some other paper than the one you now claim to be relevant. Your link seems to refer to “The_paleopositon_of_India”, but instead links to “The longest voyage: Tectonic, magmatic, and paleoclimatic evolution of the Indian plate during its northward flight from Gondwana to Asia”.
The introduction which you claim I should have read apparently comes form yet another paper “India’s Northward Drift from Gondwana to Asia During the Late Cretaceous-Eocene.”
In any case, phrases such as ” . . .a number of issues continue to be hotly debated, . . .”, and references to “plausible”, “most likely”, “suggested”, don’t inspire confidence, do they?
As I may have stated before, speculation, guesses, maybe even the chance of a worthwhile hypothesis.
Maybe you could let me know what you are disagreeing with? Quoting me might help.
Or you could just give up, and avoid looking like a stupid and ignorant pseudoscientific GHE true believer. Your choice, of course.
Cheers.
“The link you provided appears to refer to some other paper than the one you now claim to be relevant. … The introduction which you claim I should have read apparently comes form yet another paper ‘India’s Northward Drift from Gondwana to Asia During the Late Cretaceous-Eocene.'”
I only gave one link. I know I should give up expecting a straight answer on any topic from you.
@Craig T,
Take a look at India in Earthviewer around 75 Mya. It is heading due north at an amazing clip on its way to colliding with the rest of Asia.
Then the colossal impact………hence the Himalayas and marine fossils at 6,000 m. This is very recent in geologic terms so the Himalayas have not lost much height to erosion.
Actually your quote is from Science Daily. Even then you ignored that the article was questioning how the Earth warmed after glaciation. The paper doesn’t dispute the fact that the Earth went through a glaciation around 635 million years ago.
http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~cartigny/2011-Nature-Sansjofreetal.pdf
“The paper doesnt dispute the fact that the Earth went through a glaciation around 635 million years ago.”
A glaciation doesn’t mean much. Nor a does large glaciation in the tropics mean much.
We have tropical glaciers right now.
I think I know how to create a worldwide glaciation, in our present Ice box climate. But does not freeze the ocean, in fact describe as way to cause global warming- because my idea would warm the ocean.
I will describe it again:
The ocean’s average temperature is 3.5 C.
It’s said that 90% of the ocean is 3 C or colder.
This known- it’s not a matter of dispute.
The average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C.
The average land surface air temperature is about 10 C.
I will note that the average temperature of Antarctica is very cold BUT it’s does not effect the average global temperature numbers- much. But not saying Antarctica does not effect our global climate and temperature, rather I am talking averaging temperature and area of the Earth- or Antarctica is too small to have much effect in terms the average global air temperature. Though Antarctica does have a effect upon the average number of all land area of Earth being about 10 C {probably less effect than most people imagine- but obviously it does have effect because it’s larger portion of the smaller area of the total Earth land surface area [148,300,000 square km].
If divide ocean further:
The tropical ocean average temperature is about 26 C and about 40% of entire ocean average surface temperature, and 60% of the rest of the ocean is about 11 C.
And likewise well known, the Earth tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world [it warms the poles and everything else].
So the way to glaciate all the land area, would largely be by turning off the Earth’s heat engine.
So you do this by mixing the warm tropical surface with the cold tropical ocean water at depth.
Obviously the warm surface water is more buoyant then colder water, but energy [or vast amounts amounts of salt] can force the warmer water lower in order to mix it with the cold water.
Using salt is too expensive, as compared to low cost of energy needed to pump warm water lower.
Now, obviously if just lower tropical ocean temperature to 11 C, that lowers the average ocean temperature to 11 C.
Not sure if Earth has ever had an average ocean surface temperature of 11 C.
Obviously it would stop Europe from being warmed by the gulf stream. It said Europe is warmed by about 10 C from the Gulf stream. Europe average temperature is about 9 C, currently.
A bigger and more expensive project would mixing the entire ocean and causing the average ocean surface temperature to be 3.5 C
which would have more dramatic effects.
So this crashesg global average temperature as we are measuring it, but in terms of planet earth, it a warming effect.
The longer you mix the ocean, the greater the warming effect. Humans living on land would be cold [or a lot colder than they are now].
What many people don’t realize is that a computer program is just theory.
Models are theory.
Nothing more than a theory write on a book.
The bible is also theory written in a book.
So, what?
I don’t get your point.
Have a great day.
Massimo
No worries – I didn’t get your point.
Ok,
have a great day.
Massimo
M,
You wrote –
“The bible is also theory written in a book.”
This is also based on your hidden knowledge, is it?
Where may this “theory” be found – in your imaginary fantasy world?
Are you a fool masquerading as a dimwit, or vice versa? It’s very hard to tell from your rather odd comments.
Cheers.
Not MY imaginary fantasy world. The imaginary fantasy world of people who believe death is survivable.
M,
I asked –
“Where may this theory be found in your imaginary fantasy world?”
You have indicated it is not in your imaginary fantasy world. It doesn’t actually exist anywhere, does it? You fool, you don’t actually understand what a theory is – a scientific one, of course.
Keep trying to deflect and divert. Still no description of the GHE, is there? Wriggle away.
Cheers.
Who claimed that the theory expressed in the bible is a scientific one? Certainly not me. No rational person would label that nonsense as ‘science’. In a non-academic sense, ‘theory’ carries the meaning of ‘hypothesis’. And there is certainly nothing of academic value in the bible.
M,
You still haven’t managed to say where this “theory” of yours may be found, have you?
As is usual for pseudoscientific GHE true believers, you have redefined theory to mean hypothesis. However, you claimed that “The bible is also theory written in a book.”.
If you have now decided that you really meant to write “hypothesis” instead of “theory”, fine. Where may this seemingly non-existent “hypothesis” be found?
It certainly seems as though you are just making stuff up as you go along, or you are so confused and sloppy that you don’t actually know what you are talking about. When you wrote – “The bible is also theory written in a book.”, were you just stringing random words together, attempting to be deceptive, or just thought nobody would query your stupidity and ignorance?
How about trying to talk about religion generally – that might be a useful diversion, I suppose. I suggest you might define what “theory” or “hypothesis” you are claiming is expressed in the Bible. You claim there is nothing of “academic” value in the Bible, so presumably you are using the academic meaning of “theory”. I assume you are trying to appear smart, but you just look stupid. Which version of the Bible are you referring to? Do you claim that your “theory” is written in each individual version of the book?
You appear to be an ignorant and stupid fool, spouting nonsense. You aren’t even creating controversy, as your proposals border on incoherency. A few lessons in basic English expression might help you.
You don’t need to thank me. It’s my pleasure to assist those less capable than myself.
Cheers.
Midas practices his false religion: “And there is certainly nothing of academic value in the bible.”
Obviously Midas is unaware that the Bible has been used extensively in archeology. At least two biblical towns have been found, that had been lost to time. Much of the early history of that part of the world has been reconstructed, based on the information supplied in the Bible.
But Midas avoids reality.
Nothing new.
JDH
The Koran has similar facts about real things. Does that mean their version of religion is correct? Archaeology does not prove the existence of a supernatural entity.
Midas, you are just another repugnant troll. You throw out irresponsible comments, and when corrected, you just throw out more irresponsible comments. You have no interest in learning, or reality.
Nothing new.
When did the presentation of facts become irresponsible?
M,
You wrote –
“When did the presentation of facts become irresponsible?”
When you state “The bible is also theory written in a book.”, and then provide a stream irrelevant comments, trying to avoid having to support your original stupid and pointless assertion.
Cheers.
Good to see you are not challenging the fact that the post JDH was replying to was a presentation of facts.
M,
You don’t need to appear more stupid than you are. Just making more pointless and irrelevant comments based on your witless interpretation of something you cunningly avoid quoting does not make you appear smart – to me, at least.
Others of course may have their own high opinions of your mental acuity. I wish them luck. They might need it.
Cheers.
Still not challenging that I see.
M,
You wrote –
“Still not challenging that I see.”
Do you have some delusional idea that cryptic and bizarre pointless comments achieve anything of value?
Why should I challenge “that”? Why should I challenge anything?
Maybe you could threaten to poke yourself in the eye with a needle if I don’t?
Cheers.
In the prior post it is argued that reanalysis data should be used for short-term global temperature analysis, presumably because press reports of record-breaking monthly temperatures were (not appreciated? annoying? a priori incorrect?).
Having learned that the WMO relied on a reanalysis data set for their press release, it is now argued that the one they relied on is suspect because…. it is different to other ones. And now the argument is that they are all suspect.
How can the satellite data then be said to be superior, when the two main data sets also markedly diverge from each other?
Yes, I agree, more reflection is warranted.
Mike Flynn said:
The hypothesis that Earth was completely covered in ice 635 million years ago has received a serious blow.”
That Earthviewer App shows an ice free planet 635 million years ago.
That light blue in the maps represents shallow seas (aka “Continental Shelf”) rather than ice.
You need to lighten up and smell the roses. Earthviewer is an awesome achievement based on “Hard Science” from people like Scotese, Berner, Royer and Rhode. Dismissing the work of such scientists reflects more on you than on them.
If you don’t like the Paleo-climate stuff at least take the animation of continental drift seriously. That theory was derided when Wegener proposed it in 1912 but today it is widely accepted among scientists.
Hi gallopingcamel,
“That theory was derided when Wegener proposed it in 1912 but today it is widely accepted among scientists.”
Anyways, it’s still a theory and a computer animation doesn’t validate any “Hard Science”, it just replicates it.
If the “Hard Science” had a big mistake in it, the computer animation has the mistake embedded into its code.
In few word, a computer animation is just a way to avoid lazy people to read a theory in a book, but doesn’t prove anything.
Have a great day.
Massimo
@Massimo PORZIO
As an amateur climate scientist I appreciate anything that makes the work of professional scientists more accessible to the general public. That is why I appreciate Roy Spencer, Tyler Robinson, Scott Denning and other folks who take the time to engage with us “Little People”.
That is why Earthviewer impressed me so much. Thanks to “Craig T” we now know where the data came from.
Hi gallopingcamel,
I just warned you because many people don’t get the point that simulation are just the theory placed in a computer, nothing more.
If the theory has a failure in it, the simulation has.
BTW, I’m not a scientist, I’m just an electronic engineer and an amateur climate guy.
In the past I wrote many post here, but now for a question of time I can’t do it no more.
What puzzles me is the way some climate scientist are not aware of the very high precision, accuracy and also resolution that they pretend from methodology of measurement that don’t have them, just applying adjustment that influence the final result many times more than the raw (real) measurement done.
Have a great day.
Massimo
GC is overtaken by pseudoscience: “Earthviewer is an awesome achievement based on “Hard Science” from people like Scotese, Berner, Royer and Rhode.”
GC, would you mind sharing some of that “Hard Science” with us? Not links, just in your own words, how they determined conditions millions of years ago. If you choose to respond, you will likely discover the “Hard Science” was based on assumptions, estimates, imagination, interpretations, and such. “Hard Science” is demonstrable, repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, and does NOT violate the laws of physics.
@JDH,
Earthviewer is a teaching tool developed by HHMI, an organization created by Howard Hughes. Here is a link:
https://www.hhmi.org/
Yesterday, when I stumbled across the Earthviewer site my first thought was to take a look at their data sets. This information used to be available (Free) here:
http://www.hhmi.org/node/22466
Unfortunately the link gives a “Page Not Found” error. So I turn your question around. Can you tell me where to find the HHMI data? If I find it before you do I will let you know where to look.
Why all the rhetoric? Don’t you love pseudoscience as much as I do? Were it not for pseudoscience there would be much less de-bunking to do.
GC, consider just writing to HHMI and asking them. People there will probably be happy to see your interest.
I did write and to my surprise got an immediate response.
GC contends: “Were it not for pseudoscience there would be much less de-bunking to do.”
Well GC, when do you plan to start your “de-bunking”, instead of your acceptance and promoting of pseudoscience?
gc,
You wrote –
“You need to lighten up and smell the roses. Earthviewer is an awesome achievement based on Hard Science from people like Scotese, Berner, Royer and Rhode. Dismissing the work of such scientists reflects more on you than on them.”
No hard science. Speculation, as far as the distant past is concerned.
As an example, the Australian Plate is moving NE at around 70 mm/yr, or 7 m/100 yr. 70m per thousand, 70000 per million. After 600 million years, say 4000 km. Meaningless. Where was the Australian Plate 600 million years ago? Which direction was it moving? How fast? Did its direction or velocity change during this period? And so on.
Speculation, guess, and supposition. Interesting, but of very limited usefulness.
As to global glaciation, I have not seen a proposed mechanism which would enable such a thing. Descriptions range from “iceball” to “snowball” to “slushball” as different scientists realise the physical impossibilities of some views propounded.
Which do you prefer, and what speculation about total surface freezing do you prefer?
Wikipedia skirts the issue –
“The initiation of a snowball Earth event would involve some initial cooling mechanism, which would result in an increase in Earth’s coverage of snow and ice.” Hard science? Magic?
If nobody can suggest an “initial cooling mechanism”, I’ll just keep assuming there isn’t one.
Hopefully, you can provide a testable cooling mechanism hypothesis to set my mind at rest. Good luck. Speculation, guesses, and computer graphics are not fact.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
The cooling is caused by rapid (by normal geological standards) weathering leading to a low CO2.
I can understand your dilemma. Since you deny the link between CO2 and temperature, you must also deny the existance of snowball Earths.
Unfortunately for your denial, there are multiple lines of evidence for their existance.
http://www.snowballearth.org/evidence.html
Em,
You wrote (about snowball earths) –
“Unfortunately for your denial, there are multiple lines of evidence for their existance.”
Pointless and irrelevant. You claim that cooling results from lowering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere thereby allowing more sunlight to reach the surface. This is ridiculous on the face of it, and has never been demonstrated to be true.
From the Smithsonian –
“It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as todays atmosphere. After about half a billion years, Earths surface cooled and solidified enough for water to collect on it.”
Other sources have the initial atmosphere of 99% CO2, at about 100 bar pressure. The Earth still cooled.
All fairly pointless and irrelevant, as nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of a thermometer by surrounding it with CO2 – nobody. Ever.
Still no testable proposed cooling mechanism inducing “snowball Earth” not involving magic. The concept of a planet wide frozen surface is fantasy. One would have to believe that the impact of the equatorial Sun at the height of summer would have no effect on snow and ice exposed to more than 1000 W/m2 emitted by a 5800 K body. Expose some ice to the heat of the summer sun – see how you go. Even the summit of Mt Everest, which has less CO2 between it and the sun than other places on the surface, loses all its snow cover during the dry season. Sunlight, you see.
Keep on with the pseudoscientific GHE true believer nonsense. You can’t even describe the GHE without involving magic, can you? How hard can it be? Surely somebody, by now, would have described the GHE, and proposed a testable GHE hypothesis, if it were possible. Alas, no.
Just the usual collection of fools, frauds and fakes – denying, diverting and confusion. All very entertaining, but nothing to do with science.
Cheers.
The climate shysters openly admit to falsifying the charts they publish
https://i.postimg.cc/k5fMx8Qt/02112346423t.jpg
You do realize — but maybe not — that “Owain Glyndwr” is a fake name that gives no indication of being a scientist.
The real Owain Glyndwr lived many centuries ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owain_Glynd%C5%B5r
The “climate shyster” in this case is a Skeptic who retweets Nigel Farage.
https://twitter.com/o_glyndwr1404
Do you think Schmidt was lying about the sulfur dioxide levels in North America for the last 150 years? If so, why?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaC2gNLWkAAWTxY.jpg
“Do you think Schmidt was lying about”
That is the default position on Gavin Schmidt, always assume a lie from him unless proven otherwise.
forgot the link
https://principia-scientific.org/top-nasa-climate-data-fraudster-named-shamed/
Then you’re also calling the author of this blog a liar, since UAH has had much larger adjustments than has any other temperature group.
But really you’re just trying to dismiss someone by simply labeling them because you can’t disprove their science. That’s the most cowardly type of denial of all, and it convinces no one.
I’m glad you’re getting your info from “respected climate analyst, Tony Heller” instead of always believing people posting unproven stories on the Internet under a fake name.
It looks like your default position is to believe anything on the Internet that makes climate scientists look bad.
CT,
You wrote –
“It looks like your default position is to believe anything on the Internet that makes climate scientists look bad.”
What is your point, or are you just expressing an opinion for no particular reason, and of no particular value?
Just trolling, perhaps, because you are just another pseudoscientific GHE true believer, long on faith, but short on fact?
You don’t have to answer, of course.
Cheers.
Frost in Queensland
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00987/l3a7dmvi8n5i.png
Massimo PORZIO
“Theory”
This word is a good indicator of an individual’s scientific education.
A layman uses “theory to mean an untested idea. “Only a theory” is often used to belittle an idea someone dislikes or does not want you to accept.
For an untested idea ,scientists use the word “hypothesis”. This is not derogatory. The idea may or may not be correct, it has just not yet been tested, its predictions about reality checked by observation and experiment.
In science, a theory is is a hypothesis which has been tested and found to be substantially correct. Thus the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity or quantum theory.
Note that the science is never completely settled. Even a long established and widely accepted theory is repeatedly tested and subject to change. The overall structure usually remains unchanged while the details are in constant flux.
On climate change, the Tyndall gas effect (aka the greenhouse effect) has been recognised for 150 years, As we continue to investigate the behaviour of the climate, details change.
E-man, a “theory” that violates the laws of physics is no longer “science”. It becomes pseudoscience. And pseudoscience promoted for the sake of an agenda becomes a false religion.
The AGW/GHE is pseudoscience with an agenda, AKA a false religion.
Can you guess where that leaves the “theory” of evolution?
Out there alongside germ “theory”, atomic “theory”, the general and specific “theories” of relativity and quantum “theory”.
You don’t believe in all those Craig, yet you believe in the GHE?
Maybe when you learn some physics you will know better.
Sorry, forgot the sarcasm tag.
CT,
You wrote –
“Sorry, forgot the sarcasm tag.”
If you do it again, will it then just be another example of pseudoscientific GHE true believer sloppiness?
Why do you need to use sarcasm? No facts available?
Cheers.
Craig T,
Not hardly.
CT,
You could always try not appearing quite so foolish, if you wished.
You appear to be no brighter than the usual stupid and ignorant pseudoscientific GHE true believer. Comparing QED to evolution is delusional.
From Wikipedia –
“Quantum electrodynamics (QED), a relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics, is among the most stringently tested theories in physics and –
“This makes QED one of the most accurate physical theories constructed thus far.”
Unfortunately, the theory of evolution is actually a network of theories, none of which are capable of the being subject to the same sort of testing as QED, for example. The use of the scientific method involving hypotheses (guesses), reproducible experiment, and theory is anathema to pseudoscientists. You can’t even usefully describe the non-existent GHE, can you?
Therefore, no chance at all of a testable hypothesis – just more unsupported assertions, bizarre jargon, and the usual claims of imminent doom, if we don’t immediately turn over our destinies to the fanatical climate cultists!
You may take this course, if you wish. I won’t.
Cheers.
MF,
Leftists are fond of theories that can’t be proven or disproven. Especially if they fit their agenda.
SPA
What is my agenda?
M,
Oooooh! Look! A dimwitted attempt at a gotcha!
Tell me – what is your agenda? Are you claiming to be a leftist with a non-testable theory?
Does it fit your agenda? Why?
Try harder next time.
Cheers.
I repeat – for SPA to answer – what is my agenda?
M,
I repeat, for you to answer –
Oooooh! Look! A dimwitted attempt at a gotcha!
Tell me what is your agenda? Are you claiming to be a leftist with a non-testable theory?
Does it fit your agenda? Why?
Try harder next time.
Cheers.
Hey Stephen,
Mike believes you are incapable of answering my question so he is attempting to save you by burying it in his mindless drivel. I trust you have enough pride to try to prove him wrong.
Midas wants to know what his agenda is.
Based on the evidence, it appears he is trying to be the most repugnant troll on the blog.
Based on the evidence, while you and MF are here I will continue to fail badly in that endeavor.
I wonder what happened to bobdesbond?
Still waiting Stephen …
Still wondering what happened to bobdesbond.
Em,
You wrote –
“On climate change, the Tyndall gas effect (aka the greenhouse effect) has been recognised for 150 years, . . . ”
There is no “Tyndall gas effect”, and nobody can actually describe the greenhouse effect.
Tyndall pointed out by meticulous experiment that as CO2 (for example) prevented energy from reaching a temperature sensing device, the temperature fell.
No mystery, no GHE. Just physics. If you choose to actually read Tyndall’s accounts, I suggest the most recent edition (1905 printing, or thereabouts), as Tyndall apparently minimised resetting costs by providing corrections as footnotes, in many cases.
Still no GHE. You cannot even describe the mythical beast, can you? CO2 heats nothing, and the Earth has cooled form the molten state.
Cheers.
I still cannot locate MF’s brain. It still seems to be generating white noise though.
Begone, troll!
Hi Entropic man,
I agree with you about the formal definition of “theory” and “hypothesis”.
But since I was talking to GallopingCamel about his “That theory was derided when Wegener proposed it in 1912 but today it is widely accepted among scientists.”, I always prefer to communicate my point of view about something to my interlocutor using his own words and not giving importance to formal wording.
And (honestly), I’m sure that you get what I wanted to mean in my post indeed.
I don’t agree instead with your:
“On climate change, the Tyndall gas effect (aka the greenhouse effect) has been recognised for 150 years, As we continue to investigate the behaviour of the climate, details change.”
No, Tyndall demonstrated that gases can absorb and re-emit photons in a random direction and for this placing that gas into the path between a thermal source and a target the radiation is reduced or in case avoided to reach the target.
He never demonstrated the radiative GH effect (IMHO of course).
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO says:
No, Tyndall demonstrated that gases can absorb and re-emit photons in a random direction and for this placing that gas into the path between a thermal source and a target the radiation is reduced or in case avoided to reach the target. He never demonstrated the radiative GH effect (IMHO of course).
So then sometimes the random direction of the photon is downward.
From there it’s a simple logical step to conclude that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere send heat towards what’s below them. That’s the greenhouse effect and what Arrhenius calculated.
Wrong DA. You’re still making the same mistakes.
Just because photons are emitted from the atmosphere does NOT mean they can warm the surface. You can’t understand the relevant physics.
Just now I measured a clear sky temperature of 25.6 F, directly overhead. The ground temperature was 83.7 F. 25.6 F is below freezing. You can NOT warm a surface at 83.7 F, with below freezing temperatures.
Learn some physics.
Hi JDHuffman,
“Just because photons are emitted from the atmosphere does NOT mean they can warm the surface.”
Exactly, the day one profs that, then I’ll change my point.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Massimo,
Don’t worry, you won’t have to change your “point”.
“You can NOT warm a surface at 83.7 F, with below freezing temperatures.”
But you would have a cooler surface if not even the IR radiation equivalent of 25.6 F was returning.
Most physicists would expect most IR photon emitted downwards from the atmosphere and reaching the surface to be absorbed, the absorbed energy warming the surface.
Please explain how your pseudoscience stops this happening.
No Craig, even if the 26.5 F had been 46.5 F, the surface would have been the same temperature. The Sun warms the surface, and the surface warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere cannot warm the surface. A colder temperature cannot warm a hotter temperature.
No E-man, “cold” cannot warm “hot”. You need to learn the difference between “physics” and “pseudoscience”.
JDHuffmam
For some reason you reminded me of T S Elliot’s poem “The Hollow Men”.
Read this and recognise yourself.
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar.
Massimo PORZIO says: Hi JDHuffman, Just because photons are emitted from the atmosphere does NOT mean they can warm the surface.
Exactly, the day one profs that, then Ill change my point.
—————
What you need to understand is that backradiation doesn’t “heat” anything. The only warming that occurs can is statistical in nature. Slowing of cooling ends up with warming of a different nature than what heating does.
This is certain because its the only claim supported by climate science in that it “slows cooling”.
I posted a list of highest temperatures in recorded by the 50 states that shows 27 states had 35 instances of a record high temperature or a tie in the 1930’s almost a century ago.
Only 1 state has a new record and one other a tie so far in the last 2 decades. This demonstrates for the US where temperature records are probably the best in the world the world is not getting sensibly hotter. The likely outcome of increased CO2 is a bit of warming on cloud clear nights but even that might not be certain as it depends upon the current state of the atmosphere and the actual physics going on in the atmosphere. I have seen indication that the “multiple plate” argument for CO2 effects was invented because of the remaining inadequacy of the “single plate” which I think the atmosphere represents doesn’t have enough wiggle room to get the job done that was the worst possible scenario James Hansen could come up with. . . .keeping in mind I believe James Hansen has integrity but probably is a bit loony.
Climate science would like you to believe the atmosphere acts like a stack of solid plates or like a multi-pane insulating window. Because that’s the only way the restriction on cooling can reach the surface from the top of the atmosphere.
But I ascribe to the viewpoint of one of the nation’s best climate physicists that the atmosphere is far to prone to mixing air currents for that forcing to substantially reach the surface.
If it does reach the surface to the extent it reaches the surface then it can create moisture feedbacks.
This is one of my biggest bones to pick with the 1 degree pre-feedback sensitivity of the surface. Yes, CO2 absorbs additional radiation in the atmosphere sufficient to do that if and only if it gets back to the surface.
the way climate science sees that happening is by installing another virtual solid plate at the top of the atmosphere, pure theory, no verification.
In my view for that to happen just as in the stack of plates or window panes it must first warm the plate directly below it, which in turn would warm the next plate down.
I don’t see that happening because what you see in the atmosphere is a gas law created lapse rate. Destablization of that lapse rate is represented by cooling of upper layers by greenhouse gases expelling heat to space. If it starts to warm anything up there its going to forestall condensation of water vapor that will simply continue to rise in the atmosphere eventually spilling its load of latent heat. The entire dilemma is created by a lack of an understanding how the greenhouse effect is actually created and modified. Climate science is guessing at the answer and they openly argue for it by invoking ignorance of an alternative.
I believe its effect is modified by closing the atmospheric window to the extent its able to be closed. I can see the logic in the climate science argument but I see their plate technology as coming up short such that any additional restriction in the upper atmosphere will be like an army attacking in the direction of the surface but becoming beat up, scattered, and killed to some unknown extent in the quest by other atmospheric processes. Perhaps some of the army will reach the surface maybe none of the army.
Cloud variation has a far better opportunity to do that as it doesn’t need to warm intermediate plates in the atmosphere as clouds are what closes and opens the atmospheric window with the atmospheric window being the widest open on the clearest day and completely closed on those full on stratus cloud days.
The physics of heat transfer through and around window panes completely disregards any intermediate plates existing in the air. Climate science of course knows this and has invented the stack of plates forcing on the basis of the possibility of slight problems with window technology due to the scale of the atmosphere.
I am still waiting for the proof of that. Its unproven science. It may be true but I don’t think the quantification of it can actually be accurately determined and observations are supporting that viewpoint. It seems to me that at least the partial untruth of that plate theory is the main tenet of Dr. Richard Lindzen’s Iris effect.
Everyone should make an effort to better understand the technical issues as opposed to closing their minds and picking sides. What we see instead are thousands and thousands of bunny trails over temperature record adjustments were they justified or not and innumerable other issues that are just sideshows, mostly about observations and the continued persistence of the climate to not do the expected.
Yes E-man, stick with poems.
Trying to understand physics will only frustrate you.
“But I ascribe to the viewpoint of one of the nation’s best climate physicists that the atmosphere is far to prone to mixing air currents for that forcing to substantially reach the surface.”
So Bill, who are we talking about?
Entropic man says: Most physicists would expect most IR photon emitted downwards from the atmosphere and reaching the surface to be absorbed, the absorbed energy warming the surface.
Please explain how your pseudoscience stops this happening.
This is an unsupported extrapolation. You need to first prove there are photons. Photons are a construct to explain physical phenomena but they are not the only construct that does that.
For instance one could substitute an “attractor” where energy only flows at the rate of the differential between two objects of different temperatures. Here photons only flow from hot to cold and flow at the “net” rate proposed by the photon theory. The attractor theory at one time was popular but it was abandoned because of the lack of being able to identify how a warm object could reach out across space to determine a target and a rate of radiation for that target.
but this effect could explain the wave like nature of radiation.
Einstein went to his grave trying to find this answer. He is quoted as saying a few years before he passed: “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’. Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
So you can’t ask how photons that might not exist could not be absorbed and you can’t show anything inconsistent with the attractor theory and only can point out the invisibility of a medium to allow the emitter feel the difference.
Thus the photon theory dominated out of simplicity, but they obviously weren’t thinking about all the confusion that would arise from having to apply the SB equations twice as often.
bill hunter
I do like your thoughtful posts. I would disagree with your logical thought flow on the “attractor” idea of EMR energy.
In order to have a valid theory it must support ALL the observed data and not just some. The “attractor” idea could be used to explain radiant heat transfer but it could not explain at all the other observed behaviors. Einstein’s honesty about trying to understand what a photon is has no bearing on what properties can be observed and mathematically worked out. The “attractor” theory could not at all explain the photo-electric effect. I cannot see how the “attractor” idea could explain reflection or transmission of EMR. It is not rejected because there is no mechanism to explain how a hot attractor and cold attractor could communicate to send so much one-way heat flow, it is also rejected because it fails to explain all the other observed phenomena when dealing with EMR.
Norman says: – I do like your thoughtful posts. I would disagree with your logical thought flow on the “attractor” idea of EMR energy.
I am certainly no Einstein that is going to come up with something that explains all the behaviors either. But in looking at Einstein’s quote made in 1954 he seemingly tellingly said “light quanta” instead of “photon”. I have thought of reflection and I suppose its possible light can see the target in the reflection as well. Philosophically its kind of like the puzzle of if a tree falls in the forest, and there’s nobody around to hear, does it make a sound?
https://blog.oup.com/2011/02/quantum/
But I am not seriously arguing for an attractor theory, I am merely trying to get folks to organize their thoughts in a way so their view of photons is consistent with an attractor theory and keep their eye on the “netting” of SB equations that is mandated.
The attractor theory would look like the two SB equations integrated into one equation that clearly shows the energy going in one direction.
“No, Tyndall demonstrated that gases can absorb and re-emit photons in a random direction and for this placing that gas into the path between a thermal source and a target the radiation is reduced or in case avoided to reach the target.”
Massimo, Let’s start with this:
Very little longwave radiation reaches the Earth from the Sun but the Earth’s surface gives off longwave radiation. The thermal source is the surface and the target is space. Why don’t the gasses (water vapor, CO2, methane) reduce the longwave radiation released into space?
What are the problems you have with that statement?
CT,
You wrote –
“Very little longwave radiation reaches the Earth from the Sun but the Earths surface gives off longwave radiation. The thermal source is the surface and the target is space. Why dont the gasses (water vapor, CO2, methane) reduce the longwave radiation released into space?
What are the problems you have with that statement?”
It’s mainly non-specific nonsense for a start.
From Wikipedia –
“In terms of energy, sunlight at Earth’s surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).”
Start by using clearer language. Define “longwave radiation.” Ultraviolet is “longwave radiation” compared to shorter wavelengths. You sound like pseudoscientific GHE true believer – using sciencey words without really understanding what you are talking about.
Sort your first sentence out, and I’ll tell what’s wrong about the rest. Fair enough?
Cheers.
I have to find the banned word in my answer
Shart answer is 3 to 100 3.0 and 100 µm
I still hope to talk with Massimo but it’s a reasonable question.
From Wikipedia
“Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) is electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths between 3.0 and 100 µm emitted from Earth and its atmosphere out to space in the form of thermal radiation.”
Your Wikipedia page quote ends in the footnote “Calculated from data in ‘Reference Solar Spectral Irradiance: Air Mass 1.5’. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Archived” It gives a link to a spreadsheet of solar data. (the link offends the banned word gods.)
The full solar radiation in the spreadsheet adds up to 1,356 W/m^2. Sunlight in the range of 3.0 µm or longer has a total of 3.1 W/m^2. The blackbody radiation from the surface at 14C is 385 W/m^2 with all wavelengths 3.0 µm or longer.
Hi Craig T,
first of all, excuse me for the delay in reply you, but I’m Italian and I probably have some time lag respect to your location.
I know what you wrote and in the past I’ve been discussing that in this very same blog. Repeating this more and more times is one of the reasons that in last year I’ve not that much active here (but I still read this blog, which in my opinion is surely the best place for doing science the right way: that is comparing and discussing opinions).
My reply to your question is as always the same. That is: we always measured and still measure the TOA regular transmittance not the diffused one.
Here is the proof:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f62f/804fd888cebfbfce8a08720f6fe07107b01e.pdf
Always the same proof, if the satellites looked the whole Earth dish instead of the tiny angle on their nadir, the result will be different, maybe very different. That because the so called “limb” emission from the TOA (see graphic on top right angle of page 5027) is almost the inverse of the spectrum at nadir that we currently measure.
And yes, an altitude of 34km it’s not really the TOA, but the down-welling residual radiation (the graph below the previous one) demonstrates that under a radiative perspective practically that graph is representative of the radiation at the TOA (at least for a qualitative discussion).
I’m not arguing that the atmospheric radiation can’t heat a little the ground, I’m just arguing that still nobody have demonstrated it under the formalism of the scientific method.
Please note that I wrote “atmospheric radiation” not “back-radiation”, because once established how much the atmospheric radiation heats the ground, we should still be able to differentiate how much radiation come from the emissivity of the IR active gasses due to their own localized temperature up there and how much come from the (supposed) back radiation.
I write “supposed” because once the photon is absorbed at lower altitudes, where the gasses density is high, the energy is quickly shared with the surrounding molecules and thermalized, in a time far lesser than the photon residence time in the molecule.
Note also that this low altitude high density radiative “shield” works for the LWIR radiation coming from the higher altitude above it.
Hope I’ve been exhaustive for your question, excuse me for my bad English too.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Massimo,
Your postings here are fine – and I like the way you argue while you stay calm and polite (in contrast to many other bloggers here…)
I fully understand what you write. Perhaps you want to take a look at this blog by Clive Best. He holds a Phd in physics and has been looking into adjustment of temperature readings, device accuracy etc.
http://clivebest.com/blog/
He kept the blog since at least 2012, and judging by the content, he converted slowly by convincing himself that something is rotten in the kingdom of climate science.
Hi Ulrike,
thank you for your appreciation.
I was writing more in the past, but last year I changed my job and this one keep me very busy (even if it is much more interesting to me).
“…I like the way you argue while you stay calm and polite (in contrast to many other bloggers here…)”
I know what you mean, and it’s the other reason (but not the least) I write less here.
I’m not a professional in climate science, but an electronic engineer, for that I fully comprehend that it’s easier to me stay calm talking about climate physics because it is not my primary field, while for professionals could be hurting reading other opinions that sometimes are ridiculous (also mine, I always aware of my possible ignorance of some details in this field).
Thank you for the link too.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“Always the same proof, if the satellites looked the whole Earth dish instead of the tiny angle on their nadir, the result will be different, maybe very different. That because the so called “limb” emission from the TOA (see graphic on top right angle of page 5027) is almost the inverse of the spectrum at nadir that we currently measure.”
You are correct that 34km is not TOA. There is a thin atmosphere around and above. The longwave radiation measured by the”limb” comes from the atmosphere at that level not above or below.
Figure 6 shows the spectrum of the light from below (nadir). Any dip in that graph shows energy that remained in the atmosphere below and never made it to 34km. In figure 3 the spike from the limb view are photons that did manage to make it to that altitude but were absorbed and re-emitted before they made it into space. Instead of continuing upwards they are going in all directions including parallel to the ground. That is why in graph 3 at any wavenumber the energy level never goes above the energy level for the same wavelength in figure 6.
The sensor pointed in the “limb” direction does not measure light traveling upward or downward. Only parallel to the surface. Figure 6 is “inverse” to figure 3 only in the region of 600 to 800 cm^-1 because CO2 is still absorbing and re-emitting at that wavelength at that altitude. The rest of the longwave radiation shown in figure 6 passes through the mesosphere with no chance of returning to Earth.
The only way the Earth as a whole can cool is by photons carrying energy back into space. Most of the photons that make it to 34km will eventually leave the atmosphere. But don’t confuse figure 3 with showing a way for photons to leave the Earth without being measured in the data shown in figure 6.
Hi Craig T,
I tried to reply, but it seems that after more then one year the word checking algorithm strike again.
Let me try splitting the message.
“The sensor pointed in the limb direction does not measure light traveling upward or downward. Only parallel to the surface.”
Yes, but I don’t agree with this your conclusion that for this it must be ignored for the outgoing radiation, for two reasons:
1st) the Earth is almost spherical and that “limb” radiation is in part outgoing the atmosphere indeed. IMHO you should (more or less) subtract the still down-welling radiation of the lower graph from the limb radiation to get the real outgoing radiation.
2nd) there must be a lot of different spectra from the nadir one an the limb one that carry out energy upward in that place.
2nd part:
The nadir spectrum is the one which highlights more the CO2 absorp_tion. That because that’s the direction the radiation would exit more from the globe in absence of GHGs, so you see a great “pit” on the spectra.
3rd part:
But all the other radiation from angles different from the nadir probably have spectra that should change little by little, as the angle goes from the nadir to the limbs ones, to reach the shape of the limb spectrum.
Do you get my point?
Please, again, I’m not arguing that I know for sure that GHGs don’t retain any radiation at all. I’m just arguing that looking at the nadir, the possible (still not demonstrated) entrapment could be highly overstated.
I hope I explained my point. Thank for your interest.
Have a great day.
Massimo
P.s. It seems that the “big brother” didn’t like “absorp_tion”
🙁
Try the Internet Archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170308211153/https://www.hhmi.org/node/22466
The site is a good teaching tool for the current state of the science.
That comment is supposed to be under Gallopingcamel
“Yesterday, when I stumbled across the Earthviewer site my first thought was to take a look at their data sets. This information used to be available (Free) here:
http://www.hhmi.org/node/22466“
@Craig T,
Thanks! Why did I not think of that?
JDHuffman
If ” A colder temperature cannot warm a hotter temperature”, how can the heat pumps at work warm the gallery by moving heat from the colder air outside?
E-man, are you THAT ignorant of thermodynamics?
Try running the heat pumps without an external power supply.
JDHuffmam
“Try running the heat pumps without an external power supply.”
So it IS possible for a colder temperature to warm a hotter temperature!
So you are indeed THAT ignorant of thermodynamics.
No wonder you believe in the GHE….
JDHuffmam
“you believe in the GHE.”
Why not? Like the heat pumps I mentioned the GHE uses an external power supply to move energy from a colder temperature to a hotter temperature.
Not one shred of understanding of thermodynamics–
You really are “entropic”, but just don’t know it.
JDHuffmam
“You really are entropic
I think you mean “negative entropic”. I am, after all, a living organism.
You are also showing signs of an increase in information content.
You now admit that it is possible to transfer heat from a lower temperature to a warmer temperature.
Em,
You wrote –
“You now admit that it is possible to transfer heat from a lower temperature to a warmer temperature.”
What a load of rubbish. Putting words in peoples’ mouths doesn’t turn fantasy into fact.
Take as much ice as you like, and try to transfer the heat to a teaspoon of water. Try and make the water hotter by transferring “heat from a lower temperature to a warmer temperature.”.
You are no doubt aware that ice can emit 300 W/m2, so you can’t complain that there is not enough heat available.
Off you go now, and admit you cannot make water hotter with ice. You won’t admit it? Back into your fantasy with you. You must be a pseudoscientific GHE true believer.
Cheers.
It’s interesting that clowns like E-man can never get the physics right. Instead, they resort to tactics, as he does here, of misrepresenting others.
Nothing new.
entropic…”You now admit that it is possible to transfer heat from a lower temperature to a warmer temperature”.
I have never seen JD, Mike, Drempt,or any skeptic claim that. We all know about fridges, heat pumps, and air conditioners. What we have all claimed is that under normal conditions, with no external compensation supplied, heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred cold to hot.
We have also claimed that water cannot, by its own means, flow uphill. Neither, can a boulder, by its own means, raise itself onto a cliff.
Energy does not spontaneously move from a region of lower potential energy to a region of higher potential energy. That’s a universal law in physics.
A body at a lower temperature (colder) represents a lower energy potential than a body at a higher temperature. Heat does not spontaneously transfer cold to hot.
Gordon Robertson
“Energy does not spontaneously move from a region of lower potential energy to a region of higher potential energy. Thats a universal law in physics.
A body at a lower temperature (colder) represents a lower energy potential than a body at a higher temperature. Heat does not spontaneously transfer cold to hot.”
For once we are in agreement.
The key word is “spontaneously”.JDHuffman and Mike Flynn do not qualify their statements as you did.
Here’s Mike Flynn “Take as much ice as you like, and try to transfer the heat to a teaspoon of water. Try and make the water hotter by transferring heat from a lower temperature to a warmer temperature.
Here’s JDHuffman “A colder temperature cannot warm a hotter temperature.”
No qualifiers, nothing except the bald statements that the heat transfer is impossible.
Nothing about fridges, heat pumps, air conditioners or the greenhouse effect. All of these use an external power source to transfer heat from a place with a lower temperature to a place with a higher temperature.
Em,
Maybe you could bring yourself to disagree with something I said, instead of something I didn’t.
Some pseudoscientific GHE true believers are deluded enough to believe that, for example, a colder atmosphere can heat a warmer surface, by some form of CO2 magic. This is nonsensical.
About as nonsensical as using ice to heat water!
There is no greenhouse effect. You can’t even describe such a nonsensical thing, can you?
As I said previously –
“Take as much ice as you like, and try to transfer the heat to a teaspoon of water. Try and make the water hotter by transferring heat from a lower temperature to a warmer temperature.”
Cannot do it, can you? Why do I need qualifiers? If you believe there is a cosmic magical hidden heat pump heating up the earth using the cold from outer space, good for you! You might have a rich and fertile imagination, but a tenuous grip on reality.
The earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, as it does every night, winter, and so on. Maybe your cosmic heat pump is a product of the fantastic imaginings of fools, frauds and fakers like Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth, perhaps?
Cheers.
E-man, your comment did not rhyme.
So you bring neither physics, nor poetry.
There are quite a few people who are convinced that photons must be absorbed by matter, no matter what.
Look out the window. You will notice that the photons of all colours emitted by the outside environment pass through the solid glass of the window – it is transparent. You might complain that the colours are actually reflected by the tress, grass etc. Indeed. Not absorbed at all. Not absorbed by the grass, not absorbed by the glass.
Now take some ice – say just below freezing, emitting 300 W/m2. Put it next to a glass of water, so that the photons from the ice travel towards the water. Does the water get hotter? No. Does the ice get hotter and melt? Yes. Look at the ice in your beverage, and ask why you put it there. To make the beverage hotter? I doubt it.
As to IR, in case you think I’m being tricky, point a thermal imaging camera at a person – you will see an image representing the IR emitted by the person, generally converted to temperatures. Now pop a black plastic trash bag over the person. The image is almost unchanged! The IR photons pass through the visually opaque black plastic trash bag as though it wasn’t there. Heat rays penetrating matter! Not absorbed!
Some matter interacts with some photons. Some doesn’t. For example “Germanium is a chemical element with the symbol Ge and atomic number 32. It is a lustrous, hard-brittle, grayish-white metalloid”.
An opaque metalloid. For infrared light beyond 2 um however, –
“Germanium has the highest refractive index of commonly available IR-transmitters and has low optical dispersion. This makes it desirable in aspects of lens design where its refractive index allows otherwise impossible specifications to be built. AR coating is recommended.”
No wonder nobody can describe the GHE without involving magic. The pseudoscientific GHE true believers simply refuse to accept that they are deluded and gullible. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of the GHE, or even absorbing vast amounts of energy from the Sun over this period. No heat trapping or accumulation to be seen.
All part of the rich tapestry of life, I suppose.
Cheers.
No problem, Mikey. As I demonstrated in my Ice Plate Demo, different plastics have different transmission properties, some will absorb the thermal IR EM while others will allow it to pass thru. Even ice can operate as a thermal radiation shield, which I also demonstrated.
Of course, my little experiment blows away your repeated claims about what happens to the thermal emissions from ice because the experimental setup did not allow the ice to melt while the heated metal plate was being insulated due to the ice, i.e., the plate was “warmed” by the ice…
swannie from your concusions…”These results represent the equilibrium temperatures of the different configurations under nearly identical operation conditions, not some new source of energy supplied to the device, thus these results do not violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics”.
Swannie…you are daft.
The 2nd law stated in words by Clausius is that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body. Yet you are claiming the opposite, that heat can be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body so as to warm the hotter body.
To make things worse, you claim your contravention of the 2nd law does not contravene the 2nd law,
Completely and utterly daft.
ES,
Presumably you are trying to disagree with something I said, but having difficulty expressing yourself.
Maybe you could bring yourself to quote me, but I doubt it. Feel free to “blow away” anything you like, in your imagination.
As I pointed out, though, you cannot heat water using ice. You say in your quite pointless and irrelevant ‘experiment” –
“These results show that the heated plate is warmed by the addition of covers made from various IR active materials.” Sounds sciencey, but absolutely wrong and misleading. Deceptive, even. It is warmed by your heater.
You seem to be claiming that you have discovered that ice can be used as an insulator. This is why glacial ice is warmer at the bottom than the top. Nothing new.
I’ll stick with stating you cannot use the radiation from ice to raise the temperature of water. No GHE, CO2 heats nothing, and teh Earth is cooler now than when the surface was molten. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
No, Mikey, I was just trying to point out the well known fact that some materials which absorb IR can act like radiation shields. Your reference to the IR transmission thru a plastic bag is similar to my use of food wrap in the demo I pointed to, the food wrap transmits IR well, thus it had little effect on the metal plate as compared with no cover at all. And I found that ice, having an emissivity around 0.5, also caused the metal plate to warm, though not as much as did the aluminum foil.
You, Gordo and others around here comment repeatedly about requiring experiments and evidence for support of a hypothesis, but choose to ignore evidence which counters your arguments. That’s not science, it’s just more intentional obfuscation and disinformation.
Mike…”You might complain that the colours are actually reflected by the tress, grass etc. Indeed. Not absorbed at all. Not absorbed by the grass, not absorbed by the glass”.
Good points in your post.
However, there are no colours out there since colour is added by the eye when it is stimulated by electromagnetic energy of a specific frequency. Therefore different objects that appear as different colours are absorbing different EM frequencies and reflecting the frequencies that our eyes convert to colours.
It’s an interesting question you have raised as to what happens to photons in the visible EM frequency range. However, you’re probably like me and tend to generalize about photons over the entire EM range. I think everyone here has done that at one time or another.
We have been talking about the 2nd law and photons related to heat but it has nothing to do with the visible frequency range. The photons in question are related to infrared energy which, as you know, is below the visible range. In fact, the IR range is a narrow range of frequencies in the overall EM spectrum.
That’s why it’s kind of ridiculous trying to apply black body theory and the S-B equation to this narrow range and making ludicrous claims that heat can flow both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
As Gerlich and Tscheuschner tried to point out, treating molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere, with the relatively tremendous spaces between them per unit volume, as a black body, is absurd. It’s equally absurd to claim that back-radiation from this trace gas can in any way raise the temperature of the surface the CO2 in the first place.
Getting back to your point, there is no fact to the theory, according to quantum theory, that IR from a cooler body can raise the temperature of a hotter body. Straight pseudo-science and a contravention of the 2nd law.
“…this trace gas can in any way raise the temperature of the surface the CO2 in the first place”.
Should read…
“…this trace gas can in any way raise the temperature of the surface that heated the CO2 in the first place”.
Gordo, as usual, your reply ignores reality. You wrote:
In the first place, the body (the Earth) is constantly being supplied energy from sunlight, energy which eventually exits the Earth to deep space. The temperature of the surface (and the lower atmosphere) are the result of the several energy flow processes. Change one of those processes and the result will be a change in that balance point temperature. That’s analogous to measuring a voltage, relative to some reference, at some point in a network of resistances and then changing the value of one resistance. The result will be a change in the voltage measured at the previous point. Surely you, as one who claims to have worked with electrical circuits, must agree with that.
Secondly, we know from many decades of observations that a change in the concentration of a trace gas called “water vapor” will change the temperature balance point at the surface of the Earth. When there’s lots of water vapor in the air, the atmosphere cools more slowly at night when there’s no sunlight to add energy. With dry air, the night time rate of cooling is much greater. For CO2, which exhibits absorp_tion in a different section of the IR EM spectrum, increasing the concentration will only add to the observed effects well known from spectroscopic analysis and real world measurements, which results in a warmer Earth.
This does not “contravene the 2nd law”, as your reference to G & T simply asserts without proof.
Swanson, you go through quite a long ramble about sunlight, voltage, resistance, water vapor, dry air, and then you end up with “which results in a warmer Earth”.
A long ramble is NOT a scientific proof. CO2 can not raise the temperature of a system.
See how easy that was? Only 9 words. No rambling.
You should try it.
@JDH,
Thanks to “Craig T” the source data for “Earthviewer” has been revealed.
As I surmised the sources include Dana Royer and Robert Berner. I could find no mention of Scotese but there was this:
Hansen, et al., (2010). Reviews of Geophysics, 48(4), RG4004.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
So what is your judgement? Hard Science or Pseudoscience?
Has Earth had the same amount of water for billions of years.
Or has Earth had the same amount of surface water for billions of years. And will define “surface water” as not ground water, so ocean, lakes, and glacier ice.
And also has Earth had the same amount ground water for billion of years- and ground water is not surface water and not water deeper than say 25 km.
It seems we had, perhaps pseudoscience, ideas of Earth, Venus and Mars having more water in the past. And have lost a lot to space over long time periods like billions of years.
So don’t believe in snowball earths or Mars having thicker atmosphere or that Venus having a ocean.
I don’t believe Earth has had time when all land has been submerged under the ocean, but seems more plausible, that all land was under the ocean waves as compared to Earth being completely covered by ice. One could call it the Altantian Age.
But I have interested in a model where Earth only has a ocean surface. More recently I have interested in Earth with 1/2 as much ocean as has now.
It seems there should large difference between a 1/2 ocean and a ocean the completely cover all land.
And seems it would be a good test, of whether someone could model Earth with any skill.
gc,
From your link –
“The GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4) is an estimate of global surface temperature change.”
Hard science? Any sort of science? 12 year old standard arithmetic, perhaps. Followed by a guess (estimate, if you want to sound important, I suppose).
From the site RealClimate (where at least one person, Gavin Schmidt, is apparently a self proclaimed scientist), a GHE true believer, Baron Paul Levenson, wrote –
“BPL: Okay, here are the facts. 1) Global warming is real. 2) Human technology causes it, mainly the burning of fossil fuels. 3) It’s the worst crisis human civilization has ever faced outside of nuclear war.”
His first two points seem factual and logical. Reversing the order, burning fossil fuels creates heat. This heat is detected around the globe by thermometers. His third point might be disputed by anybody using electric lighting, keeping warm, heating food, depending on freight services and so on.
No GHE needed. If you burn stuff, stay alive, rub your hands together, transform energy from one form to another, heat is created. Lots and lots. It even exists at night, in the absence of sunlight.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Just Nature proceeding as usual.
Cheers.
@Mike Flynn,
BPL rolled you.
1) Global warming is real.
Yes, until 1998. Why did it stop in 1998 forcing the CAGW crowd to re-brand their product as “Climate Change”? “Global Warming ceased to be real in 1998.
2) Human technology causes it, mainly the burning of fossil fuels.
Human technology does cause [CO2] to rise but there is no correlation between [CO2] and hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes or temperature (other than the coincidental correlation from 1850 to 1998).
[CO2] correlates with higher crop yields, longer life expectancy and rising population. It also correlates with the Industrial Revolution that started around 1740.
Efforts to “Mitigate CO2” are misguided and harmful because they imply reversing the technological progress that brought unprecedented prosperity. The “Green New Deal” claims that only 10 million jobs will be lost while ignoring the > 4 billion lives that would be lost by banning fossil fuels.
3) It’s the worst crisis human civilization has ever faced outside of nuclear war.
The exact opposite is true. The Green New Deal” implemented worldwide would be more deadly than nuclear war.
“Man up” by facing your duty to green the planet. CO2 is plant food! Be nice to plants and they will make you more prosperous. All they ask from you is more CO2 and more poop. Buy a bigger SUV or emulate Al Gore by buying three more houses than you actually need.
gc,
You wrote –
“@Mike Flynn,
BPL rolled you.”
Is this “rolled” a pseudoscientific GHE true believer redefinition of an ordinary English word?
Or did you make a typographical error? I don’t understand what you are saying. Would you mind explaining? BPL was responding to someone challenging “Global Warming Alarmism”. I am not sure what BPL would “roll” someone of whom he was totally.
Oh well, if someone set out to “roll” me, I’ll never know how it was supposed to affect me, so no harm done.
Cheers.
Pretending that you don’t understand “rolling” is not worthy of you. Something like Bill Clinton saying what do you mean by the word “is”?
Face reality and admit that the “Green New Deal” would destroy our industrial civilization.
gc,
You wrote –
“Pretending that you don’t understand “rolling” is not worthy of you. Something like Bill Clinton saying what do you mean by the word “is”?”
If you say so. Obviously a pseudoscientific GHE true believer idiom. Keep it a secret if you must.
Cheers.
GC asks: “So what is your judgement? Hard Science or Pseudoscience?”
Since your questions are ambiguous, and the two links are mostly unrelated, it must be “Hard Pseudoscience”.
Naughty JDH! Fence straddling doth not become you.
Are you resorting to “naughty” false accusations now, GC?
Why not learn the relevant physics? That will allow you to recognize and refute pseudoscience. Then you won’t get bullied by phonies like DA.
Oh my big Dave Appell said the sun was 4% less radiant 450mya. Ooooh! Sounds like Dave is admitting that natural variability plays a big part! ho ho ho!
Admitting?? Who claims that over those sorts of time scales it doesn’t?
Begone, troll!
I guess, in the illogic used by clowns, “natural variability” worked in the distant past but no longer is a factor?
They keep changing the rules. No wonder they can’t arrive at a definiton of AGW/GHE that holds up.
JDHuffman
“natural variability worked in the distant past but no longer is a factor?”
You are correct. Natural variability is producing a slow cooling effect on the climate, about -0.05C/decade. Yet even a sceptic like Dr Spencer observes warming of 0.13C/decade.
Artificial warming is now the dominant factor influencing climate, having a much larger influence than natural variation.
That’s another good one, E-man.
Can you turn that nonsense into a poem?
DA…”My data are for the surface; UAH is for the lower troposphere”.
You mean they poke a hole in the surface and stick a thermometer in it? And here I though thermometers were in housings in the lower troposphere.
Here’s Dr. Spencer’s graphic showing how UAH TLT is weighted.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AIRS-global-trend-profile-with-RSS-and-UAH-LT-wfs-550×660.jpg
bill hunter…”You need to first prove there are photons”.
That’s the point that is easily missed. For decades, I worked with electronic communications, where EM is the medium, and not once did I see a reference to photons. All EM was treated as waves.
In antenna theory, EM is referenced in wavelengths. An antenna must match the wavelength of an EM wave it is receiving. In other words, the received wave must resonate with the tuned frequency of the antenna.
I have been using the concept of a photon wrt to a single electron. However, the quantum of energy emitted or absorbed by an electron is not clearly defined.
How can you assign a frequency to a photon, or a wavelength? If a mass of electrons are emitting in unison, there must be a mechanism by which individual quanta add to form a wave.
I daresay the opposite situation is similar and maybe that’s where the answer lies as to why EM from a colder body cannot be absorbed by a warmer body. EM leaving a colder body, as quanta en masse, must form a wavefront. When it reaches a warmer mass, the collective electrons in the mass likely have a way of absorbing or ignoring the mass.
With regard to the problem of EM from a colder body being absorbed by a warmer body, I regard the absorbing/emitting electron as an antenna or a filter. A receiving electron has an angular velocity related to its orbital energy level. Of course, angular velocity can be stated as a frequency.
If a receiving electron has a frequency, it requires energy of the same frequency, or higher, in order to absorb it. If the energy matches minimally, the electron jumps to the next energy level. If the received energy is greater or excessive, the electron jumps several energy levels, or right out of the atom.
If the energy is lower, like the energy from a colder body, it is ignored. I have no idea what happens to it but having the energy ignored satisfies the 2nd law.
“If the energy is lower, like the energy from a colder body, it is ignored. I have no idea what happens to it ..”
Therein lies your problem.
You apparently cannot accept the fact that a cool body emits EM radiation across a range of wavelengths.
A warm body therefore cannot tell if radiation at a given wavelength comes from a cooler or warmer source. The radiation carries zero information about the temperature of its source.
studentb, much of the flux from a colder body will be reflected by a hotter body.
But in addition, the spectrum from the colder body will have a lower “peak energy” than the hotter body. That means the flux energy from the colder body will always be less than the flux energy emitted by the hotter body. The hotter body will be losing energy faster than the colder body can supply.
Put it all together, and it means the colder body will not be able to raise the temperature of the hotter body. And that fits with the 2LoT, as it must.
s,
Off you go, then. Heat up some water with block of ice. Put the ice in the water, if you like – intimate contact should work better, shouldn’t it?
According to you, the water doesn’t know where the photons have come from. It still won’t get hotter! Maybe you need to talk nicely to it – impress it with your logic and intellectual prowess.
Maybe you don’t realise you are talking nonsense, but you are.
Cheers.
studentb says: – If the energy is lower, like the energy from a colder body, it is ignored. I have no idea what happens to it ..
Therein lies your problem.
————
Actually studentb its a problem with anyone proposing a theory. Gordon is simply expressing skepticism.
Calling “it” an “it” is the first problem as if it had some substance. Yet we know energy is quantified like a particle and sometimes acts like a wave. Check out noise cancellation technology in headsets.
So its only a problem for Gordon once its established as being a problem for Gordon. Gordon is in the ideal role he should be in.
This is why the elite class is pushing so hard on post normal science. They desire to reverse the burden of proof so they can rule as they please and take their jet setting junkets while everybody else rides a bicycle.
Therefore skeptics are attacked rather than informed as should be the case. However, the statement “the science is settled” is simply a command to move right along there is nothing to see here.
Post normal science is merely a scheme to control others using essentially the Baron’s treasure chest. As quoted by Dr. Will Happer.
The astonishing recent claim by NOAA, that there never was a hiatus, reminds me of the Barons soliloquy about the power of his treasure chests in Pushkins little tragedy, The Miserly Knight, of 1830 (AKA The Covetous Knight). I have tried to reproduce the solemn, iambic pentameter of Pushkins verse in my translation:
And muses will to me their tribute bring,
Free genius will enslave itself to me,
And virtue, yes, and, sleepless labor too
With humble mien will wait for my reward.
Ive but to whistle, and obedient, timid,
Blood-spattered villainy will crawl to me
And lick my hand, and gaze into my eyes,
To read in them the sign of my desire.
The world has lots of political and financial Barons who profit in one way or another from hysteria over climate change. And, alas, there are muses in the mass media willing to bring tribute, as well as genius-scientists willing to enslave themselves.
So if you value your freedom you would probably be best advised to take the stance of Gordon and a few others around here and demand actual proof of what they claim is a need to relieve you of inexpensive energy, etc. And pay no attention to the doomsday rhetoric, if they understood this themselves adequately they could demonstrate it and explain it, but they can’t so the doomsday rhetoric is simply a lie to try to appeal to people’s fears.
What data does Happer present to show there was a hiatus?
R U Blind?
“How can you assign a frequency to a photon, or a wavelength?”
Frequency is the wavelength times the speed of light. The frequency of a photon is it’s energy divided by the plank constant.
The average temperature in Greenland and western Canada will now fall below the 1979-2000 average.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_arc-lea_t2anom_10-day.png
For the next 12 months?
Midas, please do not make fun of the afflicted. We must be respectful to the disabled (including the 3 stooges).
Dr Myki
Thomas Paine once said: “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead”.
Sometimes I wonder why we bother!
“Sometimes I wonder why we bother!”
For sadistic amusement – like shooting ducks/fish in a barrel.
Em,
Feynman wrote –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Not appropriate for the pseudoscientific GHE true believers, I know.
Those dimwits don’t even have a useful GHE description, let alone a theory!
Cheers.
“For sadistic amusement – like shooting ducks/fish in a barrel.”
Yes, a good example of the sort of people I was referring to earlier:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-373859
This blog seems to be getting full of them. Just here for “sadistic amusement”. And proud of it!
Hey ! Look !
Two ducks !
OK, Ian.
Honestly, it’s like watching special needs children fighting. It’s just fundamentally ineffectual and rather nauseating. You’re all very special.
What a grotesque thing to say.
It appears Midas, “Dr” Myki, and E-man want to argue with the weather.
They hate reality.
JDHuffmam
I do hate reality. I would be much happier in your fantasy world.
Unfortunately I had evidence-based reasoning based reasoning beaten into me with a big stick during my education as a scientist and am unable to ignore the evidence for AGW and climate change.
E-man, here’s some more reality for you to hate: You don’t have a clue about the relevant physics, as evidenced by your false belief that a heat pump “proves” “cold” can warm “hot”, and that then “proves” your AGW.
Your “education” was actually only “indoctrination”. Stick with poetry. You are a failure at science.
Quack !
OK, Ian.
I came here a number of years ago, hoping that the website of a respected scientist would be a source of reliable evidence critical of AGW. I wanted reassurance that AGW and climate change were not going to be as bad as the scientific evidence projected.
It has been a great disappointment.
Yes, it’s been ruined by people seeking “sadistic amusement”, otherwise known as “trolling”. You may not be aware of this, but I’ve politely asked once or twice for these people to stop, but alas, to no avail.
E-man claims: ” I wanted reassurance that AGW and climate change were not going to be as bad as the scientific evidence projected.”
Well E-man, if you’ve been paying attention, you know that AGW is a hoax. Now, you just have to have the courage to accept reality and leave that cult.
Entropic man says: – I came here a number of years ago, hoping that the website of a respected scientist would be a source of reliable evidence critical of AGW. I wanted reassurance that AGW and climate change were not going to be as bad as the scientific evidence projected.
It has been a great disappointment.
Hmmmm, thats funnier than shit! What is this masochism confession day? Did you really come here to see somebody prove a negative?
“I came here a number of years ago, hoping that the website of a respected scientist would be a source of reliable evidence critical of AGW. I wanted reassurance that AGW and climate change were not going to be as bad as the scientific evidence projected.
It has been a great disappointment.”
Everybody here knows you are a communist plant , so Stop playing dumb games , nobody here is falling for it
Here’s some more reality for E-man to hate, and Norman to deny:
Clear skies, directly overhead –> 18.1 F
Ground –> 80.2 F
For clowns unable to convert to Celsius:
Overhead –> -7.7 C
Ground –> 26.8 C
The surface warms the atmosphere, as usual. Excess energy moves to space. There are no violations of laws of physics.
See why clowns hate reality?
Where is this “overhead” temperature?
Is it near the top of the troposphere where temperature is about -60C
or top of the stratosphere where the temperature is about 0C
or top of the mesosphere where the temperature is about -80C
or top of the thermosphere where the temperature is about +80C ?
You see, simply quoting temperature differences does not tell you much about energy flows, let alone net energy flows.
studentb, don’t waste your time – its like talking to a duck.
JD is pointing an IR thermometer sensitive to 8-14 um radiation at the sky. His reading of -7.7C probably corresponds to roughly 210 W/m^2 of DWIR assuming a clear sky emissivity of 0.75.
Very good, bdgwx.
You’ve been studying.
studentb says: “You see, simply quoting temperature differences does not tell you much about energy flows, let alone net energy flows.”
Actually that is not correct, studentb. The IR thermometer is measuring the flux from directly overhead. The temperature provided is calculated from that flux. So you get a good indication of energy flows.
But, that is flux. If you want to compare conduction and convection, look at the lapse rate.
Of course, that invalidates the bogus GHE, which is why clowns hate facts and logic.
Nothing new.
“that invalidates the bogus GHE”
Right JD, and that validates the actual GHE.
Someone pressed the “on” button on the Ball4 machine, and it has rolled in for more of its own “sadistic amusement”.
fluffball likes to play games with semantics. That way he can avoid facts and logic.
But, mostly he just gets himself tangled up in his own fluff.
Nothing new.
But, how does the surface know about the temperature of the radiation source? Think about it, the surface does not perform a calculation based on the radiation and some unknown emissivity value. That 210 Wm-2 could just as easily come from the sun. A blackbody absorbs it from any source because is non-discriminatory by definition.
studentb, you’re confused on two points:
1) The target surface doesn’t know the temperature of the source, but it knows the wavelength of the arriving photon.
2) Earth’s surface is NOT a black body.
s,
You now see the idiocy of measuring temperature in terms of W/m2.
If you try to heat your beverage by utilising the 300 W/m2 from ice, you will be sorely disappointed. Maybe the beverage knows the difference between 300 W/m2 from ice (below freezing), and 300 W/m2 from the Sun (around 5800 K).
Maybe you can explain why your beverage gets cooler, rather than hotter, when you place ice in it.
You cant even describe the GHE in any useful scientific way, so reality is unlikely to convince you that cunning debating tactics or logic cannot turn fantasy into fact.
Some photons interact with matter by raising its temperature. Some don’t. Fact of life.
Cheers.
The lapse rate is caused by the greenhouse effect.
Mainly caused by convection I thought, although GHGs help cool the upper atmosphere.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-if-there-were-no-greenhouse-effect.html
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0674.1
Great granddad and great grandson are at loggerheads…
Higher magnetic activity of the sun is correlated with parallel circulation. Therefore, no hurricane in the Atlantic can form at this time.
You have proof here.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.mrf.obs.gif
How nice!. How sweet!
Take these coloured crayons and draw me another pretty picture.
Dr Myki – cut the snark!
Ren-
Your link is a graph of the NAO indes. Can you link to something that shows either hurricanes in the Atlantic or solar magnetic activity corresponds to the NAO index?
The NOA index shows the pressure distribution in the Atlantic. High pressure over Iceland and low pressure over the Azores. This shows that the jet stream is falling south in the eastern Atlantic.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/natl/mimictpw_natl_latest.gif
The NAO index has been negative since the end of April. Solar activity was minimal during this period (minimum of the solar cycle).
The surface temperature of the Eastern Atlantic must not rise above average.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/eatlssta.png
Day 160.
160 days of denial from the GHE Defense Team on the debunking of the Green Plate Effect. With the GPE debunked, and the trivially obvious fact there’s no GHE now wildly apparent to anyone open-minded, rational and intelligent enough to have thought it through, that makes most climate blogs redundant. But, the show must go on, I suppose.
160 days, and likely most of them do not know what “enthalpy” is. And even fewer understand “entropy”.
So there’s no way they could understand “Enthalpy can not increase and entropy decrease without an increase in energy”.
Nothing new.
entropy: a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system’s thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
enthalpy: a thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the total heat content of a system. It is equal to the internal energy of the system plus the product of pressure and volume.
Maybe that will help you JD.
Probably not
weasel knows how to copy/paste.
And, he knows how to weasel out of an agreement.
And also how to appear like magic as soon as “the plates” are mentioned.
Yeah, my idiot detector is working flawlessly.
Response.
“… the trivially obvious fact there’s no GHE now wildly apparent to anyone open-minded, rational and intelligent enough to have thought it through…”
How you insult Dr. Spencer for being a Skeptic that still pays attention to data that all scientists agree on and agrees that there is a greenhouse effect. I think you should change your name to Dr. Roy’s Flagellation Team.
Are you kidding!? I’ve read this blog for many years, before commenting. This has always been one of the few places where the GHE can be frankly discussed.
You can believe it’s by accident if you want.
“This has always been one of the few places where the GHE can be frankly discussed.”
It’s become a place where most posts are pointless insults devoid of facts.
It’s also always been a place where people post pointless insults. Especially against those who are arguing against the GHE. That’s certainly the most demonized group of people in the climate debate.
Craig, are you aware that, even though Dr. Spencer tries to be scientific, he is still hated? Are you aware that his UAH building has been shot at? Do you close your eyes to all the venom hurled at Skeptics here?
Cults are fanatical and dangerous.
Open your eyes.
Entropic man wrote –
“Unfortunately I had evidence-based reasoning based reasoning beaten into me with a big stick during my education as a scientist and am unable to ignore the evidence for AGW and climate change.”
You might have benefited from having been taught the scientific method.
Your “evidence based reasoning” is the sort of jargon used by pseudoscientific GHE true believers trying to sound authoritative. Here is one definition – ” . . .evidence-based reasoning is the process of thinking about something in a logical way and supporting your thinking with proof to show that your thoughts are, indeed, logical.”
Unfortunately, you need to specify what it is you are thinking about. This is difficult if you claim you are “thinking” about how the GHE operates, because this would require that you are able to usefully describe the GHE, which nobody has actually managed to do!
What is it that you do not understand? What temperature is? How thermometers operate? Where heat comes from?
If you cannot explain any observations using current physical knowledge, you might need to describe where and when these observations may be reproduced and quantified, and what makes them novel, or currently inexplicable.
It’s called science, and starts with observation of something unusual, a guess as to why, experimentation, a theory, and more reproducible experiments. If you say increased temperature is due to something other than obvious heat sources, you might be laughed at.
Maybe you could try telling people why a GHE is necessary, describe it, and produce a testable GHE hypothesis. Or you could just appeal to your own authority. That might work.
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn says:
August 14, 2019 at 5:25 AM
s,
Off you go, then. Heat up some water with block of ice. ”
I just did. I went out to my garage and painted some water onto the pipes coming outt the back of my freezer.
The heat extracted from the ice promptly evaporated the water.
Now what?
For some reason E-man likes to reveal his ignorance of thermodynamics.
Who knows, maybe he believes his comment rhymes?
Em,
You haven’t heated water with ice. You have heated it using electricity. Maybe you need to understand how refrigeration works.
I don’t know why you go out of your way to boast how ignorant and stupid you are. It seems bit odd to me.
However, I suppose a pseudoscientific GHE true believer could convince himself that heating water using electricity is really heating water using ice. You mentioned “evidence based reasoning” before. Turn off the electricity to your freezer. Wait until those pipes have cooled to ambient. Now notice that the pipes have lost their power to heat your water above ambient. You might come to the conclusion that the electric power was providing the heating you noticed. Or maybe not, depending how thick you are.
Still no GHE. No magical CO2 heating ability. No heating water using the radiation from ice.
Cheers.
As an astronaut floating in space, not exposed to the sun, would I like to cuddle up to a chunk of ice at 0C or nothing at all (-273C)?
I would prefer the “warm” ice.
pp…”As an astronaut floating in space, not exposed to the sun, would I like to cuddle up to a chunk of ice at 0C or nothing at all (-273C)?
I would prefer the warm ice”.
The warm ice would do nothing for a body needing to be at 37C.
Without a space suit heater you’d be in deep doo doo. And at -273C batteries don’t work to well for long.
pP,
What a witless evasion. Astronauts’ Extra Vehicular Mobility suits require cooling, not warming up. Are you stupid, or just pretending?
Try warming some water with some ice. You can’t do it, can you? It doesn’t really matter, because you can’t even usefully describe the GHE. All that pseudoscientific GHE believers can do is to fly off at maximum speed along the nearest tangent.
What a bumbling pack of fools!
Try some science. A foolish hope, but I remain optimistic, in spite of all available evidence that delusional psychotics are not curable in the usual sense of the word. For example, Gavin Schmidt probably sincerely believes he is a climate scientist, and Michael Mann was delusional enough to claim he was a Nobel Laureate – in court documents to boot!
You cannot warm water with the radiation from ice – even if the ice is emitting 300 W/m2.
Keep dreaming.
Cheers.
entropic…” The heat extracted from the ice promptly evaporated the water.
Now what?”
Learn the 2nd law and what it means.
Get the book by Clausius and read it from the beginning…carefully. He explains in great detail everything you need to know and why heat cannot be transferred spontaneously from cold to hot.
His theory takes you through heat engine theory and if you pay attention, you can see why heat won’t transfer cold to hot, by its own means.
His findings were critical to science at the time. He disproved a claim by Carnot regarding heat loss and set the tone for deeper investigation. The work of Clausius has never been challenged re the 2nd law. Only the stubborn like Swannie and Norman think they have found a way to bypass the 2nd law but they have not proved Clausius wrong.
Swannie has simply misinterpreted the results of his experiments.
Says the dude who didn’t prove that all points of the moon have the same linear velocity which he promised to do.
Didn’t do it.
Couldn’t do it.
Claims he did it.
Hoosier daddy.
bob d…”Says the dude who didnt prove that all points of the moon have the same linear velocity which he promised to do”.
JD and I have already discussed that. The Moon as a body has an instantaneous linear velocity. In essence, the Moon is trying to move in a straight line. However, the action of gravity on the Moon produces a resultant path, the orbit. Therefore, you have to look at the Moon’s velocity with two hats.
With the Moon hat on, you consider only the Moon. It’s velocity vector is tangential to the gravity vector, whichever one you use. As such, the Moon’s tangential velocity is its linear velocity.
Off with the Moon hat and on with the orbital hat. Now you have to consider the Moon in rotation about the Earth’s axis. That is done with a radial line from the Earth’s axis through the Moon’s COG. Now we are considering the angular velocity of the Moon in Earth orbit, which is the angular rate of change of the radial line.
In either case, the angular velocity can be converted to a linear velocity as I explained to stupid. Briefly, degrees per second can be converted to radians per second which can be converted to metres/second in the orbit.
In either case again, any point on the Moon at any instant is traveling at the angular velocity of the Moon about the Earth. With a rigid body, the velocity is regarded as the velocity of the centre of gravity, not the individual particles.
Gordon shrieks:
“In either case again, any point on the Moon at any instant is traveling at the angular velocity of the Moon about the Earth. With a rigid body, the velocity is regarded as the velocity of the centre of gravity, not the individual particles.”
Gordon. The velocity of the moon’s center of gravity is slower than the velocity of a point on outer edge of the far side of the moon. That is a plain FACT. No, Gordon, the velocity of a rigid body is not regarded as the velocity of the center of gravity.
JD was wrong and YOU are embarrassingly wrong. All points on the moon do not move with the same linear velocity.
That stupid statement is right up there with your moronic statement that, “Rotation requires movement along a CONTINUOUS curve.” That was a howler.
All parts of Moon have the same instantaneous linear velocity. That’s why the same side always faces the interior of the orbit. Otherwise, Moon would be spinning on its axis.
That’s true for all orbiting objects. It is believed that Gamymede (Jupiter’s largest moon) also always faces the interior of its orbit. That means it is not rotating on its axis.
It’s the same basic motion as a racehorse running an oval track. Or, a blue jet circumnavigating Earth:
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
What velocity equation are you using? Show your work.
(This ought to be entertaining)
But what about the trotters?
And the green jets?
Crickets. . . . .
JD screams:
“All parts of Moon have the same instantaneous linear velocity. Thats why the same side always faces the interior of the orbit!”
Your pronouncement is in direct conflict with Tesla’s Figure 5, where the balls are not locked. Tesla stated:
“The combined result of these two motions is a translatory movement of the ball such that all particles are animated with the same velocity V, which is that of its center of gravity.”
So, before he locks the balls, all particles of the object have the same velocity.
It is only AFTER he locks the balls, that the same side always faces the center of orbit, just like the moon. So the velocities of all points of the balls cannot be the same, when the balls are locked.
Poor JD, always on the losing end. Doesn’t that get tiring, always being wrong, and looking like a fool???? Apparently not. He’s only happy to look like an idiot.
“It is only AFTER he locks the balls, that the same side always faces the center of orbit, just like the moon. “
…and, once locked, they are physically incapable of rotating on their own axes.
Now, let’s see…is it called “tidal locking”, or is it called “tidal freedom of movement”.
It’s a puzzler.
Gordon drools:
“In either case, the angular velocity can be converted to a linear velocity as I explained to stupid.”
Gordon favorite pastime is making up his own physics definitions to suit his distorted views. For example, he makes up his own definition of curvilinear translation, which is totally contrary to the standard one you would find in any kinematics textbook.
Now he does the same with angular velocity. Gordon, please refer to the following university class lecture notes:
http://people.wku.edu/david.neal/117/Unit2/AngVel.pdf
The above reference states the following:
“We always use radians as the unit of measure when working with angular velocity”.
I wonder if Gordon will now redefine the term “always”?
Gordon blubbers:
“With a rigid body, the velocity is regarded as the velocity of the centre of gravity, not the individual particles.”
Please refer to the following kinematic lecture notes:
http://ww2.odu.edu/~jdudek/Phys111N_materials/7_rotational_motion.pdf
On page 8, please refer to the segment entitled, “Motion of Points in a Rigid Body,”
It states the following:
“Consider the motion of a couple of points within the rigid body. The blue point at a large radius travels further in the same time than the red point, so although the angular speed is the same, the linear speed is different.”
That was a slam dunk. This IS like shooting fish in a barrel.
Grrdon moans:
“However, the action of gravity on the Moon produces a resultant path, the orbit. Therefore, you have to look at the Moons velocity with two hats.”
Yes. And the second hat is made of tin. Wow! What an amazing amount of BS.
Trouble is brewing under the Yellowstone-sized supervolcano of HGS’s fury…
Massimo PORZIO
You said:
“BTW, I’m not a scientist, I’m just an electronic engineer and an amateur climate guy.”
I resemble that! My first degree was in physics and the second one in electrical engineering:
https://www.bdidatalynk.com/instructor/peter-morcombe
Since retiring for the third time in 2017 I have more time for endless discussions about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The residents here seem unusually petty this week so I plan to dial back my comments for a while to give them a chance to calm down.
As an electronic engineer you must be familiar with PSPICE. Tim Channon (at Tallbloke) used it to model the temperature of the Moon with good accuracy:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
Dr. Roy has a spreadsheet that is almost as good.
“The residents here seem unusually petty this week …”
Yes, I have noticed that too. Happens near the time of a full moon.
Begone, troll!
Quack!
OK, Ian.
cam …when I was setting up a fibre cable for installation, I’d strip them, cleave them, polish them, very quickly, then tape them together with electrical tape and point the bundle at an ordinary incandescent light bulb.
Then off to the other end to view them with a 100X lens. If I got a full moon that filled 3/4 of the dark area, I proceeded terminating that end.
On one job, I got less than half a Moon and could not figure it out. Ended up borrowing a TDR which indicated an issue about 15 feet from the far end. The fibre had already been run through a final conduit and it was not easy to get at the 15 foot mark.
As you know, you don’t want to be tearing a fibre cable apart a bit at a time, in case the problem is elsewhere. However, there was little option and that’s what I had to do. The 15 foot mark was inside the conduit and splicing was out of the question.
Finally, about 15 feet in I found the problem. The glass of the fibres was twisted together as tight as the copper conductors in a CAT5 cable.
When I untwisted them, each fibre looked like a little sine wave.
GR,
That is an amazing story! Given the tools you had it is remarkable that you managed any kind of repair. What method did you use to cleave the fiber?
While I don’t teach fiber optics any more my classes have been taken over by much younger people who can show you how to splice fiber optic cables to meet Telco specifications (~0.1 dB per splice).
I have seen cable faults like the one you describe but they are rare if you buy cable from a reputable supplier. Such faults can be located within a few millimeters using OFDRs or 3 meters using OTDRs.
OFDRs are still pricey so most people use OTDRs which can cost less than $2,000.
Hi gallopingcamel,
Note: since I have a lot of problem making this message pass the automatic moderation tool I split it in more parts.
just curious, why that alias? 🙂
Yes, I know SPICE and the simulator that I use to help me designing faster uses a SPICE core too (let me say that it’s the “father” of almost all EE simulators), the one I use it’s just a little friendly in the schematic entry IMHO.
Continue…
Nothing to do…
I’m not able to send you the message i would.
This is incredible, but I can’t.
I would tell you about a heat transfer simulator that I found a couple of years ago, but the moderation tool doesn’t allow it.
If you like it you could ask Dr. Spencer directly to give you my e-mail and I’ll reply directly.
have a great day.
Massimo
The intent is not to hide my identity which can easily be discovered as many of my posts have my real name as well as the gallopingcamel moniker.
Experience suggests that “Gallopingcamel” is easier to remember than my real name.
In Rugby football a “Wing Three-quarter” plays both sides of the ball so on defense you are a “Corner Back” and on offense you are a “Wide Receiver”. The main requirement for the job is to be able to run faster than anyone else on the other team.
Fifty plus years ago I played wing three-quarter for the Coventry RUFC.
http://www.coventryrugby.co.uk/
It would have pleased me if my team mates has called me “The Gazelle” in recognition of my graceful running style but sadly they were mean spirited (cf David Appell) and called me the “Galloping Camel”.
You can email me at info(at)gallopingcamel.info
Hi gallopingcamel,
Thanks for the explanation, I was really curious about that funny alias. It just a guess, maybe that they would call you “The Gazelle” because you were too heavy to be compared to that?
; – )
I send you in private the message.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“1) The target surface doesnt know the temperature of the source, but it knows the wavelength of the arriving photon.”
Agreed.
2) Earths surface is NOT a black body.
Disagree. The surface is well approximated as a black body which means that is welcoming to photons of all wavelengths. That is why the SB Law describes the total emission from the surface for a given temperature. The absorp_tivity/emiss-ivity for water, for example, is about 0.95.
Therefore, a photon arrives at the surface and what happens next? Without “border security” the photon must be absorbed – irrespective of the surface temperature. Of course, the surface is still emitting according to SB. Think about it. The net effect will be cooling if the surface is relatively warm, and warming if it is relatively cool. No violation of any laws and no problem with having to explain where the photon goes otherwise.
studentb…”Therefore, a photon arrives at the surface and what happens next? Without border security the photon must be absorbed irrespective of the surface temperature”.
Suggest you read Bohr and Schrodinger till you understand what I going on.
s,
You wrote –
“Without ‘border security’ the photon must be absorbed irrespective of the surface temperature.”
Why do you make such stupid statements? What would “absorb” such a photon? Why? Do you believe photons cannot be reflected from a surface? How about transparent material or translucent materials?
You might notice that the more dimwitted pseudoscientific GHE true believers insist that IR photons cannot be absorbed by many things – oxygen and nitrogen amongst them.
You could always learn some QED theory, if you had the time. Otherwise, just keep rambling. Still no GHE, and no CO2 heating.
Cheers.
All you need to know is that a blackbody is “a perfect absorber and radiator of energy, with no reflecting power.” The the surface is neither reflective nor transluscent to IR. It absorbs almost 100%
s,
I assume you are trying to disagree with something I wrote, but you can’t find anything in particular.
All you need to to alleviate your ignorance is pretty well everything. I can give no assistance as to how to minimise your stupidity.
Reflectance varies with wavelength, surface, angle of incidence, and a few other things.
The Earth might be a black body in your pseudoscientific GHE true believer fantasy, but not in reality, alas.
I won’t ask you to try harder. You are trying enough as it is.
Cheers.
students, the surface is NOT well approximated as a black body. If it were a black body, it would appear black. No visible light would be returned to your eyes.
In pseudoscience, they want you to believe that “all photons are always absorbed”, but that just is not true. Photons are easily reflected.
So your statement:“…the photon must be absorbed– irrespective of the surface temperature” is completely false.
Photons MUST have a compatible wavelength to be absorbed. The surface temperature matters.
sb…”2) Earths surface is NOT a black body.
…Disagree. The surface is well approximated as a black body which means that is welcoming to photons of all wavelengths. That is why the SB Law describes the total emission from the surface for a given temperature”.
**********
The S-B law is based on a platinum wire heated electrically between about 700C and 1500C. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant does not apply at terrestrial temperatures, it needs to be adjusted. In fact, the constant must be adjusted based on the temperature of the body in question.
I know people tend to throw S-B around as if it is a universal equation of radiation, but they are wrong. It makes little since to compare Earth to a blackbody, which is defined as a body that will absorb all EM frequencies.
The Sun and other stars can be compared to a BB due to their high temperatures. I hardly think the Sun absorbs all EM frequencies incident upon it.
BB theory was proposed by Kircheoff long before the quantum theory of Bohr and Schrodinger was developed. Kircheoff proposed the theory for bodies in thermal equilibrium, not for bodies of different temperatures radiating in proximity to each other.
We now know that the electrons in atoms that absorb and emit EM absorb it only under specific conditions.
I think BB theory should be put to bed and that we should find out what is really going on.
We’d probably do well to include convection and conduction into the mix.
stephen…”Wed probably do well to include convection and conduction into the mix”.
That’s what is wrong with AGE and the GHE, they are based on radiation only.
R.W. Wood, an expert on the emissions of CO2 and other gases, claimed CO2 radiation in the atmosphere could not warm it as claimed re the GHE. He thought the warming credited to the GHE is likely due to the atmosphere absorbing heat from the surface via conduction and convection. Since gases are poor radiators they tend to hold the heat.
That makes far more sense to me than claiming a trace gas is causing the warming.
Sorry, SB is simply an expression of the integral of the Planck function – it is not an empirical law. Unless you would like to dispute the Planck function – in which case we will never agree.
s,
You wrote –
“Sorry, SB is simply an expression of the integral of the Planck function it is not an empirical law.”
Some apparently disagree –
From Wikipedia
“The StefanBoltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature.”, but maybe you prefer Britannica –
“Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.”
Are you a scofflaw, perhaps?
Cheers.
Sorry studentb, but the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is indeed a “law”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StefanBoltzmann_law
studentb…”…GR…“If the energy is lower, like the energy from a colder body, it is ignored. I have no idea what happens to it ..”
student…
“Therein lies your problem.
You apparently cannot accept the fact that a cool body emits EM radiation across a range of wavelengths.
A warm body therefore cannot tell if radiation at a given wavelength comes from a cooler or warmer source. The radiation carries zero information about the temperature of its source”.
1)I have no problem with the fact that a body of any temperature radiates a spectrum of EM frequencies.
2)A warm body CAN tell if EM is from a cooler source. It’s covered in the fundamentals of quantum theory. In order for electrons in a body to absorb EM, that EM must meet a specific criteria. Namely, the energy in E = hf, must be high enough to push the electron to a higher orbital energy level AND the frequency must match.
If EM from a cooler body cannot satisfy that equation at a minimal level, it will not be absorbed. My point was that I cannot explain what happens to it when it is not absorbed. As far as I know, it goes on forever till it reaches a cooler mass that can absorb it.
Eventually, it will likely peter out via the inverse square law to the point where it is insignificant.
Sorry. We must disagree again.
If you or I measured the intensity of IR radiation at a given wavelength in a room, or even outside – there is no way we could tell the temperature of the source which emitted it. Only if we knew the intensity as a function of wavelength would we be able to estimate a black body temperature. But even that would be deceptive if looking at the atmosphere – because the atmosphere does not behave like a blackbody.
s,
You wrote –
“If you or I measured the intensity of IR radiation at a given wavelength in a room, or even outside there is no way we could tell the temperature of the source which emitted it.”
Well, actually, you could, assuming that the wavelength represented the peak wavelength. “Wien’s displacement law states that the black-body radiation curve for different temperatures will peak at different wavelengths that are inversely proportional to the temperature.”
Intensity has little to do with it. Maybe you are unaware of Leslies’s cube. Identical temperatures can produce different intensities, but the emitted wavelengths are the same, of course.
Maybe you should stick to describing the non-existent GHE, or explaining the miracle of making thermometers hotter with CO2.
Just for fun, you might correct my intentional mistake(s), if you feel like it.
Cheers.
“Well, actually, you could, assuming that the wavelength represented the peak wavelength.”
Herein is your problem. You don’t know if it is peak wavelength – or just radiation from the wings of the Planck function. To assume it is peak wavelength does not make sense. Hence, in fact, you really don’t know anything about the temperature of the source.
s,
As I said, assuming . . . I am free to assume anything I like. When I measured your imaginary IR wavelengths I scanned them all. I discovered that the wavelength you specified was the peak wavelength. Bad luck for you, you chose the wrong wavelength. Try another. It will be, of course, exactly the peak wavelength emitted.
What is your point? Does it have something to do with the nonsensical GHE? Or maybe trying to increase the temperature of water with ice?
Are you truly stupid, or just thick?
Cheers.
studentb, you keep getting hung up on the temperature of the source. Photon absorp.tion is based on compatibily of photon wavelength to the wavelength of the vibrating absorber.
That’s why a cold object cannot raise the temperature of a hot object.
Sorry guys. Your interpretation of physics is very different to mine. As a consequence I am afraid we cannot have a meaningful discussion. Good luck anyway.
No harm done, studentb.
Learning, like reality, can be a bitch. Sometimes you just don’t believe you will ever get it, then suddenly the light breaks through. Of course, there are some that never have that good fortune.
Keep studying.
Gordon Robertson says:
2)A warm body CAN tell if EM is from a cooler source.
How is this done, exactly?
David, please stop trolling.
Simple, by losing heat.
That makes no sense.
Radiation (photons) from body B arrives at body A.
How do such a photon communicate the temperature of body B?
Oh I thought you were talking about IR detectors and FLIR devices.
Whats going on here. . . .an attempt to obtain experiment results using ones imagination?
bob d…”entropy: a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a systems thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system”.
******
entropy…as defined by the scientist, Clausius, who created the word and defined the process.
entropy is the sum of infinitesimal heat transfers at the temperature, T, at which they take place.
He further gave the relationship:
ds = dq/T
Integrate that and you get entropy.
If you can keep T constant, by drawing it from a heat bath, you can pull it outside the integral sign. Then entropy becomes more obvious, as the total heat transfer.
If a body transfers that heat away, then the energy is not available for doing work in that body.
The degree of randomness was an afterthought by Clausius. He noted that most processes are irreversible therefore they cannot be reversed. That means the reaction producing them leaves the component parts more chaotic than before the reaction began.
The degree of randomness has no measure, it was just a thought. Entropy is about heat.
The concept of entropy advanced quite a bit from these basic beginnings.
In general, entropy is the (negative) partial differential of free energy with respect to temperature.
That’s very general and is used, for example, to calculate the entropy of a black hole — it’s the area of its event horizon divided by 4. (Thanks to Bekenstein & Hawking.)
There may be some h-bars and c’s in there somewhere. Perhaps even a G.
advanced to where? . . . . another side of your imagination? Kind of sounds like it with conditional h’s, c’s, and G’s sort of floating around.
CraigT wrote earlier-
“Very little longwave radiation reaches the Earth from the Sun but the Earths surface gives off longwave radiation.”, which is meaningless.
I suggested that CraigT might care to revise his statement, and be specific enough to enable useful examination.
CraigT has looked at Wikipedia, and made some references to it.
However, in the usual diversionary way of pseudoscientific GHE true believers, no revision of his original statement (which remains devoid of useful information) has emerged..
Others might decide for themselves whether CraigT’s statement is more related to science or sciency sounding irrelevance
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says: – Others might decide for themselves whether CraigT’s statement is more related to science or sciency sounding irrelevance
Bingo!
This is the essential nature of post normal science where an elitist minority bribes genius scientists to adhere to a world view that entertains the idea of Leonardo DiCaprio and Sean Penn, two Google Camp attendees, who were recently sighted cruising the Mediterranean in DiCaprio’s 453ft yacht Topaz that only burns about the fuel equivalent of 116 747 aircraft. At least I guess they were ride sharing.
Folks need to face it. Even the grandfather of global warming said the science wasn’t there yet. There is no there there, only suspicion and politics.
What’s your evidence of these “bribes?”
In 1988 Hansen told Congress the evidence for an enhancing greenhouse effect was in. For that he’ll be remembered forever. So what are you talking about?
The Revelle/Singer 1991 paper said he was full of it.
An opinion piece, written by Singer, not a paper, as in a scientific publication.
‘Folks need to face it. Even the grandfather of global warming said the science wasnt there yet. There is no there there, only suspicion and politics.’
Sure, in 1991.
Nate says: “An opinion piece, written by Singer, not a paper, as in a scientific publication.
Folks need to face it. Even the grandfather of global warming said the science wasnt there yet. There is no there there, only suspicion and politics.
Sure, in 1991.”
That would be 12 years after the National Academy of Sciences blessed the James Hansen 1.5 to 4.5 degrees warming from doubling of CO2.
What great discovery came after 1991? A wannabee world government policy body to bless it?
‘What great discovery came after 1991?’
Most of the warming has happened since 1991. Another 0.7 C of almost continuos warming.
Revelle would have been gratified that the predictions of the 1980s had in fact been proven correct.
That global temperatures would, as Hansen predicted in 1981, rise so much by the early 21st century, that it be clearly distinguishable from the natural variation of the first 8 decades of the 20th century.
That the spatial pattern of the warming, retreating sea ice and glaciers, happened as predicted.
Nate says: ———Most of the warming has happened since 1991. Another 0.7 C of almost continuos warming.Revelle would have been gratified that the predictions of the 1980s had in fact been proven correct.
That global temperatures would, as Hansen predicted in 1981, rise so much by the early 21st century, that it be clearly distinguishable from the natural variation of the first 8 decades of the 20th century.——-
What is your basis for excluding natural variation?
The temperature rose by .07 from 1911 to 1944 also. Wood for Trees has the increase from 1911 to 1944 larger than the increase from 1979 to the present.
I have little doubt Roger Revelle would be sucked in on such weak evidence he was no amateur and he wasn’t bred for the job.
‘Wood for Trees has the increase from 1911 to 1944 larger than the increase from 1979 to the present.’
Uhhh No. That would be a No.
You guys are way too fond of cherries.
https://tinyurl.com/yywxp5br
Even drawing a line connecting the volcanic dip in 1911, to the super el nino hill of 1944 won’t do it.
https://tinyurl.com/y6eccky4
Some known natural variation and temp trend.
test
Nate says: ———You guys are way too fond of cherries. Even drawing a line connecting the volcanic dip in 1911, to the super el nino hill of 1944 wont do it.—————–
Sorry but goofed.
However if you use hc3 for your source 1911 to 1945 instead you find .55 degree warming. Since this temp set was abandoned, using UAH in its stead you have .5 degrees warming since 1979.
Worse when you reduce this gross warming down to a warming rate you come up with
1911 to 1945 is 34 years. 1979 to 1919 is 40 years. So adjusting for length of time to warm. You have for the earlier record .55/34*10=.16 degC / decade. For the recent warming you get .5/40*10=.13deg C / decade as verified by the UAH website.
The El Nino of 1940/41 (if thats what caused it) is positioned in the same place at the end of the trend as the recent El Nino of 2015/16. If you subtract both El Ninos by shortening the record both the recent record loses about .13 and the earlier trend only loses about .1. Bottom line these sources suggest the early 20th century trend was actually more robust than the modern trend.
ENSO predictions are still favoring El Nino over La Nina by 2 to 1 or more over the next 9 months. If another El Nino cycle occurs as did the double peaker in 1940/41 and 1944/45. We could get a 2015/16 to maybe 19/20 reading similar to the earlier period adding on another 1/10th degree warming that would make up some of the difference.
But no doubt another major El Nino almost back to back will cause you to go out of your mind over unprecedented warming, despite the fact it may have happened in 1940 and 1944 before that.
And by the way, the major volcanic eruption of 1911 actually did not occur until 1912, which was a warmer year than 1911. So volcanic effects probably are over hyped as an explanation for variation in temperatures.
Cherry picking? Hardly! I will get into that but I allow all of the records into my range of possibilities. Do you or do you make up excuses to cherry pick?
The fact is most scientists have a lot of integrity and pride in their abilities that they aren’t going to sell out. Yes bias still enters into the occasion but the bias isn’t perceived. I have biases and you have biases too. So when we look more closely at say Berkeley Earth we don’t see a lot of difference to be concerned about.
Berkeley Earth has a warming rate of around .16degC/decade in the period 1911 to 1945 in agreement with HC3 perhaps with a small difference due to rounding and a rate from 1979 to the present of about .18degC/decade. That leaves a residual of only about .02 degrees/c decade to attribute to the order of magnitude increase in CO2 emissions over that period of time.
But there is more to consider still. It is thought that the reason both HC3 and UAH have lower rates of warming is because of either not including the poles (HC3) or having too high in the atmosphere sampling over the poles(UAH).
But this is the only way you can really compare the early 20th century to the present because, arctic temperature monitoring at that time was very minimal.
Dr Akasofu has a graph I just stumbled over that shows arctic warming occurring faster in the early 20th century than the later 20th century.
But here is a remnant that a bit blurry: http://www.arctic-warming.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pic1_s1.jpg
Berkeley Earth has a lot of Arctic warming in their current data and not any detectable in the 1930’s through the 40’s. So if you allow for the possibility of an arctic warming in the 30’s and 40’s detected by Akasofu but not included in any global temperature record currently possibly because of a poor reconstruct of arctic temperatures in the past, the Berkeley Earth gap between the present over the 1940’s could disappear.
Drawing any firm conclusions from this requires a seance.
Bottom line Nate, you are just vowing to be a good little boy and promote whatever it is your daddy wants you to promote. I can accept either outcome and strongly suspect that much of the 20th Century warming, if not all, must have been from natural variation. And I am trying the best I can to avoid bias and embrace all that science has to offer not just a few narrow points of view.
‘However if you use hc3 for your source 1911 to 1945 instead you find .55 degree warming. Since this temp set was abandoned, using UAH in its stead you have .5 degrees warming since 1979.’
And so what? There were no satellite troposphere temps in 1911-1945.
Now you’re not only cherry picking years, but also data sets in order to manufacture a FALSE narrative.
Use the data that we have. Use objective analysis of that data.
Else you’re simply deluding yourself!
‘ And I am trying the best I can to avoid bias and embrace all that science has to offer not just a few narrow points of view.’
That’s like Trump saying he’s doing his best to unite the country.
That is just not consistent with your posts.
By cherry picking, I mean specifically choosing particular years 1911, 1944, that have downward and upward blips.
1911: There were large eruptions in 1902 and 1912 and many smaller ones in this period. This depresses temperatures at the beginning of your 1911-1944 period.
I don’t know what was going on in 1944, besides El Nino, and WW II, which caused a change in how ocean temps were measured. But clearly there is a large, but brief, rise above the background trend.
Choosing those particular years shows bias, an effort to find what you want, rather than finding the true trend.
Nate says: ———And so what? There were no satellite troposphere temps in 1911-1945. Now youre not only cherry picking years, but also data sets in order to manufacture a FALSE narrative.
Use the data that we have. Use objective analysis of that data.
Else youre simply deluding yourself!—————
No Nate you just don’t understand what is going on. In financial accounting one of the “primary” considerations an auditor must strive for is “consistency”. Reporting Arctic temperatures has not been consistent. Putting the Arctic in the longterm temperature records would be a violation of proper accounting consistency.
So all I am doing is trying my best to patchwork it back to a proper comparison. HC3 is the only commonly available longterm record without the arctic having not been “modeled” into it was discontinued in 2013 for not being warm enough and one of the reasons thought so was because it didn’t include the arctic. I acknowledged that UAH might be weak on the Arctic and thus would be a good replacement since it also is warming slower possibly in part due to that elevation over the arctic. Additionally as one poster around here suggested it was best to consider temperature ranges people actually live in having continued HC3 would have made a lot of sense both from the concept of having a continuing and consistent record (continuity is another primary accounting principle). None of the other temperature records pass muster in respect to good reporting of observed data.
Nate says: ———By cherry picking, I mean specifically choosing particular years 1911, 1944, that have downward and upward blips.————-
Wrong! You just don’t like the comparison. Its a legitmate comparison. In both instances it starts at the beginning of a new warming trend and ends at the top of it. How else would one make such a comparison?
All you are doing is handwaving and claiming stuff that nobody knows to be a factor in a futile attempt to explain away the “inconvenient” comparison. Everybody knows volcanos can affect temperatures, but there is no 1912 effect to detect except regionally in Europe. 1911 was colder globally than any year after it all the way to the present day and the big eruption of 1912 isn’t going to erase that. Recent history has Pinatuba as the same magnitude of 1912 and there is not an unusual imbalance within the early 20th century and later. You are just handwaving.
‘You just don’t like the comparison. Its a legitmate comparison. In both instances it starts at the beginning of a new warming trend and ends at the top of it.’
Fine, I’ll do what you are doing. See if you agree its a good choice.
I’ll choose 1992 to start and 2017 to end. 1992: Mt Pinatubo, 2017 big El Nino finishing.
Trends fromm here http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
GI*SS 0.23/decade
Berk 0.22
Had 0.19
Had-Krig 0.22
No*aa 0.21
“How else would one make such a comparison?”
To tell if there is an increasing long-term trend since 1900, look at first half vs. second half of record.
First half: 1900-1960:
G: 0.07
B: 0.090
H: 0.082
H-K: 0.082
N: 0.077
Second half: 1960-2019
G: 0.170
B: 0.159
H: 0.145
H-K: 0.153
N: 0.159
Nate says: ———Ill choose 1992 to start and 2017 to end. 1992: Mt Pinatubo, 2017 big El Nino finishing.
Well you should have included UAH too .137c/decade.
Nate says: ———To tell if there is an increasing long-term trend since 1900, look at first half vs. second half of record.
First half: 1900-1960:
Second half: 1960-2019————-
You are not providing a rationale for such a split other than you want to eliminate the early 20th century warming that clearly ended in 1945. Drawing straight lines through a climate that varies naturally can either demonstrate maximum natural rates of warming compared to current rates of warming but only if you do it fairly. Here it looks like all you are doing is spewing and handwaving.
“You are not providing a rationale for such a split other than you want to elimin”
Of course I did. A split of data into two parts is an unbiased way to see if there has been an increasing trend over time, as would be expected if GHG are increasing over the period. There clearly is.
There is no cherry picking of special dates as you do.
I showed you some natural drivers amo pdo that may account for other variation.
Nate says: ———
Of course I did. A split of data into two parts is an unbiased way to see if there has been an increasing trend over time, as would be expected if GHG are increasing over the period. There clearly is.
There is no cherry picking of special dates as you do.
First there was no cherry picking in what I did. All I did was demonstrate the warming trend of two different 34 year warming periods, separated by a 34 year cooling period. You just don’t want to listen to the results.
You may have been unbiased in selecting two periods but I have acknowledged and underlying warming trend to the whole thing so I would expect in this record, particularly theoretically it could be right now higher than it will be over the next approximate 40 years even with an underlying warming going on.
Since I believe that last sentence to be more probably true than false I can accept I could be wrong. Your response to the possibility of being wrong is to start talking gibberish.
Greenlands Record Temperature denied the data was wrong
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/12/greenlands-record-temperature-denied-the-data-was-wrong/
Is the average temperature in winter in the northern hemisphere will also be below the average of the years 1979-2000? So it is now in the southern hemisphere.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00987/uen6jx6sbxvm.png
Huh?
Can anybody decode this for me?
It is cold somewhere.
Only on the whole SH.
Antarctica is blown out of proportion in that map projection.
Surprisingly low numbers compared to UAH though.
In the winter must be cold, right?
The map shows anomalies.
“UAH is not giving me the result I want, so I’d better go and find a product that does.
….. warm, …. warm, ….. warm ….. ahh here we go – this one shows a cool southern hemisphere for today. But I’d better not throw out those other ones – I might need one of them tomorrow.”
Midas, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
“His theory takes you through heat engine theory and if you pay attention, you can see why heat wont transfer cold to hot, by its own means.”
We discussed this. The key words are “by its own means”
To quote Clausius
“It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator.”
The Earth’s clmate system is a heat engine.
The external power source is the Sun. Shortwave radiation warms the surface of the Earth, creating a hot reservoir. The cold reservoir is space.
As heat flows from hot to cold it does work, driving water and carbon cycles, weather systems and the greenhouse effect.
Part of the work done is to excite CO2 molecules. The downward radiation which results acts as a heat pump moving heat from the atmosphere to the surface.
Em,
You wrote –
“The Earths clmate system is a heat engine.”
Complete nonsense, of course. There is no “climate system”. You are confused and deluded. Climate is the average of weather – no more, no less.
“The downward radiation which results acts as a heat pump moving heat from the atmosphere to the surface.” Vey sciencey, and even more complete nonsense. A colder atmosphere does not heat a hotter surface, any more than you can heat water using ice.
Just more pseudoscientific GHE true believer fantasy. Quite part from anything else, your imaginary “heat engine” must have taken four and a half billion years to start, as the earth has cooled over that period of time. Your engine doesn’t seem to work at night, in the winter, in the shade or indoors.
Complete rubbish, of course. Because you are unable to usefully describe the GHE, you are reduced to trying to bluff other stupid and ignorant people into believing in the magical heating powers of CO2. I wish you the best of luck – there’s at least one born every minute, so with luck, at least some will believe you.
Try again.
Cheers.
“Your engine doesnt seem to work at night, in the winter, in the shade or indoors.”
Of course not.
The external power source generating the hot reservoir for the GHE heat engine is the Sun.
At night, in the Winter and indoors the Sun is not available. Like any heat engine, when the external power supply is removed the hot reservoir dissipates and the GHE heat engine stops.
Em,
It has just occurred to me that maybe you don’t have the faintest idea what a “heat engine” is.
A heat engine does not generate heat, and always outputs less energy than it consumes, in line with the laws of thermodynamics. Heat engines convert heat energy to mechanical energy, to put it simply.
No heating, no magic. I may have seriously overestimated your knowledge. You may simply be delusional, for all I know.
Cheers.
I dont see a problem.
When a CO2 molecule absorbs heat radiation, that heat does mechanical work causing the atoms in the molecule to vibrate. That meets your definition of a heat engine.
When you account for all the heat involved over a number of molecules you find that some heat goes up as radiation, some goes down and some raises the temperature of the atmosphere. This is just what you would expect from the 2nd Law.
And, just so you don’t get confused, E-man. The portion that “goes down” cannot raise surface temperatures.
Em,
You wrote –
“I dont see a problem.” No problem. You just don’t have a clue.
Cheers,
–Mike Flynn says:
August 15, 2019 at 5:34 AM
Em,
It has just occurred to me that maybe you don’t have the faintest idea what a “heat engine” is.–
Earth heat engines, involves a warmed tropical ocean [Which doesn’t turn off in terms of day and night.
Clouds also heat engine, which involves water vapor.
One also has engine in terms cold water in poles falling.
So energy in form of heat is causing movement of air or water, or if not mechanical moving air or water masses, then they would not called a heat engine.
Or the Sun is heat source rather than heat engine.
A match, a burning process or source of radiant energy could power a heat engine, but a part of earth’s various heat engines [atmosphere or water] is Earth’s gravity. Or no gravity, no heat engine. Or gravity also needed convectional processes and these heat engines are involved convectional heat transfers.
entropic…”When a CO2 molecule absorbs heat radiation, that heat does mechanical work causing the atoms in the molecule to vibrate. That meets your definition of a heat engine”.
Nice try, but no cigar.
There is no such thing as heat radiation. When heat is converted to EM, the heat is lost. The EM radiated has no heat whatsoever.
The heat causing (not doing) mechanical work as vibration of the electron/nucleii pair is local heat. That heat can be raised when EM is absorbed by the electrons in the atoms.
However, the 2nd law still applies. EM from a cooler body will not be absorbed and the local heat will not be increased.
Mike…”A heat engine does not generate heat, and always outputs less energy than it consumes, in line with the laws of thermodynamics”.
Point of interest. When Carnot did his initial work on heat engines, he presumed no heat was lost. It was Clausius who proved there were losses and in doing so developed the 2nd law.
Obviously, if heat is converted to work, the heat is lost. It needs to be replaced, hence the coal shoveled into old-style steam engines.
According to the CO2 back-radiation propaganda, the coal would not be necessary. No heat would be lost and the engine would merely go along running with perpetual motion.
E-man, you are still confused: “The downward radiation which results acts as a heat pump moving heat from the atmosphere to the surface.”
WRONG. The atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the surface. You’ve just swallowed too much pseudoscience. Learn some physics.
Current readings (Reality):
Overhead –> 12.7 F (-10.7 C)
Ground –> 77.7 F (25.4 C)
“A colder atmosphere does not heat a hotter surface, any more than you can heat water using ice.”
Not “by its own means”. Work must be done to transfer the heat against the temperature gradient.
In the case of the GHE work is done to convert a proportion of the upward radiation into downward radiation.
Em,
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. Dud heat engine, do you think?
The surface of the Moon gets hotter than the hottest place on Earth. Maybe your non-existent heat engine works better without the CO2!
Off you go now – just describe the GHE, formulate a testable GHE hypothesis, do what nobody has done. How hard can it be?
Cheers.
Wrong, E-man. You’re trying to use energy twice. That’s a no-no.
Study 2LoT.
JDHuffmam
I see no 2LOT violation.
Explain yourself.
E-man, you “see” no violation because you don’t understand 2LoT.
Your own words: “If ‘A colder temperature cannot warm a hotter temperature’ how can the heat pumps at work warm the gallery by moving heat from the colder air outside?”
You actually imply that heat pumps are “proof” that “cold” can warm “hot”. Otherwise, why would you put out such nonsense?
JDHuffman
“You actually imply that heat pumps are proof that cold can warm hot. Otherwise, why would you put out such nonsense?”
Once again, you can move heat from colder to hotter if you do work.
A fridge pumps heat from its cold interior to a warmer kitchen. The work is done by a heat pump powered by electricity.
So are you now admitting your comment was nonsense?
Or are you trying to deny your own words?
Folks… El Nino 4.3 is now at -0.136.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
The el nino peaks we saw in late May early June have just now been absorbed by the global ocean. This makes perfect sense considering a 4 month delay. I’m anticipating the global temperature number for August to be higher for August, possibly even +0.50. This is due to the ocean weighting on UAH and delays in the atmosphere’s reaction to the warmer ocean.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
It should in theory be all down hill after that as El Nino 3.4 has dropped a full 1 deg c since late May. That temperature drop has not been realized by the global ocean or atmosphere yet. It may take the increased January trade winds to really get the upwelling going and spread the “wealth”. We are still deep in the global solar minimum, with few signs of SC 25. It is possible La Nina can’t start until next year once we start getting more sun spots. We global cooling alarmists will need to be patient for the drop to -0.2. It might happen this year, or it might happen next year.
Anyways, I’m not buying the warm winter in the USA NOAA has predicted. Winters have been getting colder in Detroit for 17 years despite multiple El Ninos. Great lake levels are all full from all the cold snowy conditions we’ve been getting. When we have a lot of ice, we can’t evaporate the water. A bad winter could be very bad for communities along the great lakes. But I’m supposed to believe we are burning up due to CO2 and that is what is causing all the ice jams. Hilarious.
http://lre-wm.usace.army.mil/ForecastData/GLBasinConditions/LTA-GLWL-Graph.pdf
Why would we get warmer now that El Nino is shutting down?
My 2 cents.
2 cents ? As much as that?
Your comments are not worth the paper they were written on.
Don’t tell me you are Salvatore !
Dr Myki still hasn’t figured out yet that insults are “not worth the paper they were written on”. Constructive criticism of my theory based on DATA is always welcome.
Ren yeah I saw region 3 is dropping hard. Region 1+2 is key. It shows the very cold water is waiting there… ready to be dispersed around the globe as soon as we get some real solar activity. The uptick of 1+2 and the downtick of 3 might show some mixing has started, but it is too soon to know for sure. I wonder if it is the simple trade wind relationship that I think it is or if there is a magnetic / connection to the sun that causes the current to change when the sun changes polarity.
If it is the magnetic relationship that is important, the GSM will kick our butts much sooner than if it’s the trade winds. If the trade winds are more important, we will be partially insulated from the effects of the GSM by having lots of El Ninos, with a severe punch coming in about 35 years when we come out of it.
DATA? You want DATA? Try this:
“NASA global temperature for July is out! It’s the hottest July on record, and a tie with August 2016 for the hottest month overall since records began in the 19th C.”
https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1162071379740639233
“might show some mixing has started, but it is too soon to know for sure. I wonder if it is…”
LOL – What a load of amateur bs.!
How did that happen smack in the middle of the solar minimum between cycles 24 and 25?
bobdroege,
The 11 year El Nino cycle is on a delay to the solar cycle. The period is the same. The reason for the delay is that the trade winds (and possibly the magnetic reversal on the sun) are responsible for upwelling off the coast of South America to start. The trade winds blow faster when TSI is higher. We see this every year as the earth gets closer to the sun in January. Of course the trade winds blow faster as the new solar cycle begins.
Scott,
What 11 year El Nino cycle?
I haven’t read any articles that document or even less can predict them on an cycle.
bobdroege here is one:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2008GL034831
You have to apply a 5 year moving average to El Nino to see the 11 year cycle. When you do that, you can see El Nino and the southern ocean have the same period cycle as the sun:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wxmoCO92TMuGpyHLNxpvlEhzb7qE29-S/view?usp=sharing
Scott R, Javier is of the same opinion as we are.
Low solar activity clearly disrupts the ENSO cycle.
Scott R,
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
Solar cycle progress.
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
What does this graph measure? Sunspot numbers? TSI? Something else?
Another very pretty picture. Did you use the coloured crayons?
Go on, make another one.
Dr. Myki
It was NOT the hottest July on record. I heard that the “extremely hot” reading in Greenland was also an error. See Dr Spencer’s post.
You are hilarious Myki… going around with this “Dr” in front of your name quoting and reposting links to main stream garbage for the sheep, insulting people and their charts and then calling us amateurs in a superficial attempt to discredit our work. Your science has been exposed for what it is. Nothing but virtue signaling with bad data. Fraud to scare people to get them to pay carbon taxes because it’s “our fault”. How much are they paying you to discredit us and troll Roy Spencer’s page? Just wondering. They should ask for a refund because you are so awful at it it’s almost funny.
I quoted Clausius in my post to Gordon Robertson.
It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. ”
It is quite possible for a colder atmosphere to warm a cooler surface if work is done. The absorbtion of upward heat radiation by CO2 as vibration in the molecules and its retransmission as downward heat radiation qualifies as work.
It even qualifies as less than 100% efficient under the LOT because a small proportion of the absorbed heat ends up as waste heat warming the atmosphere.
Remember, too that the only information that downward heat radiation carries about the temperature of its origin is its wavelength. Just because its wavelength is 13 micrometres does not stop it being absorbed when it reaches the surface.
E-man distorts physics: “The absorbtion [sic] of upward heat radiation by CO2 as vibration in the molecules and its retransmission as downward heat radiation qualifies as work.”
Wrong E-man, that is how radiative heat transfer is carried out. The energy from the emitter is radiated to the absorber.
E-man distorts physics: “It even qualifies as less than 100% efficient under the LOT because a small proportion of the absorbed heat ends up as waste heat warming the atmosphere.”
Wrong E-man, that is how energy from Earth warms the atmosphere.
E-man distorts physics: “Just because its wavelength is 13 micrometres does not stop it being absorbed when it reaches the surface.”
But, it does not stop it from being reflected either.
E-man, you do not get to change the laws of physics to fit your failed agenda. You’re not here to get “reassurance that AGW and climate change were not going to be as bad as the scientific evidence projected”, as you said. You’re here to push pseudoscience and avoid reality.
Learn to appreciate reality, not fear it.
“The energy from the emitter is radiated to the absorber.”
Exactly. 15um radiation is emitted by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere and absorbed by the surface.
E-man, you have an agenda. You’re not here to get “reassurance that AGW and climate change were not going to be as bad as the scientific evidence projected.”
You can’t honor your own words. You hate reality.
No wonder you use a fake name.
entropic…”15um radiation is emitted by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere and absorbed by the surface”.
Prove it’s absorbed. If it is absorbed the surface has to warm and that would represent the recycling of heat from the surface to CO2 and back to the surface. In physics, that’s called perpetual motion.
Since the CO2 molecules are the same temperature as the surface, or cooler, the 2nd law forbids such a transfer of heat.
Quantum theory also claims it is not possible.
About 10 instead of 15 um, but same idea, something is on fire due to the infrared radiation from CO2 molecules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_Laser_At_The_Laser_Effects_Test_Facility.jpg
Sure looks like most of it is getting absorbed
Poor ignorant weasel tries the CO2 laser scam.
We can’t help stupid, but we get to laugh at it….
You know JD, of course you do that don’t know the source of a photon that gets absorbed, only the wavelength which gives you both the frequency and the energy, and the direction it came from.
From your Quantum Physics course.
B-Li, please stop trolling.
JDHuffman
I gave up hope of reassurance long ago.
The evidence for AGW continues to build and you have nothing to counter it.
I do hate reality, the oncoming juggernaut of climate change. Unlike yourself, I am unable to pretend that it is not happening.
i wouldn’t wish that false religion on my worst enemy. You seem quite miserable.
entropic…”The evidence for AGW continues to build and you have nothing to counter it.”
Where is this evidence that can be put to the test of the scientific method.
Naomi Oreskes, a blatant alarmist who wrote a book prosecuting three dead skeptics, declared that consensus is a valid form of science. Consensus is the only evidence you have and last time I looked, consensus is not evidence.
NOAA has July 2019 as the warmest July on record, pipping 2016.
Land-only was second behind 2017. Ocean-only was first.
Fake news!
Fake data!
Wake up people!
Nurse! We have another one. Are there any spare beds?
Yes professor – Salvatore’s bed is still empty.
We have a Faux News fan here.
midas…”NOAA has July 2019 as the warmest July on record”
The same NOAA declared 2014 the hottest year on record using a confidence level of 48% that they were telling the truth.
What’s their confidence level this time? Or have they taken to announcing wild guesses without revealing it as a guess?
Last five top five
It’s like the Beatles in 1964
Love Me Do
B-Li, please stop trolling.
stupid…
It’s plain that you’re reliant on books you don’t understand.
You seem to think that the velocity of a rigid body is dependent on the velocity of its constituent parts. First sign that you are a rank amateur in physics.
The fact that the dark side of the Moon is moving faster in the orbit than the near side or the centre is a result of them being attached to a rigid body. Those points move at different velocities because all parts must complete the orbit in the same time.
You are confused between the motion of a particle and a rigid body. The velocity of a rigid body is the velocity of it’s centre of gravity/mass. In the case of the Moon, or the Earth, all particles complete an orbit in the same time.
The Earth completes a rotation in 24 hours. Obviously, some particles at the front and rear will cross the finish line at different times but that does not count because the COG is used as the reference point.
The linear velocity of the Earth in its orbit is about 30 km/s. How do you suppose that can be worked out if your last point is true, that the only measure allowed in angular velocity is the radian?
Is it beyond you to calculate the length of the Earth’s orbit and calculate its average velocity by dividing that value with the time it takes to complete an orbit? You could calculate the radians per second from the 30 km/s if you knew how. I explained very clearly how you could do it but your response was a juvenile rant.
If you want the angular velocity in degrees/sec, simply convert radians to degrees. The number of radians/second is related to degrees at 57.295 degrees/radian. That value is a constant for all orbits defined by points along a rotating radial line.
The reason it’s a constant is that the radius of a circular orbit, when laid out along the orbit, subtends an arc of 57.295 degrees. Furthermore, the length of that radius along the orbit is one radian. That radian goes around a circle 6.28 times, another constant. It’s easy enough to calculate the length of the same circumference, from the radius, in metres, and get the number of metres in a radian for that circle.
Those are facts you would not get from reading textbooks unless you really dug for them.
Your third point asks us to compare a couple of points within a rigid body. Of course the linear speed varies with the distance from the axis but we have specified a distance from the axis which is the orbit.
I don’t know how to get it through your thickness that it is irrelevant, with a rigid body, how far each particle is from the axis. By definition, the angular velocity of a rigid body is the velocity of its centre of gravity. The rest is irrelevant.
Hmmm. Here we have another classic case of obsessive compulsive disorder. The poor patient cannot seem to disengage from the topic – endlessly regurgitating obscure ideas that he picked up from god-knows-where. To be honest, I do not know what treatment to prescribe.
Nurse, get me my elephant gun.
Here we have another advocate for gun violence.
Will barry, D. Appell, E-man, or any of the other clowns jump in to chastise pp?
I think we all know the answer….
We all know he was making a joke.
Ratchet, get me my MK-48
So if someone shoots at your basement apartment, it’s a joke?
No,
Asking the Nurse for an elephant gun is funny.
You not so much.
Not gun violence – it would be a mercy killing.
pp…”Here we have another classic case of obsessive compulsive disorder”.
You are one of those armchair psychological experts who claim to diagnose from a distance. Your problem is compounded by the fact that psychotherapy, is, at best, only 60% effective, according one of the foremost psychologists, Carl Rogers.
Rogers went on to claim that psycho-analysis was no better than no therapy at all. Obviously, you are in that line of work…psycho-analysis, with you as the psycho.
My diagnosis strike rate is pretty good. With patients with your condition, however, my successes with treatment are, admittedly, not very good. I am sorry that I cannot help you.
pP,
Your sorrow is duly noted and laughed at, as is the rest of your silliness.
Cheers
You try to explain simple high school mathematics in the most convoluted way. The radian is the angle subtended at the center by that arc length, not the arc length itself.
midas…”You try to explain simple high school mathematics in the most convoluted way. The radian is the angle subtended at the center by that arc length, not the arc length itself”.
***********
Don’t be silly. The arc length is the radian measure. There are 6.28 radians in one circumference. Where else would the radian be applied if not along the circumference with radius R.
The radian is one radius. If you take the radius of a circle and lay it out along the circumference it becomes 1 radian. The arc formed by that radian is 57+ degrees.
The value of pi is the ratio derived from dividing the diameter of a circle into the length of the circumference.
D = 2R…right? pi = C/D = C/2R
Therefore, R = C/2pi = C/6.28 approx.
Since R = 1 radian, then,
1 radian = C/6.28
Since C = 360 degrees
1 radian = 360 degrees/6.28 = 57.3 degrees.
The 57.3 degrees is not exact because 6.28 is not exact. To several more places, it should be 6.28138 and
360/6.28138 = 57.2958 degrees.
The radian is a measure of ANGLE. The fact that this can be numerically equated to a radius length on the circumference does not change that fact.
Gordon snorts:
“Dont be silly. The arc length is the radian measure.”
Wow! That’s almost as stupid as your pronouncement that, Rotation requires movement along a CONTINUOUS curve.
Gordon. The arc length is a linear measurement, not angular. You can calculate the arc length by multiplying the radius times the angle (in radians) subtended by the arc.
You can skip the high school geometry lecture. You are messing it up anyway.
Gordon,
Thanks for throwing JD under the bus by confirming JD was wrong when he said,”All parts of the moon are moving at the same linear velocity”.
Gordon moans:
“Your third point asks us to compare a couple of points within a rigid body. Of course the linear speed varies with the distance from the axis but we have specified a distance from the axis which is the orbit.”
I don’t know who the “we” refers to, because it can’t be JD since he is the clown who stated, “All parts of Moon have the same instantaneous linear velocity”, which does not agree with your statement about linear speed varying with the distance from the axis. That’s my point. You keep trying to defend his statement, but there is no defense.
The Yellowstone-sized supervolcano of intense rage and hatred that is HGS continues to erupt…
“All parts of Moon have the same instantaneous linear velocity”.
True or false, Dr Em T? No yelping like a wounded Chihuahua.
Define “instantaneous linear velocity”.
Wasn’t what you thought it was, huh?
“All parts of Moon have the same instantaneous linear velocity”.
The above is not my statement. Ask the clown who said it.
Not what you thought it was, huh?
Hey Clown,
I know what it is, and your statement tells me YOU don’t understand what it is,
Now ask the clown for his definition, since he made the statement. An equation would suffice. (But we know that will never happen)
How does “Not what you thought it was, huh?”
tell you anything about what I do or don’t understand?
Let’s go back to JD’s original quote:
“All parts of the Noon(sic) are moving at the same linear velocity.”
So, forget the instantaneous part. Gordon probably threw that in, thinking the term makes him look smart. After a little searching, this is JD’s explanation:
“one of the vectors acting on the moon is due to its linear velocity, V. Distributed over the entire object, each part then has the same linear velocity. Piece of cake.”
That was a howler!. But it gets better:
“Nate you are confusing angular with linear velocity. All points on Moon have the same linear velocity. You are confused by angular, because it is relative to something other than center of mass. Learn some physics.”
More humor. Then Dr Em T pipes in:
“Looking back at the original agreement, and JDs explanation:
JD makes it clear he is talking about instantaneous velocity:
Which is not the straightforward linear velocity that both you and HGS are talking about.”
Poor Dr Em T tries to cover for JD.
Some points to make:
1. JD said linear velocity, not instantaneous.
2. Vectors don’t necessarily “act”. Velocity does not act on an object.
3. JD confuses angular and linear velocity.
So, since you speak for JD and agree with him, please provide the linear velocity calcs for the moon’s center of gravity, and its far side outer edge. Provide the equations you use.
Please also explain why you make a distinction between instantaneous linear velocity and regular linear velocity in relation to the moon.
Oh, you’re referring to this comment, from the other thread:
“Looking back at the original agreement, and JD’s explanation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-370476
JD makes it clear he is talking about instantaneous velocity:
http://www.softschools.com/formulas/physics/instantaneous_velocity_formula/156/
Which is not the straightforward linear velocity that both you and HGS are talking about.”
I’m not speaking for JD. Follow the link to his original comment. He says it himself.
And you even quoted him yourself, from the comments under this article, saying “instantaneous linear velocity”. So no, let’s not “forget it”.
I misquoted the clown earlier. The quote above is correct. He does not mention Instantaneous linear velocity.
I guess you’re have a hard time doing the calcs? I have to pin you clowns down on even the simplest of definitions, since you make stuff up.
So define linear velocity and do the calcs that JD never did, and answer my questions. Otherwise you and JD are making unsupported declarations as usual.
“I misquoted the clown earlier”
No, sorry:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-376149
“All parts of Moon have the same instantaneous linear velocity”
And from the link I already gave, with the original agreement and initial explanation:
“3) Since linear momentum acts on all parts of the mass, the instantaneous velocity of any part of the moon is “v”.”
You and B-Li have been saying over and over again how the far side of the moon moves in a larger circle, or ellipse, than the nearer side, in the same amount of time, as if JD was arguing against that. Seems like you’ve been attacking a straw man.
Sorry, clown. That was not his original quote:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367770
I wish the clown JD would make up his mind.
What is the formula for linear velocity?
I rest my case.
I gave you the quote from when the agreement was actually finalized and JD gave his answer.
You people have chosen to assume he was making a basic error, and have been attacking a straw man based on that, rather than think perhaps there was something more to it.
entropic…” To quote Clausius
It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator.”
Entropic gets desperate and lies through his teeth about Clausius, who said no such thing. The clue to any erstwhile detective is that refrigerators were only a pipedream in the days of Clausius. Many people did not have them in the 1950s.
The first working refrigeration system according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator
In 1834, the first working vapor-compression refrigeration system was built.
Clausius was 12.
weasel, obviously you had no point. Otherwise you would have struggled to make it.
Nothing new..
Speaking of points, what about all the points on the moon having the same linear velocity?
Obviously Gordon’s grasp of the history of refrigeration, Clausius and the second law of thermodynamics is shaky at best.
You don’t see the point I was making, points to your grasp of the topic, or lack there of.
weasel, obviously you had no point. Otherwise you would have struggled to make it.
Nothing new.
The point was you didn’t prove that all points on the moon move with the same pointed linear velocity and that Clausius was well appointed with the refrigerator because it was invented when he was 12.
B-Li, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
Are you sure Clausius never said that?
This source confirms entropic’s post.
http://www.physics.louisville.edu/cldavis/phys298/notes/heatengines.html
Norman found another link he can’t understand.
Nothing new.
norman…”Are you sure Clausius never said that?”
Yes, I am, and the fact that the author at your link did not supply a reference tells me he is likely bs’ing as well.
I have read Clausius in several of his books, cover to cover, and I have never seen him measure a refrigerator.
If you look at the Kelvin statement the author has added “This precludes a perfect heat engine”.
I don’t recall Kelvin saying that either.
And why a perfect fridge or heat engine? A heat engine as studied in thermodynamics is a model, not an actual engine. It is a process of raising the temperature of a gas while holding the volume constant, and so on. The engine is the cycle through which P,V, and T are varied while one is held constant.
In either case, external work/heat has to be supplied in order to move heat from a cooler body to a hotter body. In other words, it cannot take place by itself.
There is no means of doing work on the cycle between surface-CO2-surface in order to move heat from the cooler CO2 to the surface.
studentb..”Sorry, SB is simply an expression of the integral of the Planck function it is not an empirical law. Unless you would like to dispute the Planck function in which case we will never agree”.
Interesting delusion. Stefan put out the original form of S-B well before Planck developed his equation.
When you read wiki for info you should read carefully. They claim S-B “CAN” be derived from Planck.
S-B is an empirical law for a body of temperatures T provided T is in a specific range. The S-B constant applies only bettwen temperatures of about 700C and 1500C. How the heck do you think Stefan arrived at the T^4 relationship?
He got it from an experiment performed by Tyndall, long before Planck thought of his equation. Tyndall heated a platinum filament wire electrically till it glowed. He noted the colour change as the current was increased.
Later, another scientist interpolated the colours to the temperature which gave Stefan a range of temperatures with the EM visible frequency corresponding to the temperatures. Therefore he could work out the relationship between temperature and radiation.
studentb…”If you or I measured the intensity of IR radiation at a given wavelength in a room, or even outside there is no way we could tell the temperature of the source which emitted it”.
You are disagreeing based on a misunderstanding of the question.
I am not talking about measuring IR to determine the temperature of the source. I am talking about the interaction of the absorbing electron with the IR.
According to Bohr/Schrodinger, an electron orbits a nucleus in a certain (quantum) orbital energy band. No one said those orbits are real, they simply match very complicated math proposed by Schroddy that takes in the mechanics of an electron orbiting a nucleus at a certain radius.
The electron has an orbital velocity/frequency in each orbit and a specific kinetic energy. If it moves to a higher energy level, the frequency and KE change.
If an electron drops to a lower orbital, it emits a quantum of EM with an intensity equal to the difference in potential in eV between the upper orbit and the lower orbit. The electron also passes on it frequency to the emitted EM.
In order for that to reverse, to move the electron to a higher energy level, it requires an EM quantum with at least the potential difference between its current orbit and the next orbit higher.
EM from a cooler body lacks that energy intensity and frequency.
Think of the device at the circus roadshows where you hit a base plate with a mallet and it drives a device up a pole. If you hit it hard enough, the device goes up the pole and rings the bell. The harder you hit it the louder the bell rings. In cartoons, a big brute hits the base so hard it knocks the bell off the top.
If you don’t hit it with the proper energy it goes up but does not reach the bell. What happens to the energy in that case? It is not transferred to the bell to ring it or absorbed by the bell.
The atmosphere and universe is rife with old EM waves of different frequencies generated by a communications devices which was not absorbed by an antenna tuned to different frequencies. An antenna will not absorb EM that does not match the centre frequency to which it is tuned. That’s how I think of an electron in relation to EM.
Besides, a body radiating EM radiates isotropically. Only a narrow arc of it even gets to the proposed target.
One last time.
The Planck function describes intensity as a function of wavelength for a given temperature.
Take a black body at temperature T1 and another at temperature T2 – either slightly warmer or cooler.
The Planck functions for these bodies are slightly different – but they will overlap at some wavelengths. At these wavelengths there is nothing to distinguish the intensity of radiation coming from either body. That means the warmer body cannot tell if the radiation is from the cooler body and vice-versa. That also means that the warmer body is quite within its rights to absorb the radiation. No violation of any laws, no problem with trying to explain how one body can reject some radiation and then explain where it goes. I hope this helps but, honestly, I if it doesn’t I am afraid I cannot help any further.
studentb, your confusion starts here: “That also means that the warmer body is quite within its rights to absorb the radiation.”
A warmer body will not be able to absorb enough photons from a colder body to raise its temperature. Most of the photons will be reflected. The ones that might be absorbed will be below the average energy of the warmer body.
That’s why you can’t boil water with ice cubes, even though ice emits energy.
JDHuffman
More phony physics from the Number one troll pseudo-scientist on this blog. Garbage from someone who can’t read textbook physics or do any experiments.
You may be arrogant but your are not very intelligent.
As usual, poor frustrated Norman jumps in to insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman has learned a new skill. He can’t figure out how to experiment. He knows how to draw cartoons with an internet program.
Now he learned to copy/paste his past comments over and over because he has nothing of value to present on this blog.
His physics is still garbage, his intelligence is still quite low, his arrogance is through the roof and his ability to read textbook physics is still zero and his desire to experiment to test his ideas is also zero.
I guess he is like an excited child who found a new toy. Expect more copy/paste of his own comments more often as his brain cannot figure out new things to say.
Poor frustrated, uneducable Norman pounds out even more insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.
Nothing new.
s,
You wrote –
“That also means that the warmer body is quite within its rights to absorb the radiation.”
There are no “rights” involved. Your phraseology is that of the pseudoscientific GHE true believers – firmly convinced that heir delusions are real.
Quite apart from that, using as many semantic tricks tor debating tactics as you wish – you still cannot warm water with ice, nor make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and the thermometer.
You can’t even usefully describe the GHE you seem to promote. If you can’t, your religious fanaticism is just that. A triumph of faith over fact.
Just as matter of interest, Entropic Man and others mention CO2 emitting 15 um radiation. This represents the peak radiation emitted at a black body temperature of around -80 C or so. If you cant even warm water using ice at around -1 C, what makes you think you can heat water using CO2 at -80 C?
Magic, perhaps? Carry on trying to deny, divert and confuse – I wish you luck.
Cheers.
You are right, and you are right, they can’t be helped.
studentb…”The Planck function describes intensity as a function of wavelength for a given temperature”.
You’re trying to help me, that’s a hoot. You are talking in circles about Planck and blackbody theory when I am talking about the quantum theory explaining how electrons in atoms absorb EM.
Your head is full of theoretical rubbish. Address the issue, which is how electrons can detect that EM is from a cooler source. Electrons don’t care about the source, all they care about is the intensity and frequency of the EM.
Forget BB theory, it’s aimed at a highly theoretical situation where bodies are in thermal equilibrium. We are dealing with real electrons absorbing and emitting EM in real atoms. Forget Kircheoff, read Bohr and Schrodinger.
You are thinking like a student, hungrily devouring everything you’re taught from authority figures. Think for yourself.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “You are thinking like a student, hungrily devouring everything youre taught from authority figures. Think for yourself.”
Why should he? So he can make up his own unsupported junk physics like you do. Good Lord the world of science would never move an inch if all you had were people like you and JDHuffman involved in actual science. Thinking alone does not make good science. Logical, rational thought combined with observational evidence, facts and experiment are what science is about.
You quacks think science is about coming up with your own unsupported ideas and peddling them on blogs (no one else would listen to you junk physics).
You declare things constantly. You peddle a scrambled distorted physics you have read about and JDHuffman makes up silly cartoons that are bogus and bad physics.
Neither of your jokers will ever attempt an actual experiment on your own, you won’t accept experimental evidence and ridicule valid experiments that you are too lazy to do.
No Gordon, please do not give advice on science.
norman…”Why should he? So he can make up his own unsupported junk physics like you do”.
Norman…you have not the slightest hope of understanding quantum theory so why are you even commenting? If you did understand it at all, you’d be able to form an intelligent, scientific rebuttal, and you can’t.
Norman, real “science” is about seeking truth. Real “science” seeks reality. Real “science” is opposed to perversion, censorship, distortion, and corruption.
You are the one that will not do experiments. You are the one that will not learn. You are the one that is uneducable. You are the one that attempts to pervert and corrupt reality.
Here are the experimental results (reality) from this morning:
Sun not yet up, stars visible, Moon very bright
Directly overhead –> 8.6 F (-13 C)
Ground –> 78.6 F (25.9 C)
Energy from the ground has been warming the atmosphere all night. When the sun comes up, it will warm the surface, which will continue to warm the atmosphere.
THAT is reality.
Interesting footnote to above, directly overhead now shows 6.6 F (-14.1 C). Ground remains the same. The sun has been up for about an hour, so shaded ground is not warming, yet sky has cooled about 2 deg F!
That’s especially interesting because “blue” sky should be returning higher energy than dark sky.
I suspect Sun is evaporating more upper level water particles. Less upper-level haze = cooler temps.
Just as matter of interest, what is all the fuss about higher themometer readings?
Who cares? Surely there cannot be any rational people stupid and ignorant to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
Pseudoscientific GHE true believers refuse to believe that thermometers respond to heat. They prefer to believe in some sort of magic which they cannot even elucidate.
The mythical GHE cannot be usefully described. Nobody has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter using CO2 – CO2 produces no heat.
Who cares about fact when fantasy can be changed at a moments notice to suit the requirements of the moment. This is not science, it is delusional nonsense.
Cheers.
–Just as matter of interest, what is all the fuss about higher thermometer readings?–
I think people thought we might be returning to glacial period and they thought this could happen soon, and it would be dangerous.
But other said it not going down much and we actually in a warming period over last several decades.
So the 1970 dip was brief and we returned to the longer period warming.
Then [because people are stupid] people were worried that in our ice Ice, it might be warming and there was hypothesis regarding increasing CO2 levels which would in the near future cause warming.
Also around this time, people were wondering about Venus and why aliens couldn’t be living there because it was too hot.
Venus is hot and it’s got an insane amount of CO2.
Earth is cold and has very little amount CO2 in it’s atmosphere.
But despite this difference, it thought that Earth and Venus must have began as same type of planet.
And since started the same, assuming Venus had a large ocean of water seemed logical.
So there is the myth, that Venus had an ocean, and it was lost to space, and that Earth could have in the past or in the future, have the similar fate as Venus.
Anyhow, it was stupid.
Can you explain the excess Deuterium in the atmosphere of Venus?
bob d…”Can you explain the excess Deuterium in the atmosphere of Venus?”
Yes, B-o-o-o-o-o-b. That’s me imitating your sheep calling you. Actually, it would be more like B-a-a-a-a-b.
Somehow the neutral hydrogen atoms picked up an extra neutron in the nucleus, hence deuterium.
Scientists are currently trying to find out where the extra neutrons came from. Some suspect a nearby black hole is leaking them. It’s either that or Venus was once a black hole that lost its density, leaving behind neutrons from the neutron star that collapsed into the black hole.
Gordon,
Fanciful stuff, but more likely most of the regular hydrogen atoms escaped to space cause they are lighter and with the high temperature of Venus were already moving fast enough.
“Can you explain the excess Deuterium in the atmosphere of Venus?”
Well, it’s possible that Earth had more ocean 1 billion years ago then it does now, and it’s possible Earth had less ocean than it has now. And it’s possible Earth had nearly the same amount of ocean 1 billion years ago, as it does now.
Does the key aspect of knowing how much ocean Earth had 1 billion years ago, depend upon the amount of Deuterium in the atmosphere of Earth?
It seems the answer is no, because we know the amount of Deuterium in the atmosphere of Earth.
I think the basic thing is that Earth and Venus are quite different, and one large difference is that Earth has the Moon.
I also think it good idea to realize we in revolutionary times in terms understanding Earth and our solar system. Two aspects are related to plate tectonic and recent impactors as a new reality.
I think might useful to think of Venus having ocean and Earth being a snowball as old religious ideas.
The main reason to explore space, is to find out more about Earth.
And the small amount of exploration of space that we have done, has already done this. Or it’s proven and we just need to do a lot more exploration of Moon, Mars, and elsewhere in order to gain a even greater understanding of Earth.
gbaikie…”Venus is hot and its got an insane amount of CO2.
Earth is cold and has very little amount CO2 in its atmosphere.
But despite this difference, it thought that Earth and Venus must have began as same type of planet”.
That junk science about Venus and a runaway greenhouse was popularized by Carl Sagan, a legend in his own mind. Guess who bought Sagan’s nonsense, hook, line and sinker…James Hansen of NASA GISS.
The probes sent to Venus revealed a surface temperature of over 500C, and a greenhouse warming due to CO2 back-radiation was claimed by astronomer Andrew Ingersol to be a contravention of the 2nd law.
Whatever is heating Venus, it is not CO2.
Here is the book by Andrew Ingersol on Planetary Climates:
https://tinyurl.com/Planetary-Climates
Here is a video by him:
https://tinyurl.com/Andrew-Ingersoll
In both, he freely talks about the runaway greenhouse effect, with no mention of your BS claim.
Please cease defaming real scientists.
(Or is he not a real scientist any more?)
Well, I think everyone agrees that clouds are a warming effect.
How much of warming effect would probably have a lot disagreement.
I think it’s probably, mostly due to the acid clouds.
gbaikie, low clouds at night definitely have a warming effect. I have recorded temperatures of such clouds as high as 90 F (32.2 C). (That is not the GHE, however. The overhead sky is always much colder than the surface.)
Of course, during the day, the clouds are reflecting sunlight, so they cool more than warm.
“The overhead sky is always much colder than the surface.”
Thanks for clearly explaining why UAH is not the right data set for measuring surface temperatures.
Midas, you need to look up the word “anomaly”.
Then, get an adult to explain it to you….
What is the average 2010s anomaly of the stratosphere?
Do you believe that the anomaly suddenly changes at the troposphere? Or does it make more sense that there is a gradual change between the surface and the stratosphere?
Midas must believe that he can cover up for both his troll behavior, and his deficiency in physics, by just throwing out distracting questions.
Likely he was in the same typing class as DA….
Distracting? It is distracting to educate you that the anomaly drops gradually between the surface and the stratosphere, making the UAH anomaly lower than that of the surface?
Obviously Midas failed to look up “anomaly”. Or find an adult to help him.
Huffman doesn’t seem to understand that the UAH data shows anomalies. And that those anomalies decrease as the measurements move away from the surface, becoming negative by the time you get into the stratosphere.
If Midas understands anomalies, then why does Midas believe the UAH data is not valid.
Why does Huffman believe I said “the UAH data is not valid”? It is perfectly valid for measuring temperatures a few kilometers above the surface. However I have no intention of venturing that high.
–JDHuffman says:
August 16, 2019 at 5:09 AM
gbaikie, low clouds at night definitely have a warming effect. I have recorded temperatures of such clouds as high as 90 F (32.2 C). (That is not the GHE, however. The overhead sky is always much colder than the surface.)
Of course, during the day, the clouds are reflecting sunlight, so they cool more than warm.–
That reminds me of something.
If Venus had low level clouds rather than it’s very high elevation clouds, I think if Venus had low elevation clouds that the clouds would have much warming effect.
In addition, I think if Venus kept it’s high elevation cloud and was at Earth distance rather than Venus distance, these clouds would also have much less warming effect.
Or I think if you move Venus to Earth distance, Venus could be as cold as Earth or even, colder than Earth.
I also agree somewhat with the myth.
I think if you add an ocean of water to Venus, Venus would cool.
{because it would get rid of acid clouds and/or water clouds would higher than any acid clouds.
Add water and it cools Venus, which seems quite different then what greenhouse effect “theory” would predict.
I don’t think water or water vapor is cooling effect {or perhaps I should narrow it to say, don’t think water vapor is always a cooling effect} rather I think H2O eliminates the warming effect of the acid clouds of Venus.
[[Of course the immediate result of adding water to the acid, is a chemical heating effect- as in, don’t pour water into acid, pour acid into water]]
Grr:
“I think if Venus had low elevation clouds that the clouds would have much warming effect.”
I think if Venus had low elevation clouds that the clouds would NOT have much warming effect.
{or has cooling effect. Make the Venus surface air temperature MUCH cooler}
Slightly off topic but Donald Trump wants to build more mental institutions – not for people here (LOL) – but in response to a spate of recent mass shootings. The total number of America’s gun-related deaths in 2019 now stands at 9,214.
Yes, that is nine thousand, two hundred and fourteen deaths since the start of the year!
Unvbelievable!
Or, about 40 a day !!
Crazy man !
That is about 12 per 100,000 people every year.
Compared to Australia, which is about 1 per 100,000 people every year.
Weird !
Yes CD – weird is an understatement. Let us assume about 14,000 gun related deaths a year.
Let us assume about half are homicides committed by crazies.
Let us assume a mental institution can house about 100 inmates.
My arithmetic suggests we need to build about 70 institutions every year.
Maybe about one per state every year is a reasonable estimate.
Sounds plausible – it would be a boon to my career and that of my fellow practitioners.
I’m all for it!
pp…”it would be a boon to my career and that of my fellow practitioners”.
Oh. come on, prof, with your analytical capabilities of skeptics on this site you’d be out of work.
droll…”The total number of Americas gun-related deaths in 2019 now stands at 9,214″.
I think the first thing they should look at is the mindless violence on TV, in games, and in movies. In the past few days alone I have encountered shows on TV where people are shooting off automatic weapons and/or filling people full of lead from an automatic pistol.
Young people are playing video games where the sole purpose is to shoot up Nazis and so on. There is no plot, just kill Nazis.
Here in BC, Canada they just tracked down and found dead, 2 young suspects who had apparently murdered a young couple in Alaska then an archaeologist, for no apparent reason. One of them was confirmed to have a fetish for violent games and he had a dark personality in which he brooded.
Just ban this crap outright and put the perpetrators, like Tarantino et al in jail. Or maybe in one of those asylums.
Nope. “mindless violence on TV, in games, and in movies” does not just occur in the US, it is worldwide. So your theory doesn’t explain anythiing.
LOL. When did GR ever explain anything or ever made sense?
mickey…”When did GR ever explain anything or ever made sense?”
That’s not about my abilities in explaining, it’s about your inability to comprehend.
And what’s with the Dr in front of mickey? When you showed up here it was just mickey, now you’re Dr. Mickey.
Did the pressure get to you? Did you think adding a Dr. would get you more respect?
Come on, you’re an idiot. Try Dr. Idiot, it might get you a laugh.
“Did you think adding a Dr. would get you more respect?”
Apparently 1000frolly believes it does.
Mi-Des, please stop trolling.
droll…”mindless violence on TV, in games, and in movies does not just occur in the US, it is worldwide”
They don’t need TV worldwide, they have first hand violence for role modeling.
And don’t tell me insecure people are not motivated by TV violence.
I’m trying to say, violence is now presented as glamourous and desirable. Insecure people out there likely find some kind of vicarious outlet in watching twits on TV and in movies shooting up the bad guy. Then they likely begin brooding about ways to be heroes themselves.
Yet, Australia and most other similar countries don’t have this problem. The answer is obvious man!
droll…”Australia and most other similar countries dont have this problem. The answer is obvious man!”
They just don’t advertise it. They may not be into mass shootings, yet, but they have their share of horrific murders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
Note in the long list…35 killed in a spree shooting in 1996.
I am not trying to make light of recent massacres in the US, they are horrific. However, deaths in the US are lightweight compared to other parts of the world where there are no cops or army to enforce order.
On top of that we had the massacres of Cambodian people by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Similar massacres were perpetuated by Saddam Hussein and Ghadafi in Lybia. Massacres in Africa have been common place.
Muslim terrorists massacred mountain climbers near Nanga Parbat in Pakistan..
Same in Albania, Croatia, and so on.
Sorry man. Comparing the US today with what happened in Cambodia, Libya etc sounds a bit harsh! Nothing to be proud of.
BTW the shooting spree in Australia in 1996 caused the introduction of gun control laws. Pretty good evidence that they work wouldn’t you say?
droll…”BTW the shooting spree in Australia in 1996 caused the introduction of gun control laws. Pretty good evidence that they work wouldnt you say?”
I am not into gun control. It means the criminals and loonies can arm themselves with illegal guns and the rest of us are left at their mercy.
It should be every citizen’s right to defend himself/herself and his/her family in their own homes. Besides, if our democracy goes AWOL and we need to survive, what will we do without firearms?
It sounds trite, but guns don’t kill, it’s people who kill. A bit over a century ago, Freud theorized that the human mind was influenced by unconscious processes and that threw a monkey wrench into the notion that people could control their minds through will power. It’s amazing that many people today have no idea what drives other people at an unconscious level.
Even though psychology has progressed significantly since then, it seems to have leveled off and there are no answers regarding how to root out the looney sector. In fact, many of the loonies are now running our governments. There is simply no interest and no intent to find out why some people flip out.
We have to start looking seriously at why people flip out and want to shoot people. The violence driving such people is in all of us but most of us have learned how to control it. Violence is not the physical act, it is the emotions driving the physical.
Why are people so p***ed off? It’s not rocket science, the answer is obvious. We live in societies where people are suppressed to the point of poverty yet they look around them and see plenty. Certain parts of society set themselves up to use others to make themselves wealthy then they lord it over the less fortunate.
People are oppressed, male and female, on work sites. Many are underpaid yet there is no limit on how high rents can go or the price of homes.
I am not talking left wing/right wing, I am talking basic humanitarianism. We humans are a load of self-centred, narrow-minded twits. The irony is that most of us think we are not.
Well guess what? Some of the less fortunate, who are either very angry or not dealing with a full emotional deck, see people shooting others up on TV, in games, and in movies and they think, why can’t I do that? How else would they find out about assault rifles, etc.
The way movies, games, and TV are set up, the shooter is often the hero. Look at Bruce Willis movies. He regularly shoots bad guys full of lead and the message is that such violence is OK as long as he is shooting bad guys. For whatever reason, the shooters today in the massacres somehow see themselves as doing the right thing.
You don’t think some twisted mind out there is not using Willis as a role model? If not Willis, he/she has plenty of other violent role models. How about Travolta in the Tarantino flick popping people for no particular reason. Just to look cool.
Monstrous egos with guns. You can control the guns but you can do nothing about monstrous egos till after the fact.
If we can’t get it together as a society and start looking at the inequalities and insensitivity we exhibit towards others, this violence will continue. If we ban guns, they will find another way, or use illegal guns.
Remember Timothy McVeigh who blew up half a building in Oklahoma City? He killed 168 people using a bomb built with materials that can be found readily.
Kids all over the world watch the same movies and play the same games. So you are still not explaining why, when considering only countries that most people would like to consider as ‘civilized’, that the US stands out as peculiarly murderous.
professor p: “…get me my elephant gun.”
weasel: “…get me my MK-48”
professor p: “…it would be a mercy killing.”
Violence typically originates with perversion and corruption.
Perversion and corruption …. so – the Trump administration.
No, trolls….
Oh – so Flynn, Huffman and DREMT.
…. and Trump …
I have to remember to never respond to 12-year-olds.
They will keep going indefinitely.
I see you are still “going”.
Mi-Des, please stop trolling.
“So you are still not explaining why, when considering only countries that most people would like to consider as civilized, that the US stands out as peculiarly murderous.”
Maybe if US seems peculiarly murderous, less people will flock to this murderous Nation.
But in order the strengthen the idea, the US kills far more people with it’s vast numbers of cars.
And riding bicycles very very dangerous. It would be true or massive killing field if more people used bicycles.
Also a bit off topic but worth noting. Woodstock now far in the past, but for those of us who were there, itll always be far out. 50 years later, Woodstock remains as real as the rain that drenched us just after Joe Cocker finished ‘With a Little Help from My Friends.’
droll…”Woodstock remains as real as the rain…”
I thought Woodstock was nothing more than a demonstration of human stupidity and excess.
The music was good in places and memorable but the event itself demonstrated the excesses of human ego and stupidity.
Let’s face it, the hippie movement was a movement of self-centred idiots. People thought they could change the world by waving the ‘V’ sign and using the word ‘Peace’.
Where are they now? Many of them are likely driving BMers and using the peace sign in the British way, as in the middle finger salute.
Chill out man! You don’t sound happy.
Think – if only Donald Trump had been there – would he be a different person now?
Well the Donald is sort of like forrest gump- and to extant this is actually accurate- Trump was probably there.
Yeah he probably was. Except he wasn’t listening to Joe Cocker in the rain acid hallucinating, he was probably in the deep woods cockering some super model.
Chill out man! If you had been there, would you be as stupid and ignorant as you are?
Cheers.
I believe you have this bass akward!
Models are based on data, not the other way around.
Not if you live on the Bizarro Planet
“Without models, there are no data.”
– Paul N. Edwards, “A Vast Machine”
http://pne.people.si.umich.edu/PDF/Edwards_2009_A_Vast_Machine_Introduction.pdf
David, please stop trolling.
Low solar activity has an impact not only on the ENSO cycle, but primarily on the increase in pressure above the polar circle. This may cause early autumn waves of Arctic air falling to the south.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_NH_2019.png
The pseudoscientific GHE true believers carry on with their campaign of deny, divert, and confuse, with the emphasis currently on “divert”.
The movement of the Moon, the President of the US, elephant guns, sly threats to kill opponents, how ice can make water hotter – the list goes on, and on, . . .
And still, none of the CO2 cultists can address the fact that the GHE has never been described in such a fashion that a testable GHE hypothesis may be proposed.
These fanatics cannot even explain the role of their mythical GHE in cooling the surface from its molten state to now. Nor are they prepared to state unequivocally that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter!
Just a rambling, shambling collection of delusional zealots. Anybody who takes any notice of these demonstrably nutty individuals deserves everything they get.
Unfortunately, these fumbling bumblers expect their more rational fellow human beings to pay, and pay mightily, for the privilege of accompanying the nutters down the path of stupidity, ignorance and delusional psychosis – on a road to precisely nowhere of benefit to man nor beast.
All part of the rich tapestry of life, living amongst the mentally defective, I suppose.
Cheers.
Looks like half way between the temperature points the data withdrawal wreaks havoc on some peoples minds
Nurse! GR is off his meds again!
..and so is MF.
Ah, the delusional diversionary cackle of of the lesser psychobabbler is heard, yet again!
Hearing strange noises are we. Do you also hear voices?
What a fool! How’s that useful description of the GHE going?
Not well? Gee, that is so sad.
Oh well. You could always try some psychobabbling diversion to disguise your ignorance of real science!
Carry on.
Cheers.
“I believe I have pointed out why the lowest temperatures on Earth are to be found where the amount of GHGs is least. Basic physics.”
– Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
David, please stop trolling.
I’m not trolling, you are.
#2
David, please stop trolling.
midas…”In both, he freely talks about the runaway greenhouse effect, with no mention of your BS claim”.
Regretfully, I have to add you to the list of alarmists idiots.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JA085iA13p08219?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
“Pioneer Venus observations of temperatures and radiative fluxes are examined in an attempt to understand the thermal balance of the lower atmosphere. If all observations are correct and the probe sites are typical of the planet, the second law of thermodynamics requires that the bulk of the lower atmosphere heating must come from a source other than direct sunlight or a thermally driven atmospheric circulation. Neither the so‐called greenhouse models nor the mechanical heating models are consistent with this interpretation of the observations”.
Did you take a look at his book or watch the video? If you did, you would realize that you must be misinterpreting what he says there, as those sources show that he fully supports the science of the greenhouse effect.
In this abstract he says only that the second law of thermodynamics requires that “the bulk of the lower atmosphere heating must come from a source other than direct sunlight or a thermally driven atmospheric circulation”. He does NOT say that the second law is inconsistent with greenhouse warming. In his next sentence he is saying that, of the other possibilities that do not contravene the second law, the data that was available 39 years ago from the Pioneer Venus mission when this paper was written suggests that greenhouse warming is not the major reason for the high surface temperatures on Venus.
The conclusion to the paper reads:
“We conclude either that some of the net flux data are in error or that they are from anomalous regions or else that there is another source of energy for the deep atmosphere.”
Perhaps you should try reading the entire paper instead of satisfying yourself with a misinterpretation of the abstract.
M,
You are a dimwitted fool. You can’t even usefully describe this “greeenhouse effect”, can you?
There is no “greenhouse” effect that you can describe. The only “runaway” is your fantasy running away with your common sense.
Not even the finest of the fakers, frauds, fools and phonies that make up the pseudoscientific GHE true believers, can say with a straight face that increasing the amount of CO2 between he Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Perhaps you should try using your brain instead of mindlessly lapping up the drivel cast your way by the likes of Schmidt, Mann, and Trenberth!
Oh well, there are many villages around the world who have lost their idiot. At least you have many job opportunities.
Cheers.
GR
Hahaha – you needed MF to save you yet again. He is certainly good at recognizing when your argument is faltering.
M,
Maybe you could address the fact that nobody at all has yet managed to usefully describe the GHE?
Or you could just keep making stupid and ignorant comments to divert attention away from the fact that you are just as witless as the likes of Mann, Schmidt and Trenberth.
You dont need to thank me. Your flattery and admiration is reward enough.
Cheers.
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
David, please stop trolling.
Looks to me that you’re the one trolling here.
Why are you doing that?
#2
David, please stop trolling.
And … GR … do you think you could train yourself to hit the Reply button every time. How are we meant to find your replies if they are not where they are expected to be.
M,
Why do you think that boasting about your level of incompetence is to be admired?
Are you stupid, or just lazy? Why would anybody go out of their way to spoonfeed the nasty little creature that incessantly snaps at them?
Oh dear. Things are not where you expect them to be – have you tried demanding? Maybe threatening to have a tantrum might work? Have you thought of exerting yourself and looking for the supposedly missing reply?
Maybe its like Trenberths missing heat – not here in the first place. Good luck with finding it.
Cheers.
The baboons thank you for your flattery.
M,
I haven’t got the faintest idea what you are blathering about.
Are you perhaps confusing baboons with buffoons (of the bumbling, balding type, of course)? I’m not sure why Schmidt or Mann would be thanking me, and passing on thanks through an anonymous fool would be unlikely – even for the likes of them!
While you are conversing with your friends the baboons (or buffoons), maybe you could find out about the amazing mythical GHE. A useful GHE description would be a handy thing for foolish Warmists to wave round like a banner, but alas, all they seem to possess is a never ending supply of stupidity and ignorance. You certainly display ample quantities of both.
Are you a foolish Warmist?
Cheers.
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
– Mike Flynn, 5/23/17
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
David, please stop trolling.
How am I trolling?
#2
David, please stop trolling.
midas…”The conclusion to the paper reads:
We conclude either that some of the net flux data are in error or that they are from anomalous regions or else that there is another source of energy for the deep atmosphere.”
In other words, the heat DOES NOT come from a greenhouse effect. How could it? If the surface is 450+ C the atmosphere would have to be hotter than that for heat to be transferred from the atmosphere to the surface.
GR
Ingersoll is the person who is credited with first introducing the concept of the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus, you idiot. Only a dumb conservative with an agenda could possibly take someone who strongly agrees with greenhouse warming and claim he represents their denial stance. Have you watched the video yet or read his book?
from interview with Andrew P Ingersoll, April 26 2004, by Sara Lippincott:
“I coined the phrase ‘the runaway greenhouse’, and I used it as
the title of the paper, and that became sort of common – you know, everyone knows the runaway greenhouse effect.”
M,
The runaway greenhouse effect is merely the fantasy that a greenhouse effect exists, and the believer has allowed this fantasy to run away with his imagination.
Nobody has ever managed to demonstrate the GHE by means of a reproducible experiment – nobody can even describe it!
Pseudoscientific GHE true believers are quite demented. They refuse to believe that CO2 has no magical heating qualities, and they secretly believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between he Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Gee. Perpetual motion and free energy – all from the mythical magical properties of CO2! Only the truly deluded would believe such rubbish – are you truly deluded, or just pretending to be stupid, ignorant and gullible?
I’ll assume you are delusional, but correct me if I’m wrong. Mind you, you wouldn’t know, would you?
Cheers
“They refuse to believe that CO2 has no magical heating qualities ….. only the truly deluded would believe such rubbish”
Mr Spencer thanks you for referring to him as ‘deluded’.
Mi-Des, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson says:
If the surface is 450+ C the atmosphere would have to be hotter than that for heat to be transferred from the atmosphere to the surface.
Gordon still does not understand the 2LOT, and absolutely refuses to learn it.
David, please stop trolling.
Gordon says:
If the surface is 450+ C the atmosphere would have to be hotter than that for heat to be transferred from the atmosphere to the surface.
Gordon still does not understand the 2LOT, and absolutely refuses to learn it.
David, please stop trolling.
droll…”BTW the shooting spree in Australia in 1996 caused the introduction of gun control laws. Pretty good evidence that they work wouldnt you say?”
Did you count how many massacres in Australia were caused by arson? What will they do, ban matches?
Hey, they don’t ban all guns in Australia. They have gun control laws which seem to work pretty well though.
Except at keeping guns out the reach of criminals. All they have to figure out now, is how to get criminals not to break the law.
The average nutter has been reduced to using knives, axes, motor vehicles, or even manual means – one punch hits, iron bars, drowning, or even strangulation to kill people.
Luckily, Australia cannot come near the US managing to exterminate 36,000 people per annum in road deaths – more than 100 per day.
Got more diversions? That one was fairly irrelevant, don’t you think?
Cheers.
I don’t follow your thinking. All I know are that the statistics are pretty clear and but it seems to provoke some really convoluted arguments from opponents of gun controls. But, hey, that is what we expect from denialists !
cd,
How are you going with finding a useful GHE description?
If you are having difficulty, try a diversion. Gun control might be worth trying.
That way, you could avoid having to face the reality that your GHE is pseudoscience.
Cheers.
Here are some good descriptions of the GHE:
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
DA,
Thanks for the assistance.
Would you mind reposting your comment until you get tired of it?
You have made one error, however. You refer to descriptions of the GHE, but you are obviously confused. No useful description of the GHE exists.
Keep repeating my factual comments to your heart’s delight. No GHE. Not even a little bit of one. Read the facts, and weep!
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson says:
Did you count how many massacres in Australia were caused by arson? What will they do, ban matches?
Gordon is one of those who thinks that because one law can’t solve all problems, laws and bans shouldn’t be used to solve specific problems.
David, please stop trolling.
midas…”Why does Huffman believe I said the UAH data is not valid? It is perfectly valid for measuring temperatures a few kilometers above the surface”.
Propaganda!!
A couple of AMSU channels measure right to the surface. Are you not aware that temperatures can be interpolated with altitude?
Idiot! Channel 4 only refers to the “near-surface layer” – not the surface.
Get it right dummy.
And, channel 4 failed in 2008 !
“A couple of AMSU channels measure right to the surface.”
You fools, no they don’t.
DM,
And who cares? You are just trying to avoid admitting that you cannot even describe your mythical GHE, aren’t you?
What a pseudoscientific poser!
Cheers.
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
DA,
Post that 100 times. Maybe it will sink into even your thick skull!
Cheers.
mickey…”Channel 4 only refers to the “near-surface layer” – not the surface”.
You should stick to subjects you understand. Come to think of it, you would have nothing to talk about.
This is relevant to the fact that Michael Mann fraudulently claimed to be a Nobel Laureate because . . . ?
Cheers.
I will be nominating Professor Mann for a Nobel prize. A real brave champion in my book.
The Nobel Prize award has already been tainted beyond repair anyway. Doesn’t really matter.
DM,
Complete delusional nonsense. You wouldn’t know how, and nobody would take any notice of you anyway.
What a fool you are!
Cheers.
mickey…”I will be nominating Professor Mann for a Nobel prize. A real brave champion in my book.”
That makes you not only an idiot, but an idiotic misogynist as well. It, in particular, makes you anti-science.
Misogynist???? It seems you have no idea what the word means. Are you suggesting we are now only permitted to nominate women for the Nobel prize?
SPA
Indeed. Ivar Giaever has made it into a joke.
Careful Midas, you can’t win “goofy leftist of the week” on Sunday.
Dr Myki says:
I will be nominating Professor Mann for a Nobel prize.
It’s likely you don’t meet the requirements to nominate:
https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/Nomination/Criteria-for-nominators
SPA
I certainly can’t win it with those two comments.
Mi-Des, please stop trolling.
midas…”Why does Huffman believe I said “the UAH data is not valid”? It is perfectly valid for measuring temperatures a few kilometers above the surface”.
Propaganda!!
A couple of AMSU channels measure right to the surface. The channels have centre frequencies in Ghz but the slope of their bandpass collects surface temps.
Are you not aware that temperatures can be inter.polated with altitude?
Channel 5 is centred on 600 mb but it, too, failed in 2013.
And Michael Mann is still not a Nobel Laureate, in spite of his fraudulent claims! How’s that for a failure?
Cheers.
Begone, idiot!
DM,
Thank you. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Much better if you could come up with a useful description of the GHE, but of course you can’t.
Carry on being stupid.
Cheers.
MF
Indeed. Every time you speak, the world’s baboon population feels collectively flattered.
M,
It is a pity that you can’t even describe the mythical GHE, isn’t it?
Maybe you could try some whining to divert attention for moths fact.
Cheers.
I’ll leave the diversion to you, but thanks for the offer. I’d rather my comments had something to do with the comment I am responding to.
M,
Who cares what you would “rather”? It’s your choice to be seen as dimwitted and stupid.
The fact is that you can’t usefully describe the GHE, so you would “rather” make irrelevant and pointless comments. Maybe you think that will will make you appear wise and knowledgeable – and maybe it will, to those even more stupid and ignorant than yourself!
Carry on with the deny, divert and obscure tactics. You don’t even know what you are trying to achieve, do you? That’s because all you can do is whine about the fact that nobody seems to be keen on dancing to your discordant tune.
Over to you. All I have on my side is science and fact.
Cheers.
Apparently you are into inventing new words and letters.
M,
You are definitely as stupid, ignorant, and evasive as ever!
You cannot usefully describe the GHE, so all you can do is make pointless and irrelevant comments.
Presumably, you have some reason for behaving as you do, (apart from some congenital mental deficiency), but of course your motivation remains as obscure as the description of the GHE.
Off you go now – spend a little time dreaming up new ways of demonstrating what a deluded dimwit you are. Have you figured out how to make a thermometer hotter using CO2 yet, or is that magic knowledge reserved for certain balding, bearded, bumbling, buffoons?
If you have the sense that I’m having a good laugh at your expense, you’d be right.
Cheers.
How much does Roy charge to edit your typos?
M,
Are you as stupid as you appear? You are descending into complete incomprehensibility.
What have typos to do with the fact that you can’t usefully describe the GHE? Are you instead trying to deny, divert, and confuse – pretending that you have some special knowledge which you are withholding from the rest of the population?
My assumption is that you are a delusional psychotic, convinced that your fantasy world of CO2 having magical heating power imbues you with awesome abilities – mind reading, omniscience and the power to control minds amongst them.
In other words, just another anonymous Warmist looney, convinced that you can argue fantasy into becoming fact.
Give it a try. See how it works out – just ignore any laughter you might hear.
Cheers.
Now the typos are back again. Someone here is having fun.
Mi-Des, please stop trolling.
GR
So why don’t Christy and Spencer share this surface-only data with us instead of mixing it with tropospheric data? Do they have something to hide?
And I am still waiting for you to explain why you falsely claimed Andrew Ingersoll to be a denier of the greenhouse effect. Does your slander know no bounds?
M,
No point waiting for you to come up with a useful description of the GHE, is there?
All you can do is whine and demand answers to witless gotchas!
Cheers.
–Mike Flynn says:
August 17, 2019 at 4:13 PM
M,
No point waiting for you to come up with a useful description of the GHE, is there?–
Probably not.
Richard S. Lindzen does try to give useful description:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
But not sure M and others [including Mike Flynn] agree with it.
And not sure I agree with it, completely. But there is some things I agree with.
–1. INTRODUCTION
In science, there is an art to simplifying complex problems so that they can be meaningfully analyzed. If one oversimplifies, the analysis is meaningless. If one doesnt simplify, then one often cannot proceed with the analysis. When it comes to global warming due to the greenhouse effect, it is clear that many approaches are
highly oversimplified. This includes the simple blanket picture of the greenhouse effect shown in Figure 1. We will approach the issue more seriously in order to see whether one can reach reasonably rigorous conclusions. It turns out that one can.–
And:
–2. THE CLIMATE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
In Figure 1 (taken from a popular exhibit at the National Academys Koshland Museum) we see a common depiction of the greenhouse effect. It is generally recognized to be oversimplified, but defended on the grounds that the general public would not be able to follow the correct treatment. —
It not oversimplification because water vapor is main greenhouse gas. Though an oversimplification in terms of greenhouse is sort of kind of like the climate greenhouse effect. Or if put greenhouse on the vacuum of the Moon, a greenhouse *can* mimic roughly what Earth atmosphere does.
Problem is need something which transparent and strong enough to withstand air pressure.
Humans can live in less air pressure than 14.7 psi, 5 psi wouldn’t too much of problem and difference could fairly unnoticeable if increase amount from 20% oxygen to 80% nitrogen to say 30 to 70.
5 psi is still a lot pressure, or 10″ square pane is 100 square inches and equal having weight of 500 lb evenly distributed upon that 10″ square pane {but less problem compared to 1470 lbs of weight}.
I think greenhouse on Moon could mimic earth conditions.
Have floor with steel grate, fill water to it being 1/2″ above steel grate. And then keep partial pressure of water vapor equal to Earth’s partial water vapor pressure. And also don’t let water temperature get above say 30 C- it could be one or the other, but let’s say control both- as in both water temperature and water vapor partial pressure.
anyway back to it:
— ….It is commonly claimed that the natural component of this blanket keeps the earth about 33 C warmer than it would be in the absence of this blanket. The claim is a little inappropriate insofar as it requires getting rid of the greenhouse impact of clouds while
retaining them to reflect sunlight. Getting rid of clouds as reflectors would reduce this difference substantially. This, however, is a relatively minor point.–
I don’t think it’s minor point.
Though I have bigger disagreement [Because I think oceans are warming effect] but since Greenhouse effect “theory” completely skips any mention of the Earth’s ocean. And the topic on the Greenhouse effect “theory”, we can skip talking about ocean’s effect and the host of other important effects.
And continuing:
“…There is something very seriously wrong with this oversimplified picture. Namely, the surface of the earth does not cool primarily by thermal radiation. The situation is
more nearly akin to the schematic shown in Figure 2. The main greenhouse gas, water vapor, generally maximizes at the surface in the tropics and sharply decreases with both altitude and latitude. There is so much greenhouse opacity immediately above the
ground that the surface cannot effectively cool by the emission of thermal radiation.”
That is good point.
https://tinyurl.com/54t78t
There is so much greenhouse opacity immediately above the
ground that the surface cannot effectively cool by the emission of thermal radiation.
And yet about 240 W/m2 leaves out the top of the atmosphere. (=cooling)
David Appell says:
August 18, 2019 at 4:53 PM
–There is so much greenhouse opacity immediately above the
ground that the surface cannot effectively cool by the emission of thermal radiation.–
And yet about 240 W/m2 leaves out the top of the atmosphere. (=cooling)
Yes there is [or there has be about the same amount absorbed as is radiated- or if difference then amounts it’s increasing temperature or decreasing temperature. So I think on average about 240 watts is absorbed and about 240 watts is emitted. I am sure Richard S. Lindzen also agrees, as well as many others.
Or said differently, Earth has a huge thermal mass, and energy input from sun is small in comparison to the total thermal mass and roughly the global temperature does change much in seconds or days or even years- or input energy of 240 watts is going to equal output watts of 240 watts- if it’s averaged.
Or I agree that Earth absorbs about 240 watt if you average it over the entire surface area because if average over entire surface it emits 240 watts. But obviously tropics absorbs more and poles absorbs less, and etc, and etc.
Do you disagree with Richard S. Lindzen in some way?
And if so what exactly?
I mainly agree with Richard S. Lindzen because temperature transfer at bottom of atmosphere is mostly about convectional heat loss- if want to keep a house warm or cool, the issue of importance is convectional heat transfer- or radiant heat transfer are insignificant.
But of course if instead it’s in a vacuum [there is no air] and therefore radiant heat transfer is what is significant.
I mentioned Earth having large thermal mass. This largely related to oceans and atmosphere [rather the thin layer of dirt or sand}.
And of course this also applies to the massive ocean, but massive ocean is not heated [or cooled] in an immediate sense
So in immediate sense, the atmosphere is massive in terms of 10 tons of mass per square meter. And ocean mostly warms few meters of depth
and it evaporates.
So, the large thermal mass of ocean and sky is this aspect of large thermal mass of earth [or why absorbs as much as 240 watts [and emits 240 watts] and if there was merely sky and dirt, it absorbs less and emits less.
And then in long term one can include the truly massive kilometers deep ocean and also include mass of all ice [ice sheets].
Or someone said if not deep ocean we would have warmed by some silly number like 36 C in few decades.
It’s silly because just focusing in the atmosphere- and is not the reality.
The ocean mixes, if it didn’t mix, earth would be colder, if it mixed more, eventually [hundreds to thousand of years] we would be much warmer.
Or if ocean didn’t mix, over weeks or months, Earth would absorb less than 240 watts {and emit less than 240 watts]. And if mixed a lot more, one could measure that Earth absorbed more than it emitted [or Earth was warming like crazy- but global air temperature would have drop in temperature].
gbalkie: sure, I agree with you and Lindzen that the top of the atmosphere receives and emits 240 W/m2.
But the surface emits and receives 390 W/m2.
David, please stop trolling.
GR
It’s always telling when MF feels the need to save you with a pointless distraction.
M,
How are you going with trying to convince anybody that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
You could always try making pointless and irrelevant comments to try to disguise your stupidity and ignorance. It might work.
Cheers.
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
DA,
Thanks for the support. Well worth posting again, and again, and again.
The lower the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, the hotter the surface temperature in sunlight, and the colder the temperature in the absence of sunlight.
The Moon provides extreme examples of temperature extremes with no GHGs at all.
You are obviously too stupid to understand. Not my problem.
Cheers
Mike Flynn says:
The lower the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, the hotter the surface temperature in sunlight
How much do GHGs block sunlight?
David Appell says: —————-
How much do GHGs block sunlight?
Hmmmm, let me count the ways!
1. Solar is half IR, watervapor is a good IR absorber.
2. Water (free floating, wispy clouds)good absorber of IR.
3. Clouds (condensed water vapor) are an excellent absorber and reflector of IR, Visible, and UV radiation.
4. Land Ice (condensed, precipitated and frozen water vapor) very good reflector of light.
5. Snow (condensed, precipitated and frozen water vapor) excellent reflector of light.
6. Sea ice (not strictly from GHG, but nevertheless a good reflector of light that becomes a platform for snow.
7. CO2 poor absorber of IR
mickey…”I am still waiting for you to explain why you falsely claimed Andrew Ingersoll to be a denier of the greenhouse effect”.
******
Why should I? You’re too stupid to understand the abstract from Ingersoll I posted in which he claimed a Venusian surface temperature of 450+ C would contradict the 2nd law if it came from a GHE.
As Mike has inferred, you cannot explain the GHE yet you claim Ingersoll supports the theory. Has it occurred to you, that like Lindzen, Ingersoll has a different definition of the GHE.
Who is “Mickey”?
Whatever Ingersoll’s definition of the greenhouse effect, it is one that allows for runaway greenhouse warming on Venus. That is Ingersoll’s signature idea.
GR
I just realized who “Mickey” is. Are you really that confused about who you are talking to?
midas…”I just realized who “Mickey” is. Are you really that confused about who you are talking to?”
Mickey Mouse.
So you quote me then sign off. Was there a purpose to that?
Mi-Des, please stop trolling.
GR wrote:
Has it occurred to you, that like Lindzen, Ingersoll has a different definition of the GHE.
In what way is it different?
DA,
Don’t be stupid. Read for yourself. Why do you demand others do your work for you? Are you really so lazy or stupid that you cannot find out things for yourself?
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson says:
A couple of AMSU channels measure right to the surface.
Which?
Explain why UAH and RSS don’t publish a surface temperature.
DA,
I know you want everybody else to spoonfeed you because you are too lazy to do your own research. Or are you merely incompetent?
You persist in demanding answers to stupid gotchas. Good luck with enforcing your demands.
Cheers.
Allow me to translate MF’s comment:
“Don’t ask me questions I can’t understand. All I know how to do is rant and rave.”
Allow me to translate your comment: Ian, please stop trolling.
DA…”Explain why UAH and RSS dont publish a surface temperature”.
I am surprised you know so little about AMSU units yet you freely criticize them.
When receivers on a sat AMSU unit receive microwave radiation from oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, they do so across a receiver bandwidth. The centre frequency of the bandwidth is not set to the expected surface microwave radiation, however, like any other receiver set up this way, the array of frequencies it does receive includes what would be expected from O2 microwave emissions near the surface.
If you know the centre frequency at which the amplifier absorbs best, and that frequency corresponds to a certain altitude, then the shape of the response curve can tell you what percent of the power is coming from which altitude.
Bandwidth and amplifier curves are normally rated peak power received and half-power, which is often 0.707 of the peak value (3dB down). The older MSU channel 2 receiver had a peak at 350 hPa and a half power at 40 hPa. Therefore that receiver gather O2 data from 350 hPa up to 40 hPa and higher.
The surface is at 1013.36 hPa, so find the amplifier that cover that pressure range. The pressure/temperature to altitude is fairly linear through the troposphere, so it’s a matter of interpolation.
Note in the following weighting functions that channel 5 has its half power point at the surface and channel 4 peaks at the surface.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/AMSU-weighting-functions_fig9_252235249
You avoided the question – why doesn’t UAH publish this surface data?
The UAH temperature is centered at an altitude of 3 km.
I believe the trend becomes zero at the tropopause. Feel free to correct me if you have a more precise altitude, but I am going to say 10 km.
As you say “pressure/temperature to altitude is fairly linear through the troposphere”, that would make the UAH trend of +0.13 at an altitude of 3 km equal to a trend of +0.19 at the surface. And voila!, we just about agree with the surface data sets.
Gordon, so then why don’t UAH and RSS publish surface temperatures?
I think, but am not sure, it’s because they’d need to know the surface’s microwave emissivity as a function of area, and the surface is too inhomogeneous to know that to the accuracy required.
Mi-Des, David, please stop trolling.
“It was a solar experiment that seemed ingenious in its simplicity: fill a road with photovoltaic panels and let them passively soak up the rays as cars drive harmlessly above. The idea has been tried a few times, notably in rural France in 2016 with what was christened the “Wattway.”
Three years later, even the most optimistic supporters have deemed the Wattway a failure.”
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a28720252/french-solar-road-failure/
Linked from https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Also linked from:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
I was thinking maybe the French might take this “opportunity” to make major effort to do something about solar energy waste. And wondering in general how effort goes into cleaning up waste from solar energy. I think read a few stories about the waste problem in China, and some saying it would good idea to something about. Google:
” The problem of solar panel disposal will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment because it is a huge amount of waste which is not easy to recycle.
Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants. If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (53 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/solar-panel-waste-a-disposal-problem/
Also I am reminded of all the talk for decades about how nuclear energy was essentially going to kill everyone and leave the world unlivable for all people and all life on planet earth.
Which of course was just another example of all the lying people trying make a buck from selling news.
Of course bathtubs have killed far more people and Lightning is killing far more people than bathtubs. I imagine death from lightning is a more sudden thing, and people can get a lot fear generated about the unseen, sneaky, and hard to detect ways of finishing one off. Or rats and mosquitoes are the big killers throughout history- and presently.
One could say being worried solar waste is like being worried nuclear energy- and nuclear energy was harmless and so also will solar energy waste.
One could argue that because we feared nuclear waste it resulted in expensive measures taken to reduce the risks of nuclear waste.
So there was a benefit to all the propaganda of world going to end because a future nuclear wasteland it would create.
I think there is some merit to that, but more along the line of bureaucracies whether governmental or private are capable of doing a lot of stupid stuff. Or you get into a lot trouble if give bureaucracies, matches {they would burn down the world}. Or nuclear energy can be very dangerous IF you are very incompetent and/or corrupt/evil.
Anyways, nuclear energy has been safe, because people would be held accountable for their mistakes. But I see {or appears to me} very little accountability connected to solar energy business.
Or it seems a very corrupt business, everyone accepts they are of course hopeless incompetent, no one is seriously surprised with the very poor results.
gbaikie…”fill a road with photovoltaic panels and let them passively soak up the rays as cars drive harmlessly above…”
Sound like wind turbines installed at the side of the road so passing cars will make it turn and generate electricity.
Scott R
You assert that there is an 11 year ENSO cycle.
Find me a cycle in this:
https://tinyurl.com/yxsdouyp
M,
And if he doesnt? Are you a witless fool, or just pretending!
Cheers.
Translation:
“I don’t know anything about ENSO cycles! But if a fellow denialist says anything, I will believe it 100%. Because I am inherently stupid.”
If he doesn’t? Simple. That means he can’t.
You are in dire need of a vocabulary infusion.
M,
This would be the same sort of pseudoscientific GHE true believer redefinition as usual, meaning the complete opposite of what you say?
For example, “slow cooling” is redefined to mean “getting hotter”.
“Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist” really means “Gavin Schmidt is not a scientist at all”.
“Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize” really means “Michael Mann fraudulently calmed to be a Nobel Laureate”.
“Chooses not to” really means “cannot possibly do it”.
Really? I leave it to others to decide whom to believe.
Maybe you could figure out how to usefully describe the GHE, and propose a testable hypothesis to explain why current physical knowledge is insufficient to satisfy your description.
I assume the phrase “scientific method” is in your vocabulary?
Cheers.
Translation:
“I still know nothing about ENSO cycles. Let’s try some good old fashioned diversions that always seem to work. Have I mentioned Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann before? I keep forgetting.”
Translation: Ian, please stop trolling.
Midas,
You will need take El Nino values and apply a 5 year moving average to it to see the 11 period cycle. That’s step one.
Once you do that, the next step is understanding why the 11 year El Nino cycle occurs on a delay to the heart of the solar minimum. Do you understand the yearly trade wind cycle? Basically, every January, the trade winds are peaking. This is when TSI from the sun is at it’s maximum due to the earth’s orbit taking us in. (a overly simplified relationship, but I don’t want to dwell on that) It makes sense that the TSI over the 11 year cycle is also having an effect on the trade winds. During low solar output, the trade winds die and warm water stays on the surface. There is not enough trade wind strength to cause upwelling near South America. The mixing between the warm surface waters and the cold water underneath slows. This is robbing us from our energy future! Once the new solar cycle starts, the trade winds pick up, and the cold (neglected) waters can finally upwell. Once this happens, it takes approximately 4 months for the effects to make their way to the global ocean and air temperatures.
There is also an alternative theory that the magnetic field reversal on the sun (which occurs every 11 years) and it’s interaction with the earth might also play a roll. We may only get the strong upwelling when the reversal on the sun is “fresh” as the waters move to magnetic equilibrium within the complex system, naturally distributing the surface water energy from solar max and El Nino. Still, there would be a delay of 4 months. As far as I know, we have not started SC 25 yet, so no reversal. I’m not sure though. We did have a sunspot that LOOKED like SC25. All we can do is continue to monitor. It will become clear when the reversal took place in hindsight.
Basically, El Nino is not a sign of global warming. It’s a sign of weak trade winds and possibly the solar cycle being near it’s end. Note the 5 year moving average for that El Nino cycle is just now peaking.
Perhaps both factors work together.
Midas,
Further reading on the complexities of El Nino and the 11 year cycle:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2008GL034831
Global Temperature Why Should We Trust A Statistic That Might Not Even Exist?
“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is quite certain Earth will be in trouble if the global temperature exceeds pre-industrial levels by 1.5 degrees Celsius or more. But how can anyone know? According to university research, global temperature is a meaningless concept.”
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/16/global-temperature-how-can-we-trust-a-statistic-that-might-not-even-exist/
I kind of agree.
Or I think global average temperature is 3.5 C.
But I think there relationship between average volume of ocean temperature and the global air temperature.
Or I think global air temperature is a proxy of “real” global temperature. Or said differently, global air temperature is a result of global average temperature {and global average temperature is the temperature {mostly} of the average temperature of the ocean.
Also average global ocean SURFACE temperature is directly related to global average air temperature- which is about 15 C.
Or global ocean surface average temperature is about 17 C
and global land surface air average temperature is about 10 C
and average of the 70% [ocean} and 3O%[land] is about 15 C.
AND you have the difference between North and South hemisphere- the southern hemisphere is about 1 C cooler than northern hemisphere [has been that way for centuries- but apparently does change {southern could be warmer than northern and or could be larger or smaller differences}.
In terms of increasing global average air temperature which is currently about 15 C.
This related to average ocean surface temperature.
The tropical ocean surface temperature is about 26 C, so 40% of entire ocean has average temperature of about 26 C and rest of ocean [60%] average temperature is about 11 C.
It’s the changing [warming] of the 60% ocean surface which causes global average temperature of 15 C to increase. Or increasing the average ocean surface temperature of about 11 C of 60% of entire ocean surface temperature.
Or of the 60% there is 30% in north and 30% in south, either or both could be warming.
Now, one could say that in glacial and interglacial periods, the surface ocean temperature of 30% part of ocean in northern hemisphere, is relevant or important.
Or when said that global warming could result in global cooling, it could “roughly” be correct. Or the warming of the northern 30% of ocean surface, could be connected to glaciers forming in northern hemisphere- which marks the beginning of a glacial period. I say “could” because “we don’t know enough”- but I still count it as lying because it’s not adequately explained [though it also can’t be adequately, but it’s also pretty clear it’s a slow process- it’s known to be slow process which requires centuries- not fitting alarmist desires to alarm people.
I pick some more quote from above article:
–Discussions on global warming often refer to global temperature. Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Science Daily, paraphrasing Bjarne Andresen, a professor at the University of Copenhagens Niels Bohr Institute, one of three authors of a paper questioning the validity of a global temperature.'”–
Hmm. Well, the “main story” of the times we living in [last + million years] is what is causing the cooling.
What is causing the cooling that makes us be in an Ice Age.
And we endless getting the propaganda about what causing the warming
for last +50 years.
Now, we know the prediction of future warming has been wrong, but bigger wrong is what would result of future warming.
Antarctica is not going to melt as result of warming, nor Greenland going to melt. Adding snow is just as likely. If either “collapse” it could result in cooling {another aspect of “global warming causing cooling”}. But “collaspe” is most like due to volcanic activity- and it’s not likely. The fear Yellowstone super volcano erupting is as likely and is a larger effect. Not mention vast number of other super volcanoes.
Global warming is mostly about less deserts. Our Ice Age caused deserts, if you imagine the idea of leaving our Ice Age, well than that is less deserts. Leaving our Ice Age is folly- it’s not going to happen. But massive amount of global warming would heading in the direction of leaving our Ice Age.
And warmer world has less violent weather. We have violent weather because we are in an Ice Age, and glacial part of our Ice age, has even more violent weather.
In terms of hot weather, the hotter air temperature occurred on Earth when Med sea dried up.
Global warming means more tropical conditions- more condition like living on a tropical island paradise, which is warm and wet, and not particularly hot, though hot night as compared to freezing nights.
And during our last interglacial period during warmest times, on had tropical like condition in Germany. Germany is not tropical like at the moment. It might have hot summers, but basically it gets cold [particularly in winter]. Tropical like conditions are conditions allows tropical plants to grow. So during out last interglacial period in warmest time, one could probably grow orange or lemon trees in Germany without needing a greenhouse.
And Germany is famous for cloudy summers, if had global warming one could tropical like conditions AND less clouds in Germany in the summer. Basically Germany would be less depressing to live in- and it’s seems Germans are fanatically oppose to it. Maybe they have less excuse to go on summer vacation somewhere else. Though lack of ice staking opportunities would another issue.
What is causing the cooling that makes us be in an Ice Age.
How can you opine about climate science and not know the answer to that??
Why are you asking? Do you care?
Cheers.
Translation:
“Don’t ask me questions. I know nothing about anything.”
Translation: Ian, please stop trolling.
David Appell says:
August 18, 2019 at 2:51 PM
–What is causing the cooling that makes us be in an Ice Age.–
“How can you opine about climate science and not know the answer to that??”
I assume since you opine about climate science, you know the answer.
What your best answer of why we are in an Ice Age.
Remember, weathering reducing CO2 has been disproved- or go ahead, argue against it.
Gbaikie,
You’re assuming DA has an understanding of anything. He’s just a trivia master.
gbalkie wrote:
Remember, weathering reducing CO2 has been disproved
Huh? By whom??
David, please stop trolling.
In 2009 Kevin Trenberth famously remarked that it was a “Travesty” that climate scientists could not explain why temperature ceased to rise since 1998.
The climate Mafia still can’t explain “The Pause” which is about to come of age (21st birthday in 2020).
Why would you expect us amateurs to answer questions that baffle the professionals? Can you explain the Pause?
gc,
I suppose that means that nobody aged 20 years or younger has experienced AGW in their lifetime.
Sure seems like a travesty to me. Something needs to be done about it! Maybe a consensus is needed?
Cheers.
Translation:
“I am running out of ideas. Let’s dig up The Pause corpse.”
cam…”The climate Mafia still cant explain The Pause which is about to come of age (21st birthday in 2020)”.
NOAA went back and changed the SST to show a trend. When they can’t explain the ‘pause’ they change it to a trend. And when they cannot get a year as hot as 1998, they drop the confidence level till the selected year (2014) is in first place. In the case of 2014, the CL was dropped to 48%. GISS dropped it to 38%.
If they had gotten away with that back in 1977, when global temps mysteriously increased by 0.2C, we would never have discovered the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. There were people like NOAA who wanted to erase the 0.2C as an error. Turned out to be the PDO, which influences ENSO.
Mike…you’ve really gotten the best of Mickey. It is following you around like a little puppy, snapping at your heels.
GR
We could use the same logic to justify that every follower of science on this site has “gotten” the best of MF.
M,
Go your hardest. Justify yourself into a frenzy, if you wish. Still no GHE. No CO2 heating. Nature doesn’t care about your justifying, and nor do I.
Cheers.
… as you justify yourself frenetically …
You have it wrong, GC.
Trenberth wrote, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Trenberth has stated: “It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_E._Trenberth#Short_term_climate_variability
Gordon Robertson says:
NOAA went back and changed the SST to show a trend.
They reexamined the data models.
What did they do wrong in that, specifically?
gallopingcamel says:
The climate Mafia still can’t explain “The Pause” which is about to come of age (21st birthday in 2020).
What data show a “pause?”
How many “pauses” were there in the 20th century?
About 93% of the trapped heat goes into the ocean. Where was the pause there? Show your data.
David Appell says:———————
Trenberth wrote, The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant.
Trenberth has stated: It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.—————-
Atta Boy! Kevin! Unbowed, undeterred by abject failure. Win one for the Gipper!!!
And warmer world has less violent weather.
Why?
Because Svante Arrhenius thought so. Do you disagree?
Cheers.
Translation:
“I have no idea how to answer that question. So l must make up a diversion so nobody notices.
DM,
You are so stupid. You wasted your money on that mind reading course.
“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” – Svante Arrhenius
By the way, how are you going with that useful GHE description? Not so well?
Cheers
Translation:
“if I double down, nobody will notice my blunder linking a warmer world to less violent weather.”
Begone, witless troll!
Or when said that global warming could result in global cooling,
Who said that?
David, please stop trolling.
What business is it of yours? Why do you ask stupid gotchas? Are you deranged?
Cheers.
Translation:
“People are beginning to notice how stupid I am. I must yell louder and distract them.”
“And I must start a new thread so no one knows who I am talking to.”
If you must, M, if you must!
Cheers
Thanks for calling me ‘M’. It is good to get recognition that I am superior to you when it comes to Intelligence.
M,
You are most welcome. Might I suggest that capitalising the word “intelligence” is not a particularly good indicator of the level of yours. Rather the opposite, particularly if you were attempting a sly play on words. Bear in mind, expecting people to be able to read your mind is not usually rewarding in the long run.
If you want to proclaim your superiority, by all means do so. Apparently, Gavin Schmidt proclaims himself to be a climate scientist without foundation, and Michael Mann proclaimed himself to be a Nobel Prize winner, again without foundation.
I suppose either might have also proclaimed themselves to be more intelligent than myself, and also proclaimed that I acknowledged this.
If it makes you feel better, you must believe what you wish. Good luck.
Cheers.
The capital was only a highlight, due to not knowing to make words bold or italic. As opposed to your capitalizing of ‘nature’ which served no purpose, and where you had to refer to some dumb blog site to justify its use instead of referring to a dictionary.
Your superior in Intelligence,
M
M,
From the Cambridge English Dictionary (note the capitalisation) –
“Nature
the force that is responsible for physical life and that is sometimes spoken of as a person:
Feeling tired-out is Nature’s way of telling you to rest.
Nature gave these tiny creatures the ability to reproduce quickly when food is abundant.”
You were saying about referring to a dictionary? If you don’t like the usage in a real dictionary, you could always claim it doesn’t exist.
How about digging up a useful GHE description? I don’t mind if you use capitals for GHE – highlight all you want. It won’t help, so maybe you need to whine about some other irrelevancy.
Cheers.
Funny how you omitted the first part of the definition which uses a small ‘n’.
M,
Funny how you refuse to accept the use of Nature as used in the examples in the dictionary. Funny peculiar, rather than funny haha, of course. I doubt anyone seeks your opinion on etymology or similar fields, but you never know. Maybe climate nutters could use your services to redefine definitions as needed.
I guess that is in the nature of pseudoscientific GHE true believers – ignore fact in favour of fantasy.
Luckily, neither Nature nor I care what you think. Still no GHE. Still no making thermometers hotter by the cunning use of CO2.
Time for more diversionary tactics, do you think?
Cheers.
If you want to keep talking of nature as though it is a cognisant being, who am I to stand in the way of your delusion.
M,
I understand your denial of anything that doesn’t fit your fantasies, but my use of “Nature” is supported by at least one dictionary, and “Mother Nature” even more so.
You asked for dictionary support – I provided same, but you are still petulantly whining.
What a fool. You should quit while you’re behind – at least you can slink off, hiding behind anonymity. I don’t blame you for remaining anonymous.
Cheers.
I’ll let you get back to your drug-assisted conversation with nature.
Begone, troll!
DM,
Your mind reading skills are not as good as you thought. Maybe you could try convincing people that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, instead of pretending to read minds.
CO2 certainly hasn’t stopped the surface cooling over the the last four and half billion years. Nothing has, has it?
Maybe pseudoscientific GHE true believer incantations are needed to reverse the laws of physics?
Cheers
Translation:
“People are laughing at me. Better bring out the old sun and thermometer issue to distract them. Followed by the good old 4.5 billion years of cooling claim. That will stop them!”
If you say so, DM, if you say so!
Cheers.
Everyone says so. Are you really that slow on the pick up?
M,
Everyone?
Are you intentionally endeavouring to mislead, or have you finally lost even a tenuous grip on reality?
Maybe you have redefined “everyone” to mean yourself, in the finest pseudoscientific GHE true believer fashion?
Are you just trying to deny, divert and confuse, because you can’t seem to find a useful description of the GHE, much less anything resembling a testable GHE hypothesis?
Keep trying.
Cheers.
Yes, a slight error there. Everyone THINKS so. But your denier pals refuse to SAY so, out of a misplaced sense of solidarity. In much the same was as you refer to people who accept the science of greenhouse warming as ‘deluded’ but refuse to refer to Roy Spencer with the same word despite the fact that you think that.
M,
You wrote –
“Everyone THINKS so.”
Not content with foolishly claiming “Everyone says so.”, you now claim something even more bizarre! If you are now claiming to know what everybody thinks, I have to doubt your grip on reality, again.
There is no “science of greenhouse warming” – there are pseudoscientific GHE true believers, but that is not science. Science involves using the scientific method to seek truth.
As to “deniers” you can’t even describe what these supposed “deniers” are denying, can you?
I refuse to do anything I don’t feel like doing. If this gets up your nose, or you don’t like my attitude – tough. Neither Nature nor I care much what you or anyone else thinks. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Translation:
“I don’t care what logic and science says. I only believe how I feel. Everybody else can go to hell. My bravado is a sight to behold!”
Begone, troll!
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
DA,
Thanks for the support. Would you mind repeating the comment 50 or 100 times, and saving me the trouble?
Keep it up! I appreciate your efforts.
Cheers.
No need to repeat.
You’ve made several statements about GHGs and in doing so given a very thorough description of the greenhouse effect.
It’s all there in your own words.
Begone, deluded troll!
Learn about the real agenda behind the global warming scam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpxAIYrtGLw
Eben
Interesting video. Need more skeptics like Morano. Some of the outspoken skeptics on this blog are not such a rational or logical thinker. They are actual science deniers. They can’t understand the Moon rotates and orbits at the same time. The rotation rate equals the rate of rotation.
They will not do experiments but ridicule actual experiments.
There are good skeptics on this blog that question the “Authority” figures or do not blindly accept the proclamations or come up with alternative explanations for obvious global warming. There are a handful of terrible skeptics that extend debates for hundreds of comments that get quite boring.
N,
You wrote –
“The rotation rate equals the rate of rotation.”
May I be the first to congratulate on such a piercing insight! No wonder pseudoscientific GHE true believers follow your brightly shining intellectual beacon with such fervour!
When may we expect another such pearl?
Cheers.
It takes someone of particularly low intellect not to realize after reading “the Moon rotates and orbits at the same time” that he was referring to the rotation rate of the moon on its axis being equal to the rotation rate of the moon about the sun.
M,
Ah, yes, the ex post facto pseudoscientific GHE true believer sloppiness justification.
Not only does the witless Warmist generally pretend to have mind reading powers, he also ascribes mind reading powers to his readers, so that it is the reader’s responsibility to figure out what the dimwitted Warmist meant to say, rather than what he actually said.
Thank you for reading Norman’s mind, and telling me what he was trying to say, rather than what he said. He is obviously a silly sausage for using “rotation” when you say he really meant to say “rotation” (or was it “orbit”?).
What has the motion of the Moon to do with the fact you can’t describe the mythical GHE?
Nothing at all? What a surprise!
Cheers.
No mind reading is required by people who are intelligent enough to understand the context.
Your superior in Intelligence,
M
Mike Flynn wrote:
“In cold conditions, I wear clothes to reduce the rate of heat loss.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2016-0-39-deg-c/#comment-219326
DA,
Thank you for supporting me.
Your quoting me helps – I am of course happy to see that you agree with what I say.
Would you mind repeating your comment, say, 50 times? That might help to hammer the fact home.
Cheers.
norman…”Some of the outspoken skeptics on this blog are not such a rational or logical thinker. They are actual science deniers. They cant understand the Moon rotates and orbits at the same time. The rotation rate equals the rate of rotation”.
One problem, Norman, not one of you spinners has shown how the Moon rotates precisely once per orbit. Not one of you has demonstrated the required local angular velocity, or how the Moon keeps the same face toward the Earth and at the same time manages to rotate 360 degrees about its axis.
Translation:
“We appear to be losing the climate science arguments. Let’s get back on to safer ground and argue about kinematics. I can appear to be knowledgable because I once sat in on a class sometime last century.”
Begone, delusional troll!
Translation: “He has me pegged. The only response I can think of is ‘begone delusional troll’. I wonder if they will notice that I am the only true troll around here.”
Begone, pointless troll!
You sound like my dementia-ridden father.
Begone, slimy troll!
Gordon Robertson
It has been explained to you why this takes place. You are not able to process that information.
Most moons of planets are tidally locked not just our system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
It is not rare at all but quite common. You should spend some time to learn why instead of posting ignorant statements.
N,
And your point is . . . ?
Cheers.
… obvious.
Norman always adds to the fun by providing links he can’t understand. He has no clue that the “tidal locking” nonsense is as bogus as is the GHE nonsense.
The comedy continues.
Maybe this is way to look at it.
I think one can go in a straight line- but it might not look like a straight line. A straight line is shortest distance from a point to another point- which related to your velocity.
{also I think there such thing as velocity}
Velocity is going in direction and continues in a direction and that what I mean by a straight line.
But spin is different thing. Roughly spin is held to together by mechanical force- or if force the spin is strong enough [fast enough] and mechanical force is not strong enough, it “flies apart”- everything goes in straight line or has it’s own velocity heading in a direction.
You could say everything is spinning around the sun. But Einstein way of looking at it, is the sun’s gravity is changing the shape of space-time. And everything traveling in straight lines [which is dependent upon it’s velocity] around this gravity well.
One can look at it differently.
With mechanical type force there are limits to this force and there is not limit to force of gravity- with enough mass one can “break” space-time. And basically that is what a blackhole is doing.
And combine two blackhole the “force” increases. And our galaxy has a very massive black in the middle of it.
And Blackholes “should” be able to spin.
Or I think you have spinning and moving in straight line.
I am not sure how test if blackhole is spinning or how fast they spin, but I think one should be able to measure it.
I should probably see what people say about it: do blackholes spin? Wiki:
“In late 2006, astronomers reported estimates of the spin rates of black holes in The Astrophysical Journal. A black hole in the Milky Way, GRS 1915+105, may rotate 1,150 times per second, approaching the theoretical upper limit.”
Apparently they do. And didn’t know there was a “theoretical upper limit”. What happens in theory when it’s exceeded?
I am sure Astrophysicalists have some ideas.
Anyways it seems the Moon is spinning or rotating around the barycenter of the Earth and the Moon. Or is not spinning upon it’s [the Moon’s] axis.
[The moon’s axis has 1.5 degree tilt relative to Sun- which not turning/spinning relative to Earth/Moon barycenter]
Of course the Moon is rotating — spinning about its polar axis — because someone standing on the Moon’s surface would see the entire universe sweep across their field of vision in one lunar day.
See the left-hand animation here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
DA, is a racehorse rotating on its axis running an oval track?
Yes. With each step, the horse is turning slightly to the left (in the standard setup).
That’s why its field of view sees the entire universe sweeps across its field of vision over 1 cycle of the track.
DA, don’t try to con us.
The horse is turning, we all agree. But my question was “…is a racehorse rotating on its axis running an oval track?”
The question can be answered either “yes” or “no”, unless you’re trying to hide something.
Define “rotating.”
Give an algorithm for determining if a body is “rotating” or not.
Notice how DA avoids the question.
Notice how he avoids the phrase “rotating on its axis”.
Notice how DA attempts to fool himself.
He can’t give a direct answer to the simple question because the racehorse debunks some of his pseudoscience. He has no trouble admitting the horse is changing direction. And he knows the horse is not really rotating on its axis. But, he can’t answer truthfully, because then he would have to admit the moon is also not rotating on its axis.
So, he’ll do whatever he must to protect his false religion.
Nothing new.
Until you define “rotating,” and tell me how to operationally determine whether a body is “rotating” or not, I can’t possibly answer your question.
DA, your attempt to con your way out of answering is about as effective as your attempts to fake some knowledge of physics.
You don’t know what “rotating” means, but you know the moon is “rotating”: “Of course the Moon is rotating…”
Getting trapped by your own words is a pain, huh?
I know MY definition of rotating.
I’d like to know yours, to engage on the same terms.
Yet for some reason you can’t prove it, like DREMT.
David Appell says:
———–Until you define rotating, and tell me how to operationally determine whether a body is rotating or not, I cant possibly answer your question.————
Easy peasy! Use a merry-go-round as an example. A kid planted on a merry-go-round. His feet planted on the ground (tidal locked?). The ride spins if he is looking out into the fairgrounds the field of view is rapidly changing. If he looking in toward the axle that turns the merry-go-round he sees a pretty stable view. (btw, thats why the better rides put mirrors up on the inside as the stable view is boring both because the machinery is unattractive and its stable so its boring. The mirrors destablize the riders vision making the ride more exciting.
Now if our kid is looking straight ahead on the tangent like he was on a horse, the view is also relatively stable.
So before liability was a concern they had brass rings for the kids to grab for and win prizes or free rides. This got them focusing on the outside and riding recklessly.
So now the stage is set for real excitement. Our kid has has to turn his head to spot then grab for the brass ring so now at least his head started rotating.
Perspective matters. On the other thread I suggested laying it all out on a map. Marking the speed of each orbit and the turn rate of each rotating planet or moon on the circle that either the orbit or celestial body makes. You will find you will have to list the moon as having an undefined rotation to avoid creating an error in your blueprint. Thats why blueprints are important. . . .they avoid stupid errors. Climate science should give it a try.
Morano seems rather worked up about things.
I think politician imagine they rulers of the world and people humor them in order make/allow politicans to do things most people don’t want to do.
I would say, climate emergency is a religious thing.
It seems Morano has found a religion, and making same mistake as Atheists, believing a religion which opposes another religion [or many religions].
Morano should probably focus on being the Catholic, he says he is-
probably make him happier.
So have faith that God will deal with it.
I don’t have faith that God will deal with it, but I am not Catholic.
So, Lefties are religion, they worship “luck” or chaos.
And they are followers of insane and perverted, evil people, who want to control them, enslave them.
Lefties think there are good people, and they want good people to control everyone. But they also don’t think good or bad actually exists. So it’s rather dumb.
Power corrupts is something Lefties should ponder. But they are weak and quite foolish {but something else is to blame for their obvious failure as human beings].
So whole climate change or climate emergency is religion or cult {cult is a bad religion or under developed religion, or small religion, mainly, means bad religion].
And of course religions [particularly when they governing, by political ways, a lot people- can do a lot bad things]
The climate emergency wants to kill billions of people, which is pretty bad. That Left want eliminate Jews and Black people, is even considered worst than bad. But they must make omelettes because fighting against free people and free markets, which is horrible because that will destroy Earth and/or the entire universe.
I think Lefties are not anything new. It’s possible we have less percentage of Lefties than we had in the past.
Anyways, Morano wants to political player, and he is one. And he doesn’t imagine Trump the destructor is not doing enough.
That a pretty wrong political assessment.
Trump is probably not needed, but idea of him seen as winning, is something he wants to do- before he dies of old age, and is grabbing opportunity and has vague idea of how to do it. Apparently no one else have a clue.
So Rep have been saying it’s doomed for decades, and Trump does not think it’s vaguely doomed.
But does not matter, Lefties are doomed, and mainly because they want to fail. They are suicide bombers without a heaven. They are wannabee Jeffrey Epstein, their hero. A person gets away with all kinds criminal stuff, a spy, rich, and etc. Or a Lefty hero.
Epstein’s lack is the details of his political power, but lefties statues of him are forthcoming.
I hear the left want make sex abuse of children, acceptable or other people should not have problem with it {or something which is natural}.
Climate emergency is largely a distraction, Pols love to distract the public they suppose to be serving. They like to promise things they can’t do- both Dem and Rep.
Very costly, causes lots poverty, that not something politician actually consider to be problem. It’s not bug, it’s a feature, it feeds them power, and that what they crave, like crack addict.
Global warming is boring. I am interested in it, because interested in idea of terraforming planets. And it’s robbing funding for space exploration.
I think Trump said global warming is Chinese conspiracy.
If understand Trump always says over-the-top stuff, the important thing is there any amount of truth to it. Certainly the Chinese have “profited” because of it. Controlling their population has been there public policy for decades. If they are the superpower of world, seems a given that they favor reducing other countries populations.
Chinese have the privilege to emit as much CO2 emission are they want- applies to no other country. And probably favor limiting CO2 of all other countries if they control the world. Their plan is to control the world. The list goes on and on.
And Lefties love China. {And the love will not be returned- why love a dumb and useless person- also known as, useful idiots}.
Anyhow, there is no public support for incompetent government attempting to control CO2 or trying to control the weather.
Obama was president and dem controlled Congress, they did nothing about climate change- other than symbolic things. The story has not changed, and story has got weaker.
And last I checked, we have Trump the destructor, laying waste to the political correct ideas.
Plus look at dem presidential field. It’s so, so weak.
The another fear, which make climate emergency political movement look insignificant. It’s the corporate control of social media and can also tie in with China, and AI, all kinds of stuff.
Not worried.
Translation:
“I am drunk….words hard to write….zzzzz”
gbaikie says:
So whole climate change or climate emergency is religion or cult
Climate change is a cult?
What is the evidence that climate is changing? Can you list it (without writing 1000 words)?
Sahara Desert was grassland.
Good, thanks.
And today?
gbalkie: up above you said CO2 reduction by weathering has been disproved.
By whom? Citation please.
–David Appell says:
August 19, 2019 at 7:07 PM
Good, thanks.
And today?–
Today, we still recovering from the Little Ice Age, this has numerous minor changes in climate, as there was many minor changes of climate centuries ago when we entered the Little Ice Age.
Of course, the Sahara Desert without any doubt is large change in climate- though it was gradual transformation {rather than something happening within a decade or two].
gbalkie says:
Today, we still recovering from the Little Ice Age
Forced by what?
–David Appell says:
August 19, 2019 at 7:11 PM
gbalkie: up above you said CO2 reduction by weathering has been disproved.
By whom? Citation please.–
I posted on this blog. I meant to bookmark it. See if I can find it.
This not it:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/18/co2-and-ocean-chemistry/
Here something vaguely related but looking for something a read recently, this wasn’t it:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/16/ice-sheets-impact-core-elements-of-the-earths-carbon-cycle/
Finally:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2019-0-47-deg-c/#comment-361784
—And ends:
However, a geological process is needed to rejuvenate the land surface and make it more reactive, says Friedhelm von Blanckenburg.This does not necessarily have to be the formation of large mountains. Similarly, tectonic fractures, a small increase in erosion or the exposure of other types of rock may have caused more material with weathering potential to show at the surface. In any case, our new hypothesis must trigger geological rethinking regarding the cooling before the last ice age.
That Co2 levels were reduced by weathering seems disproven.
I got to remember that so I dont make that mistake again.—
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/06/more-reactive-land-surfaces-cooled-the-earth-down/
This time I bookmarked it- but it probably get lost anyhow.
gbalkie wrote:
That Co2 levels were reduced by weathering seems disproven.
I got to remember that so I dont make that mistake again.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/06/more-reactive-land-surfaces-cooled-the-earth-down/
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Ha.
Let’s see some SCIENCE for your absurd claim. A blog doesn’t count, let alone one from someone (A Watts) paid to deny AGW.
And your apologies for claiming that those on the left supported J Epstein and China.
“Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Ha.”
So your position is that we have extremely low levels the CO2,
due to increased weathering caused by higher levels mountain building activity?
Are there any other major factors, or is that the most significant factor causing low levels of CO2?
And then, such lower levels of CO2 was major factor in causing our present Ice Age.
And the rise of CO2 will cause us leave the ice Age.
–David Appell says:
August 19, 2019 at 7:28 PM
gbalkie says:
Today, we still recovering from the Little Ice Age
Forced by what?–
One thing. I say our ocean is cold {which is true}, but it can and has been colder.
So the ocean in our Ice Age as been in the range of 1 to 5 C.
I doubt it has been 5 C in the last 100,000 years.
5 C is the warmest and such a warm ocean doesn’t remain this warm for long period. It seems unstable.
Same can said for 1 C, it seems unstable.
Or the ocean temperature of 2 to 4 C is more long lasting or stable.
And we are at 3.5 C, and it seems it has remain near this temperature for +4000 years.
If ocean was 4 C, we would be in a much warmer period, and probably Little Ice Age doesn’t even happen.
Or natural variability does not create condition similar to Little Ice. “Natural variability” is largely changing ocean current patterns, they aren’t volcanic or solar variability. Or eliminate those type variables and you still have it, but these variables {and others} which add and subtract. Or would the solar and the volcanic activity had a part in causing the Little Ice Age.
Or if ocean was 4 C this plays a bigger part.
But ocean was around 3.5 C.
If ocean was 3 C or colder, we might not have had recovery from the Little Ice Age. But Ocean which averages 3 C is not one kind of ocean- you could have a more uniform type temperature ocean, or lots deep cold water and lots warmer in say from 500 meters to surface. Different ocean basin average temperatures, etc.
Or for example, one could focus on ocean water which most strongly effects the northern hemisphere, and that might indicate a important factor in terms centuries long patterns of global climate.
But if looking at thousands or tens thousands of years, I tend towards wanting to look at Southern Hemisphere.
Of course I do think CO2 levels could make some difference.
I think doubling of CO2 could increase global surface air temperature by .5 C and that is a huge effect. But I think natural variability can be much bigger.
And what dominate or control global temperature is average volume temperature of the Ocean. A 5 C average ocean, has huge increase in sea level. And sea level rise itself alters earth, it changes natural variability {and I believe it is unstable in direction of cooling the Ocean}. But also temperature by itself has even larger effect. Or if could have ocean with same sea level and it had average temperature of 5 C, it’s an enormous dominating effect on global climate. And doesn’t matter much which ocean basin are warmer and etc.
And of course a +10 C ocean can’t be in an Ice Age and is a typical ocean temperature in Earth’s hundreds of millions of years history.
And distribution Land and Ocean- the geology of Earth, seems to prevent us from being in the typical global climate of Earth.
gbalkie wrote:
Obama was president and dem controlled Congress, they did nothing about climate change- other than symbolic things.
Did you perhaps, maybe, just maybe hear of Obama’s Clean Power Plan, and his large increases required in vehicle average gas mileage?
“Did you perhaps, maybe, just maybe hear of Obamas Clean Power Plan, and his large increases required in vehicle average gas mileage?”
Presidents and Congress have doing similar stuff for well over 50 years.
So, could you say US doing as much as this kind of stuff long before the Era of Obama began and that very special time when the Dems controlled both Houses?
False (re: last 50 years). You don’t understand Obama’s Clean Power Plan or his requirements for MPGs.
David Appell says:
August 19, 2019 at 7:26 PM
False (re: last 50 years). You dont understand Obamas Clean Power Plan or his requirements for MPGs.
Making a future government do something, is typical stunt of pols- kicking can, is fake governing.
Or German government is not going to follow it’s laws for future, and US has endless done this.
Typical stuff.
Not “real change”. Ocean did not stop rising, and problem was solved why the New Green Deal is NEEDED.
It’s how America works, pal, which is better from whatever little pissy authoritarian country you come from.
Our results speak for themselves.
PS: When are you going to apologize for your Epstein claims?
–David Appell says:
August 19, 2019 at 9:15 PM
Its how America works, pal, which is better from whatever little pissy authoritarian country you come from.
Our results speak for themselves.
PS: When are you going to apologize for your Epstein claims?–
Apologize for assuming Epstein is lefty.
It seem to me he is lefty. And lefties worship such types
sociopaths.
I will google it:
I suppose you will not like the source, but anyhow:
“Epsteins affiliations included Hollywood celebrities such as Kevin Spacey, Woody Allen, and Alec Baldwin, as well as members of the media elite such as Katie Couric, George Stephanopoulos, Charlie Rose, Mike Wallace, and Barbara Walters. His circle even included foreign leaders and celebrities such as Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom, and former Prime Minister Tony Blair.”
https://www.sebgorka.com/who-jeffrey-epstein-knew-and-why-it-really-matters/
Tony Blair not a lefty- liberal but not really lefty.
Charlie Rose also not lefty, dem obviously but liberal, maybe left of Blair.
Woody Allen is obviously lefty, old hard lefty, kind of like Bernie Sander but more creative and maybe a lot creepier.
Few would doubt George Stephanopoulos is lefty.
Prince Andrew, no idea.
But basically everyone on list is friendly with lefties and a lot of lefties could find acceptable- except for maybe Tony Blair.
English lefties might be fine with him- or not.
So these all lefties, and main thing that makes them Lefties
is they think they are lefties.
But lefties are like puritans, they can quite strict about their
faith and can be strict about others having toe some line.
Never call a man who wants to be female, a male. That is not fashionably acceptable even to conservatives. Very bad, even if
doing lousy job of vaguely looking like a female {the poor dear}.
So here are lefties associating with the scumbag, famous Lefties, but I would not know who they were, if not famous.
So your turn to find a better source, which indicates Epstein
does not associate with lefties.
gbaikie says:
Apologize for assuming Epstein is lefty.
It seem to me he is lefty.
Based on what evidence?
And lefties worship such types sociopaths.
Trump was friends with Epstein.
So was Alan Dershowitz.
William Barr.
Ken Starr.
Wilbur Ross.
–David Appell says:
August 20, 2019 at 10:45 PM
gbaikie says:
Apologize for assuming Epstein is lefty.
It seem to me he is lefty.
Based on what evidence?
And lefties worship such types sociopaths.
Trump was friends with Epstein.
So was Alan Dershowitz.
William Barr.
Ken Starr.
Wilbur Ross.–
There is no doubt that Alan Dershowitz is lefty.
Of course Lefties currently hate him, mainly because
Alan is quite obsessed with legal matters, probably the most brilliance lefty lawyer, ever. What makes him really good is he understands the law, and obviously disagreed with the whole Russian collusion matter. And now of course has been proven
that he had very rational view of the matter from the beginning.
I think Lefies might evenually like him again, because he is a damn good lawyer has been an icon of the American Left for decades.
Alan Dershowitz has made public statement about his relationship
with Epstein. And it’s been a statement that a good lawyer would say. He basically says he had no sexual relation with Epstein’s
sex slaves and not had any sexual relation any younger women or any women connected/associated with Epstein.
If you have any significant money you could lose, I would careful about making false claims about him- he could sue you out of existence. If you have real dirt, and and back it up in court of law, you can be famous, wild famous. And CNN would pay big money to talk to you.
gbalkie:
Lefties are doomed, and mainly because they want to fail. They are suicide bombers without a heaven. They are wannabee Jeffrey Epstein, their hero. A person gets away with all kinds criminal stuff, a spy, rich, and etc. Or a Lefty hero.
These are disgusting, sickening accusations. Is that really how desperate you are, balkie, to have to evoke these kind of assertions, based on no evidence whatsoever?
You should be ashamed of yourself, gbalkie, thinking this kind of slop is what’s necessary because you can’t present better science than the other side.
You need to apologize, and fast.
David Appell says:
August 19, 2019 at 8:27 PM
gbalkie:
Lefties are doomed, and mainly because they want to fail. They are suicide bombers without a heaven. They are wannabee Jeffrey Epstein, their hero. A person gets away with all kinds criminal stuff, a spy, rich, and etc. Or a Lefty hero.
“These are disgusting, sickening accusations. Is that really how desperate you are, balkie, to have to evoke these kind of assertions, based on no evidence whatsoever?”
There is no shortage of evidence.
And it seems Jeffrey Epstein did commit suicide and he was a scumbag.
Or are you worried about Lefties {all lefties} being doomed.
“You should be ashamed of yourself, gbalkie, thinking this kind of slop is whats necessary because you cant present better science than the other side.”
The other side isn’t offering any evidence.
The other side is pseudo science.
They insist on people believing in their wacko religion which even they do not take seriously.
And some have admitted it’s a way to power {path to a wonderful brave new world}.
Al Gore runs around in personal jets as do all the others.
They don’t debate.
They are greedy and pathetic.
None are scientists.
Joe Biden, I have to take nap, is completely perfect for them.
You have NO evidence whatsoever connecting anyone on the “left” to Epstein.
And you can’t present any.
You are a liar. You are the kind of lying POS who can’t counter the scientific arguments of people like me so you resort to filthy bottom-feeding lies.
I know now who you are.
They insist on people believing in their wacko religion which even they do not take seriously.
It’s not a religion, it’s evidence.
And because you can’t counter that evidence, you lie down with dogs and take the only other possible path — insinuating those you hate are somehow immoral.
You are a coward.
–David Appell says:
August 19, 2019 at 11:12 PM
You have NO evidence whatsoever connecting anyone on the left to Epstein.–
Oh, I didn’t know that was your problem.
So, you would not imagine that Epstein is a lefty.
If Epstein isn’t lefty, there a good chance absolutely no lefty was connected to him.
Lefty tend to dislike non lefties and even island packed young female slaves, could possibly deter lefties from having any association with Epstein.
Now I am quite willing to say Bill Clinton is not a lefty and Bill Clinton will mingle with almost anyone.
So simply pointing to Bill, doesn’t count as a lefty.
Plus lots of lefties hated Bill. The era of big government is over, is blasphemy, even if you just lying your ass off.
So Epstein is not a Lefty and not liked by Lefties and you need some evidence before you can change your mind about this.
I must admit I simply assumed Epstein was a Lefty.
Now, would agree that Epstein is connected to CIA?
One thing I gather about Epstein is the elites or “the well connected” knew “everything about him” and “knew” he was some way connected to “Intelligence Services”.
I roughly assumed he something like a Harvey Weinstein- open secret among all the well connected.
Btw, I also assume Harvey Weinstein is Lefty.
But anyhow if either were lefties, other lefties would not only associate with him, but also kind of have his back. Or perhaps more accurately be terrified they would come after them- blacklist or blackmail, ruin them, etc, etc. Or they would simply get kicked out of the “in crowd”.
You’re full of sh!t. Epstein was friends with Trump.
I”ve lost any respect I might have once had for you.
A cessation of your soul diarrhoea is preferred by the decent.
I bet the deniers of the moons rotation believe that the earth rotates on its axis once every 24 hours instead of once every 23 hours 56 minutes.
Begone, irrelevant troll!
You seem to be having difficulty engaging with science.
Begone, troll!
Imagine a man, who comes to this site day after day, month after month, year after year for several years now, only to write “begone troll” a million times again and again, and other ridiculous demands.
Doesn’t discuss science. Doesn’t quote any science. Just those same futile words, year after year after year after year after year, sadly thinking — hoping perhaps even — that he’s maybe accomplishing something. But something he forgot long ago.
Just imagine that man.
Begone, troll!
“engaging with science”
MF has trouble with “sciency” discussions since his limited knowledge is based on electrical engineering training last century. The soldering fumes have since addled his brain.
Funny how so many electrical engineers argue against climate change. It would be interesting to see which power companies they have worked for.
Begone, completely ignorant troll!
It’s probably because Electrical Engineers are smart enough to differentiate between science and leftist propaganda.
electrical engineers are well aware in real world you have to make things that actually work , not idiotic theories that don’t
https://bit.ly/31QdOBv
Eben, what effort have you made to look up and understand the evidence for AGW?
No more words. That right has been taken from you, as it should be.
Check out the ocean cooling over the last week. It appears that the ocean warming due to the late May / early June El Nino peak has ended, and now comes the precipitous drop in the global oceans aligning with the El Nino 1,2, 3 regions.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
The last drop in the global ocean temperature probably cooresponds to the weak El Nino readings in Jan / Feb. This drop should therefore in theory take the global ocean below +0.15 deg c departure. We may be at baseline for this winter.
Still waiting for your response to this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-377429
Sorry Midas I missed that comment. I will reply to it.
Can you guys believe that the scientific community / media are claiming that the melting arctic ice is cooling the North Atlantic? I want you guys to look at something. Here is the NASA climate time machine:
https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine
Compare the ice in 1979-1980 (the end of the mid-century cooling) to 2012. 2012 is significant because that is the peak North Atlantic temperature. Now look at 2018. The ice has increased since 2012.
Here are the average North Atlantic departures (HADSST3).
1980 +.10 deg c
2012 +.63 deg c
2018 +.39 deg c
CLEARLY cooling ocean leads ice formation. Melting ice does not cool the ocean.
Please research the actual process by which this happens. It is not a matter of the ice directly cooling the ocean.
Midas the data does not agree with that theory at all. We see a direct relationship warmer ocean, less ice. Colder ocean, more ice. By the way, the theory that global warming is increasing the ice caps, flooding inland due to higher evaporation is also bunk. The ocean has cooled and the ice is growing. The warm humid air from the warm tropical waters is hitting cold arctic air. That makes it rain. The great lakes are at record highs. The media is now claiming global warming causes high lake levels. They also claimed the LOW lake levels were caused by global warming just 10 years ago. The lakes have been cycling for 100 years regardless of what CO2 does. We won’t see the lake levels drop until we get the strong La Nina I’m looking for to cool the tropics and strip the atmosphere of it’s moisture.
The ocean has cooled and the ice is growing.
According to what data?
DA returns with his distracting questions.
Nothing new.
Arctic sea ice extent hasn’t substantially changed over the past 12 years. Arctic sea ice volume has not substantially changed over the past 7 years. Simple oceanic oscillation and temperature oscillation and astronomical observation sine wave pattern analysis suggests that each 1/4 phase of the natural rhythm would be approximately 18 years: Up for 18 years, flat for 18 years, down for 18 years, and flat again for 18 years.
Since ice started going down substantially in 1989 and lasted for 18 years before going flat for the past 12 years, going up would not be scheduled to start until 2025 and volume going up perhaps until 2030.
While the point may lack strong scientific evidence it speaks to the increasing science voices speaking of periods of diminished warming (if not cooling) in the immediate future. In other words things really aren’t expected to improve for climate alarmism anytime in the near future. . . .thus the only option is to increase the shrill level as high as possible in hope of:
The impending disaster to climate science funding is therefore in really significant trouble unless they can find some thread of rationale for claiming success coming out of the 100’s of billions already spent. A huge need to double down now in order to build credibility as savior of the planet.
What we do know is ice levels are a feedback process as they depend upon climate warming to begin the process of ice melting. So ice is a trailing indicator of climate change and ice levels actually leveled off about 10 or 11 years after the climate pause started in 1996. 10 or 11 years is the approximate surface ocean adjustment delay. Working against this has been a rush toward creative temperature adjustments. Just to be clear by creative I don’t mean fraudulent. Creativeness can cross the barrier of fraud without the creative genius actually being conscious of it through losing touch with professional reality, but science has no professional standards to belay that and thus no benchmark upon which to judge whether that line has been crossed. Instead science rather than a thorough and rigorous review process promulgated by professional standards, uses the test of time.
That all said with no malice, suggests patience and wise ordering of priorities for future efforts to understand climate and allow some of the expectations for natural influences to play themselves out.
Given no new information, my inclination would be to delay a response for at least a decade, preferably 2. I see no trends of significant enough length to have any concerns, simple as that. The pause continues and a single 5 year ENSO cycle tacked on to the end simply isn’t convincing of anything. A decade may be sufficient to stretch it into a climate relevant length of time, but I think the naysayers were aggressively promoting a longer period when the pause was 18 years old. So with a hiccup in the most recent 5 years still doesn’t justify anything. Another decade consists of only 15 years so 1 1/2 or 2 decades would be preferrable. Objections to that can only be written off as political flip flopping.
bill hunter says:
Arctic sea ice extent hasnt substantially changed over the past 12 years.
Wrong.
The five years with the lowest average daily Arctic SIE are, from the lowest:
2016
2018
2017
2012
2007
N.O.A.A. data:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/N_seaice_extent_daily_v3.0.csv
David Appell says:
Wrong.
The five years with the lowest average daily Arctic SIE are, from the lowest:
2016
2018
2017
2012
2007
That isn’t proof that ice is substantially decreasing over the past 12 years by giving a list of years all in the last 12 years.
For your benefit I did an analysis on Nansen ice extent data located here in case you want to redo the analysis.
https://web.nersc.no/WebData/arctic-roos.org/observation/DailyArcticIceAreaExtent.txt
Result shows the summer ice minimum is still decreasing over the past 12 years.
The rate of loss is such that it would take about 585 years to get to no summer ice in the Arctic.
Thats quite a difference from the 13 years being estimated back in 2007. . . .don’t you think?
Bill, I find that at its current linear trend, the 12-mth moving average of Arctic SIE will be zero in 2215.
But a quadratic is a better fit. It will reach zero in 2094.
But scientists take 1 Mkm2 at the zero point of Arctic SIE, because there will long be some ice clinging to northern shores, especially shores that face north.
I haven’t done that calculation.
Scott R says:
We wont see the lake levels drop until we get the strong La Nina Im looking for to cool the tropics and strip the atmosphere of its moisture.
So if cooling strips moisture out of the atmosphere, then warming brings moisture to the atmosphere. Won’t that result in more rain and, on average, higher lake levels?
Do you have any deductive reasoning at all? You continually regurgitate leftist talking points. Do you ever question the leftist talking points?
Stephen, I see you doing a lot of name calling and insulting, but with little engagement in the science.
What is wrong with my scientific reasoning here?
More heat, more evaporation, more precipitation. Whats so difficult to understand about that? Its just more negative feedback. The whole system is dominated by negative feedback.
Bill,
How is more evaporation a negative feedback?
More evaporation means more water vapor in the atmosphere.
Water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas.
GHGs cause warming.
Explain please.
You have this static view and you just babble and you don’t pay attention to what is said or you don’t try or can’t understand it. I don’t know. You’re just on and on. If La Nina cools the atmosphere at the tropics and there is less evaporation then the wind currents don’t bring that evaporation to the lakes so lake levels eventually drop. Why do the levels drop? Because the water flows out of the lakes into rivers that flows into the oceans which aren’t evaporating as much. Was that so difficult? Oh yeah you’re a propagandist.
Stephen: Again, if La Ninas mean less water vapor in the atmosphere, don’t El Ninos and overall global warming mean more water vapor in the atmosphere?
DA believes: “GHGs cause warming.”
DA, using only the relevant physics (no links to pseudoscience), please explain how atmospheric CO2, or H2O, can “cause warming”.
JDH: Your comments here to me and others are invariably just name calling and other petty & juvenile insults. Never any science. It’s been that way for a long time.
I don’t see any reason to take you seriously.
DA, have you ever seen how Skeptics are treated?
When you finish your self-pity party, and all your whining, see if you can answer my question: Using only the relevant physics (no links to pseudoscience), can you please explain how atmospheric CO2, or H2O, can “cause warming”?
Much too late.
It’s never too late to face reality, DA.
If La Ninas mean less water vapor in the atmosphere, dont El Ninos and overall global warming mean more water vapor in the atmosphere?
Doesn’t that mean more rain, on average?
Are you drinking? You’re really making a fool of yourself. Why don’t you go back to journalism school or something? Go try to find your leftist utopia.
Your kind of refusal to answering questions is all the answer I need.
DA,
Now that you have all the answers you need, does this mean you won’t ask any more stupid gotchas?
It’s always nice to see someone acknowledging their enquiries have been fully satisfied.
Presumably you know everything now.
Could you now reveal to others the useful description of the GHE? Some people claim that hotter thermometers are evidence of the GHE, but this is only evidence of hotter thermometers. Thermometers react to heat, and CO2 provides none, so presumably the GHE is supposed to make thermometers hotter by some presently unknown mechanism.
You have had all your questions answered – how about answering some yourself? Or are you hiding your knowledge, and reducing to share it? That sounds a bit mean-spirited, wouldn’t you say?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“In cold conditions, I wear clothes to reduce the rate of heat loss.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2016-0-39-deg-c/#comment-219326
David,
Thanks for quoting me, although that’s only twice.
Another 48 times would be a start.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
– Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
David,
I wonder if you could keep count of the number of times you repeat my posts.
I suggested you post each one 50 times, but it is obviously easier for you to keep count. Maybe using the format “1 of 50, 2 of 50 . . . ” and so on, might help.
Up to you, of course. You can never repeat facts from me too often. Do your best.
Cheers.
DA…”How is more evaporation a negative feedback? ”
All feedbacks in the atmosphere are negative feedbacks. Positive feedback requires an amplifier. If any process in the atmosphere could cause the surface to warm, as back-radiation from CO2 is claimed to do, it would be perpetual motion.
David Appell says:
Stephen: Again, if La Ninas mean less water vapor in the atmosphere, don’t El Ninos and overall global warming mean more water vapor in the atmosphere?
You might check out Roy’s work on that. As I recall he found strong negative feedback.
David Appell,
El Nino adds moisture to the atmosphere. La Nina takes moisture from the atmosphere. While H2O is a greenhouse gas, it also creates clouds which reflect the suns energy from entering the system to begin with. Overall El Nino warms, but there are negative feedbacks at work. We see this as even though the average temperature for the USA went up between 1979-2016, the number of hot days over 70, 80, 90 etc dropped. So the warming occurred at night when the sun isn’t even out. This make sense… clouds insulate at night and cool during the day.
See how the great lakes have been cycling here for 100 years regardless of CO2 going up up and away. The dry times didn’t mean we were burning up from CO2 just as the flood times didn’t mean we were drowning due to CO2 increasing evaporation. It’s just a cycle linked to El Nino with no trend what so ever.
http://lre-wm.usace.army.mil/ForecastData/GLBasinConditions/LTA-GLWL-Graph.pdf
Disclaimer: the current run up in lake levels might have legs and break out as we go into the GSM, struggle with the changing magnetic field, increased cosmic rays.
Scott R says:
While H2O is a greenhouse gas, it also creates clouds which reflect the suns energy from entering the system to begin with.
a) a gas isn’t a cloud or a constituent of a cloud.
b) clouds reflect from the bottom as well as the top.
Scott R says:
See how the great lakes have been cycling here for 100 years regardless of CO2 going up up and away. The dry times didnt mean we were burning up from CO2 just as the flood times didnt mean we were drowning due to CO2 increasing evaporation.
That represents a very inadequate understanding of climate science and the role of CO2.
It’s one you see here alot.
Gordon, the world isn’t an electrical circuit. The
“amplifier” is the laws of physics.
bill hunter says:
“David Appell says:
Stephen: Again, if La Ninas mean less water vapor in the atmosphere, don’t El Ninos and overall global warming mean more water vapor in the atmosphere?”
You might check out Roys work on that. As I recall he found strong negative feedback.
Not on this he didn’t.
David Appell says:
Not on this he didnt.
What are you a walking talking Roy Spencer bibliographer or something?
His 2011 paper explored temperature changes attributed to ENSO and found negative cloud feedback as a response. Didn’t your mommy teach you that what goes up must come down?
Scott R – there is no map or time series of local variations at your link.
David Appell,
I linked the NASA website that shows the arctic ice yearly minimums since 1979. If you look at 2012 specifically, which was the warmest year for the Atlantic according to the HADSTT3 data, the ice cover is at the lowest amounts. Lower than all the recent years you named.
My point was not to start a comparison of ice coverage data sets… it was only to show that within NASA itself, they don’t realize what their own ice map shows.
I still don’t understand — what doesn’t NASA understand about their own data?
David Appell says:
“a) a gas isn’t a cloud or a constituent of a cloud.
b) clouds reflect from the bottom as well as the top.”
Nice deflection from the topic. See what I did there?
NASA doesn’t realize the multi-decadal ice minimum is in.
“If you look at 2012 specifically, which was the warmest year for the Atlantic according to the HADSTT3 data, the ice cover is at the lowest amounts. Lower than all the recent years you named.”
Yes, it was a minimum, in September, but not for the whole year.
If you want to look objectively at this data, you have to understand that the vagaries of arctic weather, winds, etc in August can lead to very different September minima year to year.
In 2012 a deep dive in ice area occurred in August, while in 2019, it didnt. But summer 2019 has lower ice volume than summer 2012.
Scott R says: – “My point was not to start a comparison of ice coverage data sets it was only to show that within NASA itself, they dont realize what their own ice map shows.”
Indeed! David just heads over to the most government (wannabee world government?) influenced panel of experts and believes them when in fact the only claim to fame they have is the biggest government funded budget of them all.
Your approach actually far better expresses the view points of individual scientists who recognize the uncertainty while the government influenced panels want to cherry pick themselves and then draw a line down the middle as the most likely outcome.
the problem with that the middle of the range opinion has absolutely zero validity regarding the subject that the opinion is focused on. All it is is a highly politically influenced (government appointees) bunch of folks having a circle jerk who then decide to split the pie.
The argument is that these are highly qualified folks. And thats true but if drill down into that mass of humanity and start listening to the “individual” opinions you will hear uncertainty being expressed far louder and the result that comes out of the process really completely satisfies any of them. So you see the work of a scientist that arrives at a range of outcomes and “the panel” takes the center line of that outcome and adds it to the mix eliminating all the uncertainty that author had expressed. Then after his uncertainty has essentially been eliminated by averaging the breadth of his opinion the same is done with others until you have a wide range of “homogenized” individual opinions and then the homogenize the whole thing one more time to derive the “expected” direction the climate will go.
This ain’t science folks! This is sophisticated politics. Uncertainty is broken down then broken down again upon which they then bless the wide range they offer as possibilities as highly certain.
One only needs to go to primary reference works to see the descriptions of huge amounts of uncertainty. Even AR5 has it labeled as clouds which have the potential to account for the entire amount of modern day warming in the uncertainty of cloud variability effects.
‘NASA doesn’t realize the multi-decadal ice minimum is in.’
Nor does any serious person doing actual data analysis.
This is like the peak oil claim of 2007. You don’t know until well after the peak is done.
Unless you are clairvoyant, you don’t know if we have hit a minimum in ice cover, and we won’t know for quite sometime, given how variable the data is.
bill hunter says:
Arctic sea ice volume has not substantially changed over the past 7 years.
Yet another of Bill’s lies.
The year with the lowest average monthly Arctic SIV is 2017, by the large margin of -600,000 km2 compared to 2012.
The trend in monthly Arctic SIV since Dec 2012 is -272,000 km2/yr. Statistically significant.
PIOMAS monthly data:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/
Sorry, that trend since Dec 2012 is -272,000 km*cubed*/yr, not km-squared.
DA…”The year with the lowest average monthly Arctic SIV is 2017, by the large margin of -600,000 km2 compared to 2012″.
In which ‘summer’ month was that measured? Oh, I forgot, the Arctic only has one month of summer. The rest of the year, most of the Arctic Ocean is covered with ice up to 10 feet thick.
It appears you alarmists are willing to accept any propaganda from other alarmists. The situation in the Arctic is so complex, no one can say what is really going on.
Gordon Robertson says:
In which summer month was that measured?
It’s an annual average, i.e. of 12 months.
Get it maybe?
Desist.
I see you specialize in cherry picked data. Start in December and end in July?
A fairer analysis takes all of 2012 through all of 2018, 7 years as I said. I took annual average ice to avoid seasonal problems and computed a trend the trend comes out slightly less than -1% (-.96%) ice loss per year over the 7 years.
To compare that I took the 7 years before that 2005-2011. The answer came out as -4.55% ice loss per year.
This demonstrates a significant pause as did the results on ice extent loss I did above.
A fairer analysis takes all of 1979 to august 2019:
https://tinyurl.com/y4h6szoo
svante the analysis DA was claiming to do was dispute my assertion that rapid melting of ice volume in the arctic had leveled off for the last 7 years. david is nothing but a propagandist for cagw and he is willing to lie to prove it.
Zack Labe’s graph shows that the arctic sea ice volume is lower than ever. You see that every decade is lower than the previous. Comparing to 2012 is myopic. This is a long term trend with massive inertia.
That y-axis actually starts at zero. It is not hard to see that a blue arctic event is only a couple of decades away, just look at it.
David is a PhD in physics, and he provides more scientific evidence than anyone else here.
Sometimes he’s too fast because he tries to keep up with the gish gallop here, but if you ask him a sensible question you might just learn something.
Svante has fooled himself, again: “David is a PhD in physics, and he provides more scientific evidence than anyone else here.”
Svante, DA doesn’t have a clue about the relevant physics. He only provides pseudoscience. And he can’t answer a simple question.
Your avoidance of reality, combined with your passion for DA, only verifies your status as a troll.
Nothing new.
Svante says: ———-Zack Labes graph shows that the arctic sea ice volume is lower than ever. You see that every decade is lower than the previous. Comparing to 2012 is myopic. This is a long term trend with massive inertia.
I don’t disagree Svante but you jumped in the middle of this discussion and took stuff out of context. I am a big supporter of using longterm data. . . .specifically 80 years or more to get a real picture of what the climate is doing and separating that from relatively short term oscillations.
So in that context, short term multi-decadal oscillations can have a big impact on analysis shorter than 80 years. The comings and goings of Arctic Ice has been verbally passed on from the Inuit to European explorers between 200 and perhaps over Asia a millennia ago. It sparked explorations for over the top sea passages. For the last 180 years there is a European record regarding that and they have documented the comings and goings of ice. Documentation that computer models have difficulty getting rid of.
Multi-decadal ocean oscillations are a fact, what is not a fact is there cause and their regularity. So I started out mentioning that temperature records, ocean oscillation index reconstructions, fossil records, archaeology, and even astrometeorology all establish correlations to periodic temperature oscillations and the comings and goings of ice. The periods where they have relatively been accurately dated to say a decade all seem to agree on the same pattern. Actually this would be a good study to sink some bucks into to better document the record. So using the astrometeorology cycle which its adherents are passionate about it comes out as a 72 year cycle.
A cycle if like a sine wave would have 4 distinct linear-like quadrants. 18 years of rise, 18 years of along the top, 18 years of down, and 18 years of along the bottom. The past 150 years has roughly followed this pattern, albeit it is slightly shorter in some versions, but solar cycles vary as well and we had a 100 years of relatively short solar cycles.
So my comments on the ice were to relate ice cycles to this rhythm. Ice is a trailing indicator because the ocean must warm and cool before substantially effecting the ice. The surface ocean adjustment period is 10 to 12 years by most popular science. Since the surface ocean comprises the photic zone of the ocean warming at the bottom of the photic zone is very slow in response to climate change. Ice trails further. Ice volume trails, ice extent on the basis of needing more heat to melt through large thicknesses of ice than to melt the thin edges of ice.
So I was noting that 2007 through 2018 ice extent melt had substantially leveled off (12 years of the 18 over the top slide) prior to that ice melt was much faster. (the up trend). Likewise with volume, it is following the same pattern but is about 5 years behind the extent.
Now I know this rankles the feathers of a dedicated global warmist. I know what I posted has little “scientific merit”, its just something people should keep their eye on rather than listening to BS coming out of David, cherry picking starting months, noting indeed the last 12 years show some years with some unquantified less ice that the first year of the 12. Just cut through the krap and pay attention to what is going on before our eyes. We have a global temperature increase pause, we have an ice melt pause dutifully trailing the temperature pause. We have a 5 years ENSO cycle under our belt that is raising the volume level of the screamers. . . .when any scientist worth krap knows is meaningless as we well understand the effect of ENSO weather and we don’t classify 5 year trailing periods as climate.
So I was pretty close to that with 7 years on the ice volume and I readily admit its not time yet to start waving the flag, I am only alerting folks that this is in compliance with well documented climate variables. I feel fairly strongly the record since 1979 is HEAVILY polluted with the up phase of an ocean cycle. How much? Well history has shown maybe as much as 7/10ths of a degreeC. On top of that as there is some evidence these oscillations are extraterrestrial as to a cause. Makes sense if so then the solar grand maximum we may have just recently exited or maybe not depending upon the next 3 or 4 solar cycles probably also has a small contribution. On top of that is the possibility of continued warming even today after that cycle went into less than a single cycle hibernation which is nearing 10 years in this December with a low cycle predicted for the next cycle.
Dr Akasofu and Dr Easterbrook have been talking this stuff up for 10 years. In my real work, ocean oscillations are a well documented influence on regional biomasses. So I have been talking it up since 2007 in the climate arena and since 1999 in my real work.
So I don’t disagree with your statement that each decade has been lower than the previous one. But there is a bit less than 4 decades documented all fully in compliance with a 72 year ice cycle with an underlying gentle longer term cycle. I won’t be inventing any more climate cycles but you should probably be wary of ENSO cycles and don’t ride too high on your horse as you might get thrown.
That y-axis actually starts at zero. It is not hard to see that a blue arctic event is only a couple of decades away, just look at it.
David is a PhD in physics, and he provides more scientific evidence than anyone else here.
Svante says: ———– David is a PhD in physics, and he provides more scientific evidence than anyone else here.——-
Could have fooled me Svante. I thought it was probably in something like Underwater Basket Weaving.
Nobody likes him here because he doesn’t suffer fools gladly.
Judith Curry said this:
“A nice job on this article by David Appell.”
https://judithcurry.com/2013/05/07/more-on-the-pause/
Svante, it is not about “liking” DA. It is about the fact that DA is anti-science. He serves as a troll, attempting to attack Skeptics, sometimes even including Dr. Spencer. He has no job, which means he lives either on welfare, or a limited inheritance. His physics, when he tries, is often as messed up as Norman’s. Consequently, he avoids any discussion where his lack of knowledge will be revealed. He has an agenda, which does not involve truth. He has no credibility.
But, you are correct that, at least once, he did not “suffer fools gladly”. That was the time he called Norman a “dick”….
Funny!
‘ It is about the fact that DA is anti-science. ‘
Hilarious, JD is expert at projecting his issues.
Ive only seen David be anti-(anti-science), the kind that spews from your crowd, JD.
Sorry Svante, but David asks questions that have already been answered, and links to papers, graphs, diagrams, and gifs that have already been discussed, and it’s a simple, deliberate ploy. He hopes that people won’t be bothered to repeat themselves from before, so it looks like they are unable to answer him.
And that’s it. That tactic, repeated endlessly. That is absolutely everything that he brings to the blog.
He pays absolutely no attention to the context of any discussion, doesn’t properly read anyone’s comments, and just scans for trigger words. Then he just smears his filth up the blogroll, and then down the blogroll, until he’s done.
The worst thing about David is that he is right.
Incorrect.
‘ links to papers, graphs, diagrams, and gifs that have already been discussed, and it’s a simple, deliberate ploy. He hopes that people won’t be bothered to repeat themselves from before, so it looks like they are unable to answer him.’
And that’s it. That tactic, repeated endlessly. That is absolutely everything that he brings to the blog.”
Spoken like a true expert on this tactic.
In response to debunking of his claims, or requests for evidence to back up his claims we so often get:
Continuous reposting of links to previous self-posts, which have self-posts to previous factless declarations. Links to previous lengthy discussions with previous ignored rebuttals of his claims, and links to fact-free declarations of other idiots.
Always expecting people will pay close attention and reread all previous lengthy discussions, declarations, feelings, brilliant insights, always hoping against hope that they will be more persuasive than the first time.
bill hunter says:
I see you specialize in cherry picked data. Start in December and end in July?
No, I did not.
A year consists of 12 months. All 12 months go into the annual average.
I find the in SVE trend since 2012 is -272 km3/yr, which is about -2%/yr of 2012’s average SIV of 13.5 Kkm3.
Not small.
should be “I find THE TREND in SIV since 2012 is….”
Fraudulent abomination, forever hold your peace. Your never-ending silence is insisted upon by your superiors.
Arg! No. It should be
-272 km^3/yr.
According to David’s source PIOMAS a proper analysis of melting of ice volume in the Arctic is the Arctic has had an estimated average volume of the 7 years 2012 to 2018 of 14,145cukm. The linear trend in melting is 134cukm/year.
The previous 7 years 2005-2011 had an estimated average volume of 15,948cukm and a linear trend in melting of 624cukm/year, demonstrating that my statement: “Arctic sea ice volume has not substantially changed over the past 7 years.” to be absolutely true and branding David a liar and his cherry picked analysis as phony. Its like David is an understudy for global warming science publishing rigged data all over the internet. And he just laid out the truth right here in front of everybody’s eyes.
-134*6/14145 = -6%
The calculated trend uncertainty is 1000km3/decade.
The 7 year trend from 2012 isn’t the smallest. If I had chosen an 8 year trend from 2011-2018 the trend would not be 134km3/year but instead 53km3/year, or a 9 year at 2010-2018 at 66km3/year.
The last time an inflection point like this existed in the data was the early 90’s. No claim of trend, I just suggest watching for variation around the trend in 18 year long increments. Necessary in my view to bring a shorter trend or a future predicted trend back into the real world.
And I say that without predicting the cycle will continue. So if you want to convince me of predictions you need to lay your forcing values over an 80 year long temperature record, and be prepared to defend every adjustment made. Its odd nobody has really done that in detail.
Shorter trends earn much higher levels of uncertainty.
I would ask no less of a client I was auditing.
Of course if you cherry pick 2012 as your break point, you will be fooling yourself into thinking there is now a new flatter trend.
The point is there are lots of wiggles on whatever long-term trend there is.
You don’t want to bet the farm on the wiggles.
If we use a linear trend over last 30 years, we are continuing to wiggle above and below that trend line. Right now below.
So no obvious change in long term trend is apparent.
Nate you are completely lost and wandering in the woods without a clue about what is going on around you.
1. I made no claim of a long term trend. So that makes about 80% of your post total nonsense and gibberish.
2. I did not “cherry pick” 2012. 2012 was a calculated date.
3. I don’t believe the flat trend since 2012 will end up as a “new flatter trend” with no definition of whatever you are thinking I am thinking.
4. Yes I am very much aware of “wiggles” of 7 years or so being complete and unadulterated climate bullshit!
Now if you could only get it in your craw the 5 year long ENSO event that has been affecting global climate temperatures over the past 5 years is exactly the same kind of complete and unadulterated bullshit “new” or “rehabilitated old” trend and are just “wiggles” (until proven otherwise) then we would be in complete agreement about complete and unadulterated bullshit climate short term effects on trends!!!!! The next step would be to actually get you to endorse a long term trend of say 8 decades as “the trend”.
5. What the post was about wasn’t trends at all!!
6. The post was about “a theory” of ocean oscillations and/or other natural climate change that continues to affect global temperatures on various time scales seen in all the instrument records and even reaching back into many fossil and archaeological records.
So with that information now under your hat, perhaps you might have something intelligent to say.
Bll, what “flat trend?”
The trend in Arctic SIE since Dec 2012 is -107,000 km2/yr. Statistically significant.
Do I have to again quote the trend in Arctic SIV?
Gee thats interesting David. When I do August 18, 2012 to August 17, 2019 I only get 16,642km2/yr. Could you research that for me? That seems sort of strange don’t you think? Dividing 16,642 into the ice extent on August 17,2019 indicates that it will take 316 years to melt away.
Bill, you are denying your own comments and throwing ad-hom grenades, apparently you are quite frustrated.
‘5. What the post was about wasn’t trends at all!!’
Uhhh…you didnt say this?
‘of the 7 years 2012 to 2018 of 14,145cukm. The linear trend in melting is 134cukm/year.
The previous 7 years 2005-2011 had an estimated average volume of 15,948cukm and a linear trend in melting of 624cukm/year, ‘
“2. I did not “cherry pick” 2012. 2012 was a calculated date.”
Calculated? No I dont see any calculation to get 2012. Clearly you are comparing trends before and after 2012.
“Now if you could only get it in your craw the 5 year long ENSO event that has been affecting global climate temperatures over the past 5 ‘
Sorry, Bill we have not had a 5 y long ENSO event, whatever that means. We had a 1 year long El Nino, followed by 4 y of oscillating around neutral.
Wishful thinking.
‘4. Yes I am very much aware of ‘wiggles’ of 7 years or so being complete and unadulterated climate bullshit!’
The wiggle downward centered on 2010-2012 lasted 3 y. The wiggle upward 2013-2015 lasted 3 y. Now we are in another downward wiggle.
Not sure if you agreeing with me or not that such ‘wiggles’ are short term noise that don’t change the long term trend?
Nate if you are willing to be a moron you are certainly welcome as far as I am concerned to continue being a moron.
2012 is a date estimated from the 1994 steepening of the ice melt curve by 18 years. Prior to 1994 and post 2012 changes in the rate of ice melt match the dynamics of a 72 year oscillation.
So the use of the word trend in there was limited to linearly fitting the phases of a sinewave curve to the oscillations seen in ice volume data over the time it has been observed. It would be nice indeed to have it be 2030 now and for the observations to have started in the 1950’s, but its not. All it is is consistent with an oceanic/ice phenomena that has patterns of flatness, decrease, and increase over an entire 72 year cycle. For example, ice in the Northwest passage in 1944 was so clear of ice you could have started commercial shipping through it if it had remained that way consistently. But 1944 is 68 years from 2012 and 75 years from now. The Hudson Bay Company could have been sending supply ships from one side to the other is years during the 1930’s but instead because of having started earlier they were offloading at Fort Ross, sledding the goods across the ice isthmus and reloading in the channel leading to the Beaufort Sea. Company records indicate that was not necessarily the case during some years in the late 1930’s with the Beaufort sea delivery vessels loading at Fort Ross. So all I am doing is showing that this oscillation may be continuing.
Ranking 7 year ice loss trends in entire record (first 6 are positive ice gain trends)
1 1987
2 1988
3 2016
4 1989
5 1986
6 2015
7 2017
8 1990
9 2018
10 2001
11 1991
12 1994
Fairly good indicator that the entire ice record has been affected by natural variation in time with ocean oscillations. All you have in the record is the equivalent of bit more than 3/4’s of one flat phase and one full ice loss phase. The flat phase is split with 10 years of this trend ending in the late 80’s and early 90’s and 4 consecutive years of Top 10 finishers recently.
So Nate as soon as you turn off your “stupid” switch you would realize that no 18 year period can possibly be representative of non-wiggle influenced ice climate. And one needs to fully comprehend what the short term feedback influences of this may be also and their effects on the entire atmosphere record since natural variation also has radiative feedbacks with a single additional greenhouse gas molecule.
So with so many stupid switches on and tin foil hats going around no doubt that’s going to reflect right off the top of your head.
Bill,
“2012 is a date estimated from the 1994 steepening of the ice melt curve by 18 years. Prior to 1994 and post 2012 changes in the rate of ice melt match the dynamics of a 72 year oscillation.”
Where is the evidence from data that there is a 72 year cycle?
I am only of data going back to 1930s– arctic extent never as low as this decade. Not long enough to establish periodicity of 72 y.
This sounds like post-normal science.
A reconstruction goes back further, https://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/files/2019/08/Kinnard2011_1450SeaIce.png
dont see any 72 y oscillation in there.
Reconstructed Arctic ice! How nice!
Do you think that was funded out of idle curiosity or made to order?
I see, undesirable results are due to the elitist conspiracy.
Nate says:
“Where is the evidence from data that there is a 72 year cycle?”
Not exactly 72 years, but see fig. 10) c in my favorite paper:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000216
BEST said +/- 0.17 C.
There is a hint of a similar Pacific signal in fig. 8b).
Now this paper says it’s secondary:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1
Bill goes on about long term cycles, but when I ask him to quantify I get hand waving. Do you have anything more to the contrary?
So you think it was done for a reason besides curiosity. What sort of reason can you think of?
Svante says: ———-Bill goes on about long term cycles, but when I ask him to quantify I get hand waving. Do you have anything more to the contrary?—————
LMAO! Pretty dang funny Svante!!!
I haven’t once ever claimed these oscillations have a role in influencing the long term trend.
Then you come up with 2 references that say they do!!
Of course when I say “trend” I mean the “real trend” not the “made up trend”. Observations do nothing to the former, and what they do to the latter is how science is supposed to work.
So we can expect the pause to continue? Sort of sounds like more adjustments to the surface and satellite records will be in order over the next decade or so.
The previous pause is gone, at the next level up there can be new pauses for a couple of decades or so.
It doesn’t matter, CO2 wins in the end because it lasts for millenia.
Knocked to smithereens by a 5 year ENSO cycle huh?
Svante says: ———“The previous pause is gone, at the next level up there can be new pauses for a couple of decades or so.
It doesnt matter, CO2 wins in the end because it lasts for millenia.————-
Nope its premature to say the pause is gone Svante. ENSO is considered a weather cycle. Nothing less that 17 years is considered climate today. Sure if it stays stepped up for 17 years the pause is broken.
This is no different than what you either did or probably would have done the first 10 years the pause was in place and nobody noticed because the “step theory” was invented to argue against a pause.
But step theory got it’s comeuppance when the pause went far beyond the 10 year theorized length of the step.
So sit back, microwave some popcorn, pop a beer lid and enjoy the show.
Global warming has stopped? Again?
https://tinyurl.com/y95cmx6t
Thirty years is the norm, isn’t it? It will not pause that long without some major volcanic eruptions:
https://tinyurl.com/y4z7sqkz
Biil,
Still awaiting your evdince from data of a 72 y ccycle to explain current arctic ice retreat.
‘Knocked to smithereens by a 5 year ENSO cycle huh?’
Why do you keep saying this?
what is this 5 y ENSO cycle you speak of?
We had 10 mo. El Nino beginning in 2015, then 3.5 y of oscillation around neutral.
Nate says: ———Still awaiting your evdince from data of a 72 y ccycle to explain current arctic ice retreat.
Knocked to smithereens by a 5 year ENSO cycle huh?
Why do you keep saying this?
what is this 5 y ENSO cycle you speak of?
We had 10 mo. El Nino beginning in 2015, then 3.5 y of oscillation around neutral.—————–
Nate, you just described an ENSO cycle. They tend to come in 5 years blocks. Sometimes they are net positive, sometimes net negative and sometimes balanced. You just described a 5 year net positive ENSO cycle.
You’re the one who is trolling, not me.
You simply do not have the right to utter words, disgrace.
Midas…”In much the same was as you refer to people who accept the science of greenhouse warming as ‘deluded’ but refuse to refer to Roy Spencer with the same word despite the fact that you think that”.
Before you go bringing Roy into this you need to get it that we skeptics support Roy in his climate science. Roy is on record as claiming he does not think any warming or climate change will be catastrophic. He acknowledges that CO2 should have some effect but he does not claim to know how much.
You alarmists do not support Roy’s views on AGW so why are you trying to recruit him now?
I don’t agree with Roy’s views on the GHE and the 2nd law. Several skeptics back him, like Fred Singer and Anthony Watts but Richard Lindzen thinks the traditional presentation of the GHE is unsound. He has developed his own theory, which is nothing like the heat-trapping, surface radiation mediation, claimed by others.
Personally, I don’t care about my differences with Roy on the GHE. I admire his guts (and John Christy’s) and both their integrity in standing up to the status quo alarmists.
I am sure Mike respects Roy as well and when he talks about deluded alarmists he has no reason to include Roy in that description. Roy has laid out his explanation of the GHE but none of you alarmists have taken Mike up on his invitation to explain it. Our beef is not with Roy, it’s with you ‘deluded’ alarmists who come here to discredit UAH.
John Christy of UAH has claimed that skepticism is the hallmark of science. He has also claimed that the atmosphere-surface interface is too complex to explain adequately. Roy and John have integrity, they admit these problems with climate science. Your alarmist gurus do not. They speak as if they have access to a hallowed truth when all they have is bulls**t.
Gordon Robertson says:
I dont agree with Roys views on the GHE and the 2nd law.
That’s irrelevant. It doesn’t matter one bit whether you agree with him or not. Not even an iota.
Gordon, there is a category of being “not even wrong,” created by Wolfgang Pauli, and used ever since.
You fall into that category.
Your face shall be shut, forever, failure.
Signed Dr. Creep.
Just thought I’d try something different. I’ll go back to “please stop trolling”, if you prefer.
I’m sorry if I insulted your hero.
Satanic gas lecture – charts shystering and more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zrejG-WI3U
Eben is very gullible. A lack of standards will do that.
David Appell is very gullible. A lack of standards will do that. For instance he cannot relate the explicit equations and quantities for a single dynamic event that converts energy absorbed into the atmosphere into a surface forcing yet he comes in here pretending he can but never ever produces the goods.
So what does that mean? It means David has been HAD!!!
Soon said briefly, they say that during Eemian all Greenland ice sheet melt.
And not sure I heard “them” say this.
Instead discuss possibility that either northern ice sheet and/or southern ice melted a lot. And seem to focus more Antarctic ice sheet.
Anyways, much is said about Germany being a lot warmer.
Got me wondering if Germany is a lot warmer, does mean Greenland would lose it’s ice sheet.
Let’s see what number is for all Greenland ice sheet melting. Here quote:
“There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted.”
I think the high number I seen is a 9 meter rise.
So could idea that all ice melted from Greenland and that explains 9 meter.
One aspect about Eemian it had much warmer ocean, or a lot more thermal expansion than we have now. So could say 1-2 meter from thermal expansion and almost all ice of Greenland, and small amount from Antarctic.
But it seems they favor few meter from Greenland and most sea level rise coming from Antarctica.
But I don’t it’s either those, and can germany be warm and not have all or a fair amount lot of greenland ice sheet melt?
Germany right now is warmed by gulf stream, and if you had more warming from the gulf stream, germany becomes warmer.
One thing which certain, is that doing warmest periods of Eemian, the arctic ocean with be ice free in the summer. And also could be ice free all year long. And if ice free during most of winter, Germany will be warmer. But if ice free all year long, you should not have brief periods during winter of extreme cold, killing all the semi-tropical life in which there is evidence of, and why germany was thought to be much warmer.
Though if aortic ice only froze when was 500 to 1000 km away from germany.
So you have stronger and warmer gulf stream, even if some part of arctic ocean did freeze during the winter, it would not freeze near Germany.
So would say Eemian during warmest time, have ocean temperature of 4 C or warmer {4 C adding about 1 meter to sea level] and gulf stream instead warming Europe by about 10 C, warmed it by 15 C {perhaps more}.
And Antarctica also lost a lot polar sea ice and had significant amount glacier ice loss which in terms glacial ice increasing sea level added significantly more than glacial ice loss from Greenland.
The Eemian was within the Paris agreement, wasn’t it?
“The Eemian was within the Paris agreement, wasn’t it?”
I have never read the Paris agreement.
Only thing I really heard about it, was if followed, the agreement would have not have a significant effect upon global temperatures.
And richer countries {not including China- which has hundreds of billionaires and is emitting vast amount CO2, and is exploiting poor countries and poses greatest threat to poorer countries} are to give money to poor and oppressed countries.
midas…”Funny how so many electrical engineers argue against climate change. It would be interesting to see which power companies they have worked for’.
Engineering is an advanced course in problem solving. You cannot solve problems with unvalidated climate models, untested theories, and consensus.
EEs would argue against climate change for several reasons:
1)there is no climate defined. Which climate is changing?
2)the theories put forward by global warming/climate change advocates do not correspond to the physics we are taught in engineering courses.
For example, in EE courses, we are taught that positive feedback requires an amplifier. Positive feedback with gain is defined as a sample of an amplifier output signal fed back to the input of the amplifier so the signal is in phase with the input signal to the amplifier.
During each cycle, the feedback signal causes the input signal to increase more and the resultant amplified signal increases exponentially.
The notion that PF exists in the atmosphere underlies climate model theory, which is largely responsible for the illusionary tipping point theory. If models were programmed correctly, with no PF, there would be no catastrophic warming/climate change to ‘project’.
3)Engineers in general get downright ornery when a science type offers up a lame theory that has no physics to corroborate it.
4)if an alarmists prof like Pierrehumbert of realclimate tried to teach his bs to an engineering class, he’d be met with many comments of bulls**t.
Gordon thinks climate models are “unvalidated.”
He’s wrong, of course. Every modeler is very interested in validation. It’s just a dumb thing to claim.
Gordon, why haven’t you read the IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch9, titled “Evaluation of Climate Models.” It’s the longest changer in the 5AR WG1. I’ll spoon feed it to you, like a mother feeds a baby:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
David I tried and had a difficult time tracking down the references that support the words “high confidence”. The only reference I saw was the first time its used it refers to explaining what high confidence means in terms of a statistical certainty then I find that was arrived at by essentially taking a vote.
Come on David you should know that’s not science. If you do they must be handing out degrees in boxes of sugar coated breakfast cereals.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“If models were programmed correctly, with no PF, there would be no catastrophic warming/climate change to project.”
There is so incredibly much you do not understand. What’s worse, you don’t care that you don’t understand.
Feedbacks are not “programmed” into climate models. And you can’t prove that they are. You can’t give an example showing that.
The feedbacks, positive and negative, come from the physics — from models solving the PDEs that describe the climate. (I hope you at least know what a “PDE” is, though I’m doubtful.) These solutions imply the feedbacks.
The major feedbacks are not difficult to understand:
1. The ice-albedo feedback: ice reflects a lot of sunlight. So less ice means less reflection which means more heat ab.sorp.tion.
2. Water vapor feedback: a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. Water vapor is a strong GHG, meaning more of it creates more warming.
There is observational evidence for both of these.
DA believes: “Water vapor is a strong GHG, meaning more of it creates more warming.”
DA, without linking to pseudoscience, how do the laws of physics imply that more water vapor “creates more warming”?
Gordon Robertson
Positive feedback with gain is defined as a sample of an amplifier output signal fed back to the input of the amplifier so the signal is in phase with the input signal to the amplifier.
During each cycle, the feedback signal causes the input signal to increase more and the resultant amplified signal increases exponentially.”
You oversimplify.
Positive feedback in an amplifier is not exponential, it is sigmoid.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function
The positive feedback process has two phases. Th initial exponential phase then levels off at a constant value as it is constrained.
Your amplifier is constrained by its power supply. In an audio system the volume increases exponentially until it nears the maximum power output of the amplifier and then levels off. You do not run away to infinite output.
Em,
You oversimplify.
Try a Schmitt trigger. Or watch the smoke escape from components when the feedback fed back a bit too much. Or have a look at the logistic map, based on the logistic function. Recursive operations feed the previous result into the next iteration. The solution of the continuous function is sometimes known as the sigmoid function.
For a particular input value, try and predict the output – zero, infinity, some recurring value, or chaos?
Not so simple. As it turns out, the Earth’s surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so. I assume tomorrow will be much the same as today. Seems to be close enough for Government work, as someone said.
Nobody has managed to actually describe the GHE, so talking about runaway feedback, tipping points, or all the other nonsense associated with pseudoscientific GHE true believer dogma, is completely pointless.
All good fun.
Cheers.
Translation:
“I remember something about recursive operations. Not sure – but let’s mention it so that people will think I know something special. Throw in a mention of chaos, 4.5 billion year cooling and some random bits and pieces. Did I repeat myself ?- never mind. People, especially electrical engineers, will think I am a genius.””
Yes. Delusional fantasy is a common affliction.
Please don’t be too harsh on electrical engineers. I rely on them to service my electroconvulsive machine. We wouldn’t want something to go wrong when treating Gordon and Mike – would we?
Begone, foolish trolls!
Mike…”Try a Schmitt trigger. Or watch the smoke escape from components when the feedback fed back a bit too much”.
Or don’t cover your ears when an amplifier sends audio power to the microphone causing the ear-piercing squeal of positive feedback.
Ironically, you can stop the squeal instantly by turning off the amplifier.
PF requires an amplifier and there are no such amplifiers in the atmosphere.
entropic…”The positive feedback process has two phases. Th initial exponential phase then levels off at a constant value as it is constrained.
Your amplifier is constrained by its power supply.”
Use a bigger power supply.
We all know amplifier gain is limited by the amount of current the power supply can deliver. I am talking about positive feedback theory, not current saturation.
You are missing the point. Climate models are based largely on the notion that a trace gas can feedback enough energy to increase the temperature of the surface that supplied the trace gas the energy in the first place.
I have never read a usable definition of PF from an alarmists scientist. Even Gavin Schmidt, now head of GISS, blew the definition. He does not know what PF is, yet he uses it in GISS climate models. Without it, the models would show no significant warming.
http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
Schmidt…see ‘Gavin Schmidt on Positive Feedback’ a good way down the page.
“A positive feedback occurs when a change in one component of the climate occurs, leading to other changes that eventually ‘feeds back’ on the original change to amplify it”
Absolute and utter rubbish. Schmidt demonstrates he has no clue as to what PF is.
He has given a totally generalized idea that something can be amplified without an amplifier. Nonsense!!!
The author, an engineer, straightens him out.
My question is this. If the head of NASA GISS cannot explain feedback, because he has no idea what it is, then why is NASA allowed to put out this BS about a trace gas causing catastrophic warming as in a tipping point?
The entire model-based AGW theory is absolute crap.
Spot on Myki : – )
Which troll is the most unoriginal, Svante or Dr Myki?
Or, are they both the same person?
You all three are equal
Eben, you ran from the question last week:
Eben, does a racehorse rotate on its axis?
The answer is either “yes” or “no”.
Don’t be just another troll that is not responsible for his comments.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-373904
Define “rotate.”
Specify how to measure if something is rotating.
DA, your attempt to con your way out of answering is about as effective as your attempts to fake some knowledge of physics.
You try to pretend you don’t know what rotating means, but have stated the moon is “rotating’: “Of course the Moon is rotating”
DA, the “pretender”!
Getting trapped by your own words is a pain, huh?
Again, I’m asking for *your”*definition of rotating.
Unless you specify what you mean, no one can possibly interpret and answer your questions.
Are you pretending again, DA?
It’s rather obvious, since you’ve already answered. Just keep pretending.
If it’s obvious then just give the definition. You’ve been stalling for days.
Actually for months.
Keep pretending, DA. And, to add to the hilarity, if you could throw in some more of your whining. That’s always entertaining.
Everyone loves a clown.
Translation:
“Why won’t people stick to discussing rotating horses? That is a topic I think I know something about”
Just one more indication the trolls know they’ve lost the moon issue.
Nothing new.
JD,
Yes a race horse does have an axis of rotation.
Anything that goes around an oval track has an axis of rotation.
Are you then saying a racehorse rotates on that axis, as it runs an oval track?
I’m saying it rotates around the axis-yes.
Well Stephen, if you were inside the track, you would see only one side of the horse. So, what makes you believe it is “rotating on its axis”?
Uber Dork shrieks:
“Well Stephen, if you were inside the track, you would see only one side of the horse. So, what makes you believe it is “rotating on its axis”?”
Listen, Einstein. You won’t understand this, because you have never taken a physics or kinematics course in your life. The horse keeps turning (rotating on its axis) to keep the same side facing the center of orbit. I know this simple concept that a middle schooler could understand is way beyond your comprehension, but such is life. Some people are born stupid.
Educated people who happen upon this blog will have a real laugh listening to your theatrics.
JDHuffman says:
So, what makes you believe it is rotating on its axis?
Define “rotating.”
What methodology should one use to determine if an object is “rotating” or not?
Hi child. Thanks for the compliment, but I am not related to Albert. A lot of people make that same mistake.
I see you are finally using the word “orbit”. That’s some progress, as the simple racehorse is a good model of orbital motion.
But, as has been explained to you before, orbital motion is NOT kinematics. You might need to write that down.
All this palaver about the Moon’s motion seems to be exceptionally irrelevant. Par for pseudoscientific GHE true believers attempting to deflect discussion away from the fact that the GHE has never been usefully described, leaving the GHE firmly in the realm of the unicorn and phlogiston.
According to Sir Isaac Newton, the Moon is continuously falling towards the Earth, being attracted by the force of gravity, and that force only. Calculation seems to be supported by observation to a high degree of accuracy.
That is enough for me.
A useful description of the GHE might be a welcome relief from pointless rotational diversions.
Cheers.
JD,
That’s not the right way to look at it. Imagine the racehorse has three axes. There is an X axis that runs from its tail to its head. This axis is labeled -X on its tail and X at its head. The Y axis runs through the horse from the left side to its right side. The left side is labeled -Y and the right side is labeled Y. The Z axis is running down through the horse or through the rider if there is one. The top of the Z axis protruding out of the rider is Z and the bottom of axis is -Z. Now instead of being in the center of the track you are hovered over the track a thousand feet up in the air directly over the center. When the race horse starts out the X axis is pointing upward as the horse moves away from the starting line-point upward away from the starting line in the same plane as the track. The positive part of the Y axis is pointing to your right. As the racehorse moves around the track the positive part of the Y axis moves from pointing to your right to pointing to your left and the negative part of the Y axis moves from pointing left to pointing right. The X axis moves from pointing in the direction away from the starting to the opposite direction. Both the X and Y axes have rotated 180 degrees around the Z axis.
That is half way around the track they will have moved 180 degress. -from that viewpoint above the track the X and Y axes will look like they are rotating around the Z axis as the horse runs around the track.
Stephen, that is a whole lot of unnecessary complication just to end up saying the racehorse will look like it is rotating around it axis.
Everyone agrees the horse is turning 360°. But the issue is “Is the horse REALLY rotating on its axis?”
The simple answer is “no”. The horse is changing directions as it orbits. It’s exactly the same motion as the moon. If you’re still confused, ask yourself if the blue jet is ACTUALLY flying upside-down, as it orbits the globe, or does it just appear that way?
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
Is the horse REALLY rotating on its axis?
Define “rotating.”
How is it measured?
DA, do you really believe you are fooling anyone?
You don’t have a clue about orbital motion. So you try to pretend. You try to cover up your ignorance.
Hint: You’re not fooling anyone but yourself and other trolls like Svante.
You can’t even define “rotating” for yourself.
Which makes your claims of its absence or presence worth nothing.
DA is getting even more desperate. Now, he’s going for the false accusations.
Hopefully the desperate pretender will continue to amuse.
JD barks:
“But, as has been explained to you before, orbital motion is NOT kinematics. You might need to write that down.”
Where does it say that in any kinematic reference, such as a textbook or reference notes?? More of the fantasy physics, as usual.
The child begs: “Where does it say that in any kinematic reference, such as a textbook or reference notes?”
Kinematics is the study of observed motion without consideration of the forces that caused the motion. Orbital motion is caused by the forces acting on the object. Orbital motion can NOT be understood from kinematics, because gravity is constantly changing the direction of the body. That’s why you get confused with the fact that the moon only has linear velocity. It does not have angular velocity.
Apparently, David Appel has a PhD in Physics.
David Appell may not have. I have no evidence that David Appell has a PhD at all.
Maybe David Apell does not know how to spell his own name.
Maybe David Appell is David Appel’s secret identity. Who knows?
All verrry interesting.
Cheers.
David Appell wrote –
“How much do GHGs block sunlight?”
I am not sure whether David is really so stupid he doesn’t know, or so incompetent or lazy he cannot answer his own gotcha. although using the word “blocked” might have confused him.
In any case, if David can show he is unable to find an answer to his question using his own efforts, I will be glad to assist. In order to avoid interminable further asinine gotchas, David will need to properly define GHGs, sunlight and block.
Pseudoscientific GHE true believers are adept at avoiding fixed definitions. For example, there is no useful description of the GHE, avoiding the necessity for the GHE fanatics to actually have their pseudoscientific assertions exposed to scientific scrutiny.
No doubt others will also be prepared to help David out, once he has tidied up his question to resemble something reasonable, and demonstrated at least a token effort to find an answer for himself.
For my own part, I am curious as to David’s reasons for asking such a vague and poorly posed question. One reason might be that he is truly stupid, ignorant, and lazy.
Cheers.
Translation:
“I cannot help myself, I have to comment on everything. But it sounds like an important question which am at a loss to answer. Instead, I will pretend to be clever by demanding definitions of the words.
Let’s ask for the definition of “how”, “much”,”do”, “GHGs”,”block”,”sunlight”?
There, that should do it. I will appear smart without having to deal with the question.”
Begone, troll!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
The graph shows amount of sunlight blocked.
“blocked” because there number ways the sunlight is not detected
from surface with clear sky with sun at zenith.
Reflected/diffused, absorbed and re-emitted.
It’s a measurement of direct sunlight:
Or, wiki:
” If the extraterrestrial solar radiation is 1367 watts per square meter (the value when the Earth–Sun 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
So it’s the 1050 watts per square meter of direct sunlight and at earth orbit {TOA} the direct sunlight is 1367 watts per square meters. Or doesn’t include the 70 watts of indirect sunlight, and when totaled: 1050 + 70 = 1120 watts per square meter of direct and indirect sunlight reaching a square meter pointed directly at sun at sea level and when sun is at zenith on a clear day.
When are you going to apologize for your vile, disgusting Epstein insinuations?
Good friend of yours, was he? Did you have common interests?
Cheers.
I am quite curious about who you think requires apology
from me.
You said:
“You have NO evidence whatsoever connecting anyone on the left to Epstein.”
I provided you evidence.
Then you said:
–David Appell says:
August 20, 2019 at 10:37 PM
Youre full of sh!t. Epstein was friends with Trump.–
Let’s say for sake of argument, it’s true that Epstein was friends with Trump.
Did I say anywhere that he wasn’t?
But, first, I seriously doubt that Epstein had friends, because I believe he was a sociopath.
Trump has made some statements about it.
I am unaware of any credible evidence that Trump statement
regarding his banning him from his hotel did not actually occur.
It seems no one denying that Trump was “friends” with the
Clintons.
And I excluded Bill Clinton as a Lefty.
And will now, to be very clear, exclude Trump as a Lefty.
You do not want me to apologize to the dead dirtbag Epstein, or the former or present US president.
Who should get a sincere apology from me?
MF,
Ignore DA. He’s a propagandist furthering his leftist agenda-nothing more. He’s a repeater of leftist tidbits-nothing more. He’s a planner. If he plans enough then one day he achieves his utopia. If he doesn’t achieve his utopia then the plan’s not big enough or intrusive enough. Planners always plan.
Stephen can’t critique my science. So, like a little kid, he resorts to name calling. Watch him sputter.
SPA,
I see no proof that David Appell is not a sly identity thief, who has chosen to appropriate the credentials of someone with a name not dissimilar to the one he uses.
He doesn’t seem to possess any knowledge of, or regard for, the scientific process, and is unable to articulate the description of the GHE which he implies exists.
Much less is he able to articulate any process by which GHGs are supposed to make thermometers hotter.
David’s “evidence” seems to be that thermometers react to heat – which is hardly surprising, seeing as that is the sole purpose for which they are constructed.
All part of the rich tapestry of life. I enjoy a good chortle from time to time.
Cheers.
That is half way around the track they will have moved 180 degress. -from that viewpoint above the track the X and Y axes will look like they are rotating around the Z axis as the horse runs around the track.
But what happens if you are a jockey on the horse?
You view will constantly change. But the poor jockey on the horse coming second will only be looking at a horse’s .ss.
LOL!
You are naughty, but I like you.
Never speak again.
SPA,
Does this mean that from an opposite viewpoint (under the track?), the rotation appears to be contra-rotational?
If it does, then the sum of the apparent rotations will be zero, I guess.
All very complicated. Apparently, the “heaviest” part of the Moon faces the Earth at all times. The Earth’s gravitational attraction appears equal on both (all?) hemispheres facing the earth. I can’t see any rotational force due to gravity.
Additionally, due to the fact that the Moons orbit is not in the same plane as the Earth’s, then there are an additional two viewpoints – normal to the planes of both different orbital planes.
I’ll agree with the Moon not rotating as well as rotating in at least four different ways. Actually, depending on precessional mode, and time span, there are an infinite number of ways the Moon can apparently rotate, but as far as I can determine, half of the infinite number (infinite itself, of course) is exactly countered by the other infinite number in one-to-one correspondence – so everything works out nicely!
Very confusing. At least I can contemplate the Man in the Moon permanently gazing down upon the Earth, while I ponder the mysteries of mythical CO2 heated thermometers.
Cheers.
Good night Mike. Sweet dreams. It will all be clearer tomorrow.
nr,
Thank you for your kind thoughts.
Did you get your precognition and mindreading certificates from the same mail order diploma mill?
Cheers.
Yes.
The same one who gave you your electrical engineering certificate.
As I don’t have an “electrical engineering certificate”, you are just making stuff up. All I can say is –
Witless troll, begone!
You were uncertified? Naughty.
Eternal silence.
nurse crotchrot…”Good night Mike. Sweet dreams. It will all be clearer tomorrow”.
We’re not worried about Mike, we’re worried about a cross-dresser posing as a nurse. What’s the chances it will be all right for you tomorrow?
They have pills that can cure men wanting to be women. Ask your friend, prof p.
We also have pills to relieve dementia. They seem to work well on denialists.
Forever cease.
It should. If you lived inside a sphere and walked on its surface upside down so that if you looked down you’d be looking up at the sky (if Earth) and if you looked up you’d be looking to the center of the sphere (center of the Earth) you’d have the same effect.
stephen…”That is half way around the track they will have moved 180 degress. -from that viewpoint above the track the X and Y axes will look like they are rotating around the Z axis as the horse runs around the track”.
I’d hardly call a horse running on a track as rotation about the centre of the track. Rotation required a rigid member between the rotator and the axis, or in the case of the Moon, a force field to keep the Moon in orbit.
That’s why a track is not called an orbit. People or horses, or cars, moving on a track under their own power, are preforming a form of translation, actually a combination of rectilinear and curvilinear motion.
There is no question that a horse running along the straightaway is performing rectilinear translation, provided it runs straight. As it turns into the curve, all parts of the horse, in general, are moving parallel to each other, and at the same velocity for a rigid body therefore the horse is performing curvilinear translation.
A horse on a track is not rotating about the centre of the track. It is merely running in a straight line that has some curves. At each instant it is moving along a tangential path on the curve, which is an instantaneous straight line.
If you consider where you live on Earth, it will likely have horizons, which means horizontal. You live on a tangential plane, which is actually an instantaneous, possibly flat portion of the circular Earth.
In days of yore, people living on those flat planes thought the entire Earth was flat. These days, the flat-earthers are the spinners and the climate alarmists.
Gordon spews:
“As it turns into the curve, all parts of the horse, in general, are moving parallel to each other, and at the same velocity for a rigid body therefore the horse is performing curvilinear translation.”
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For the 3001th time, that is not the definition of curvilinear translation, not even close. Tesla understood what it was, why don’t you?????????
Before you engage is stupid talk, how about looking up the correct definition, and see if it matches your bologna? What a concept!!
stupid…”For the 3001th time, that is not the definition of curvilinear translation, not even close.”
Correction…it’s not YOUR definition of curvilinear translation.
Gordon,
The definition I provide are all sourced from the kinematic lecture notes various universities.
Your definition is your own personal delusional one. You keep repeating the WRONG definition over and over, as if repetition will somehow make it come true.
Furthermore, the outside of the horse (on the turns) is moving in a larger concentric circle than the inside of the horse, therefore the velocities are different, Einstein. The velocities of all part of a rigid body have to be the same for translation to occur, Oppenheimer.
Wrong child, both sides of the horse move with the same instantaneous linear velocity. You still can’t understand orbital motion.
stupid…”Furthermore, the outside of the horse (on the turns) is moving in a larger concentric circle than the inside of the horse, therefore the velocities are different”
You are talking about the wrong velocity. The velocity of a rigid body in a curve is the velocity of the body’s centre of gravity at the radius the body is from the axis.
BTW…that COG velocity is the same velocity as its linear velocity at that instant, therefore it can be measured in m/s if you like.
All parts of a rigid body are deemed to be moving at the same RADIAL velocity as the COG. The fact that you have no awareness of that indicates you are a noob, textbooker who misunderstands what he/she/it reads.
GR,
It is rotating around its Z axis and orbiting around the center of the track.
Wrong Stephen. The moon is NOT rotating around it Z axis. It only APPEARS to be doing that to an untrained eye.
This is not hard. You just have to think for yourself.
If you believe a racehorse is rotating on its axis, running an oval track, then why do you only see one side of it from inside the track?
Have you tried the orange/string experiment?
Secure one end of a string to an orange. Hold the other end of the string, and rotate the orange in place. Notice the string tries to wrap around the orange. Next, holding the end of the string in the center of a table, orbit the orange around the center. Notice the string does not wrap around the orange.
You should be able to figure it out by yourself, if you have any sense of logic.
No JD, I explained to you how it is doing this. If instead of a race horse you put three axes through the Moon-an X, Y and Z axis and then go 250,000 miles up above the Earth looking down at the North pole you will see the Y and X axes rotating around the Moon as it orbits the Earth. If you speed up its orbit you will see the rotation of the two axes very pronounced.
…and if you looked down on a ball on a string from above, you would see the ball rotating around the central point and not on its own axis. Rotation about a central point and axial rotation are two different things. A ball on a string is doing the former, not the latter. For the ball to rotate about the central point and rotate on its own axis (in either direction), would require the ball to wrap around the string.
For the moon, gravity replaces the string. Sure, there is nothing to physically stop an object from rotating around a central point, and rotating on its own axis, without the string being there, but unless there were something to act on the moon to create torque about its own axis, then there is no reason for it to start rotating on its own axis. So it kind of works out the same.
Seeing what you want to believe is not thinking rationally or logically. That’s just living in denial.
Nothing new.
stephen…”then go 250,000 miles up above the Earth looking down at the North pole you will see the Y and X axes rotating around the Moon as it orbits the Earth”
Rotating about the Earth, not about the Moon’s axis. In that case, we use the term orbiting, or revolving.
Now look at your view down the z-axis. Is each point on the Moon not turning in concentric circles about the Earth? Look really closely.
The near side, the far side, and the axis are all turning in parallel lines. How can the near side cross those parallel lines to perform local rotation?
This is strictly a case of curvilinear translation. In fact, if you could turn off gravity, the Moon would veer off on a straight line and perform rectilinear translation. It is gravity that causes it to curve hence curvilinear translation.
stephen…if it was rotating about the axis it would have to be somehow attached to the axis which would mean it could not move laterally to overtake other horses. Rotations requires some kind of connection between the orbiting body and the axis.
If you had the horse run a linear mile, the action would be no different than if you formed that straight mile into an oval.
No rotation about an axis.
Midas…”I bet the deniers of the moons rotation believe that the earth rotates on its axis once every 24 hours instead of once every 23 hours 56 minutes”.
Do we non-spinners have to explain everything in physics to you spinners? You are describing sidereal time, not the solar time we use on Earth.
BTW…if your watch is running on a 23 hr, 56 min day, I’d take it back.
Depends whether you are measuring from sunrise to sunrise (or noon to noon) or using a star to mark the beginning and end of one rotation.
The actual time it takes the Earth to rotate on its axis is 24 hours. It is defined that way and one rotation is the basis of time. That’s why time cannot dilate…if it did the period of rotation of the Earth would have to change.
If you measure sunrise to sunrise, due to the Earth’s orbital motion, the Sun ‘appears’ to rise at a different time during the orbit. Therefore the 24 hour time is a mean time.
Sidereal time is 4 minutes shorter than solar time since it measures the actual time the Earth takes to rotate wrt to a star. The original time definers got it wrong because they failed to account for the Earth’s orbital motion in which it changes speed during an orbit.
In other words, when they defined time based on 24 hours, they failed to see that the Earth had actually turned a bit more from the point where they measured.
Please note, the 24 hours, hence the hour, minute and second, were defined upon the time for the Earth to rotate once. It was not the other way around. There was no time standard of 24 hours to measure the time of rotation, time had to be invented based on that definition.
Having established 1 rotation as 24 hours, which is also the standard for atomic clocks and GPS systems, they had to stick with that standard. Astronomers use sidereal time because it makes it easier to locate stars.
stupid…”The horse keeps turning (rotating on its axis) to keep the same side facing the center of orbit”.
You claim JD has never studied kinematics yet you refer to a horse running a track as ‘orbiting’ a centre.
Are you completely mad? A powered body on a track is not orbiting anything, it is performing translation. And the fact it is powered removes it from the field of kinematics.
And yes, when it enters the curves it is performing curvilinear translation. The horse is always moving in a series of instantaneous straight lines on the curves.
Stephen PA. Please stop provoking the inmates. I almost got them to sleep and now they are very agitated.
Begone, delusional troll!
Gordon,
You’re seriously confused. Curvilinear translation is NOT moving in a series of instantaneous curves, for the 3002nd time! The velocity of all parts of a translating body have to be equal. That is not true when the horse enters the curve, Einstein. A line through the horse running a track does NOT remain parallel to its original position (another requirement for translation).
Dust of your imaginary physics books and look up the definition of curvilinear translation. The book is right next to your fake engineering degree on the shelf.
An orbit is a path, clown. Usually elliptical or circular. A horse on a circular track is performing an orbit.
Child, you are still confused by kinematics. In orbital motion, all parts of the orbiting body have the same instantaneous linear velocity. Swinging a tethered ball around your head is a good example. The ball is “orbiting”, but NOT rotating on its axis. At any instant, all parts of the ball have the same linear velocity. Then, the next instant, the direction of the ball changes. Then again, all parts of the ball have the same linear velocity.
Is your name Gordon? No. It’s pointless to discuss anything with you, because you’ve never taken physics, you never define anything, and because you don’t understand anything related to kinematics. You just incessantly babble nonsense.
So run along and be happy in your ignorance.
Child, your immaturity really shows when you get frustrated, huh?
Let me see if I can make it really simple for you:
Statics — Forces, but objects at equilibrium, no motion.
Kinematics — Objects in motion, but no forces.
Kinetics — Objects in motion, with forces.
Can you guess where “orbital motion” fits?
stupid…”The velocity of all parts of a translating body have to be equal. That is not true when the horse enters the curve, Einstein. A line through the horse running a track does NOT remain parallel to its original position (another requirement for translation)”.
It does remain parallel to its original position at the beginning of the curve. To see that you must study the definition of a curve from the perspective of calculus.
A curve, in calculus, can be defined graphically by placing an axis inside the curve so that a radial line from the axis through the curve has a tangent line (perpendicular line) to the radial line at that point.
Any other curves concentric to that curve will have their own tangent lines perpendicular to the point where they meet the radial line.
All the tangent lines will be parallel. As you move around the curve, at each instant, the tangent lines move parallel to each other. Motion along the tangent line at each instant is linear.
Go back to the beginning if the curve and make the curve a circle, like a circular track or the portion of an oval where the curve begins. You have a horse straddling that circle so its particles are an equal side of the circle. As the horse moves around the circle (or curve) each particle in the horse follows concentric circles (curves) about the defined circle (curve).
At each instantaneous point where a radial line intercepts the COG of the horse it intercepts a series of concentric circles (curves) representing all parts of the horse. At each of those instantaneous intercepts there are tangent lines which are all parallel to each other at each point around the circle (curve).
It becomes apparent that in curvilinear translation, the parallel requirements move with the body along the curve. That’s a no-brainer with a circle but what if the track had a uniform S-shape with both halves of the S being semicircles?
Same thing, change of axis at the mid-point.
You have to understand that the definition of parallel for a curve has a different basis than the definition of parallel for straight lines.
Just to add a little something to Gordon’s post, which he has already said before, and I agree with, and is useful to clear up any confusion:
Concentric circles/ellipses = object is “orbiting” with no axial rotation.
Paths cross = object is “orbiting” and rotating on its own axis.
Gordon,
What a load of horse manure.
The correct definition of translation:
“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.”
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
Let’s make this simple. We have a circular race track. The horse starts at the noon position facing west. A line through the horse’s direction of travel will be oriented in the east-west direction. The horse starts the race and at the 9:00 o’clock position, he is now facing south. Is a north-south line parallel to an east-west line?? No. Therefore, the horse is not performing curvilinear translation.
Now go look at Tesla’s Figure 5 with the balls attached to spokes. Tesla correctly identified the motion when the ball are free to rotate as translational motion. Why? A line through the balls remains parallel to its original position. (all the lines remain horizontal to the page) Secondly, as Tesla stated, the velocities of all points of the balls are the same, which is a requirement for curvilinear translation as well. Thirdly, the orientation of the balls do not change. Another feature of curvilinear translation.
Gordon had to redefine what translation is, and redefine what a curve is, to support his delusions. And does he provide any valid references to back him up?? Not one.
Gordon. Educated people are laughing at you. You are making a complete fool of yourself. Your ignorance of kinematics is astounding.
stupid…” We have a circular race track. The horse starts at the noon position facing west. A line through the horses direction of travel will be oriented in the east-west direction. The horse starts the race and at the 9:00 oclock position, he is now facing south”.
************
You fail to grasp the difference between parallel motion in a straight line and parallel motion on a circle/curve. In fact, you are imposing the straight-line parallel conditions on a curve then claiming the parallel lines change direction around the curve.
Parallel motion on a circle or curve is in the form of concentric circles or curves. With a radial line extending through the curves, the tangent line to each curve defines the rate of change of the curve at that point. At each instant along a curve, every particle is moving parallel to every other particle.
That does not have to be the case if like your Ferris wheel, the rigid body is on an axle. The Moon has no axle upon which it can rotate nor does a horse running a track.
Another point, all those tangent lines are parallel. If you start at 12 o’clock, facing West, as you suggested, with the tangent lines of concentric circles, they are all facing West.
Now here’s where you have to focus. We are not measuring rectilinear translation, we are measuring the motion on a curve and that is defined by the tangent line to the curve at each point. By the time the rigid body containing the particles reaches NNW, the particles are still all moving parallel to the initial motion BECAUSE WE ARE MOVING ALONG A CURVE!!!
You are confusing the situation with rectilinear translation where all points in the body move along a straight line. In that case, your assertion is correct. However, when the body moves along a curved path, the parallel movement of each particle is with respect to the curve.
There is nothing in the definition of CT which claims all particles must FACE IN THE SAME DIRECTION. If they did, they’d be moving in a straight line, which is the case at each instant of curved motion.
Curvilinear translation is the sum of instantaneous linear motions along a curve.
“Now heres where you have to focus. We are not measuring rectilinear translation, we are measuring the motion on a curve and that is defined by the tangent line to the curve at each point. By the time the rigid body containing the particles reaches NNW, the particles are still all moving parallel to the initial motion BECAUSE WE ARE MOVING ALONG A CURVE!!!”
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!. This is your problem, Pay attention. Curvilinear translation is NOT “measuring the motion on a curve and that is defined by the tangent line to the curve at each point.” That motion is NOT curvilinear translation!!!!!! That is your whole problem. You have the WRONG definition of curvilinear translation!!
The real definition of curvilinear translation….again:
“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.”
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
Another definition states, “Translation occurs if every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion.”. Same principle.
Take a circle. At the noon position of the circle, draw a tangent line. The coordinate system will be such that from the center of the circle to the noon position is north. So the tangent line at the noon position is an east west line. Now we are going to move that tangent line to the 9:oo o’clock position. The tangent line is now oriented north-south. The original position of the tangent line was east-west, Is a line oriented north-south parallel to a line oriented east-west??? NO! Therefor the the tangent line is not translating along the curve as it move from the noon position to the 9:00 o’clock position.
Tesla’s Figure 5 is an example of curvilinear translation. The half circle demarcation line for each ball is always horizontal to the coordinate system, which means that line is always parallel to the original position of the ball. This motion is exactly similar to the gondola of a ferris wheel. The orientation of the gondola, and Tesla’s balls (pun intended) do not change as they move along the curve.
A line segment through a race horse on a circular track does not remain parallel to the original direction it was facing at the starting line. So that is NOT curvilinear translation.
Get it now? I seriously doubt it.
Child, if you cling to kinematics you will never learn about orbital motion. That is what Gordon is trying to explain to you. You either have to change your textbook definitions of curvilinear and rectilinear to match orbiting, or learn orbital motion.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
…and Tesla also noted that when the balls were physically unable to rotate on their own axes, they moved as per the moon.
Anyway:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-378476
Tesla was wrong. (Ask any astronomer.)
David, please stop trolling.
Gordon squeals:
“You claim JD has never studied kinematics yet you refer to a horse running a track as ‘orbiting’ a centre!”
You clowns need to get your story straight because JD specifically stated:
“I see you are finally using the word “orbit”. That’s some progress, as the simple racehorse is a good model of orbital motion.”
Gordon squawks further:
“Are you completely mad? A powered body on a track is not orbiting anything, it is performing translation.”
I guess JD is “mad” as well? And once again, Gordon, a race horse is not performing translation. You continually use the WRONG definition of translation. Study Tesla’s unlocked balls (pun intended) shown in his Figure 5, which he correctly describes as curvilinear translation, in which the velocity of all points of the object are identical. Maybe one day this will sink in. I doubt it.
Gordon babbles some more:
“And the fact it is powered removes it from the field of kinematics.”
LMAO, Gordon!!! Thanks for confirming your FAKE degree. Do you see all the worked examples in the various kinematic lecture notes???
https://www.lcps.org/cms/lib4/VA01000195/Centricity/Domain/14819/1-D%20kinematics%20practice%20packet.pdf
The example problems include: joggers, race cars, alien spaceships, a squirrel, etc. I think these objects are all powered.
Gordon. Kinematics is a branch of classical mechanics which describes the motion of objects without consideration of the causes leading to the motion. It does not mean the object has to be un-powered!!!
Anyway:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-378476
DA…”The major feedbacks are not difficult to understand:
1. The ice-albedo feedback: ice reflects a lot of sunlight. So less ice means less reflection which means more heat ab.sorp.tion.
2. Water vapor feedback: a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. Water vapor is a strong GHG, meaning more of it creates more warming.”
You are describing negative feedbacks.
Roy explained it once. He claimed that a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback.
Once again, you cannot have positive feedback without an amplifier. There is one exception in nature involving natural resonance, like the resonance that tore apart the Tacoma-Narrows Bridge. There is absolutely no PF available in the atmosphere.
GR,
Thanks for the information.
So positive feedback is really negative feedback, just like heating is really cooling. Scientists are not scientists, and Nobel Laureates are really not Nobel Laureates.
Very confusing, this pseudoscientific GHE true believer language.
I prefer English, myself.
Cheers.
Yes, convection heating of atmosphere {cooling of the surface] is a warming effect.
As is sunlight passing thru the transparent ocean {and not heating the surface that sunlight is passing thru] is also a warming effect.
And yes, in “this pseudoscientific GHE true believer language”
gbaikie…”convection heating of atmosphere {cooling of the surface] is a warming effect”.
Yes, but the warming effect came from solar energy heating the surface and not some pseudo-scientific positive feedback.
–Yes, but the warming effect came from solar energy heating the surface and not some pseudo-scientific positive feedback.–
Yes, I think they are clueless of the ocean’s effect, and a warm ocean could appear to have a large positive feedback.
And they a lot on areas of time which have warm or very warm ocean temperatures. But probably should have ignore the very long time it takes to change the ocean’s temperature [thousands and thousands of years].
Mike…”So positive feedback is really negative feedback…”
Exactly. However, the alarmists apply the not-so-negative negative feedback as if it is real positive feedback, an impossibility in our current atmosphere. That’s why the models are all reading so high.
Gordon, is the water vapor feedback positive?
What about the ice-albedo effect?
Show your reasoning.
David Appell says: ———What about the ice-albedo effect?
Show your reasoning.—————
Yes the ice albedo effect indeed! But ice really doesn’t have an albedo effect, its the snow albedo effect in that snow really never turns to ice unless it first melts then refreezes. Ice has virtually the same albedo as the ocean.
But why limit it to snow? Lets invite the cloud albedo effect to the big party!!! Rather than shunning them and refusing to send them an invitation.
Albedo is negative feedback. Add it back into the radiation budgets as negative feedback and you will find the greenhouse effect is only 9.5degC rather than 33degC. Glad you want to consider that!
Ice albedo 0.35
Ocean water: 0.07
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
Nate says: Ice albedo 0.35 Ocean water: 0.07
——————-
This is a common misperception. Ice is clear and has virtually the same albedo as water. However when people talk of ice in climate science they are talking about ice covered with snow. Such as here:
https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/polar/ice_albedo_feedback.html
———The sea ice that floats on the Arctic Ocean is covered with snow all winter. The snow-covered ice is bright white so it absorbs very little of the solar energy that gets to it.
Ice is clear? Really? Not in my experience. Look at an ice cube.
You are full of misinformation.
Clouds have higher albedo than the rest of Earth, But they reduce radiation from the surface both in day and at night..
Nate says: ———
Ice is clear? Really? Not in my experience. Look at an ice cube.
You are full of misinformation.————-
Well I am going to drop this argument because its virtually meaningless regarding climate. Fact is all ice sheets are really packed snow. And the mass of permanent sea ice has many layers of packed snow on top of it.
Even new ice rapidly gains a reflective surface from simply being exposed to the air. But ice itself is clear if the surface has not been modified. I have handled way to much ice to not know that and I can read a newspaper through the ice my refrigerator makes using filtered water.
Nate says:
August 25, 2019 at 7:05 PM
Clouds have higher albedo than the rest of Earth, But they reduce radiation from the surface both in day and at night..
————
And they are NOT greenhouse gases.
David, please stop trolling.
GR,
What DA means is that it is not difficult to regurgitate leftist talking points. Real science and math he has no understanding.
Which talking points are those?
David is a puppet that is so dim he isn’t aware of having his strings pulled.
Bill is so paranoid, he thinks people who disagree with him cant possibly have their own opinions and knowledge. He thinks they need ‘handlers’.
Weird.
Nate says:
August 25, 2019 at 7:12 PM
Bill is so paranoid, he thinks people who disagree with him cant possibly have their own opinions and knowledge. He thinks they need handlers.
Weird.
—————–
Thats an untrue and unsupportable generalization. Believe it or not there are some of those 97% of scientists like Roy Spencer that both believe in the greenhouse effect, makes decent and unique arguments for it. However, Roy doesn’t bite on the political talking points and I am not convinced Roy has it right either.
David, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
“Positive feedback” has a different meaning in biology and electronics.
From the Oxford Dictionary.
”
positive feedback
noun
BIOLOGY
the enhancing or amplification of an effect by its own influence on the process which gives rise to it.
ELECTRONICS
the return of part of an output signal to the input, which is in phase with it, so that the amplifier gain is increased and often the output is distorted.”
When applied to climate, the meaning is similar to the biological usage, rather than the electronics usage.
E-man, why are you still attempting to pervert reality?
Definitions are just your way of playing with words. The laws of thermodynamics are NOT open to playing with words. Either you understand, appreciate and accept the laws of nature, or you reject reality.
What about the “troll feedback” when trolls feed one another back and forth in an endless loop of increasing nonsense, Is that in your Dictionary ?
If not just look in the mirror
E-man I know you might find this difficult to understand but those two are essentially the same thing-it’s just logic. However, positive feedback doesn’t happen in climate. It was something that was just fabricated to make CO2 worse than it really is. CO2 doesn’t warm the climate. It has virtually no effect on atmospheric temperature. Temperature causes CO2-not the other way around.
Temperature does not cause humans to dig up fossil fuels that have been sequestered for millions of years.
If CO2 (and presumably other GHGs) have no effect on the temperature then what explains the 0.9C of warming since 1960 and the current +0.6 W/m^2 or more imbalance on the climate system? And where is all of that positive radiative forcing by CO2 going if not into increasing the atmosphere/hydrosphere temperature?
The same natural forces that have caused temperature to fluctuate for hundreds of millions of years.
And which natural forces are causing the warming and the energy imbalance on the planet today?
–bdgwx says:
August 21, 2019 at 12:56 PM
And which natural forces are causing the warming and the energy imbalance on the planet today?–
Same ones for hundreds of millions of years.
Earth has two extreme “global climates”
The coldest is sometimes called icehouse climate.
I use term Icebox climate.
A icehouse climate has polar ice sheets and a cold ocean.
We are at the present moment in a icehouse climate and have in a icehouse climate for millions of years.
This also called an ice age, some people only think of a ice age as the time when earth in a glacial period of the ice age and don’t a interglacial period is part of the Ice Age, despite the huge clue of the word, “interglacial period”. Inter means “between” rather “end”.
And how there is zero disagreement that we are in a icehouse global climate.
We have cold ocean {3.5 C} and we have two polar icesheets.
The other extreme climate is a hothouse climate.
Which is no polar ice sheet and warm ocean.
One could argue what a warm ocean is or there conflicting definitions. I would say a ocean “always” warming than 10 C.
Since a hothouse climate is warmest type of global climate
no one would argue that ocean which had 15 C or more temperature is not a hothouse climate.
Earth has had hothouse climates, but have not had one within last 10 million years.
And between icehouse and hothouse there is not a term used, but I would merely say it’s the normal climate of Earth.
There is also a idea that Earth had a global climate called Snowball Earth, one could say it’s just variant of icehhouse, but the definition of icehouse is polar icesheets and cold ocean rather than the whole Earth being frozen.
And of course the planet Earth has experienced, stuff like the whole surface being covered with lava, but it’s not really climate- it’s not caused by sunlight, etc.
And wacko think Earth could have another extreme climate- earth being like Venus. Caused by sunlight at 1 AU distance from the sun. Which is hopelessly dumb.
bdgwx, there is no “…current +0.6 W/m^2 or more imbalance”. You are going by the bogus “energy balance”, which is…BOGUS!
b,
Warming is caused by heat, not CO2. There is no “energy imbalance” which creates warming – the only imbalance is that of the minds of pseudoscientific GHE true believers.
Things warm up when heated, and cool when the heat source is absent. Currently, at least 150, 000 TWh of excess heat per annum is due to human energy production. This continues in the absence of sunlight, and even when the weather is cold, cloudy or raining.
I suppose some people, like BEST, will claim that this excess heat cannot be detected by thermometers. This would seem to fly in the face of well-documented instances of UHI. BEST’s claim that UHIs make no difference to global temperatures seems odd, unless the rules of mathematics have been changed without me noticing them.
If a collection of numbers is averaged, and then some of these numbers are replaced with greater ones, then the average is larger – this is the way it is.
It also happens to be a fact that most thermometers have historically been sited where they can be reliably read – where humans and their heat producing activities are located. Maybe pseudoscientific GHE true believers have misled themselves by confusing cause and effect – generating heat by burning stuff creates heat, CO2 and H2O. Thermometers react to heat, not CO2 or H2O.
Believe as you wish. Ill stick to thermometers reacting to heat – not to a mythical GHE.
Cheers.
Another jewel, Mike: “…the only imbalance is that of the minds of pseudoscientific GHE true believers.”
bdgwx says:
And which natural forces are causing the warming and the energy imbalance on the planet today?
———————–
Clouds are pretty chaotic to say the least. It appears ocean oscillations can do it both by expelling heat and sucking heat in. 97% of the scientists jumped all over that answer during the pause.
But after the math was done and found out that wasn’t enough, the scientists pored over 600,000,000 temperature reading and ran hundreds of different algorithms for spreading the heat around and got it all figured out.
Darned good we got that fixed! Who knows what folks might have started thinking if we hadn’t!
Where did those scientists publish? Got a link?
David Appell says: “Where did those scientists publish? Got a link?”
————-
Gee David are you saying they made all those temperature adjustments without looking at all the records??????
Not true JD, if you fixed the string at the Sun and tied one end to the X or Y axis the string would wrap around the Moon.
Stephen, why do you need to pervert the simple example? Why do you need to change the example, so you can then claim “not true”?
Do you crave perversion and corruption?
JD,
What are you talking about? Perversion? So if someone makes a solid counter argument that is perversion or corruption? Paranoia will destroy ya!
Stephen, I’m not going to waste anymore time with you until you can make sense.
You perverted and corrupted the simple example so you could then claim it is “not true”.
Then you go into denial about what you did by claiming it was a “solid counter argument”!
JD,
I didn’t pervert or corrupt the example. I showed you the fallacy of your example.
Ger*an/JDH is taking his ball and going home!
That’ll show ’em.
It’s not a solid counter-argument, it’s just missing the point. The “wrapping around the string” or not distinguishes between an object “rotating about a central point without axial rotation” (orbiting), and “rotating about a central point with axial rotation. Attach the string to anything but the central point, and you’ve completely escaped the meaning behind the exercise.
No it isn’t missing the point. It is orbiting about the central point but it is rotating around its own axis. If the string is tied to the central point and the object only rotates around its axis once for each orbit that it rotates around its central point then the string would never wrap around the object. But, it still doesn’t mean it is not rotating once around its axis for each orbit.
Factually incorrect. Rotation about a central point, with no axial rotation, is as per the motion of the ball on a string. All parts of the ball are moving in concentric circles about the central point. That is simply how “rotation about a central point” is defined.
So for the ball to be rotating about the central point, and rotating on its own axis, would require the ball to wrap around the string.
You are confused because astronomy foolishly does not define “orbital motion”, or “revolution”, as a rotation about a central point. That’s why you see the moon’s motion wrongly defined as a “revolution” plus a “rotation on its own axis”.
A rotation about a central point, with no axial rotation, is already motion as per a ball on a string, or the moon. So add axial rotation to that motion, and the string wraps, or you see all sides of the moon from Earth.
But that’s with the central point as the reference frame. If you extend the Z axis up from the reference point and mark a point on one of the concentric circles and then half way around the orbit as you’re looking down from the Z axis the point is in the opposite direction so the point on the concentric circle has rotated half way around with the string still tied to the central point.
…meaning only that the ball has rotated about the central point, and not on its own axis.
No, meaning all the concentric circles are rotating about a central axis.
No, meaning that the ball has rotated about the central point, and not on its own axis.
stephen…”If the string is tied to the central point and the object only rotates around its axis once for each orbit that it rotates around its central point then the string would never wrap around the object”.
*******
The point on the ball where it attaches to the string must rotate through 360 degrees starting at that point. That means it would have to take the string with it and wrap itself around the string once.
I know it looks very much like the Moon is rotating once per orbit but a really close examination reveals it is not. Think of the Moon as traveling in a straight line with the force of gravity gradually bending it in a circle.
Now replace gravity with a radial line from Earth’s centre and have the radial line extend through the Moon. Each point on that radial line is turning in concentric circles around the axis and that is true for the portion of the radial line extending through the Moon.
Each point on the radial line through the Moon is orbiting in concentric circles. That means the dark side surface is outside the near side surface and the axis. All three are turning in concentric circles.
That situation gives the appearance of local rotation but that rotation is impossible when the dark side is always along a radial line outside the near face. No local rotation is possible.
Gordon, define “rotation.”
I’ll give you a planet. How will you determine if it’s rotating or not?
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Nothing is orbiting. I’m asking about a single celestial body. Or, say, a merry go round.
How do you know if it’s rotating?
David Appell says: ———Gordon, define rotation.
Ill give you a planet. How will you determine if its rotating or not?
David is getting desperate. He knows full well that we defined two types of rotation, one an orbit rotation and a second independent (coincidentally is fine) spin on its axis as a separate and disconnected from the process of process of being rotated by an orbit.
A tidal locked moon cannot spin independent of its orbit.
Let’s use Fatvid’s favorite gif to illustrate the point:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
As Fatvid notes, the moon on the left is moving as per our moon, or a ball on a string. And, that moon is rotating about a central point, and not on its own axis.
The moon on the right, is moving as per astronomy’s wrong definition of “orbital motion without axial rotation” or “revolution without axial rotation”. Add CCW axial rotation to the moon on the right, at the same rate as the “revolution”, and you get their erroneous “synchronous rotation”.
Add any axial rotation to the moon on the left, at any rate and in either direction, and you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
The moon on the left, moving like a ball on a string, is rotating about a central point, and not on its own axis, and that should be how “orbital motion without axial rotation”, or “revolution without axial rotation”, is defined. Because that is the correct representation of what “orbital motion” actually is.
The depiction on the left is exactly what I’ve been describing and if you look at the Moon on the left it is rotating about an axis running perpendicular to the plane of the screen and through the Moon’s center.
stephen…”The depiction on the left is exactly what Ive been describing and if you look at the Moon on the left it is rotating about an axis running perpendicular to the plane of the screen and through the Moons center”.
Look at the gif very carefully. Imagine a radial line from Earth’s centre through the Moon to the far side. As the Moon orbits, with that in mind, focus on the far side where the imaginary radial line meets the far side.
Is it turning in its own concentric circle and does it ever rotate locally to the point where it leaves that radial line? If it doesn’t leave the radial line it is not rotating locally.
You can watch all three points at the imaginary radial line: the near side, the centre, and the far side. All three turn in concentric circles wrt the axial point of the radial line.
In essence, if that radial line was a rigid member, the near side, centre, and far side would be attached to it and the Moon could not turn locally. Yet it would show the same thing as the gif.
So then Gordon, what is your definition of “rotation?” For ANY arbitrary body, including one all by itself.
The moon on the left is rotating about a central point, and not on its own axis. That is simply how “rotation about a central point” is defined. All particles making up the moon on the left are moving in concentric circles about the central point.
Every single thing I have said has gone straight over your head.
No, nothing you’ve said has gone over my head. You can define it any way you want but reality needs no definition. If you were able to draw a point on the edge of the Moon on the left and a point at the center and whited out everything else you would see the outer point moving around the central point in a circular fashion-that’s rotation.
…rotation about the central point. The moon on the left is rotating about the central point, and not on its own axis.
If the Moon isn’t rotating about its own axis, why doesn’t the dark path always face in the same direction?
dark *patch*
…because the moon on the left is rotating about the central point, and not on its own axis.
What criteria did you use to determine the Moon on the left ISN’T rotating about its own axis?
…basic knowledge about rotation. You seem to be unaware that “rotation about a central point” is as per the the moon on the left. Your ignorance is not my responsibility.
What basic knowledge about rotation?
You can’t even define it!
Erm…OK, David.
Clowns that believe a racehorse rotates on its axis must also believe a jet plane flies upside-down while circumnavigating the globe, to be consistent.
Of course, clowns aren’t consistent.
That’s why they’re clowns….
A fish doesn’t know what mathematics is either.
I am simply stating facts about rotation.
Define rotation.
Specify how to operationally determine if a celestial body is rotating. What’s the algorithm?
Are kids on a merry-go-round rotating?
Why or why not?
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
JDHuffman says: ———Clowns that believe a racehorse rotates on its axis must also believe a jet plane flies upside-down while circumnavigating the globe, to be consistent.———-
LOL!
David Appell says: ———Specify how to operationally determine if a celestial body is rotating. Whats the algorithm?————
In this world for the moon rotating on its own axis probably only possible place is as change order cost hike in a government budget.
Line Item C4-89665 – Put spin on moon $4,500,000,000
Bill, I think you choose here to be unserious, because you know what a serious answer means….
David, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
I didn’t ask about orbiting.
I’m asking about a single body. How do you decide if it’s rotating or not?
Why do you keep avoiding this question???
Maybe you want me to say something like “you could see the stars moving from a location on the body”. The only trouble is, it’s not as simple as that. I think you realize that, and I think that’s why you keep pushing it. That could be true for a body moving in a straight line, whilst rotating on its own axis, or for a body somehow motionless in space whilst rotating on its own axis.
But when you are distinguishing between orbital motion and axial rotation, the problem is more complicated. That’s why I find this:
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation. Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Provides greater clarity.
stephen…”you would see the outer point moving around the central point in a circular fashion-thats rotation…”
What you are seeing is an illusion. No offense intended, but your mind is playing with you just like when you see the Sun appear to move across the sky.
Keep staring at that gif till it reveals the truth. It should make you at least smile when the reality comes forth.
Is it an illusion the X and Y axes change orientation?
…the orientation changes because the moon on the left is rotating about a central point, and not on its own axis.
stephen…”Is it an illusion the X and Y axes change orientation?”
The illusion is that the far side and near side seem to rotate around the local axis because they change position throughout the orbit. They are changing position wrt to the back ground stars, not to each other. In fact, all three remain on a radial line throughout the entire orbit.
A really close examination shows there is no local rotation. It’s very easy to be fooled by this apparent rotation.
Think about what has been offered, very recently in fact by dremt.
All points, near side, far side, AND AXIS, are turning in concentric circles about the Earth. Think about that carefully Stephen, rather than rushing an answer. If the three are turning in concentric circles they cannot cross other concentric circles as is required by local rotation.
Come on, you’re a good skeptic. You saw through the scam of AGW, you can do this. Make Tesla happy.
GR,
I see the concentric circles. I understand your view. I think it’s wrong.
Gordon Robertson says:
The illusion is that the far side and near side seem to rotate around the local axis because they change position throughout the orbit. They are changing position wrt to the back ground stars,
That’s the definition of rotation.
not to each other.
In other words, the Moon is a solid body. We knew that.
they are changing position wrt to the background stars because the moon on the left is rotating about a central point, and not on its own axis.
The Moon on the right is also orbiting around a central point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
they are changing position wrt to the background stars because the moon on the left is rotating about a central point, and not on its own axis.
What criteria did you use to determine the moon on the left is not rotating about its own axis?
Gordon Robertson says:
All points, near side, far side, AND AXIS, are turning in concentric circles about the Earth. Think about that carefully Stephen, rather than rushing an answer. If the three are turning in concentric circles they cannot cross other concentric circles as is required by local rotation.
Why? Define “rotation.”
Gordon, if the Earth’s rotation rate were slowed down to one cycle (day) per year, it would satisfy your concentric circle condition.
Yet clearly it would still be rotating.
“The Moon on the right is also orbiting around a central point.”
If you consider the moon on the right to be making one single motion, then that motion is not a rotation about a central point.
‘If you consider the moon on the right to be making one single motion, then that motion is not a rotation about a central point.’
More accurately, it is not undergoing rigid body rotation about a central point.
Nor is the real Moon. So the point is Moot.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
If you consider the moon on the right to be making one single motion, then that motion is not a rotation about a central point.
What does “one single motion” even mean??
Is the Earth undergoing “one single motion” as it goes around the Sun?
Well David, “one single motion” means one single motion.
No, the Earth is both “rotating about a central point” and it’s rotating on its own axis. More than one single motion.
“Rotating about a central point” is defined as motion like the moon on the left. That definition is not restricted in any way, as far as I’m aware. See here:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
A ball on the end of a string moves as per the moon on the left, you see.
So the article is actually in error, because in reality astronomy defines “revolution” as per the motion of the moon on the right. But it does prove what I’m saying about “rotation about a central point”, and shows there are no limitations on that definition, winning that one for me.
stephen…”GR,
I see the concentric circles. I understand your view. I think its wrong”.
What do you think is wrong about it? If the axis is orbiting in an inner concentric circle, between the dark side circle and the near side circle, and all three are orbiting aligned ON A RADIAL LINE, how can there be local rotation about an axis?
nate…”More accurately, it is not undergoing rigid body rotation about a central point.
Nor is the real Moon”.
Then what do you call a mass orbiting the Earth?
You fail to understand the mechanics of orbital motion. The Moon is a rigid body and it is rotating on an imaginary radial line around the centre of the Earth.
If you want to be picky you can talk a barycentre but it is within the mass of the Earth. The Moon is effectively rotating about the Earth.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
———
No, the Earth is both rotating about a central point and its rotating on its own axis. More than one single motion.——–
Yes thats key to understanding. Perspective is important. Its a basic issue in philosophy where a round coin is tilted and appears “oval” to the eye. So is the coin round or oval? Well its round but to our perspective it appears oval. Astronomists may percieve better order in the universe by peering in from the outside, but it creates error in properly describing the universe.
So the earth having two rotations is key. The earth like the moon was believed to first be rotating on their axes before becoming captured in their orbits. The orbital capturing introduced its own rotation and the capturing itself had no effect on the existing rotation.
But the moon has a bulge and over time the gravity of the earth eventually slowed the moon’s apriori rotation to zero, which is the definition of tidal locking.
The moral of the lesson is that for true understanding one cannot rely purely on perception. One must reconstruct/reengineer something to completely understand it. This is a point of major disconnect for academic science where they percieve CO2 as being the cause of recent warming, but have yet to fully reconstruct it in a scientific manner such that all the parts are known to work in accordance with proven science.
This is the precise point that Gerlich and Tscheuschner attempted to hammer home, but instead were attacked for failing themselves to reconstruct the whole thing. It was kind of like watching two guys trying to fix something. The first guy doesn’t succeed then criticizes the second guy when he doesn’t either.
Gor, ‘The Moon is a rigid body’ yes and free to spin on its own axis, Gravity does nothing to constrain it.
What DREMT is always yamering about is a rigid body rigidly attached to its axis.
Not the case for the Moon, which is not rigidly attached to the Earth.
“But the moon has a bulge and over time the gravity of the earth eventually slowed the moons apriori rotation to zero, which is the definition of tidal locking.”
Which is not quite the correct definition of tidal locking, is it. I love how you guys have no shame about altering facts and definitions until they match your beliefs.
Correction:
But the moon has a bulge and over time the gravity of the earth eventually slowed the moons apriori rotation to match its orbital angular velocity, which is the definition of tidal locking.
“Its a basic issue in philosophy where a round coin is tilted and appears ‘oval’ to the eye. So is the coin round or oval? Well its round but to our perspective it appears oval. Astronomists may percieve better order in the universe by peering in from the outside, but it creates error in properly describing the universe.”
Personally I prefer the accurate description of the universe provided by physicists and astronomers, that for 300 y has been the framework for all the discoveries that followed, over a hand-waving erroneous replacement model offered by arm-chair philosophists.
But maybe that’s just me….oh and most scientists and engineers who have to make things work.
“The Moon is a rigid body and it is rotating on an imaginary radial line around the centre of the Earth.”
As my thoughtco.com link shows, “rotation about a central point” is defined as per the motion of a ball on a string, and there is no restriction on this definition such that it only applies to a rigid body, rigidly connected to the axis. It applies to all instances of “rotation about a central point.”
Nate says:
August 26, 2019 at 5:21 AM
But the moon has a bulge and over time the gravity of the earth eventually slowed the moons apriori rotation to zero, which is the definition of tidal locking.
Which is not quite the correct definition of tidal locking, is it. I love how you guys have no shame about altering facts and definitions until they match your beliefs.
Correction:
But the moon has a bulge and over time the gravity of the earth eventually slowed the moons apriori rotation to match its orbital angular velocity, which is the definition of tidal locking.
==========
==========
==========
That doesn’t change anything Nate. The bulge does not rotate around the moon. It did when the moon was still rotating on its own.
Now the moon does not have a rotation of its own it rotates around the center of the earth. Just like we have been trying to hammer home. Bringing up angular velocity is just a vain attempt to obscure what is really going on.
‘and there is no restriction on this definition such that it only applies to a rigid body, rigidly connected to the axis. It applies to all instances of “rotation about a central point.’
Again fact-ignorer-in-chief, the Moon is not moving as if it is rigidly attached to the Earth:
-Its angular speed changes significantly during its orbit
-Its distance from the orbit axis changes significantly
-It librates and doesnt always keep the same side aligned to the center.
-It has a rotational axis tilted 6.7 degrees wrt the orbital axis. In the rigid-rotator model such an axis doesnt even exist!
None of these facts agree with a rigid rotator model.
There is no good reason to force the Moon to fit a model that doesnt work.
As your oft-quoted textbook explains:
Motion is either:
1. Pure tranlation
2. Pure rotation-such as a rigid rotator
3. Or a combination of translation and axial rotation.
The Moon is not 1, or 2. It must be 3.
So, just to repeat, for Gordon’s benefit:
<l“…there is no restriction on this definition such that it only applies to a rigid body, rigidly connected to the axis. It applies to all instances of “rotation about a central point.””
How can I make that clearer?
The moon doesn’t have to behave as though it is rigidly connected. The definition of “rotating about a central point”, whereby it moves like a ball on a string, in a series of concentric circles about the central point, doesn’t only apply to a rigid body, rigidly connected.
As the thoughtco.com linked showed.
I think that should be clear enough.
Nate says:
Personally I prefer the accurate description of the universe provided by physicists and astronomers, that for 300 y has been the framework for all the discoveries that followed, over a hand-waving erroneous replacement model offered by arm-chair philosophists.
But maybe thats just me.oh and most scientists and engineers who have to make things work.
============
============
============
Engineers make things work. Scientists sometimes makes things work. Those engineers and scientists that make things that work are in need of rather basic philosophy in the fields of definitions, semantics, and logic in describing what they “perceive” their experiment is doing. Many errors are made in not closely adhering to this.
Theoretical scientists are even in more need to philosophy training as they are not making anything work at all, no experiments, no real world things. Accountants encounter philosophy in their work with numbers. Some numbers like total sales from transactions are a hard observable number. However, in estimating say the value of a security such as a mortagage derivative an accountant must be keenly aware of misvaluing the value of such a security on the basis of form (a series of hard currency transactions in the future) vs the substance (changing interest rates, foreclosures, etc). These types of form over substance transactions have been fingered as playing a huge role in the last two major market collapses. Excessive risk arbitrage based upon concepts of hard values in soft value securities led to a lot of expectations that did not pan out when these investments were actually viewed as reducing risk via a belief they hedged other investments based on the idea of “following the money” expecting the hedge investments to perform the opposite way of the investors portfolio.
Now we are talking about the world’s best investors here. Folks highly trained and experienced in their professions. Blowing a basic philosophical “perception” issue.
Climate science is at dire risk of the same thing, a theoretical theory based upon dodgy heat transfer through a turbulent gas being driven by a lapse rate, complete with evaporation, condensation, and precipitation of water. No experiment at all. Different sets of blueprints of the effect in dozens of blackbox models spewing out an ungodly range of different results. . . .and you believe the science is settled. ROTFLMAO!!! As PT Barnum used to say there is a sucker born every minute.
Bill,
Deny all you want. You still changed the definition of tidal locking to suit your argument.
Thats known as cheating.
“That doesnt change anything Nate.”
Yes it does. The real definition of tidal locking has the Moon spinning on its axis WHILE translating along an elliptical path (orbit), per the universal definitions of these motions.
It accounts accurately for the Moons obliquity and libration, while non-spinning models just cannot.
Bill,
Aristotle’s and Descartes models of motion were based on their philosophy and were still wrong.
If your models don’t agree with the observations, then it doesnt matter a whit if you claim they are based on ‘philosophy’.
‘How can I make that clearer?’
Easy, by dealing honestly with the rebuttals of your arguments, rather than ignoring them.
So, once again, in case there was any confusion:
“The moon doesn’t have to behave as though it is rigidly connected. The definition of “rotating about a central point”, whereby it moves like a ball on a string, in a series of concentric circles about the central point, doesn’t only apply to a rigid body, rigidly connected.
As the thoughtco.com link showed.”
It doesn’t have to behave as though it is rigidly connected.
It doesn’t have to behave as though it is rigidly connected.
It doesn’t have to behave as though it is rigidly connected.
It doesn’t have to behave as though it is rigidly connected.
And tru to form, the not quite grown up DREMT, thinks if just yells louder and repetitively, he wins the argument.
Yet he he still refuses to deal honestly with the facts that counter his argument.
‘he definition of ‘rotating about a central point’, whereby it moves like a ball on a string, in a series of concentric circles about the central point’
Not moving like a rigid rotator, not like a ball on string, not like a horse, not like a car, not any of these..
And BTW, I do not like Green eggs and Ham.
‘It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.’
You are seeing things in this article that are not there, just as you did with Newton’s cannonball.
This article is not helping your cause in any way. It simply telling us what we all agree on, that planets are orbiting and balls on strings are orbiting.
It is not DEFINING orbit to be like the Moon’s orbit.
It is simply saying orbit means ‘going around’ something outside of the object.
Well David, “one single motion” means one single motion, you see.
No, the Earth is both “rotating about a central point” and it’s rotating on its own axis. More than one single motion.
“Rotating about a central point” is defined as motion like the moon on the left. That definition is not restricted in any way, as far as I’m aware. See here:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
A ball on the end of a string moves as per the moon on the left, you see.
So the article is actually in error, because in reality astronomy defines “revolution” as per the motion of the moon on the right. But it does prove what I’m saying about “rotation about a central point”, and shows there are no limitations on that definition, winning that one for me.
Nate says:———
Again fact-ignorer-in-chief, the Moon is not moving as if it is rigidly attached to the Earth:
-Its angular speed changes significantly during its orbit
-Its distance from the orbit axis changes significantly
-It librates and doesnt always keep the same side aligned to the center.
-It has a rotational axis tilted 6.7 degrees wrt the orbital axis. In the rigid-rotator model such an axis doesnt even exist!
None of these facts agree with a rigid rotator model.
There is no good reason to force the Moon to fit a model that doesnt work.
None of those items are in disagreement with a rigid connection to an rotator arm. To engineer such a device all you need to do is weld a magnetic sphere to the end of an extensible rotator arm to allow the attraction of the magnet to vary both speed and distance from the axis of the rotator arm. The inclination of the orbit would provide for the libration of the top and bottom of the moon from an observtion point on the rotating shell surrounding the rotator arm everywhere but in the path of the arm. This isn’t going to look much different than a carnival octopus ride except that the octopus ride varies the inclination of the rotation and doesn’t usually have extensible arms.
So not one of the conditions you listed is impossible to engineer. In a steel rotating carnival ride. As a kid I remember this ride as the barf ride at Pacific Ocean Park. Riding it frequently put you in the flying barf zone.
https://tinyurl.com/y53gqv5f
Nate says: ———Bill,
Deny all you want. You still changed the definition of tidal locking to suit your argument.
Thats known as cheating.
That doesnt change anything Nate.
Yes it does. The real definition of tidal locking has the Moon spinning on its axis WHILE translating along an elliptical path (orbit), per the universal definitions of these motions.
It accounts accurately for the Moons obliquity and libration, while non-spinning models just cannot.————–
So after blowing apart your last argument you are now resorting to hand waving?
Gordon sputters:
“Each point on the radial line through the Moon is orbiting in concentric circles. That means the dark side surface is outside the near side surface and the axis. All three are turning in concentric circles. That situation gives the appearance of local rotation but that rotation is impossible when the dark side is always along a radial line outside the near face. No local rotation is possible.”
This is the problem with clown physics. The local rotation he refers to is in reference to a local reference frame that is rotating at the same angular velocity as the radial line he refers to. So, obviously, the moon does not and cannot rotate wrt that reference frame. But then Gordon assumes that the moon therefore cannot rotate at all, since he has clearly stated:
“If a body is not rotating about its axis in one reference frame it is not rotating about its axis in any reference frame.”
Which is a load of horse manure.
Let’s say we have a spinning merry-go-round. A clown is firmly standing at the center of the merry-go-round, with his clown feet glued to the floor. According to Gordon’s clown physics, the clown CANNOT rotate locally. That is true. The clown does not and cannot rotate wrt the floor of the merry-go-round. But according to Gordon, the clown is not rotating on his own axis in ANY reference frame, either. This is clown physics in action. They use a combination of the inertial reference frame, and a non-inertial rotating reference frame to come up with their silly clown arguments. Tesla used the same gimmick with his Figure 5 and the rotating balls.
“A clown is firmly standing at the center of the merry-go-round, with his clown feet glued to the floor. According to Gordon’s clown physics, the clown CANNOT rotate locally…”
That’s not what anybody is saying. You just can’t get it through your head.
If a clown is standing anywhere but the center of the merry-go-round, he is rotating about an axis at the center of the merry-go-round, and not on his own axis, from any reference frame. If he is standing at the center, he is rotating on his own axis.
‘If a clown is standing anywhere but the center of the merry-go-round, he is rotating about an axis at the center of the merry-go-round, and not on his own axis, from any reference frame.’
OK. his motion certainly can be described that way.
But can his motion ALSO be described as a combo of orbit of his CM around the center, PLUS CM axis rotation?
Your favorite textbook claims that his motion CAN BE described that way.
AND His angular momentum certainly CAN be calculated by a CM part and a axial rotation part.
AND as shown by Tesla, the axial rotation would continue with the same angular velocity if he were flung off the merry-go-round at the speed of his CM.
And thus, the axial rotation portion of his angular momentum would be conserved if he were flung off the merry-go-round, as it should be!
Then when you have to describe motion that is NOT purely a rotation, like the Moon’s, the COMBO description becomes much more useful for understanding whats going on with Poles and libration etc.
Thus, all in all it is looking like the COMBO description is valid, physically motivated, and useful.
Why should we try to avoid using it?
DREMT,
‘Rotating about a central point’ is defined as motion like the moon on the left. That definition is not restricted in any way, as far as Im aware.’
NOPE FALSE.
It is not defined that way anywhere in your article. You are imagining things that are not there.
A ball on a string is ONE example. A planet orbiting like Earth is another.
Clearly BOTH must be fitting the definition, which is vaguely given as ‘going around’ another object.
So, David, to continue with what I was explaining to you…when you think about, it’s kind of obvious, or at least it should be.
For an object rotating on its own axis, like a merry-go-round, all parts of that merry-go-round are rotating about an axis in its center. All parts of that merry-go-round are moving in concentric circles about that central axis.
So of course “rotation about a central point” (where that point lies outside of the body in question) is going to be defined the same way. The object moves around that central point such that all parts of the body are again moving in concentric circles about it. Like the “moon on the left”.
So, yes, concentric circles, concentric ellipses, that’s going to indicate your “rotation about a central point”. No restrictions, no “only applies to rigid bodies rigidly attached to the axis” or anything silly like that. Just a general fact about rotation.
Now, how astronomy actually defines “revolution”, or “orbital motion”, is like the “moon on the right”, instead…and as I said, that motion, if you consider it to be “one single motion”…that’s not a rotation! In fact, HGS will hyper-aggressively and relentlessly insist that it’s “curvilinear translation”.
Weird how people want to claim the moon has orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum when they don’t even think “orbital motion” is a rotation!
Oh and ‘That definition is not restricted in any way, as far as Im aware.’
Clearly it is ‘not restricted in any way’ to orbiting while always facing the center, is it..
IOW you are not making much sense.
…and here’s another source, confirming what I just explained:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.”
“So of course ‘rotation about a central point’ (where that point lies outside of the body in question) is going to be defined the same way. The object moves around that central point such that all parts of the body are again moving in concentric circles about it. Like the ‘moon on the left’.”
A definition YOU have in mind. Too bad its not written in your source that way!
“Weird how people want to claim the moon has orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum when they dont even think orbital motion is a rotation!”
Nothing weird about it if you have ever cracked open a physics book!
Orbital angular momentum is MVR and even a point mass with linear velocity flying past a point in space has it.
Spin angular momentum is what it sounds like, due to rotation on an objects CM.
‘Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.’
Duh! Nobody has said otherwise. Stop generating strawmen!
This is where you are being totally inconsistent in this thread.
That description is of a rigid body rotation. Then you whine that you are not talking about rigid body rotation!
But here is the definition of what you claim to not be talking about!
What we are saying is that an orbit, a planetary orbit, is not defined that way!
And the Moon’s motion certainly does not fit that description!
So just to clarify a couple of points for David:
1) the distinction is between a rigid body rigidly attached to the axis, and a rigid body not rigidly attached to the axis. My sources show that “rotation about a central point” is as per the moon on the left, in both cases.
2) astronomy erroneously defines “orbital motion” as per the moon on the right, not the moon in the left.
‘None of those items are in disagreement with a rigid connection to an rotator arm. To engineer such a device all you need to do is weld a magnetic sphere to the end of an extensible rotator arm to allow the attraction of the magnet to vary both speed and distance from the axis of the rotator arm. ‘
Bill, An extensible arm with variable magnetic attraction(?!) is not remotely equivalent to a rigid arm.
Any device that enables “vary both speed and distance from the axis” is not equivalent to motion on a rigid arm.
How ridiculous!
A rigid connection model of the motion is simply not applicable here, but you are doubling down on it..
“The inclination of the orbit would provide for the libration of the top and bottom of the moon from an observtion point on the rotating shell surrounding the rotator arm everywhere but in the path of the arm.”
You are showing that you do not fully understand libration of the Moon.
Iinclination of orbit is insufficient to explain the libration we see. It is coming also from axial tilt, and elliptical orbit with varying angular speed, with a constant spin velocity, gives longitudinal libration.
‘None of these items are in disagreement”
You ignored this:
“-It has a rotational axis tilted 6.7 degrees wrt the orbital axis. In the rigid-rotator model such an axis doesnt even exist!”
‘1) the distinction is between a rigid body rigidly attached to the axis, and a rigid body not rigidly attached to the axis. ‘
Look how far youve come from your original description of the MOON moving like FIG 2b, the rigid-body-rotator.
‘a rigid body not rigidly attached to the axis.’,
YES a body completely free to rotate as it pleases and move closer and farther, and speed up and slow down.
IOW nothing like Fig 2b, and instead exactly OUR description of the MOON!
‘My sources show that ‘rotation about a central point’ is as per the moon on the left, in both cases.’
Except you can’t point it out anywhere in your source.
If an object is not rigidly attached and not constrained, and can tilt its axis, librate, move closer and farther speed up slow down than NOPE that is not simply ROTATION about a central point, is it?
This is getting truly hilarious.
Not sure why you keep calling me David.
So, apropos of nothing, that second source again:
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.”
‘Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.’
That is a description of a rigid-body-rotator, like your Fig 2b from wayback. Yes? Go back and look.
But in this thread you have been insisting that is NOT what you are talking about.
Indeed, the Moon is NOT moving like a rigid body rotator, which is what Ive been telling you.
Now, You’re looping and arguing with yourself, it appears.
Actually, for this point:
“1) the distinction is between a rigid body rigidly attached to the axis, and a rigid body not rigidly attached to the axis. My sources show that “rotation about a central point” is as per the moon on the left, in both cases.”
I haven’t included my source for the case where the body is rigidly attached. So, just for completeness:
http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Page 4 of 28, Fig. 2(b).
“…the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
I’ve linked to this before, and there was a lot of troll activity at the time, with them suggesting that my argument was that the moon was actually rigidly attached to the Earth-moon barycenter! I know, I know, attacking a straw man that ridiculous seems completely pathetic, but that is what we are up against on here. So, I’m glad to have linked to the other sources which show no such rigid attachment is necessary, for the “concentric circles/ellipses = rotation about a central point” definition to apply. As you can see, in the other sources, there is no mention of any rigid connection between the axis and the object. Maybe that will stop the trolls, going forward. Who knows?
N.B: Those paying attention to what has been written in the thread will note that I was forced to repeat my August 24, 7:45pm comment at August 26, 2:29pm. This was due to some troll activity on the thread. I had to repeat some comments to Gordon, earlier, for similar reasons. Hopefully David will have all the information he needs now, and will soon respond, with no further troll interference.
The confusion is this,
‘1) the distinction is between a rigid body rigidly attached to the axis, and a rigid body not rigidly attached to the axis. My sources show that ‘rotation about a central point’ is as per the moon on the left, in both cases.’
Your idea seems to be that simply detaching the body from the axis, but having it move exactly the same way as an attached object is somehow a DISTINCTION for you.
But the MOTION is identical. So it is a distinction with no purpose.
If you want to make a real difference then it needs to be detached from the axis and free to move away from the axis and tilt etc, like the Moon.
But THEN it will no longer be TRUE that:
“very particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. “
“4.0 General Plane Motion
A general plane motion can always be considered as the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
From your source. Exactly what I was talking about here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-380595
Do you agree that the Moon is NOT undergoing a pure Rotation?
Then it is a more general motion that can be “considered as the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
Nate says: Bill, An extensible arm with variable magnetic attraction(?!) is not remotely equivalent to a rigid arm.
——————
Boy you really are clueless. Rigidity was offered here purely as a bar against rotation of a ball welded to the end of the arm.
A telescope by definition telescopes. And it it weren’t rigid the optics would be screwed.
You are either incredibly stupid or you have gravitated into mindless trolling. Either way its a dead brain.
“You are either incredibly stupid or you have gravitated into mindless trolling. ”
That’s nice, Bill.
Mindless trolling is what you are doing.
The rigid rotator model is a MODEL that you guys have been using to try to claim that gravity constrains orbits.
If you modify that model by some hair-brained mechanism, to make it no longer rigid, then what’s the point?
Then you have a totally different, non-rigid and non-physical model.
The way we are describing orbital motion, planets or Moons are free to move closer and farther, free to spin at different rates, as in fact the various planets do.
Yes Bill, unfortunately there has been a lot of troll activity in this sub-thread. In fact there’s so much wildly ridiculous misrepresentation going on it’s unreal. It doesn’t look like David, or Gordon, or HGS are going to reply, so I guess that’s that.
‘Yes Bill, unfortunately there has been a lot of troll activity in this sub-thread.’
Troll (DREMT dictionary) –
-a poster who successfully rebuts your arguments with facts and logic, for which you have no answers, forcing you to resort to childish behavior, insults, distractions, red herrings.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Yes Bill, unfortunately there has been a lot of troll activity in this sub-thread.
—————
Yep you know the troll brain-dead zombies have taken over when an arm with sufficient rigidity to hold a round ball at its end without rotating is no longer rigid because its made extensible to follow an elliptical orbit.
Absolutely…and look at David’s comment immediately below this sub-thread:
Quoting me: ““The moon on the left, moving like a ball on a string, is rotating about a central point, and not on its own axis”
[David]: The Moon is [in] rotation about both points.”
That has been proven false. If it was in rotation about a central point, and rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. What astronomers currently define as “revolution”, or “orbital motion”, is therefore not a rotation. It’s motion like the moon on the right, here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Whereas “rotating about a central point” is like the moon on the left.
I can say with confidence that this won’t stop Appell, or others (like Stephen P Anderson) from returning and repeating the exact same falsehood again and again. I can also say with confidence that those on their side of the argument that know better will do nothing to correct them…
‘What astronomers currently define as ‘revolution’, or ‘orbital motion’, is therefore not a rotation. Its motion like the moon on the right, here’
So it is not a rotation, call it orbit if you like.
Whatever you call it, it is one object going around another.
And it is an object with angular momentum relative to the center, MVR.
Now take that object, that you say is NOT ROTATING, and ADD spin to it by firing rocket engines horizontally from its surface.
IOW add rotation about the CM in the same direction as its orbit.
Now it HAS ROTATION, I think we all agree.
And it has MORE angular momentum than before. It has MVR +1/2 I omega^2.
And now it is moving like the Moon (except for libration).
Yes?
So we started with something with NO rotation, but orbiting. We add spin to it, ie axial rotation.
And we get an orbit like the Moon!
So what do we disagree on?
And, shockingly, crickets..
You can always respond to intermediaries like David, as you tend to do, DREMT.
Nate its good to see you guys backing off in this argument.
The fact is the moon does not have a rotation of its own. It does not have a rotation outside of that control. If it did it would not stay focused on the earth. Libration of the moon is simply caused by a combination of the inclination of the moon’s orbit, the position of an observer on earth relative to the moon (which side of the earth is on at moonrise and moonset), and the eccentricity of the moon’s orbit. None of this is independent motion of the moon its all simply a changing perspective of the observer. The only one that even involves a motion of the moon is its gravity controlled eccentric orbit.
Some orbiting bodies have rotations independent of direct gravitational influence of another body. The earth is an example of that.
The moon is like a curveball being created by a pitcher. After the pitcher releases the ball its going to have its own spin, not before.
Bill,
The flat earth society is looking for new members. You’d fit right in.
You’re definitely someone to take seriously, “HuffmanGoneStupid”.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
You’re definitely someone to take seriously, “HuffmanGoneStupid”.
——————–
Someone gone stupid has to be chosen chief recruiter and promoter of the flat earth society.
I recommend a Nobel in physics to the clown who said the ball cannot rotate on its own axis wrt the rotating string!!
Wow! That was brilliant, Captain Obvious!!!!!!
The ball on the string is rotating about an axis at the central point, and not on its own axis, from any reference frame. Not “wrt to the string”. Any reference frame.
The moon on the left, moving like a ball on a string, is rotating about a central point, and not on its own axis
The Moon is rotation about both points.
Rotation about its own axis is obvious too — watch the black path sweep around the Moon’s polar axis. See how someone standing in the black path would see the entire universe sweep around them in one lunar day.
Factually incorrect, as explained.
Yep, David completely lacks the vision of an engineer.
True engineers should realize that the the tennis ball’s motion can be decomposed into a translation of an arbitrary point within the body, followed by a rigid rotation of the body about this point. as they were taught in their engineering kinematics course. Therefore we can describe the ball’s movement as the ball’s center of mass translating along the orbital path, while the ball rotates 360 degrees about its center of mass per one orbit.
David may lack the vision of an engineer, but does not lack the knowledge of a real engineer.
The only problem with that description is right at the beginning we were attributing that rotation to orbital rotation. Can’t count it twice. Can only build it with one rotation. The other rotation can be decomposed out as a illusory effect from the vantage point of space but space is disconnected from the driving force centripetal force that drives the orbital rotation allowing for an illusion.
The fact astronomers do this may have some benefit to their work, I don’t know. I just know if you build two motor into this device one to rotate the orbit and the other to rotate the planet, you better just turn on one of the motors and be sure its the right one you turn on.
There is no problem at all. Kinematics does not concern itself with the forces that cause motion. Furthermore, you guys are not looking at the motion relative to the inertial reference frame, which was Tesla’s mistake.
It is clear from Tesla’s description of his Figure 5, that he was confused and ignorant concerning the inertial reference frame. In describing the motion of the balls in his Figure 5, Tesla said:
“it is evident from an inspection of the diagram that while moving with the angular velocity ω about O, in the clockwise direction, the ball turns, with respect to its axis, at the same angular velocity but in the opposition direction”
LOL. Not in the least! The frictionless ball does not rotate at all on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame. It exhibits pure translational motion as it moves along the circular path. Tesla’s term “ω” was in reference to the inertial reference frame, but then he tried to describe the non-rotating ball as rotating with respect to the rotating reference frame of the arms. Completely backwards and totally mixed up using both an inertial and non-inertial reference frame. There were no illusions, just delusions on Tesla’s part.
“There is no problem at all. Kinematics does not concern itself with the forces that cause motion. Furthermore, you guys are not looking at the motion relative to the inertial reference frame, which was Tesla’s mistake.”
Firstly, that kinematics doesn’t concern itself with the forces that cause motion is the reason you keep going wrong, and this has been explained to you repeatedly; and secondly your whole comment shows you don’t understand Tesla’s arguments at all.
You keep going on about this mixing of reference frames, which is entirely a straw man.
The ball on a string is rotating about a central point, and not on its own axis, from any reference frame. The problem you people have is, you seem to think the inertial reference frame is like this little box that hovers around the ball and follows it as it moves around the central point, so that if you put that box with the image of the ball into a fixed, non-moving location, you would have a little “animation” of a ball staying in one spot whilst appearing to rotate on its own axis. That isn’t the inertial reference frame, though. Zoom your mental box outwards so that instead of just containing the ball, it now has the central point, the string, and the ball, still seen from above. The ball is rotating about the central point, and not on its own axis, in that frame.
You do that “mental box” thing every time you say something like, “place a north-facing arrow over the ball, and watch as the ball rotates with respect to the arrow”. You are limiting the inertial reference frame to this flawed concept of a box that hovers over and follows the ball around as it moves about the central point.
SkepticGoneWild says: . . . .
Gotcha! I agree, this is a perception thing and frames of reference are important. I haven’t read the Tesla thingy but its my view the moon is not rotating on its own axis.
For the moon the whole concept of an axis is defined by the inclination of its orbit, thus the axis is really a calculated location based upon reference points of the position of the sun, the earth, and the inclination of the moon’s orbit pretty much in the same way that the moon and sun conspire gravitationally to affect the ocean tides on earth.
In exactly the same way all these mathematical relationships that plot out a perception of the moon rotating on its axis depending upon your vantage point, CO2 is being fingered as the climate control knob.
This is the danger of perception, conception, computers, and mathematics and is what led to the development of something called the scientific method. A concept we are gravitating away from because computers can crunch so many numbers we actually forget to conduct a thorough search for the actual control knob or probably better said “knobs”.
Here we have folks going on with stuff like libration is the proof of rotation and other such nonsense when libration can be explained by way of other factors, like the inclination and eccentricity of the moon’s orbit.
“I haven’t read the Tesla thingy but its my view the moon is not rotating on its own axis.“
Tesla agreed…
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
Dr Em T moans:
“The ball on a string is rotating about a central point, and not on its own axis, from any reference frame!”
Tesla would disagree with you. Tesla specifically stated:
“If a metal ball, attached to a string, is whirled around and the latter breaks, an axial rotation of the missile results which is definitely related in magnitude and direction to the motion preceding. By way of illustration — if the ball is whirled on the string clockwise ten times per second, then when it flies off, it will rotate on its axis ten times per second, likewise in the direction of a clock.”
Tesla goes on further to say:
“A few simple reflections based on well establisht mechanical principles will make this clear. Consider first the case of two equal weights w and w1, in Fig. 1, whirled about the center O on a string s as shown. Assuming the latter to break at a both weights will fly off on tangents to their circles of gyration, and, being animated with different velocities, they will rotate around their common center of gravity o. If the weights are whirled n times per second then the speed of the outer and the inner one will be, respectively, V = 2 (R + r) n and V1= 2 π (R—r) n, and the difference V—V1 = 4 π r n, will be the length of the circular path of the outer weight. Inasmuch, however, as there will be equalization of the speeds until the mean value is attained, we shall have, V—V1 / 2 = 2 π r n = 2 π r N, N being the number of revolutions per second of the weights around their center of gravity. Evidently then, the weights continue to rotate at the original rate and in the same direction. I know this to be a fact from actual experiments. It also follows that a ball, as that shown in the figure, will behave in a similar manner for the two half-spherical masses can be concentrated at their centers of gravity and m and m1, respectively, which will be at a distance from o equal to 3/8 r.”
So the ball rotates on its own axis after being released because it was rotating on its own axis prior to being released. (Newton’s laws of motion). The string cannot impart any torque on the ball since the tensile force in the string acts through the center of gravity of the ball.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
No, Tesla does not disagree.
Tesla did the experiment, clown.
LMAO. You are really clueless. All you have are rabid declarations. You offer no support whatsoever for any of your BS. That’s all you spout. Just an endless stream of BS.
I have already explained it several times, in the comments under previous articles. Here’s one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-376772
HGS, Tesla’s papers support the non-spinner position. Why would you keep quoting from them as if they support your view?
Dr Em T sputters:
“The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.”
Thanks for confirming that the ball does rotate, and on its own axis after release. Tesla confirmed this by experiment. He just said the motion was an illusion. Because the balls did physically rotate about their own axis upon release, just as noted in my quotes above.
Tesla even said the 8 balls on the wheel rotated on their axis upon release:
“Since for one complete turn of the wheel every ball makes one revolution on its axis, according to the prevailing theory, the energy of axial rotation of each ball will be e = ½M (2 π r1 n)2, r1”
Above he is calculating the radius of gyration for the ball with its radius r1, so the revolution he is referring to is about the ball’s own axis.
His statement that the rotation of the balls was due “to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.” is simply not true.
You stated:
“Whilst being swung around, the object can not be rotating on its own axis. The string prevents that from being physically possible.”
That is not correct and Tesla stated otherwise:
“If a metal ball, attached to a string, is whirled around and the latter breaks, an axial rotation of the missile results which is definitely related in magnitude and direction to the motion preceding.”
The string cannot introduce torque. There were no other forces introduced after Tesla introduced a force to make the ball “whirl”. The ball was rotating on its axis prior to release, and Tesla even calculated its radius of gyration.
Tesla’s argument that the reason the ball actually DOES rotate on its own axis is patently false. Those velocities were already present prior to the object’s release.
“Thanks for confirming that the ball does rotate, and on its own axis after release…”
You quote Tesla, as though it were my own words, and say “thanks for confirming…blah blah blah”.
Not off to a great start.
All I was trying to do was explain to you Tesla’s argument as I see it. Yes, the balls rotate on their release, according to Tesla. You seem stunned, as if this proves something.
“Above he is calculating the radius of gyration for the ball with its radius r1, so the revolution he is referring to is about the ball’s own axis.”
According to “the prevailing theory”, as he puts it…which he obviously disagrees with!
“His statement that the rotation of the balls was due “to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.” is simply not true.”
Why not?
“You stated:
“Whilst being swung around, the object can not be rotating on its own axis. The string prevents that from being physically possible.”
That is not correct and Tesla stated otherwise:”
Obviously wrong! In your quote he does not say otherwise.
It’s like your basically trying to argue that Tesla agreed the moon rotates on its axis. He didn’t. So stop trying to put words in his mouth!
Tesla acknowledges that the tangential velocities of the parts of the ball, when thrown off, will be different. This is because the ball is rotating about the center point…not on its own axis! Read about the definition of rotation about a central point, as discussed above. Concentric circles, about the central point, and all that. I’m bored repeating myself again.
He’s basically arguing nothing more than that there is conservation of momentum. There is angular momentum about the central point, and not about the ball’s own axis, before release. Then, after release, there is angular momentum about the ball’s axis.
I am done with your stupidity. You keep repeating the same BS over and over. Tesla should have stuck with electricity. No one bothered to pay attention to his claim since it was so stupid.
I understand. Tesla was dumb, except when you thought he proved one of your points.
This is what’s so great about clown physics. You declare something as so, and poof, it IS so. Bolding and repetition help as well.
However, it does not work that way with real physics. With real physics, you would draw a free-body diagram of the ball on a string prior to its release, and see that there are no forces acting on the ball that could cause a change in motion of the ball after its release. The centripetal and centrifugal reaction force act through the center of mass of the ball, and cannot create a torque. There is a principle in physics sometimes referred to as Newton’s first law of rotation, which can be stated as: “Every object will move with a constant angular velocity unless a torque acts on it”. That means the ball was already rotating on its own axis prior to its release.
The ball on a string did not “begin” to rotate on its own axis after its release as Tesla suggests, because there were no torque generating forces acting on the ball prior to its release that would cause a change in the rotational characteristics of the ball. Tesla was correct on a few issues in his articles on the moon’s rotation, but this was not one of them.
“That means the ball was already rotating on its own axis prior to its release.”
No, it means the ball was rotating about the central point, and not on its own axis, prior to release. Due to this rotation, the tangential velocities of the parts of the body thrown off are different, so there is axial rotation after release now that it’s moving in a straight line.
Like I said. You and Tesla can stick to your clown physics. I’ll stick to real physics. You need a torque to cause a change in rotation. There is none. I am sorry you don’t understand real physics.
There is rotation before and after release.
It’s just that before, the rotation is about the central point, and not about the ball’s own axis. Upon release the difference in tangential velocities of parts of the ball are going to make it spin, now that it’s moving in a straight line.
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string…”
A ball on a string is given as an example of a situation where the axis of rotation lies outside the body! You can’t change that I’m afraid. It can’t be rotating about the central point, and on its own axis, without the ball wrapping around the string. If you consider the ball to be translating and rotating on its own axis prior to release, then you would be saying there is no angular momentum about the central point.
I agree with your clown physics.
I agree with your clown website.
Well, of course you agree. Unfortunately for you, you kind of have to. In order to disagree, you would have to be saying:
1) A ball on a string is not an example of an object rotating about a central point.
2) Angular momentum is not a quantity of rotation of a body.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-381463
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The moon on the right is exhibiting curvilinear translation. Tesla would agree with that since this is similar to his Figure 5 where the dark side of the balls remain oriented the same way throughout the circular orbit. He specifically called it translational motion.
When an object translates, per the inherent definition of translations, a line through the body does not rotate at all:
“In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body.”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
The moon on the right has stopped rotating on its own axis, NOT the moon on the left.
There are only two motion options for a rigid body, such as a sphere, that is following a circular orbit. One: it can be translating, as does the moon on the right. Or, it can be rotating on its own axis, as does the moon on the left. The moon on the left just happens to be rotating on its own axis once per every single orbit, but it could also be spinning faster or slower.
The other option is clown physics.
Unfortunately for you, you have not provided a free-body diagram of the ball whirling on a string that indicates torque generation. You keep alluding to clown physics.
So let me get this straight…to you, the entire concept that an axis of rotation does not need to pass through the body of the object is “clown physics”!?
“Clown physics” that you can find confirmed on Wikipedia, and in the link you have already read, as shown in the discussion above this one!?
As for your comments about the “moon on the right”…fine, OK. Unlike Gordon, I am not going to spend days upon days arguing about the definition of “curvilinear translation”. Call the motion of the moon on the right “curvilinear translation”, sure. No problem. I completely understand why you think so. I also already understand that you consider the “moon on the right” to be the moon that is “orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis”.
You don’t seem to get the problem. If you add CCW axial rotation to the “moon on the right”, at a rate of one CCW axial rotation per orbit, you get motion like our moon, right? Like the motion of the “moon on the left”. There’s a flaw, though.
Astronomy argues that our moon has both orbital angular momentum (angular momentum about the Earth) as well as spin angular momentum about the moon’s own axis. But, astronomy’s definition of “orbital motion without axial rotation” (the “moon on the right”) is not a rotation. You said so yourself!
If it’s not a rotation, then there is no orbital angular momentum.
See the problem?
So there is more than one argument for why the motion of the “moon on the left” is the correct definition of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, rather than astronomy’s erroneous “moon on the right” definition.
1) The “moon on the right”, if taken to be one single motion, is not a rotation of any kind, from any reference frame. Since it’s not a rotation, there is no “orbital angular momentum”. Sure, astronomy still claims there is “orbital angular momentum”, with their “moon on the right” definition…and that is obviously erroneous, since it’s not a rotation, and angular momentum is a quantity of rotation of a body.
2) The “moon on the left” is the correct representation of what “orbital motion without axial rotation” actually is, as has been successfully argued countless times before. You probably missed those arguments, since all you have ever really focussed on is kinematics. So you need to go back, read through the discussions, and catch up.
Dr Spencer – please publish some more UAH data! or any data! or anything!
The inmates are in a frenzy over rotation and I can no longer control them. The noise is deafening.
nurse crotchrot…”Dr Spencer please publish some more UAH data! or any data! or anything!”
Your girdle is too tight, you need a refit, or to lose some weight.
Hmm. In my opinion they all seem to be suffering extreme obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) with rotation as the obsession.
“Obsessions are images, ideas, and thoughts that simply will not go away. While it is not uncommon for individuals to have disturbing thoughts from time to time, a person with OCD cannot escape their thoughts no matter how hard they try. These recurring thoughts are so severe that they can debilitate someone with OCD.”
pp…”for individuals to have disturbing thoughts from time to time, a person with OCD cannot escape their thoughts no matter how hard they try”.
I prefer to regard that person as suffering a lack of awareness. Those suffering the same affliction value thought to the point it defines them.
Once a person becomes aware of the fact that most thought is useless garbage, that person can learn to live with it.
I have a friend who suffers from OCD and he is also addicted to thought. He cannot let thought go unless you offer thought that is more absurd than the thought he is suffering. Then he can laugh at the absurdity, for a while at least.
OCD is not the problem as much as our addiction to thought. No one can escape their thoughts for long, but some of us have learned how useless most thought is and gained some insight into it’s garbage quotient.
I have found through personal experience that simply gaining insight into the mechanism of thought is enough to allow it to simmer down.
Of course, we studied that in electrical engineering and ordinary psychologists won’t study it as deeply.
On the other hand, using thought to understand a problem in physics, and wanting to share one’s thoughts in that regard, is hardly OCD. That is particularly true when one witnesses the suffering of someone with OCD.
Thanks GR. I appreciate your thoughts on this topic. I also know a sufferer.
nurse…”Thanks GR. I appreciate your thoughts on this topic. I also know a sufferer”.
Hope you caught the humour in my reference to having studied OCD in EE. That was a poke at the prof.
Issues like OCD, and anxiety in general, can be a bitch. It’s really tough to become aware in those situations that the sufferer is generating the problem through their thoughts. I am speaking from experience, not with OCD, but with a deep anxiety brought on by the death of someone close.
There is simply not enough constructive information available to such people. We would rather hide behind a carefully crafted image than reveal our inner workings. Of course, there are reasons for images. If you don’t have the psychological means, or perhaps the physical means to stand up for yourself, there are people who will take advantage.
Problems like OCD have only been on the books since about 1982. It bothers me that the only solution many psychiatrists offer is drugs or electroconvulsive therapy.
Very little effort has been put forward by governments to constructively approach these issues. By that, I mean, we are still dealing with psychological issues from a perspective of illness. Why has no one, except Jiddu Krishnamurti looked directly at the problem and figured out the conflicts produced by the mind which can lead to serious neurotic issues?
Very little effort is being put into understanding the mind from the obvious. We’ve had many models presented like the ids, egos, and libidos of Freudian psychology to the unconditional positive regards of Rogerian humanistic psychology. In the end, we have progressed little, IMHO, because no one is looking directly inward.
Jiddu Krishnamurti has gone much further than most psychologists and his dialogs with physicist David Bohm were brilliant.
Another psychologist, the late Claire Weekes, had valuable insight into anxiety related issues. She suggested that people become overly sensitized to their environments and I can relate to that directly.
While relatively common, at least there are some treatments being tested. For example
“Experimental drug offers hope to those living with OCD.”
More than five million Americans live with obsessive compulsive disorder or OCD. While there are treatment options, they don’t work for about one-third of those diagnosed. Now, Boston researchers are focused on a new option.
https://www.wcvb.com/article/experimental-drug-offers-hope-to-those-living-with-ocd/28678921
nurse…I think drugs are absolutely essential in certain cases, however, one of the purposes of the drugs is to show the person suffering the issues that the symptoms can stop.
For some, that won’t work. They will become dependent on the drugs thinking it is the drugs healing them. For people with more insight, they will observe that the drugs have stopped the symptoms so why can they not manage the symptoms without the drugs.
The truth is people can manage the symptoms without the drugs. For example, a related problem to OCD is panic disorder, which can manifest more seriously as post-traumatic stress disorder. A common problem with PD is the development of phobias, such as a crippling fear of snakes, even in magazines, or a fear of crossing bridges so strong they become paralyzed just stepping onto a bridge.
Agoraphobia is one of the most common, a fear of going outside. I had a dear friend who did not leave her home for 20 years. That’s tragic. I learned about it after the fact but I wish I’d known. She lived in another country.
The late psychologist, Claire Weekes, suggested a novel way of treating PD by going into the fear. The fear in PD is so intense its like walking down a street in the dark and having a lion suddenly appear from the bushes. That intense fear comes suddenly, for no apparent reason…’out of the blue’.
People with OCD and PD respond to their issues out of fear. They feel if they ignore the fear, something drastic could happen, even death. To an normal person that may seem absurd but to someone suffering OCD or PD, that mental space is absolutely real.
There is a conundrum here. One of the symptoms in PD is chest pain accompanied with severe palpitations. How is one to be sure the symptoms are not a heart attack and just being produced by some mechanism in the body that is out of kilter?
Drugs!!! Drugs like SSRT’s (Serotonin-Reuptake Inhibitors) can kill the symptoms stone dead. To the wise, the fact that a drug can do that within a few days is at first a tremendous relief. Then the awareness can occur. There is something wrong that no one has been able to explain in medicine and the drugs stopped it cold. So, what is it I am going through that produces the PD?
The human mind/body works in fantastic ways. It can produce crippling physical symptoms with no apparent psychological cause. Yet, a closer look at one’s history can reveal a momentary trauma the mind interpreted in its own way.
I think both OCD and PD can be overcome by going into the fear, as Claire Weekes suggested. However, a person may need a course of drugs to help kick-start the investigation.
I have experienced in my own life that the unconscious mind can be primitive. It can interpret what it experiences literally, in bizarre ways. Conceivably, the mind can produce the changes in brain/body chemistry that drugs help re-align.
The mind can be primitive but it can also be very powerful. When the unconscious processes ‘get it’, with some help from the conscious mind, that something is wrong, it ‘can’ fix it and fix it immediately.
Amazingly, one of the simplest ways to bring that about is to honestly acknowledge ones fears, concerns…whatever.. to the unconscious processes. Most people won’t do that, they will analyze something to death rather than simply admit the truth to themselves. Or hide behind drugs.
pP,
You are correct of course.
Pseudoscientific GHE true believers continually claim that CO2 makes thermometers hotter. To them, their fantasy supplants reality.
Facts have no effect on their unswerving belief. Gavin Schmidt believes he is a famous climate scientist, and is obsessed with repetitively running expensive computer models, apparently believing that if he repeats the same obsessive movements over and over, hidden truth will be revealed to him.
Mad as a hatter, wouldn’t you agree?
On the other hand, Michael Mann seems more to be afflicted with delusional psychosis. He believes he is a Nobel Laureate, even though the Nobel Committee has informed him to the contrary. He also believes he can divine historical air temperatures from lumps of wood!
As for yourself, do you believe you are a respected medical professional perhaps? You definitely seem to be obsessed with the belief that your bizarre utterances have the power to influence others.
Of course, you have no power to influence rational people at all, but you are not capable of realising this. I wish you well. Carry on, if it brings you some measure of solace.
Cheers.
climate shystering 101
How can you possibly admit you were getting the temperature wrong for the last 15 years , make massive changes to the past , and at the same time claim you know what you are doing .
You can’t because you can’t have it both ways , you have lost your credibility.
https://bit.ly/2TRbgQU
How do you feel about UAH’s massive revisions over the last 15 years?
(And the 15 years before that.)
David Appell says: ———How do you feel about UAHs massive revisions over the last 15 years?
(And the 15 years before that.)
Night and day difference in the level of internal controls David. The most important issue of them all.
I think its hilarious that Trump wants to by Greenland.
He swears that climate change is a hoax.
But as a real estate developer, he seems to be betting that Greenland’s ice will keep melting!
I think it’s hilarious that you don’t see Trump just made fools out of Alarmists, again.
nate…”I think its hilarious that Trump wants to by Greenland”.
The US has been vying to get a major foothold in the Arctic. What better method than to buy Greenland?
I am wondering if he has an offer in for Canada. There are people in Canada who would sell us off in a minute for the right price.
“I am wondering if he has an offer in for Canada. There are people in Canada who would sell us off in a minute for the right price.”
What about idea of those independent people joining into one State with Greenland?
Foothold in the Arctic? You mean like Alaska?
Maybe N. Korea would be better, solve two problems!
Actually the US should buy Greenland and the Danish should sell it.
But Denmark is a little country so they probably have the little country syndrome and won’t sell.
Buying Greenland ?!
Here is a tip for everyone. The asylum has been advised to make a bed available for a VIP who is expected to be admitted within the next few months. Apparently he believes he is omnipotent! That is a sign that his condition is spiralling out of control. Very similar to Adolf.
professor P says: “Apparently he believes he is omnipotent!”
For making an offer? When do you think Denmark will get the offer they can’t say no too?
“I am the chosen one,” Trump announced on Wednesday while talking about fighting his trade war with China.
That is but a small sample.
professor P says:
“I am the chosen one,” Trump announced on Wednesday while talking about fighting his trade war with China.
That is but a small sample.
—————–
You aren’t seriously still disputing the 2016 election are you?
I’ve seen this too. Let me make a prediction:
Sacked (by his own team)
Divorced
Committed
not necessarily in that order.
and maybe Jailed?
I make some predictions.
CNN will continue claim vast numbers of Americans are racists,
and it probably will not work out as well as they thought it would.
Meanwhile there is a feverish search for all vast numbers of white supremacists, unfortunately the only ones being found so far, complain about white people being inferior and are quite worried about it.
This probably because they watch CNN and most of CNN are white and they are inferior in terms of being educated and emotionally are similar to spoiled children.
Maybe some day the people who imagine they are the elite, will notice that their skin is sort of pale, they might add 1 + 1.
And might notice that supremacists don’t really have much to do with skin color.
But probably not.
Another pearl from gbaikie: “This probably because they watch CNN and most of CNN are white and they are inferior in terms of being educated and emotionally are similar to spoiled children.”
‘Actually the US should buy Greenland and the Danish should sell it.’
I thought colonialism was so last century.
Countries are not simply real-estate to be bought and sold, as the Denmark PM rightly pointed out. When she rejected his advances, he called her a ‘nasty woman’ and cancelled his state-visit. What a shocker.
This is the genius you want in charge?
Not to mention, we have ballooning annual $T deficits, Debt 100% of GDP, and crumbling infrastructure in the current US territory.
To buy a large country we would have to borrow $ from Russia, as DT did for many of his ‘deals’, or our ‘friends’ in China.
“Buying Greenland” is likely just another of Trump’s moves to keep the wackos foaming at the mouth. He’s so good at that….
But it would be interesting to see a vote by the inhabitants of Greenland. Would the majority vote to be US citizens?
Nate says: “I thought colonialism was so last century.”
Who said anything about colonialism. Greenland lives largely under the boot of the Danish government. They have autonomy in many areas and that certainly doesn’t have to change with a purchase.
Greenland currently is a welfare state with 2/3rds of its budget supplied via a block grant from Denmark. Thus Greenland represents a huge blackhole for the Danish and a blackhole for the EU. Too distant to work cooperatively with and thus in the area of trade remains largely as a forgotten part of the EU.
The US is in a much better position to provide opportunities for Greenlanders and make them less dependent upon welfare through the elimination of overarching and completely inflexible EU foreign policy that’s having a rough time of it integrating European nations actually residing on the European continent.
All you morons with preconceived notions built on nothing at all of course see nothing but evil intent. Better to keep those natives on welfare where they can be better managed right? Isn’t that your motto? The one you are projecting on Trump? And deny its yours?
So the most honorable response of the Danish Prime Minister instead of saying “thats absurd” would have been. . . .hmmm, maybe not a bad idea. . . .lets let the Greenlanders decide. Then negotiations could begin all conditional upon a ratification by the Greenlanders and without the overarching objectives of the EU. . . .that Greenland are gradually being suctioned into hardly without a chance to complain.
Do you think Greenlanders should be afforded any choice in this matter or not? Obviously the Danish Prime Minister doesn’t who on a dime and a second elected to speak for the Greenlanders.
IMO, that’s what colonialism actually is.
Trump is so far ahead of you morons it isn’t even funny. Greenland is considering full independence with a huge majority of the population for it but that majority disappears out of concerns of the economic hardships that might come from it.
Opening the foreign trade door to negotiations with Greenland by nations better equipped to aid their standard of living could influence the outcome. But that door is slammed shut by the iron boot of Denmark and the EU saying essentially to Trump you have to negotiate through us and we are not interested.
“Trump is so far ahead of you morons it isn’t even funny.”
Sure, except he is competing in the stupid/crazy race.
There is talk that his own Republican party will cut him loose soon.
Bill Hunter says:
“the iron boot of Denmark”
Yeah, right.
‘So the most honorable response of the Danish Prime Minister instead of saying ‘thats absurd’ would have been. . . .hmmm, maybe not a bad idea. . . .lets let the Greenlanders decide. Then negotiations could begin all conditional upon a ratification by the Greenlanders and without the overarching objectives of the EU. . . .that Greenland are gradually being suctioned into hardly without a chance to complain.’
The douche-baggedness of this speaks for itself, Bill.
A woman speaks her mind, she’s ‘nasty’.
A country has interests other than America First, and they should be bullied.
And you seem to agree, Bill.
Just imagine our response if Canada offers to buy Alaska from us?
Or if Mexico offers to buy New Mexico, or Texas from San Antonio to the border?
Would we call it absurd? At the very least!
Why would the Greenlanders want to join a country when it means they’d have to let assault weapons roam freely in their society?
Where there is no guarantee of paid parental leave?
No 4 weeks vacation/yr?
No universal, free (taxpayer-paid) healthcare?
Where taxpayers are left to pay the cleanup costs of corporations’ damages to the environment?
It would make no sense at all — they’d be taking a huge step backwards.
Svante says:———the iron boot of Denmark
Yeah, right.———–
As NPR’s Rebecca Hersher has reported, Denmark has shut down small isolated towns, moving people into bigger towns, which mental health experts say has contributed to Greenland’s extremely high suicide rate. Olsvig also points out that up until the 1970s Denmark would classify Greenlandic children as “legally fatherless” if they were born outside marriage the law on this was not changed until 2014. “We still see the consequences of having been colonized.”
The EU vision of Greenland as a potential carbon offset and nature preserve runs contrary to what the native people and the european settlers have in mind. Obviously, whether this were a deal that the Greenlander’s would want would be a large degree of self determination. But that would hardly be the first time such relationships have turned out successfully. There are tremedous natural resources that if the people living there were to share in the profits and have a say in what resources were extracted and under what conditions the Greenlander’s would be far better off than they are now.
Additionally Svante it may have escaped you the Greenlanders are looking for a path to independence (80% super majority) and they won the right to vote for independence and the only thing holding it back is a clear economic path for the welfare of the citizenry.
That undoubtedly what annoyed the Danish PM the most is the public manner this was let out. Probably already state dept folks on the ground paving the way and the Danish PM knows it and is in an unwanted bidding war like bidding for the services of a superstar basketball player. They will have to pay dearly to keep this essentially free agent nation and the US is in the position of making an attractive offer.
Bill, why would any Greenlander want to become part of the US?
What would they gain from such a deal?
David Appell says: ———What would they gain from such a deal? Bill, why would any Greenlander want to become part of the US?——————
David I reordered the order of your questions so you can make sense of it.
First question answer: As they say in business . . . .whatever they want that somebody else is willing to pay.
Second question answer: If the US was willing to pay that, then. . . .you have a reason.
I mean David this is the very first course of lessons in business. Business kindergarten as some kindergarteners actually get it.
bill h…”As NPRs Rebecca Hersher has reported, Denmark has shut down small isolated towns, moving people into bigger towns, which mental health experts say has contributed to Greenlands extremely high suicide rate”.
Ironic, that what Premier Joey Smallwood did in the province of Newfoundland here in Canada.
Gordon Robertson related: ——— “shut down small isolated towns, moving people into bigger towns, which mental health experts say has contributed to Greenlands extremely high suicide rate.
Ironic, that what Premier Joey Smallwood did in the province of Newfoundland here in Canada.
Concentration camps! Thats the future we are staring straight in the eye with this elitist paranoia and its squadrons of true believers. Small wonder people are turning to drugs and committing suicide in unprecedented numbers. Take a look at Los Angeles and San Francisco. I live in the LA area.
Elitist paranoia is destroying civilization and claiming they are doing it to avoid the destruction of civilization. Psychotic!!
On that thought of how a regulatory society kills off civilization it does so in contravention of the basic premises of life, survival of the fittest and genetic diversification.
In an unregulated society individuals will do stupid things that others don’t do. Individual die and society learns lessons from their deaths, adapts and civilization continues.
Socialism and centralized planning subvert that learning curve and the failure of the centralized planning increases the likelihood of destroying the civilization because all of sudden everybody does something stupid at the same time.
Most folks consider survivalists as nut cases. But they are the survivors when civilization does collapse precisely because they learned how to adapt. Mendelian genetics evolves through death. LaMarckists believed evolution came from individual experiences that are passed on to their children. That nearly led to mass starvation through a policy that limited biodiversity to a great extent and instead of making the seeds stronger made them less biodiverse leading to the famine.
Today claiming the impact of GMOs leads to a lack of biodiversity is absolutely the best argument against GMOs. Thus as GMOs take on a role of progress for society it becomes ever more so important to ensure that competition is unleashed to create biodiversified GMOs and not what centralized planning tends to do grudgingly if at all. Over regulation of GMOs is also likely to harm biodiversity. Corruption in government is guaranteed to work against biodiversity.
Dr Myki says: “Sure, except he is competing in the stupid/crazy race. There is talk that his own Republican party will cut him loose soon.”
Sure a bunch already have. Especially like the Koch Bros upset about him messing with their multi-national businesses. And sure any Republican that wants to do that is probably committing political suicide. Trump leads the Republican party. Leads the working men and women of it. That is a huge majority of the republican party.
Democrats are having the same issue. This is about the 1999 Battle of Seattle. Where working men and women joined forces with the environmentalists for a couple of days of mayhem. Not dissimilar to the yellow vests in France.
We may be watching a fundamental change process going on rejecting the European aristocratic brand of socialism that the elite so much aspire to in this country and its changing both parties that have been controlled by the rich for many decades.
Trump is playing that card on Europe as well. There is no doubt that there are a lot of Greenlanders not interested in European style socialism either. Most want to maintain their lifestyles in a pristine environment and want not to be impoverished at the same time. They are getting zero help from Europe, zero prospects from Europe for anything but maintaining the status quo. Its an ideal environment for a bit of Teddy Roosevelt Wise Use. People want both a clean environment and a playground where they can enjoy the world they live in.
JD: Would Greenlander’s vote to join the US? I suppose it would depend upon the offer they got.
Svante: Iron Boot yes. Denmark and the EU dictates what they can export and import. . . .plus they are looking down the barrel of open borders.
Nate: She could have been polite in her refusal by saying the truth that Denmark has a large interest in Greenland and wished to take advantage of that. No need to feed the Anti-Trump propaganda. Anybody who chooses to do that knows Trump will fight back and anybody doesn’t know that Trump is an equal opportunity provider on that has their head up their rear.
Nate: I don’t know if you are correct on those proposed purchases. California may any day vote to secede from the Union, Trump being the practical guy he is might want to get something out of it before they do.
Trump was probably watching too many reruns of Ice Cold Gold.
“Trump acknowledges climate change at his golf course. The billionaire, who called global warming a hoax, warns of its dire effects in his company’s application to build a sea wall.”
Ben Schreckinger, Politico 5/23/2016
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436
David Appell says: ———“warns of its dire effects in his companys application to build a sea wall.————-
So what do you do David when being pummeled by tons of bureaucratic roadblocks? Lie down, roll over, and scream MORE!
Bill, you cooooompletely missed the point:
Trump acknowledges climate change at his golf course
DA…”Trump acknowledges climate change at his golf course…”
The twinkies posing the question could not explain climate change if they tried. The term is as useless as the term average global warming.
The term climate change as it is popularly understood means a global climate that changes. It came from the term global warming, which is a number, that means nothing hence climate change means nothing.
We all know there are many diverse climates on the planet which occasionally change. Not one of them has been proved scientifically to change because of a trace gas. Climates change due to factors like precipitation pattern changes.
Gordon Robertson says:
We all know there are many diverse climates on the planet which occasionally change. Not one of them has been proved scientifically to change because of a trace gas
Uninformed, as ever. Go learn about the PETM, as I suggested to you before.
Go learn something for once, Gordon, instead of always taking the lazy way out.
GR, Twinkie is a pretty good description of somebody selling a theory who doesn’t even have the brain power to provide the actual blueprints and supporting equations of how the greenhouse effect works.
It was also be a Twinkie to assume Trump acknowledges climate change at his golf course. Such a Twinkie probably doesn’t even know what the word delegation means. I have no doubt Trump did not write the arguments for the seawall but hired a professional to do it. And professionals have the knowledge of how to navigate mindless bureaucratic minefields. The folks behind the desk are good and smart people but they have act and only act in accordance with regulations. If the local authority authorizes exceptions only for protections against climate change because they so much believe in climate change then you give them what they demand and believe to be so. Only amateurs try to do it another way and as a result learn tough lessons about bureaucracies.
I have lived on the coast all my life, sea level rise will contribute to cliff erosion but cliff erosion goes on also without sea level rise.
DA…”Go learn about the PETM”
I have no interest in paleo-climate reconstructions. Mann et all tried it, revealing what a farce it is over recent history.
Bill…”GR, Twinkie is a pretty good description of somebody selling a theory who doesnt even have the brain power to provide the actual blueprints and supporting equations of how the greenhouse effect works”.
That’s the whole point, Bill. I am no fan of Trump but I do get a kick out of the way he manipulates the politically-correct, driving them into a frenzy. Especially the media like CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
It shows the intellect required to be a journalist or reporter when not one of those mentioned can deal with Trump at a peer level.
I cheered when he defeated Hillary Clinton. I watched that stupid bitch at a Senate hearing trying to discredit John Christy of UAH. She sat there with arms crossed glaring at him as if he was a subversive.
IMHO, John is one of the bright lights of climate science and science itself. He is an honest guy who tries to tell science as it is yet a twinkie like Clinton believes some slop served to her from the IPCC while she discredits real science and real data from John Christy.
But what do you expect from a woman whose husband, Lyin’ Willie, has cheated on her several times, then had the temerity to sexually harass an employee in the Oval Office? He took sexual harassment to the nth degree by actually having sex with her in the OO.
Hillary’s response was to blame the women. Who the heck wants a twinkie like that leading the US?
However, she saved her best for after losing to Trump. She and the Dems are still not conceding the loss. They are trying every pathetic maneuvre to remove Trump from office because they cannot beat him in an election.
David Appell says: ———Go learn something for once, Gordon, instead of always taking the lazy way out.————–
Here is a perfect composite view of the first guy objecting to the criticisms of the second guy, rather than fully reconstructing/reengineering the greenhouse effect, upon criticsim of his desire to have his invention affect everybody else’s lives, he suggests the second guy solve the problem for him. Perfect timing for it.
Gordon Robertson says:
———Thats the whole point, Bill. I am no fan of Trump but I do get a kick out of the way he manipulates the politically-correct, driving them into a frenzy. Especially the media like CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
I am a fan of Trump. Never been a republican though. Even dabbled in the Rainbow Coalition when it was “all welcoming”.
Trump’s personal appeal to me come from the fact I had a good number of years in and around the construction business. Trump’s appreciation for the people that work for him is genuine and it shows to anybody familiar with the business despite how much the mainstream press would like you to believe otherwise.
You find most successful people in the construction business have kind of a “vulcan mind meld” with one of the most fundamental aspects of human life – – – shelter. Shelter is at least half of what habitat is. The other half is forage.
Arrgggh ‘by’
Meant ‘buy’ obviously.
This could be interesting material for a Skeptic like Eben.
This is how it is done…
NPR had a story about the fires in Alaska and Climate Change being the cause. I would say NPR are terrible journalists and it does seem that their is an intentional drive to mislead the Public on Climate issues.
Here is a NOAA trend of fires in Alaska
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/alaska-fire-season-near-normal-2017
They start their trend in 1980 and it certainly seems as if things are getting so much worse.
Extend the time frame and it is not at all a frightful trend. Some natural climate cycles are longer than 30 years. Limiting a view to a slice can easily mislead.
A longer term trend of Alaska fires..
https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2010_kasischke002.pdf
The science needs to be better, the journalists should do a better job of digging up information.
“Extend the time frame and it is not at all a frightful trend.”
The publication you cite only looks at data ending a decade ago. You need to show both data sets on a single graph in order to justify your claim.
Dr. Myki
I do not think you would have to. The second graph still moves into the largest peak (2004) produced by the 1st graph.
The second graph is in hectares and here is the conversion.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hectares+to+acres&oq=hecaacre&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.23172j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I think the claim I made is justified. Data can be manipulated to generate any desired conclusion. If you want to frighten people you can do so by manipulating data to a much limited set and ignore the much larger data sets that are available.
Just like this.
https://mathbench.umd.edu/modules/climate-change_iconic-graphs/graphics-final/co2temp.gif
Long term climate change without human influence. Large swings over time.
Fine example of climate shystering
How so, specifically?
David, please stop trolling.
TECH2 NEWS STAFFAUG 22, 2019 09:30:37 IST
The second Indian mission to explore the moon, Chandrayaan 2, has completed a day in its new orbit around the moon.
…
https://www.firstpost.com/tech/science/chandrayaan-2-planned-orbit-compressed-in-latest-manoeuver-isro-reveals-what-does-it-mean-7204711.html
….
“The fourth earth-bound orbit-raising was meant to put the spacecraft in a 248 x 90,229 km (nearest x farthest distance) elliptical orbit but placed it in a 277 x 89,472 km orbit instead. [Off by 29 x 757 km]
Final earth-bound orbit-raising was to place C2 in a 221 x 1,43,585 km (nearest x farthest distance) elliptical orbit but was placed in a 276 x 1,42,975 km orbit instead. [Off by 55 x 610 km]”
They don’t say the inclination. But anyways it goes far beyond Moon distance, out to distance of about Earth/Sun L-2.
I wonder what in L-2 at moment. Wiki:
” L2 is the Lagrangian point located approximately 1.5 million km from Earth in the direction opposite the Sun.
Past probes:
–NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observed the cosmic microwave background from 2001 until 2010. It was moved to a heliocentric orbit to avoid posing a hazard to future missions.
–NASA’s WIND from November 2003 to April 2004. The spacecraft then went to Earth orbit, before heading to L1.
–The ESA Herschel Space Observatory exhausted its supply of liquid helium and was moved from the Lagrangian point in June 2013.
–At the end of its mission ESA’s Planck spacecraft was put into a heliocentric orbit and passivated to prevent it from endangering any future missions.
–CNSA’s Chang’e 2[1] from August 2011 to April 2012. Chang’e 2 was then placed onto a heliocentric orbit that took it past the near-Earth asteroid 4179 Toutatis.
Present probes
–The ESA Gaia probe
Back to Chandrayaan 2
[Oh it says 276 x 1,42,975 and I am assuming it’s 1.42 million km, I could be wrong, but then it wouldn’t make any sense to me]
“When the C2 composite first entered into an orbit around the moon on 20 August, it was meant to do so at a 118 x 18,078 km elliptical orbit but was placed in a 114 km x 18,072 km orbit instead. [Off by 4 x 6 km]”
[And I assume with Lunar polar inclination]
“If “all spacecraft parameters are normal”, as ISRO’s most recent update announced, we’ve got little to worry about. The next update to look forward to is scheduled for 28 August between 5.30 am and 6.30 am IST, is targeting to lower the altitude of the spacecraft to 178 x 1,411 km from the current 114 km x 18,072 km elliptical orbit.”
Hey man, do the Indians know that the moon rotates?
I bet they don’t and that is why they are so far off!
Hey man, do you know you sound just like an immature teenage troll?
……and loving it.
…please stop drolling.
They are in lunar orbit, and will lowering to 100 km orbit pretty soon.
hmm, not according to this diagram:
https://earthsky.org/space/chandrayaan-2-successful-lunar-transfer-trajectory
So what does number: 1,42,975 km
Actually mean?
Well whatever it is, I hope they land successful.
You know why the Indians will never send a man to the moon ?
Well obviously it’s a joke, but I don’t know.
Technically they don’t a rocket with can do this and they don’t have a manned space program. Though Chinese do. US, Russian, Chinese have programs which can get people to orbit- but any country can buy seats to orbit from the Russians and that is how US gets crew to orbit at moment, but in couple months the US will again regain it’s ability to use US rockets to put people in orbit.
And lots of different countries have send their astronauts to ISS, I would guess than includes Indians.
But if we had gas stations in Low Earth orbit and lunar orbit, it would fairly easy land people on the Moon.
If there was just a gas station in low lunar orbit, it could be better than gas station in LEO and low lunar orbit.
Because one could make a gas station by only shipping the rocket fuel from the Earth’s surface.
I think it necessary, that if you have commercial lunar water mining and commercial splitting of water to make rocket fuel, that you need a gas station in low lunar orbit. And you need reusable rockets which can go from lunar surface to low lunar orbit, and back to lunar surface.
So in such a situation, you just have rocket fuel at lunar surface and rocket fuel in low lunar orbit. And that would better to get to lunar surface, as compared to gas stations in LEO and Lunar orbit which only gets rocket fuel from Earth.
But just getting to low lunar orbit and using a reusable spacecraft to get you lunar surface and back to low lunar orbit, can a cheap way to get to lunar surface.
But I think the way to go, in terms of commercial lunar rocket fuel production on the Moon, is you start with gas station in lunar low orbit, which gets rocket fuel from Earth. And the lunar rocket fuel shipped to the low orbit lunar gas station, is limited to oxidizer portion of the rocket fuel.
So you ship lunar made LOX to gas station in low lunar orbit and get methane or hydrogen shipped from Earth to low lunar orbit.
Or the oxidizer is more massive portion of the rocket fuel.
With liquid Hydrogen and liquid oxygen rocket fuel, the mass is 1 kg of hydrogen and 6 kg of oxygen.
And the ratio when split water is 1 kg of hydrogen and 8 kg of oxygen, or if used for rocket fuel, you get surplus of oxygen {2 kg of oxygen] so you ship the surplus of LOX to low lunar orbit.
And in general lunar surface 40% of it’s mass as oxygen, as in silicone oxide, iron oxide, etc. And also have pure H2 in the lunar regolith, but low mass percentage vs mass lunar regolith it’s in. Or it requires a large scale mining operation to extract the H2. It’s same type large scale operation if wanted to mine He-3. Or there is thousand times more H2 than He-3.
Or you start with lunar water mining because it requires the least amount infrastructure mass required to shipped from Earth, but as lower the cost to get to the moon. AND as important, increase market size for lunar rocket fuel, one afford getting this massive amount of infrastructure mass from Earth AND/OR make structural components needed from lunar manufacture.
Or when mine lunar water, you also sort Iron and Iron oxides from the lunar regolith you are process to extract water from. And some point you going have +100 tons of iron ore separate. And Iron ore might sold for say $100,000 per ton, one make iron or steel products from it which sell on moon for $500 per kg. You could make train rail which could useful in large scale operations.
But also probably key thing to make on Moon is transparent glass and the pile that doesn’t have iron in it, can further processed to make glass, and other stuff.
So if mining the moon for a kind of material, you going large amount of oxygen, or Moon will start with surplus of oxygen and get even larger surplus on Oxygen in more distant future.
And significant part of mining stuff on Earth, is pounding/grinding rock into dust. And the Moon has no shortage of very fine dust. And mostly, particularly in the beginning, is sorting chunks from the dust.
And someday, people complain about the shortage of dust on the Moon.
For a science writer who claims to spend half her time gazing at the moon maybe she should find out a lunar day is not 14 earth days.
A moon day in terms daylight is about Earth 14 days {24 hour days} but that is when {or where} 1/2 the time is night and day, but in polar region one **can** have 80% of the time in daylight instead normal 50% of time in day and night.
I got to look at where they going. wiki:
“Two landing sites were selected, each with a landing ellipse of 32 km x 11 km.[34] The prime landing site (PLS54) is at 70.90267 S 22.78110 E (~350 km north of the South Pole-Aitken Basin rim), and the alternate landing site (ALS01) is at 67.874064 S 18.46947 W. The prime site is on a high plain between the craters Manzinus C and Simpelius N.The criteria used to select the landing zones were: south polar region, on the near side, slope less than 15 degrees, boulders less than 50 cm (20 in), crater and boulder distribution, sunlit for at least 14 days, nearby ridges do not shadow the site for long durations.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-2#Planned_landing_site
So they not really going for polar region, but rather near it.
Well, it might be possible that they still find some lunar water.
Anyways, if they successful land on the Moon, they will doing very well.
If they successful land where they want to land, the plan is it should have 14 days of sunlight {if land in morning- which they are apparently trying to do.
Hmm when was moon full:
https://www.space.com/16830-full-moon-calendar.html
15 aug and new 30th of August. So going land after new {or morning on near side].
Oh wiki says:
“performed as planned on 6 August 2019, 09:34 UTC for a duration of 1041 seconds. Apogee of Chandrayaan-2 was raised to 142,975 km (88,841 mi) with perigee at 276 km” And
“The trans-lunar injection burn was performed as planned on 14 August 2019, 02:21 IST (13 August 2019, 20:51 UTC) for a duration of 1203 seconds”
Which makes perfect sense.
And as far as inclination:
Chandrayaan-2 completed the lunar orbit insertion operation on 20 August 2019, starting from 03:32 UTC. The duration of this manoeuvre was 1738 seconds. The satellite was placed in an elliptical orbit that passed over the polar regions of the Moon, with 18,072 km (11,229 mi) aposelene and 114 km (71 mi) periselene.
gbaikie says: ———A moon day in terms daylight is about Earth 14 days {24 hour days}———
Hmmm, so the professional science writer just has a language problem? “one lunar day (14 Earth days).”
Or is that just an idiom of British English?
“The lunar day lasts 29 days, 12 hours and 44 minutes. And this the same time it takes for the Moon to orbit around the Earth. With respect to the background stars, however, the Moon only takes 27 days and 7 hours for the sky to completely rotate back to its original position.”
https://www.universetoday.com/19725/lunar-day/
So you have about 14.75 earth days of daylight [when middle of sun above the horizon] and about 14.75 earth days of lunar night {when middle of sun is below the horizon].
And on the Moon, some stars can rise and set in less than 14 earth days.
And Earth roughly stays in one part of sky- if you on nearside of the Moon- and where it is in the sky depends where you on the nearside of the Moon.
Folks… I just stopped by to say that the Greenland ice sheet is currently at -7 deg F. Almost 40 degrees below freezing during the annual arctic ice cover minimum.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=gfs®ion=namer&pkg=T2m&runtime=2019082212&fh=0
But how long before we see another article pondering what would happen if the Greenland ice sheet completely melted?
Maybe not completely melt but crack split open from cold quench
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-us-is-already-transforming-greenland-and-it-s-going-to-effect-everyone/amplifying
Frog alert!
Begone, meaningless troll!
Scott, I see you attracted some Alarmists.
This has been around before, but it’s always fun to rerun it. Who knows, maybe it will help some Alarmist to sober up?
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922. As reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post — nearly 100 years ago!
Frog alert!
Too late to save the frogs. But you don’t have to worry about them thawing out.
Current conditions (Aug. 22) on the Greenland ice sheet are -40C, -40F, and it’s snowing.
(Learn something about science.)
Frog freezer temperatures:
https://postimg.cc/DmKRCqq9
JDHuffman,
Yeah just stating the actual temperature in Greenland tends to attract the alarmists. Funny how that works. lol
Where are you seeing the -40? I’m going to be fair to my AGW alarmist buddies and disagree with you. I didn’t see anything colder than -14F on August 22nd in Greenland. The coldest time I could find was 6am.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=gfs®ion=namer&pkg=T2m&runtime=2019082212&fh=0
The focus of the AGW community / Greenland will always be the coast. The coast does regularly break above freezing as you might know. This is of no consequence to the health of the Greenland ice sheet. We will probably have to start worrying about an ice age if that process ever stops.
Just like water gushing over Niagra falls doesn’t mean the great lakes are drying out, seeing ice bergs calving doesn’t mean the Greenland ice sheet is disappearing. People have to be trained / brainwashed into thinking this way. We are not born thinking it. We see a fast moving creek in the spring and it means a lot of snow / rain fell over winter. People forget that the same situation applies for a river of ice.
“Where are you seeing the -40?”
Right above your comment!
https://postimg.cc/DmKRCqq9
It’s 47 F in Nuuk today.
Forecast to stay above freezing for the next week or so.
Accuweather has 20 stations all above freezing, none below today.
It’s only weather.
JDHuffman,
I am only seeing a bunch of ads when I click on your link. It’s probably my browser.
Yes Scott, there are obviously problems on your end….
Begone, batrachian troll!
bobdroege Nuuk is on the south west coast… the warmest place in Greenland. Probably why they put the capital there, and why 1/3rd of the population for the entire island lives there.
The coast is the only place people can live on Greenland. I’m willing to bet all 20 location you mentioned above freezing are close to the coast. All I see for the next couple of weeks inland are frigid temperatures well below freezing. (GFS model)
This is the warmest forecast hour I could find over the next 2 weeks:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=gfs®ion=namer&pkg=T2m&runtime=2019082306&fh=228
The coastal air, “warmth” , might make it inland a bit in south Greenland at this day and time. It will only get above freezing there for a matter of hours, and 90% of the Greenland ice sheet will remain below freezing.
Bottom line… even during the arctic ice minimum, the Greenland ice sheet is gaining mass.
Scott,
Over the course of a year the summer melt and the calving more than makes up for the accumulation of snow.
Greenland is losing more ice each year than it gains.
The summit station is manned year round.
Check your facts, you can have your opinion, but it may be wrong.
bobdroege,
It’s -3 F at the summit station right now. I thought you said all 20 stations were above freezing? You check your facts.
The ice sheet is NOT melting during the annual ice minimum. This means for 90% of Greenland, you are ALWAYS in a state of mass gain regardless of the time of year. If you really think all of this mass is moving down hill into the ocean, you are smoking something. That’s not how solids work. Not only are the snows stacking up in central Greenland, but they are also being weighed down by their own weight.
All you are seeing is the interaction between the ocean and the Greenland ice sheet as a portion of the accumulated ice makes it’s way down hill. Just as a creek in spring means snow fall in the winter, ice bergs mean snow falling in Greenland – at any time of year. The ocean is of course winning the battle there at the coast (0 elevation) like it should. If it ever started losing, the Baffin Bay would freeze solid, blocking the circulation of the warm Atlantic waters into the arctic, possibly sending us back into an ice age. I do not expect this type of thing to happen for another 2000 years but you never know. The sun / magnetic field have some major tricks up their sleeves.
Scott,
I did say Accuweather and here is the site
https://www.accuweather.com/en/gl/greenland-weather
You say
“The ice sheet is NOT melting during the annual ice minimum.”
A couple small portions are still melting now
Greenland Ice Sheet Today has daily ice melt stats.
Next you say
“If you really think all of this mass is moving down hill into the ocean, you are smoking something. That’s not how solids work.”
Greenland is one big glacier, or several thousand glaciers, which all flow down hill to the ocean or their inland terminus.
That’s how glaciers work.
The best science says it’s still melting, maybe not accelerating like it was early this century but still losing mass overall every year.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/6/1934
Ice mass balance in Greenland is negative, now at
about -250 Gt/yr. It has been for several decades, and its
melting has been accelerating for decades:
“Four decades of Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance from 19792017,”
Eric Rignot et al,
PNAS January 22, 2019 116 (4) 1095-1103; first published January 14, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812883116
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095
David Appell says: ———Ice mass balance in Greenland is negative, now at about -250 Gt/yr. It has been for several decades, and its melting has been accelerating for decades:———–
Some may wonder if Trump’s opinion is changing on AGW. Climate could turn around rather quickly, though if it does there is a lot of momentum in the system now.
Certainly a lot of opportunity exists at this moment from the coastal retreat of ice. It enticed the Vikings some 1200 years ago too and they got 600 years of use out of it. Should be enough.
Why would climate change suddenly turn around? Short of an asteroid impact, what would cause it to do that?
One spot in ancient Greenland — about which we know little — does not substitute against all the science that supports AGW. Some think naming it “Green”land might have been a marketing gimmick to get people to move there.
Have you ever looked up the evidence for AGW, Bill?
David Appell says: ———Why would climate change suddenly turn around? Short of an asteroid impact, what would cause it to do that?—————-
Why are you asking me David. I asked you for proof and your only response is to ask me?
I see climate as weather. Weather changes all the time. Climate is nothing but longterm weather. So why wouldn’t climate change?
David Appell says:
———One spot in ancient Greenland about which we know little does not substitute against all the science that supports AGW. —————-
“All the science” supports AGW. You have a lot of genetic code of a pig, does that make you a pig? All this handwaving on your part moves the dialogue nowhere useful and in fact looks more like a coverup than any kind of open discussion.
David Appell says: ———
Some think naming it Greenland might have been a marketing gimmick to get people to move there.—————-
Nonsense! Nonsense detectable by a 3rd grade 4Her. These people were into animal husbandry. Green is a necessity.
David Appell says: ———
Have you ever looked up the evidence for AGW, Bill?—————-
I am well aware of radiant technology having been off and on involved with it for more than 40 years. I recognize its complexities. However its not fair to me to ask me to disprove a theory that when you haven’t even given me an outline of what I am supposed to disprove. If you have a scientific blueprint I can replicate an experiment with, I would think somebody has already done that and if it confirmed AGW that experiment would be made known to the entire world. But even a skilled team of physicists questioning how it works via a published paper were denied an answer to that question.
Just so you clearly know where I stand.
Ger*an: As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warm-welcome/
That should be in quotes, since the words are Snopes’, not mine.
Scott: Ice mass balance in Greenland is negative, now at about -250 Gt/yr. It has been for several decades, and its melting has been accelerating for decades:
“Four decades of Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance from 19792017,”
Eric Rignot et al,
PNAS January 22, 2019 116 (4) 1095-1103; first published January 14, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812883116
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095
Current Greenland ice sheet temp -31C (-24F)
August 23, summer “melt” season!
Poor DA, things just don’t work for him.
Is that all of it or just one cherry picked location?
Cause there is still surface melting at several locations.
Apropos of Greenland –
“Ironically, just as this new picture is emerging, climate change once again threatens Norse settlements—or what’s left of them. Organic artieacts like clothing and animal bones, preserved for centuries in the deep freeze of the permafrost, are decaying rapidly as rising temperatures thaw the soil. “It’s horrifying. Just at the time we can do something with all this data, it is disappearing under our feet,” Holm says.”
Oh, the horror! Before all this stuff got into the permafrost, the permafrost didn’t exist. It was a whole hell of a lot warmer. Clothing, bones, etc., don’t just magically burrow their way into frozen ground.
The interesting question might be – how much higher were sea levels when the permafrost didn’t exist, and bones and clothing just rotted away on the surface?
I am not aware of any contemporary accounts of sea levels rising before Greenland was once again overwhelmed by permafrost conditions.
It seems that widespread temperature changes of 10 -20 C may have occurred across Greenland in 10 years or so! Nobody really knows why, and competing hypotheses all have difficulties.
No use panicking – what has happened before may or may not happen again. The future is unknowable. Maybe the best plan might be to just keep calm and carry on!
Cheers.
“Maybe the best plan might be to just keep calm and carry on!” says the chief frog.
Begone, witless troll!
Re buying Greenland, as Richard Wolffe writes:
“Sadly, the days of buying and selling other countries are far from over because Trump himself seems to be easily bought by his Russian and Saudi friends. Hes so cheap you only have to dangle the idea of a Trump Tower in Moscow to win his undying support for lifting sanctions imposed after Russia invaded and annexed part of Ukraine.”
Only the densest people on this planet believe there was Trump Russia conspiracy. They are myrmidons, fools, sheeple. Everyone knows what happened. It is the first time in our country’s history, from George Washington until now, that the current President did not preside over a peaceful transition of power to the next President.
Stephen P Anderson,
In fact there was a Russia conspiracy… but it was a coordinated attack by Obama and Clinton AGAINST Trump.
That said… this in no way a blanket approval for everything Trump has said and done, but those are the actual facts in regards to Russia.
Yes, I didn’t say there wasn’t a conspiracy. It wasn’t a Trump Russia conspiracy. And, yes a coordinated attack against a duly elected President. First time in history of this country because they elected the Marxist Obama.
“Asked if he found evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow, Mueller said his team avoided the term collusion because it had no legal application. Mueller acknowledged there was insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians, but he said it would not be accurate to suggest there was no evidence of coordination.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/24/robert-mueller-testimony-key-takeaways-exoneration-indictment
The Guardian is a Sucky Rag putting the spin on it that you guys cannot let go of.
Here is the payday answer.
GOHMERT: Listen, regarding collusion or conspiracy, you didnt find evidence of any agreement, and Im quoting you, among the Trump campaign officials and any Russia linked individuals to interfere with our U.S. election, correct?
MUELLER: Correct.
Why did the Russians hack HClinton’s campaign’s emails just after Trump asked them to? The same day….
David Appell says:———Why did the Russians hack HClintons campaigns emails just after Trump asked them to? The same day.
——————–
Gee, David you are a bigger bonehead than I thought.
Trump never asked anybody, especially in any public speech, to hack somebody’s email account. Thats simply a lie.
In order to steer clear of these errors,
it is important to research the odds in poker, analyze what other players could have,
and bet intelligently. Utilizing these rules you have to
place antes or blinds. When downloaded to your mp3 player, you will be in a position to discover methods while you are on the transfer.
Online poker is about playing when you are in a comfortable situation.
Gordon Robertson says:
Nice smile from Tim Peake for you here:
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
That string was not cut. Was it a flick of the wrist like you said about the hammer throw?
S,
You must be joking!
Maybe you should watch the video again, and try to figure out the difference between one force (gravity) and more than one.
Newton’s Laws seem to be intact, whether you agree or not.
Asking pointless gotchas does not make you seem any smarter to those more intelligent than yourself. Try saying what you mean -you might look stupid, but you might learn something.
The only force operating on the Moon is gravity, unless yo can demonstrate another – and you can’t. Pseudoscientific wishful thinking is no substitute for fact.
Try more stupidity – it won’t make you look any thicker than you appear at present.
Cheers.
MF spueals:
“Try more stupidity – it won’t make you look any thicker than you appear at present”
That is rich coming from a clown who could not understand curvilinear translation. Here is a recap:
I stated this standard definition of translation:
“A translating object does not change orientation and all points on the object have the same velocity.”
MF immediately said:
“Well, no”.
He was completely wrong. A translating object (both curvilinear and rectilinear) does not change orientation And all points on the translating object DO have the same velocity.
And then he rambled on about curvilinear motion, confusing it with curvilinear translation.
LMAO. Bummer, man!
Orbital motion involves more than kinematics. Bummer, man.
If you slowed the Earth’s rotation down to one cycle per year around its polar axis, would it still be rotating?
Well David, if it’s rotating about its axis then it’s rotating about its axis.
Correct — it’s rotating about its axis.
At a rotation rate of one day per year, would the same face of the Earth always face the sun?
(Again, we’re setting eccentricity=0 here and so excluding librations.)
“Orbital motion involves more than kinematics. Bummer, man.”
An ignorant statement without support, anywhere.
No.
DA, and the child that steals people’s names, is a racehorse rotating on its axis?
If you can’t answer “yes” or “no”, then you aren’t even qualified to be in the discussion.
How did you determine “no?”
If the Earth’s angular velocity about its polar axis is one cycle/year, and its angular velocity about the sun is one cycle/yr, why wouldn’t the Earth always present the same face to the Sun, since both cycles sweep through the same infinitesimal angle per unit time?
omega = d(angle)/dt = constant
Your basic problem, David, is that you are not aware that “rotating about a central point” is not the same thing as how astronomy defines “revolving”, or “orbital motion”.
Astronomy’s definition of “revolving” does not equal “rotating about a central point”.
I have explained this numerous times. You are ineducable.
Don’t tell me my problems. Answer my legitimate questions.
As soon as the questions get to the crux of the matter, you and your fellow deniers refuse to answer.
Do you think that’s not obvious??
Do you think that fools someone like me?
DA can’t answer the simple question because he can’t face reality.
The reality is he has no job, and no future.
If something moves in an x-y-z reference frame, kinematics is able to describe its motion.
You clowns simply cannot back up your goofy statement.
Stupid child, does a racehorse rotate on its axis?
Ger*an/JDH: I trust you never wonder why I avoid you.
If you understood what has been explained to you, time and again, then you could answer your own question, David.
DA, if you won’t answer the simple question then you have no credibility.
You’re almost as low as the stupid child that steals other people’s names.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
If you understood what has been explained to you, time and again, then you could answer your own question, David.
You don’t answer my simple questions because you know what the answers mean.
DREMT: Again,
How do you know the children on a merry go round are rotating???
It’s the simplest question possible. Surely your robust scientific reasoning can handle this.
Right if you slow down earths polar axis spin to once per year, your day will be one year long. Whether the sun came up in the east or west would be dependent upon the direction of the spin.
If you have no spin then your view of the sun never changes.
If you have a spin the exact speed of your orbit then your view of space will never change.
We have specifically stated the case to differentiate the orbital rotation that gives you a virtual spin on your axis.
this is the difference between theory and engineering if building and selling devices with multiple spinning parts.
It would greatly complicate engineering if you have a separate motor rotating it inside the moon. You would have to suspend the moon from an oscillating external arm the tip of which transcribed a circle around the earth. That would blow up any budget from the complication of installing it, make the whole device much heavier and less efficient to operate.
The moon device doesn’t even need a way to rotate on its axis. It only needs to rotate on the earths axis. Thus the earth in spinning on its axis can be built and have the moon rotate around it like a clock with two hands moving at different speeds on the same axis and same motor.
However, building in the motion induced by barycenter gravity forcing would prohibit selling cheap models pretty much eliminating the child amusement market.
If the Earth only rotated about it’s axis one time per year we wouldn’t be here to ponder. God is Great!
bill hunter says:
And yet the Antikythera mechanism had to do just that in order to work.
https://tinyurl.com/yyusmfpc
“As is known today from Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion, the moon travels at different speeds as it orbits the Earth, and this speed differential is modeled by the Antikythera Mechanism, even though the ancient Greeks were not aware of the actual elliptical shape of the orbit.”
“DREMT: Again,
How do you know the children on a merry go round are rotating???”
David says “again” even though it’s the first time he’s asked this specific question. In general, he keeps asking questions about “rotation”, even though he should be asking about axial rotation, or orbital motion. They never remember to specify the “…on its own axis”, and I think that’s deliberate.
‘If you have a spin the exact speed of your orbit then your view of space will never change.’
‘this is the difference between theory and engineering if building and selling devices with multiple spinning parts.’
Well, speaking of engineering, have you ever seen an x-y plotter?
Program an x-y plotter to draw a circle around a specific central point.
Would the pen orbit the point like the Moon while drawing the circle?
‘If you have a spin the exact speed of your orbit then your view of space will never change.’
So according to you guys definition of orbit, the pen needs to spin at the exact speed of its orbit around the central point.
It would greatly complicate the programming if you had to tell the pen to spin at the correct rate every time it draws a circle!
Just imagine the programming to make it draw a curvaceous nude. You would have to tell it to spin at different rates all along the various curves!
Of course that is silly. Because engineers understand that simple translation is sufficient to draw a curve or a circle.
It simply MOVES in a circular path, without turning.
Its programming would be to translate to a series of x, y positions. No rotation needed.
The pen maintains the same orientation to the paper while drawing.
Thus, per this universal engineering definition of translation, an object orbiting a central point is simply translating in a circle, or ellipse.
It is maintaining the same orientation to the stars, no turning involved.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
David says again even though its the first time hes asked this specific question. In general, he keeps asking questions about rotation, even though he should be asking about axial rotation, or orbital motion.
Forget orbiting. I’m not asking about orbiting. I’m not talking about orbiting bodies.
If a kid on a merry go round rotating about some axis? No orbiting involved.
How do you know? What is it about the situation that characterizes “rotation?”
bill hunter says:
Right if you slow down earths polar axis spin to once per year, your day will be one year long. Whether the sun came up in the east or west would be dependent upon the direction of the spin.
No — the same side of the Earth would always face the sun — it would (appear to) be tidally locked, as the angular velocity of the Earth’s rotation is equal to the angular velocity of its orbital motion.
David, have you ever thought of trying to actually make a point?
Svante says: ———And yet the Antikythera mechanism had to do just that in order to work.
https://tinyurl.com/yyusmfpc
Have you ever looked up the evidence for AGW, Bill?————
What you have failed to notice Svante is the Antikythera mechanism is modeling the phases of the moon, not movement of the face of the moon.
Yes Bill, but that is not what the film shows.
The film shows that the speed of the moon varies.
That’s hard to explain with a single motion.
It is easy to explain with a Kepler orbit and a rotation.
Tim Peake’s ball shows that the two motions are equally easy to separate in reality. Like so:
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
Svante, neither film shows that the moon rotates independently. The Greek mechanism I misunderstood that is predicting eclipses instead phases. But neither are connected to an independent rotation of the moon so this is just a distraction.
Also centripedic force is merely the force providing by the velocity of the orbiting body. Velocity changes because orbits are eccentric and and orbits are eccentric because of the forces of gravity of the entire universe so the only changes to orbits is through long periods of times and apparently small changes from the pull of other planets that change their orientation much more periodically than the rest of the galaxies and the universe.
And of course all that suggests the possibility of a medium that could form a potential differential that allows light to travel.
I am not speaking scientifically here, merely philosophically. Obviously if you have science that proves otherwise I would be forced to change my philosophy. But providing proven science requires rather certain evidence, calculations, and a closed system.
” am not speaking scientifically here, merely philosophically.”
Obviously.
“Obviously if you have science that proves otherwise”
We do and have showed you.
“I would be forced to change my philosophy.”
Thatll be the day…
Nice video, svante.
Clearly shows the ball spinning on its axis after release from its moon-like orbit.
Will the crew find some way to deny this experiment, as they have all others?
Probably.
Nate says:———Obviously. We do and have showed you.
Thatll be the day
Nate I doubt you even know what science is. I will give you a clue. Its nothing you ever read.
And who is “we”???
And how about one example of incontrovertible science you have shown me? I have gravity and light and magnetism, together with the velocity of objects introduced by a poorly understood phenomena (the big bang) setting other objects in motion through collisions. We understand some characteristics of these forces and not others.
From that I have formed a philosophy of gravity influencing orbits and the axial spin of some objects that have a velocity creating gravitational pull vs centripetal forces.
From that I hypothesize that elliptical orbits are created by gravitational pull of the entire universe. This gravitational pull does affect velocity.
So what is next that you claim “we showed” me.
‘From that I have formed a philosophy of gravity influencing orbits and the axial spin of some objects that have a velocity creating gravitational pull vs centripetal forces.
From that I hypothesize that elliptical orbits are created by gravitational pull of the entire universe. This gravitational pull does affect velocity.’
That’s great Bill!
Now try an publish this great work that abandons ordinary physics in favor of gobbledegook.
I’m sure you can publish it in the Online Journal of Crank Science or something similar.
“The film shows that the speed of the moon varies.
That’s hard to explain with a single motion.”
Not at all. The speed of the moon varies due to gravity, and its proximity to Earth at different points of the orbit.
Nate says:
Thats great Bill!
Now try an publish this great work that abandons ordinary physics in favor of gobbledegook.
Im sure you can publish it in the Online Journal of Crank Science or something similar.
================
================
Nate, I was describing a theory that has several already known elements in it. Why should I publish a book if all that is already known? If you think I described something I invented because I don’t understand the known elements. . . .you should point out precisely what I said that is not in compliance with known theory. As it is with your handwaving I have to wonder if you even know.
Svante, how many times can you watch that video without understanding it?
You must be “watching” with your eyes closed!
Looks to me like he just let go of the string and the ball flew off in a straight line rotating as it went.
“Still a man sees what he wants to see
And disregards the rest”
“Looks to me like…”
A weasel sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.
How did he make the ball spin then?
weasel, if only you had not weaseled out on our agreement. I enjoy teaching physics.
But not to weasels….
You don’t know any physics I want to learn.
I’ll stick to reputable physics teachers like the Rabett.
b,
Halpern is as much a physicist as Gavin Schmidt is a scientist.
Or as Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate.
As to spinning balls and string, look at research into the sport of hammer throwing. The maximum distance is achieved when minimal energy is diverted away from the desired trajectory. Any energy absorbed by the hammer in the form of rotational torque is caused by less than ideal release technique. Not much, but every little bit helps.
The best throwers seem to instinctively sense the correct time and technique, without thinking too much.
There are various competing hypotheses, of course.
Cheers.
Mike,
Halpern has a PhD in physics, that’s kind of the definition of a physicist.
A hammer thrown with the least spin likely goes the farthest, but the hammer with the most spin before being thrown likely goes the farthest as well.
Go figure.
b,
You claimed that Josh Halpern was a reputable physics teacher.
Seemed to be a rather mundane chemistry teacher, if feedback from his students was anything to go by.
Qualifications may not indicate actual competence. If you want to believe Halpern’s silliness, go ahead.
As to hammer throwing – “likely goes furthest” probably won’t get you a job in the field. The throw is actually measured, rather than settled by debate on what is “likely”.
Stick with your pseudoscientific GHE true believer nonsense. You can’t do any harm, and it will keep you happy.
Cheers.
Mike,
There is a little bit of an overlap between Physics and Chemistry.
Halpern being a Physical Chemistry teacher teaches Physical Chemistry and Universities usually don’t let you get credit for the same course taught in the Physics department as is taught in the Chemistry department.
But you wouldn’t know that.
I would judge a PhD on the number of published papers not the student reviews especially of those courses known as make or break classes.
b,
Twist away, foolish Warmist.
You may judge as you like, but you cannot name one person who actually prepared to pay for your judgement. Halpern has no clue. He is one of those fools who create fantasies, and present them as useful fact.
As an example, only a fool would try to imply that temperatures are related to W/m2 in any useful way! Fools like Schmidt, Hansen, Mann, Trenberth, and assorted bumbling fumblers do it on a regular basis. You might notice that with all the richly bizarre magic heating plates, temperatures are supposedly made to increase, but of course no temperatures are ever given, because this would make the whole charade subject to test by experimentation.
CO2 provides not heat. Nobody has ever explained how the GHE manufactures heat out of nothing. Thermometers respond to heat.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Cheers.
Mike,
I thought we were talking about spinning balls and the like, not the greenhouse effect.
And Tiffany pays me well for my judgement, so that’s one.
b,
Feel free to think anything you like. Tiffany does not pay you well for your judgement of PhDs based on the number of published papers. You are just being stupidly diversionary now.
Keep dreaming.
Cheers.
bobdroege says: ———I would judge a PhD on the number of published papers not the student reviews especially of those courses known as make or break classes.————
Hmmmmmmmm, do you also judge the quality of a book by how many pages it has?
So much straw so little time
I am trying to grow some grass so I could use some straw.
anyway Mike,
You were the one judging PhD physicists, weren’t you.
You seem to think you are smarter than them.
But I’ll bet dollars to donuts you haven’t even met a PhD advisor.
bobdroege says:
You were the one judging PhD physicists, werent you.
You seem to think you are smarter than them.
=============
Where did you get the idea that “physicists” are smart? This the day and age of leaving no child behind. . . .and. . . .the land of being able to be anything you want to be.
Now “great” physicists generally need to be smart.
Bill Hunter asks
“Where did you get the idea that “physicists” are smart?”
Well I have met a few, one even had a Nobel Prize.
I have taken a few physics courses, the teachers were pretty sharp.
So are you claiming to be a product of no child left behind?
You can be anything you want to be?
bobdroege says:
Well I have met a few, one even had a Nobel Prize.
I have taken a few physics courses, the teachers were pretty sharp.
So are you claiming to be a product of no child left behind?
You can be anything you want to be?
————–
Well if you had read my post I said Great Physicists pretty much need to be smart. That would cover most Nobel Prize winning physicists, thus qualifies as a non-sequitur.
When I went the second time in the 80’s was my first encounter with classes that tried not to fail you by making tests so easy about the only way to fail was to not show up for the class or forgo even reading a significant percentage of the reading assignments.
But absolutely none of that sparked my comment. What sparked it was the suggestion in your comment when you said:
“I would judge a PhD on the number of published papers”
and then followed up with:
“You were the one judging PhD physicists, werent you.
You seem to think you are smarter than them.”
A PhD isn’t a measure of smartness.
and now many papers a PhD writes is certainly not one either because even a moron can often see which side of the bread slice has butter on it. A system that measures PhD success as “publish or perish” is actually a huge exploitable problem with science today through funding vehicles to pal review at friendly journals serving as expensive coffee table books for the elite to do just that.
That’s not very well informed in my view, it would suggest you have no concept of what internal controls are.
But would we even be talking about this at all if somebody could actually lay out the scientific blueprint of how the greenhouse effect actually works in our atmosphere?
Nope nobody apparently can do that, thus what we are relying upon is judging PhD’s by how many papers they wrote. Now that is definitely stupid, not smart. If you even had a smidgen of an idea why there are so many licensed professions then you would know why its stupid. And while that might not tell you how many PhD’s are stupid thats only because they know which side of the bread has butter on it.
Yeah, science, PhDs, what have they ever done for us?
Not much according to Bill, who clearly was beaten as a child by a PhD scientist.
No other explanation for his hatred of them.
Bill Hunter,
You say
“But would we even be talking about this at all if somebody could actually lay out the scientific blueprint of how the greenhouse effect actually works in our atmosphere?”
It’s been done to great extent by many “smart” PhD physicists.
Your statement only says that you don’t understand it, that means you are not smart enough to get it.
Sorry but that’s the state of it.
Dr Roy has explained it on this site, why don’t you search for his explanation.
Thanks
Nate says:
August 26, 2019 at 5:50 AM
Yeah, science, PhDs, what have they ever done for us?
Not much according to Bill, who clearly was beaten as a child by a PhD scientist.
No other explanation for his hatred of them.
==================
==================
Saying physicists are normal people is hardly a hatred Nate. What do you think they are. . . .you don’t need to answer that because you consider them Gods right?
bobdroege says:
Its been done to great extent by many smart PhD physicists.
Your statement only says that you dont understand it, that means you are not smart enough to get it.
Sorry but thats the state of it.
Dr Roy has explained it on this site, why dont you search for his explanation.
++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++
Thats not at all helpful. I have seen Roy’s experiments. What you fail to have noted is my beef with climate science is not whether there is a greenhouse effect or that greenhouse gases are a necessary part of it. My beef is evidence that greenhouse gas variability results in X surface forcing for Y increase in CO2.
I am joined in this skepticism by some of the leading climate scientists in the nation. . . . including Roy.
And when it comes to a blueprint, a “great extent” blueprint is not an adequate blueprint to build a bridge that people will cross.
However, that said, I am always game to take a look at yet another “great extent” blueprint because I am in fact on a quest to find the best one.
So a link would be greatly appreciated. And I promise I will get back to you to let you know what I think of it and whether it looks like a bridge I would cross.
Bill Hunter,
I wasn’t trying to be helpful and you stated here
“But would we even be talking about this at all if somebody could actually lay out the scientific blueprint of how the greenhouse effect actually works in our atmosphere”
but then you require much more here
“I have seen Roys experiments. What you fail to have noted is my beef with climate science is not whether there is a greenhouse effect or that greenhouse gases are a necessary part of it. My beef is evidence that greenhouse gas variability results in X surface forcing for Y increase in CO2.”
I would suggest you go play around with the MODTRAN database.
I am content with the knowledge that CO2 has increased and temperatures have also increased, all other things not being equal but taken into account.
If you don’t want to be taken for a run of the mill stooge, don’t act like one.
This was you, Bill: ‘Where did you get the idea that ‘physicists are smart?’
Yes I do think so, it is difficult to get a PhD in physics, and other sciences, and requires being both smart, hard working and persistent.
Not Gods.
Don’t see things as black and white like you.
bobdroege says: ———I would suggest you go play around with the MODTRAN database. If you dont want to be taken for a run of the mill stooge, dont act like one.————–
I have probably played with MODTRAN more than you have. What you fail to comprehend is that MODTRAN is NOT a surface forcing calculator.
What it calculates is how much more light would be absorbed in a cold atmosphere (e.g. surface warming of the atmosphere) and does not calculate atmosphere warming of the surface.
What you also fail to understand is that radiation is not unique nor is the primary means by which the surface warms the atmosphere. Further, while I agree with the concept of BOA forcing of the surface I see no reason to agree with TOA forcing. The absorbing of light throughout the atmosphere may have very limited effect. To understand what effect it might have we need far better monitoring. People have tried and failed. RW Woods could not find a greenhouse effect in a little box. The greenhouse effect has zero applicability to any heat loss calculations from a home. Yet the lapse rate is imbued with some kind of forcing mechanism unknown to science and assumed to be there because it seems logical.
The whole theory is an unfinished blueprint that a bunch of morons are trying to get all of humanity to cross on the assumption they know better than all humanity. I am all for careful monitoring of the climate, increasing accuracy and an ability to actually take measurements without having teams of whispering scientists poring over the data wondering why the temperatures don’t match the models they are being paid billions to run to predict future climate. Of course they are going to think the temperatures are wrong. As an auditor I see that kind of thinking practically every day.
There is no way climate science would get what is called a clean opinion. Uncertainty is all over the place and the uncertainty is being expressed by top climate scientists. You want to fool yourself into thinking its just a bunch of nutcases but in fact you are the nutcase. So what if you are right? 200 years of industry spewing CO2 has only resulted in the betterment of the human race. That squarely puts you in the nut zone worrying about stuff there is no evidence is going to happen beyond some gentle warming over the past couple of hundred years. Look at the noise amplitude in the ice core records we are within that range of amplitudes. But even if we were not. . . .what net harm do you really see? None!
Nate says: ———This was you, Bill: Where did you get the idea that physicists are smart?
Yes I do think so, it is difficult to get a PhD in physics, and other sciences, and requires being both smart, hard working and persistent.
You don’t know people very well Nate. Anti-social?
Yes I think most people are smart enough to get a PhD in physics Nate.
It is difficult to get a PhD in physics, and other sciences, and requires being hard working, persistent, and having sufficient desire and motivation to do all that for the approximate 8 years of hard effort it takes.
However, going through all that doesn’t make you smarter. But it does take a love of that kind of work to endure through the course of study.
When one comes out the other end he has an excellent grasp on what is actually known by science and can take numerous jobs in developing new products to teaching and research. “Smart” enters into it for those select few that actually go on to great discoveries.
Take for example William Happer and his discovery of the sodium guide star that advanced astronomy a great deal. That required tremendous knowledge of the atmosphere, optics, light absorbing characteristics, and the genius to put it all together and solve a difficult problem. That’s smart!!!
Perhaps there is a smart guy in climate science thats actually going to put the pieces together so they actually work. There are a lot of smart guys on the periphery creating better ways to monitor climate, but near as I can tell there has been almost zero improvement in climate science theory and its range of possible outcomes since 1979. Pretty hard to agree to narrow a range that would force it lower isn’t it? Especially since so much money is flowing on the basis of the results needing to be bigger.
And gee if you start funding “primary” research on it people might hear it really isn’t settled. And anyway since RW Woods killed off the idea of a simple greenhouse effect having anymore juice in it that led to the the TOA/Lapse rate theory that nobody can duplicate in a laboratory. Its like claiming God exists. There is no acceptable test to prove God doesn’t exist.
Thus under those conditions Nate climate science has become a religion, not a science. Quite simply you can’t have it both ways. An untestable hypothesis of the existence of God is what defines religion most frequently. But don’t let “most frequently” deceive you about what a religion is and is not. It encompasses much more than Gods. It encompasses everything that you want everybody else to believe. That is where proselytizing religion separates itself from a personal spiritual belief whether shared with a many or a few or just one.
Bob above says its warming so he is good with it. A real miracle indeed there Bob.
Bill Hunter,
You are still babbling like a baboon, but lets look at just one paragraph of your latest manifesto directed at me.
“What you also fail to understand is that radiation is not unique nor is the primary means by which the surface warms the atmosphere. Further, while I agree with the concept of BOA forcing of the surface I see no reason to agree with TOA forcing. The absorbing of light throughout the atmosphere may have very limited effect. To understand what effect it might have we need far better monitoring. People have tried and failed. RW Woods could not find a greenhouse effect in a little box. The greenhouse effect has zero applicability to any heat loss calculations from a home. Yet the lapse rate is imbued with some kind of forcing mechanism unknown to science and assumed to be there because it seems logical.”
Look I never said radiation was the unique thing affecting the surface temperature.
If you bothered to look it up, though, you might find upwelling radiation causes more heating of the atmosphere than thermals and evaporation.
TOA forcing is straight out of the first law of thermodynamics. Pretty much puts you in the nut house if you don’t agree with it.
The greenhouse effect is totally irrelevant to how you heat or cool your house, that should be obvious.
Learn why the moist lapse rate is less than the dry lapse rate and you might learn something about the greenhouse effect and how water vapor contributes to it. It is the most important greenhouse gas as its concentration is much higher than the CO2 concentration. It looks to me like you don’t understand the lapse rate, I don’t have a sufficient grasp to explain all the math that goes with it, so look elsewhere.
And now back to your ranting.
bobdroege says:
You are still babbling like a baboon, but lets look at just one paragraph of your latest manifesto directed at me.
If you bothered to look it up, though, you might find upwelling radiation causes more heating of the atmosphere than thermals and evaporation.
————-
Maybe I am a baboon babbling to someone with the brain of a cockroach. One thing for sure you don’t know.
If you look at the NASA budget, radiation isn’t even third place. First place – Evaporation 86.4w/m2; second place – incoming sunlight 77.1w/m2, third place – thermals 18.4 w/m2; last place – radiation for all of 17.8 w/m2.
*************************
bobdroege says:
TOA forcing is straight out of the first law of thermodynamics. Pretty much puts you in the nut house if you don’t agree with it.
—————–
TOA forcing is an unknown physical possibility. It is not supported by any known science and in fact is in conflict with all known means of radiation heat blocking. Proof of that started with RW Woods more than a 100 years ago and it has never been rehabilitated.
*********************
bobdroege says:
The greenhouse effect is totally irrelevant to how you heat or cool your house, that should be obvious.
—————-
You mean the popular greenhouse theory is totally irrelevant to how you heat or cool your house and yes thats obvious.
*********************
bobdroege says:
Learn why the moist lapse rate is less than the dry lapse rate and you might learn something about the greenhouse effect and how water vapor contributes to it. It is the most important greenhouse gas as its concentration is much higher than the CO2 concentration. It looks to me like you don’t understand the lapse rate, I don’t have a sufficient grasp to explain all the math that goes with it, so look elsewhere.
———————
Yep you can bet you don’t have a grasp of it. I just don’t know anybody who would take up that bet.
Bottom line even if, and especially if, you don’t grasp it you should demand a blueprint explaining exactly how it gets the heat thats intercepted in the upper atmosphere back to the surface. IMO, its a Bridge Too Far. And here you are confessing to be a parrot.
Bill,
Just a lot of random noise from you: PhDs, yada yada, only Happer is smart, yada yada, we don’t understand humans yada yada….
And thus you conclude:
‘Thus under those conditions Nate climate science has become a religion, not a science.’
Its all just your feelings and beliefs that, ya know, climate scientists are not really smart, and dont know what the hell they are doing, cuz you don’t like the implications of their findings.
IOW its your religion!
And not very convincing.
Why don’t you focus on what you think the problems with the science actually are, that you can actually point out?
Nate says: Just a lot of random noise from you: PhDs, yada yada, only Happer is smart, yada yada, we don’t understand humans yada yada….
And thus you conclude:
‘Thus under those conditions Nate climate science has become a religion, not a science.’
Its all just your feelings and beliefs that, ya know, climate scientists are not really smart, and dont know what the hell they are doing, cuz you don’t like the implications of their findings.
IOW its your religion!
And not very convincing.
Why don’t you focus on what you think the problems with the science actually are, that you can actually point out?—————
Nate, being too young, too inexperienced, and too ignorant is a curable problem. You probably haven’t seen 1% of the failed science and financial predictions I have, all made by folks considered to be very smart.
Holding a degree does not make you smart. Smartness can’t be tested by an IQ test. Smartness comes from breaking through the trees and correctly identifying the forest you are in. Lots of people get so narrow focused they can’t see beyond the first tree they are inspecting. Anybody can focus and learn more than 99% of other people while understanding perhaps only half as much as the average person.
Success is what defines smartness. On the topic of dangerous warming of the globe goes who is smart will become 20/20 vision sometime in the future. In the meantime unless you want to actually learn how heat absorbed in the upper atmosphere ends up heating the surface, you would probably be smarter to maintain your skepticism. Unless you are the lead dog, Nate; the view never changes. If you want to call that smarts or success, hey be my guest. . . .enjoy the view.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
Tesla was wrong. It doesn’t matter how. It’s obvious the Moon rotates — because someone standing on its surface would see the entire universe sweep by them in one lunar day.
As clueless as ever.
Define “rotation.”
How would you determine if an arbitrary celestial body is rotating or not?
Are kids on a merry go round rotating?
Why or why not?
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
I don’t know what “paths cross” means.
But I’m not asking about a TWO-body system, I’m asking about a ONE-body system.
Here’s a planet: O
How would you determine if it’s rotating or not?
Again, are kids on a merry go round rotating?
Why or why not?
“Paths cross” means that the paths cross.
A kid on a merry-go-round is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round.
DA,
You wrote-
“How would you determine if its rotating or not?”
Sounds like a stupid attempt at a gotcha. How would you determine it? If you have a view, why not just state it, and solicit comments?
That would avoid all the sly attempts to trip people up, which just make you look somewhat retarded.
Cheers.
I have no idea what two paths you’re talking about.
AGAIN:
Im not asking about a TWO-body system, Im asking about a ONE-body system.
Heres a planet: O
How would you determine if its rotating or not?
A kid on a merry-go-round is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round.
What led you to that conclusion?
I’m talking about the paths that the particles making up a single body takes as it orbits.
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
DA is not here to learn. He is here to pervert and corrupt reality.
He is for our entertainment only.
I don’t know what your paths mean and I don’t think you do either.
Anyway
YET AGAIN:
I’m not asking about a TWO-body system, I’m asking about a ONE-body system.
Here’s a planet: O
How would you determine if its rotating or not?
He certainly can not learn!
Again, what led you to the conclusion that a kid on a merry-go-round is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round?
If you think you know what you’re talking about, why do you avoid so many questions?
That isn’t the sign of a confident troller.
Unless the kid was slap bang in the center of the merry-go-round, then he would be rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, and not on his own axis.
All parts of an orbiting body are following paths as the body orbits.
If the paths form concentric circles, or ellipses, about the central point that the body is orbiting, then that body is orbiting and not rotating on its own axis.
If the paths cross, then that body is orbiting and rotating on its own axis.
I’m not talking about orbiting.
I’m talking about a single rogue celestial body, drifting through space.
How do you determine if it’s rotating or not?
DA,
Tiresome. Try for another gotcha. Why should anybody respond to your silly demands?
Explain your reasoning, then be prepared to defend it.
You are just trolling, because your pseudoscientific posing isn’t convincing anyone. No GHE, no CO2 heating.
Cheers.
“I’m not talking about orbiting.”
Well, you should be.
You can’t envision a celestial body that isn’t orbiting??
You didn’t hear of Oumuamua?
You’ve never heard of rogue star?
Stop stalling. Tell us how to determine if a celestial body is rotating or not. One not orbiting anything.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
If the paths form concentric circles, or ellipses, about the central point that the body is orbiting, then that body is orbiting and not rotating on its own axis.
What is your definition of “rotating?”
(One that doesn’t involve orbiting.)
The merry go round isn’t orbiting anything. But you say it’s rotating. Why?
Without some scientific rigor, you’re just expressing an opinion, not doing science.
David, I have no idea what your problem is.
The foolish David Appell vainly tries to manoeuvre people to accepting his gotcha setups.
Without some scientific rigour he is just being pointless and irrelevant. CO2 heats nothing. Nobody can describe the GHE in any useful way.
David claims that he doesn’t know what rotation is, hoping it will make him look clever. What a donkey!
Cheers.
DA,
And the Moon rotates about the Earth, and about the Sun, and about the galactic center, and . . .
What is the point? What difference does it make?
To pseudoscientific GHE true believers, it is a diversion away from the fact that nobody can describe the mythical GHE. And away from the fact that nobody has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter using CO2!
Meaningless, interminable arguments involving semantics, definitions and other debating tricks, are the hallmarks of the dimwitted Warmist deniers. Climate is just the average of weather, no more, no less.
No GHE needed. CO2 heats nothing. Carry on denying and diverting – it won’t make fantasy become fact.
Cheers,
We’re not discussing the GHE. Grow up.
DA,
I understand why you don’t want to discuss the GHE.
It’s only pseudoscience, isn’t it?
Cheers.
Nice video find , better than the hammer throw video, pretty cool watching it from this perspective rotating as flies right up your nose
OK, Eben.
is a trusted QQ Online poker Online and Bandar Ceme Online
wagering website that supplies online card video games
such as Online Casino Poker, DominoQQ, Capsa Online,
Ceme Online, Ceme99, Online Betting Online Online Poker Sites.
QQ Casino Poker Ceme, the best as well as safest on-line texas hold’em agent site with 24 hr IDN Online Texas hold’em service.
For those of you Lovers of the video game Online Online and that
wish to play betting Online Casino poker, Online Ceme, Domino
QQ, City Ceme, Online Gaming, Bandar Capsa Online in 1 ID
How’s the weather in Nigeria today?
I see another clown moon non-spinner has joined our ranks.
The child is sooooooooo desperate….
Why does a man who does not believe in to global warming suddenly want to buy Greenland?
Entropic man… perhaps he is hedging his bet?
Anyways… bottom line, the PEOPLE of Greenland should make this decision. Not Trump, not the Danish government. Perhaps they are tired of living on government owned property and want to belong to the united states. Maybe they’d be willing to buy their own land? If not that’s fine. There is no need for Trump to throw a temper tantrum. lol
“Why does a man who does not believe in to global warming suddenly want to buy Greenland?”
With a couple thousand coal-fired power plants they could melt most of that ice. Then, go after the oil deposits.
“Make Greenland Green Again”.
Make a dam and sell bottled water to world.
Make single hull nuclear powered “super oil tankers” ship drinking water. And use pipelines.
Cities with bad tap water, have an alternative.
Get rid of bottled water, because can get from your tap.
Now, you might not water to flush toilets and take shower with it- but maybe you do.
The Greenlanders do not seem keen.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/23/753479744/what-do-greenlanders-think-of-trumps-interest-in-buying-greenland?t=1566580990336
Thanks for posting… interesting stuff. Not surprisingly, the people in Greenland want to be completely on their own, not part of the Danish government OR the US. I can’t really say I blame them for not wanting to be part of the US. Heck, I’m embarrassed by this country even though it has provided a lot of opportunity to me, and is head and shoulders above many places around the world.
Scott, as you are embarrassed by your country, and your “friends” are more important to you than reality, have you considered therapy?
Scott R,
And what countries around the world are better than the US? What country ever in the history of mankind has been better than the US?
You sound like the stereotypical American. Probably are.
Not many countries have crushed as many empires, as US.
I sure they a quite a few backwater nations, which are pleasant to live in.
Japan is pretty nice. And a country with a lot global influence- doing lots of stuff that makes the whole world better.
SPA,
Maybe Libya under Gaddafi? Looking at facts, he had literacy rates arguably superior to the US, free education, free overseas university education, free electricity, free medical treatment, no external debt, zero interest loans from the State Bank, and other things we might dream about.
Things seem to have changed a bit.
I suppose it all depends on your criteria. I have no intention of relocating to the US, as I can’t think of a single reason that I would be better off. To each his own.
Cheers.
gbaikie says:
Not many countries have crushed as many empires, as US.
Empires should be crushed.
Why is that, David?
Did you have an unpleasant experience with an empire as a child?
Luckily, nobody is likely to take the slightest notice of you, apart from other similarly powerless people.
Do you yearn to run a commercial empire, but haven’t the ability? Tut, tut. Envy is a curse, isnt it?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
Luckily, nobody is likely to take the slightest notice of you, apart from other similarly powerless people.
You make a point of responding to every one of my posts.
DA,
What makes you think I take any particular notice of you?
Feel free to compose all the gotchas you want.
The fact remains that if you dropped dead, I certainly wouldn’t pay any more attention than any other large lump of dead meat which suddenly fell in the vicinity.
Cheers.
Scott R says: ——— Not surprisingly, the people in Greenland want to be completely on their own———–
Trump is ahead of everybody on this. Not only do they want independence, they won the right to vote for it.
Its like Brexit for them we want out from under the Danish/EU heel that dictates what foreign trade they engage in and to a large extent what they can do with Greenland’s resources. A poll has 80% of the population in favor of independence. However, getting it together to satisfy that the poll also says that 78% are concerned about damaging their living standard since 2/3rds of Greenlands budget is provided by a Danish block grant. So in essence they are in need of buying their way out of this.
Enter Trump like an NBA owner and asks Denmark to sell him their option on this nation on the cusp of free agency. The deal would come down like a partnership real estate deal which Trump is deeply knowledgeable of. Letters of intent would exchange hands where the US buys an option then actively negotiates a plan with Greenlanders to give them what they need in exchange for some rights to land and resources, maybe kind of like Alaska’s royalty sharing agreement with its citizens. You make all the Greenlander’s rich and gain access to vast resources that the capitalistic imagination, money, technology, could all go into making it happen. The Greenlanders are being kept poor by the Danish, displacing them from sensitive habitat, etc. and virtually keeping them on welfare with an economy hugely dependent on the block grant.
The Danish PM was irritated because she knows she is now in a bidding war. Apparently the Chinese are involved too. Greenland is reportedly rich in rare earths and the Chinese already almost have a Cartel in that. Thus this whole affair has long term world wide consequences in a large number of sectors.
Correct.
There is no “bidding war.” That’s ridiculous, and made up. The Dutch don’t want to sell. The Greenlanders don’t either. Why would they????
Countries aren’t for sale like corn flakes.
David Appell says:
———There is no bidding war. Thats ridiculous, and made up. The Dutch dont want to sell. The Greenlanders dont either. Why would they????
Countries arent for sale like corn flakes.————-
Thats pretty simple minded David. The Danish PM declined to discuss the matter. Denmark’s “interest” in Greenland (which isn’t a country but instead is currently considered a County of Denmark-upgraded from colony) is an interest that could be sold exactly like the Louisiana Purchase was.
You though thinking you are the world’s moral arbiter though wants to suggest such an idea as being immoral since you can’t even begin to establish it as impossible.
But morality transcends form, thus form cannot be used to judge morality. Any morality issues from the sale of Greenland would arise solely from the effect of such a sale on Greenlanders.
Since Greenlanders have already achieved the RIGHT to vote for independence; a sale of the Danish INTEREST in Greenland to the US would have no direct moral impact on Greenlanders unless say the US rescinded their rights as part of the deal. If that happened then you would have a moral complaint. But all you are doing in reality is falsely impugning the motives of your own country.
You have free speech and the right to do that but if you want to really work against the interest of your own nation, why would you even want to stay here? But in reality all it is you want the Danish to maintain control and you don’t want the US to control it no matter what the outcome on the Greenlanders would be. Thats pretty immoral all in itself. Why not let the Greenlanders decide? Is what they potentially own make them too rich for you?
You are like a babe in the woods David. Adversity is the well spring of fantastic success. Revel in struggle for as to overcome it is the greatest of all things. The discovery of this truth formed the philosophy of the President who is acknowledged as its greatest conservationist President.
JDHuffman,
The reasons I’m embarrassed by my country are complex. I’m a libertarian… I do not agree with the military industrial complex. I feel we should have a very strong defense, but the nation building, maintaining order around the world shouldn’t be our job, and the job of the tax payer to pay for. I like personal freedoms and small government. I’m ashamed of just how entitled / socialistic the population has become. Everyone wants to blame someone else for their problems. “perpetual victim status” To be honest I am burned out on politics now. I’m done trying to change people. Sticking with science is a much better fit for me.
Stephen P Anderson… I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else. Like I said, we have it very good here.
“Entropic man says:
August 23, 2019 at 10:14 AM
Why does a man who does not believe in to global warming suddenly want to buy Greenland?”
You have global warming and you different topic, increase of global temperature due to human activity.
Such as this definition of global warming:
“a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth’s atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants.”
And:
” A: Global warming occurs when carbon dioxide (CO2) and other air pollutants and greenhouse gases collect in the atmosphere and absorb sunlight and solar radiation that have bounced off the earth’s surface.”
And wiki:
“Global warming is the long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth’s climate system, an aspect of current climate change shown by temperature measurements and by multiple effects of the warming.
…
There were prehistoric periods of global warming, but observed changes since the mid-20th century have been much greater than those seen in previous records covering decades to thousands of years.”
Now wiki is asserting, “changes since the mid-20th century have been much greater” which is unlikely.
But there different definition of global warming, one is measured increase in global temperature and other only refers to increase global temperature due to greenhouse gases which caused human activity.
So we have had periods in the past {without any human caused effects} of having Arctic have being ice free in term of arctic sea ice in the summer.
So I would say it’s unreasonable to assume we will have polar ice be ice free within 5 years, but if talking decades, 20 or 50 years
in becomes more likely.
Also ice free polar sea ice in arctic is a lot different the ice free polar sea ice in terms the southern pole {which has been growing or roughly stable for decades]. Arctic polar sea ice is not very connected to loss of glacial ice of Greenland, but there much more connection if one had loss of polar ice in the southern pole.
There’s a doublethink going on here.
The right are saying that there is no man-made global warming, therefore we dont need to do anything about it.
At the same time they are watching the Arctic sea ice shrinking and expecting economic opportunities to follow.
E-man, there is “un-think” going on it your head.
The Arctic sea ice comes and goes. That has NOTHING to do with mankind.
If you choose to deny reality, and instead believe you are ruining the planet, you have several ways to leave….
Em,
Who is saying that there is no man made heat?
Of course there is, and far more than 100 years ago!
Thermometers even detect the extra heat! It just doesn’t come from CO2 – that’s just pseudoscientific GHE true believer delusion.
Cheers.
–Entropic man says:
August 23, 2019 at 3:01 PM
There’s a doublethink going on here.
The right are saying that there is no man-made global warming, therefore we dont need to do anything about it.–
There is urban heat island effect, and might want to learn how best to control that- if one concerned warming effects affecting humans.
“At the same time they are watching the Arctic sea ice shrinking and expecting economic opportunities to follow.”
Russia been trying to get a southern port for centuries, but if there is no polar sea ice, they don’t need a southern port.
Though if polar sea ice was always frozen, that might also be useful.
Russia been trying to get a southern port for centuries, but if there is no polar sea ice, they don’t need a southern port.
Yes, I’m sure Russia would rather sail to the Mediterranean and the Middle East from northern Siberia than from Ukraine.
Global airline routes {shortest distance to travel}.
https://openflights.org/demo/openflights-routedb-2048.png
Your post was about shipping ports, not airports. You sound like a fan of Epstein.
DA,
You sound like a nitpicking fool. What has Epstein to do with anything? Are you a closet fan of Epstein, or just annoyed he didn’t invite you to share his hobbies?
Cheers.
Entropic man says: ———Why does a man who does not believe in to global warming suddenly want to buy Greenland?———
Well one thing for sure Entropic you would never make it in the real estate business.
Lets look at this realistically. If AGW is occurring its a slamdunk deal. If AGW is not occurring its a slam dunk deal
Why? Because if its natural change that is occurring, Donald Trump is in the exact position of Eric The Red. Its 800AD and he found a great place with resources. Its going to work for 600 years.
I suppose you would turn the deal down because if you don’t believe in AGW you just have to believe that its going to turn into an ice cube next year.
LMAO!
I would turn the deal down because I would not like to be ruled by the US
Em,
I believe that Denmark sold the Danish Antilles to the US in the past. They are now called the US Virgin Islands.
I haven’t heard any threats of revolution, with the inhabitants clamouring to go back to Danish rule.
Maybe you could go and stir them up a bit, if you think they need a bit of a push.
Cheers.
Where do you live Entropic man?
There is no evidence GW is natural. THere is lots of evidence it is manmade.
It comes down to whether you’re evidence-based or not.
DA, a racehorse is NOT rotating on its axis.
It comes down to whether you’re truth-based, or not.
Define “rotating.”
Specify how to determine its presence or absence.
DA, you believing you are clever because you keep asking about “rotating” instead of “rotating on its axis”.
Keep believing you’re clever.
It’s most entertaining.
So at least you admit all rotation has an axis.
So define rotation (around an axis) for a single object, one not orbiting anything.
Specify how to operationally detect its presence or absence.
DA,
Explain why this is a completely pointless and irrelevant question.
Impossible to answer as posed, which of course is your intent. You can’t answer it in such a way that I can’t demonstrate how stupid your answer is, can you?
Bad luck for you, David. Try again.
Cheers.
“It comes down to whether youre evidence-based or not.”
Are you claiming there is no evidence of past climate change? Further strong suspicion isn’t evidence. Still lacking is an engineered reconstruction of man-made warming of sufficient force to cause the bulk of recent warming. Climate scientists thus far have only thrown out opinions about how convinced they are. Opinions are not science. If opinions were science the sun would still be circling the earth.
David Appell spews: “It comes down to whether youre evidence-based or not.”
Are you claiming there is no evidence of past climate change?
Further strong suspicion isn’t evidence.
Still lacking is an engineered reconstruction of the elements that would make man-made warming of sufficient force to cause the bulk of recent warming.
Climate scientists thus far have only thrown out opinions about how convinced they are. Opinions are not science. If opinions were science the sun would still be circling the earth.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49438682
Trump:
Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing..
Brit Hume
h2 hours ago
“On what authority does he order companies to do anything?”
Interesting question.
I would say order is stronger word than suggest.
And to say a “direct order”, would a commander if chief telling great American companies to do something.
So would say the President by saying order, is warning and reminding
interested parties, that it’s possible a direct order might be given. Or Trump doesn’t like idea, letting enemies know future military operations, he does not apply this rule to giving a head up to the American public. Or China not only get any benefit from this warning, but great American companies might realize it’s possible that business as normal may change in the future- weeks, months.
They [great American companies] should be looking at Hong Kong and realize this, but there is also other things happening.
So as far authority, the President has great power in terms of foreign policy {and in comparison pretty weak power in terms domestic matters}. If combine the Senate and President, one even talking about even greater power in terms foreign affairs.
Anyways Trump has long suggested it, and now, he not giving a direct order, but he saying ordering, and it might get to Trump saying direct order, depending near future possible events.
So direct order, might be related to high tariffs and other things. High tariffs on certain products from China, is essential the same as a direct order. Of course Trump can’t order companies like CEO can do- but he can stop all China trade. And what could happen with Hong Kong is merely one example, that would trigger this.
George Conway tweets
“I hereby order Republicans to get real about Trump’s mental state.
Republicans need to face up to the fact that the President of the United States is mentally unstable and psychologically unfit. And it’s only going to get worse.”
So trying to get electors to change their votes didn’t work. The coup didn’t work. The impeachment didn’t work. So, now they’re back to the 25th Amendment. News flash-it won’t work either.
I take it that you are happy with his behaviour and there is nothing to worry about?
He’s perfect.
Perfectly insane. It can’t be long now till they drag him away.
I have a bed made ready for him.
Nurse! Polish the electrodes!
Captain,
So was Hillary your master planner? Is Bernie? Warren? Where is this utopia? Where has it ever been?
SPA – not sure what utopia you are referring to but it is clear his own side are now deserting him.
“Mr. Trump “is a clear and present danger—to our country, to the globe and to himself,” tweeted former Gov. William F. Weld of Massachusetts, who is waging a long-shot campaign for the 2020 Republican presidential nomination against Mr. Trump. He included the hashtag #25thAmendment.”
Not sure what utopia? Really? The utopia you leftists strive for if only Trump will get out of the way. Surely you have a model? Somewhere it’s been done before?
Captain,
Just think, when Trump leaves office he will have appointed at least two more Supreme Court justices.
Has anyone gone to a Trump rally.
It seems you have not lived, if you not been to one.
I haven’t.
I hate waiting in lines, so not sure I will go
to one.
And also I live in California
It seems even people who hate Trump, will go to them.
pP,
You wrote –
“Nurse! Polish the electrodes!” Apart from indicating you have may harbour bizarre sexual fantasies about nurses, presumable you are one of those innately sadistic sociopaths who support torture under the guise of “saving” something or other.
Generally, aberrant individuals attempt to claim they were only “joking” when they called for GHE non-believers to be executed, jailed, banished or even subjected to torture for daring to disagree with lunatic pseudoscientific GHE true believers.
Luckily, you are powerless and impotent. Hence your self proclaimed “professor” status. Just as stupid as the other self appointed “Doctor”. Maybe you could imitate the foolish Michael Mann, and call yourself “Distinguished Professor”, (which means someone was silly enough to give him a job), or award yourself a totally undeserved Nobel Prize!
Carry on with your delusion, laddie. You obviously find it more comforting than reality. I wish you well.
Cheers.
Dear Mike, why so much aggression? I am here to help you. Please co-operate, or I will send you to the nurse for treatment!
pP,
That is the usual response of the sociopathic sadist.
Threats, couched in obsequiousness. What a fool. If you had any power at all, I’d be concerned.
Your psychobabble does nothing except bring amusement to the stupid, ignorant, and mildly retarded. If you are attempting to be gratuitously offensive, rather than just really silly, you need to ensure that your intended target is prepared to take offence.
I don’t, so carry on with your village idiot impersonation.
Cheers.
Trump has no power to give such an order and everyone knows it. It’s just another crazy and foolish thing the country has to now listen to daily.
DA has nothing of substance to offer and everyone knows it. He’s just another crazy and foolish troll this blog has to put up with daily.
gbaikie asks
“Has anyone gone to a Trump rally.”
No. But then again, I have not been to a Nuremberg rally.
A Nuremberg rally was a NAZI socialist party annual convention and it had hundreds of thousands of German NAZI socialists.
A Trump rally happens everywhere and at all times and usually has less than 30,000 American citizens- and only has few socialist protesters.
gbaikie…”A Nuremberg rally was a NAZI socialist party annual convention and it had hundreds of thousands of German NAZI socialists”.
Excuse me?? Because a load of brutal bastards call themselves socialists does not mean they are socialists. The Nazis threw real socialists in concentration camps just like their brethern the Bolsheviks, who threw true communists in gulags as well as real socialists.
Socialism as we know it today began in democratic countries through labour movements. It was about forcing cheap-assed employers to pay fair wages and supplying better working conditions. An offshoot was equal rights for women.
Anything else pretending to be socialism is just that, a pretension.
Gordon Robertson says:
Excuse me?? Because a load of brutal bastards call themselves socialists does not mean they are socialists.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Excuse me but the Nazis were real socialists. Socialism is about centralized power whether by a dictator, committee, or party. Which ever it is has absolute power.
Socialism increases the risk of what happened in Germany. What you call real socialists are those who see it as centralized world-wide power. The National Socialists, and socialists they were, were not focused on world-wide communist revolution as were a lot of socialists both then and today. At the time of the Russian revolution while occupied with consolidating the Soviet Union by overthrowing other satellites of the Russian Empire over the next 10 years or so, the two sides of national socialism and worldwide socialism (simplified) cooperated. Finally Stalin seized control and he was more like a National Socialist whereas Trotsky was the worldwide Socialist. Eventually Trotsky was pushed out and eventually assasinated. Same thing occurred in China with Mao more of a worldwide socialist. Today’s China looks more like National socialism. The Baath Party in the middle east, with Saddam and Assad, different branches of Islam but solidly National (Arab) Socialist. In fact that its name: Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. No even pretend worldwide socialism in that.
Heck during the Spanish Revolution the Republicans were even had branches of City Socialism (or county/region/state of Spain).
National socialism doesn’t need to be bad like the Nazi’s. Its just become a bad word. Socialism is a centralized planning system and its breadth of focus is exactly how broad it plans to become. Anarcho Socialism is the really weird one, centralized planning at the individual level. . . .but in truth it tries to take a form of a public-like forum where everybody participates. Only problem with the Spanish Republicans during Spain’s civil war was they were overwhelmed first by other blocks of socialism that were a little more cohesive in commanding an army and then eventually by the national socialist Franco a General who did know how to lead an army. But in my view the scariest version of all socialist systems has yet to have been realized where the whole world becomes a reeducation camp.
David Appell says: ———Trump has no power to give such an order and everyone knows it. Its just another crazy and foolish thing the country has to now listen to daily.—————-
Probably not true David. Trump’s Steel tariffs were challenged in court and Trump’s actions were upheld and the Supreme Court refused to review the 7th District decision. Sounds pretty slam dunk on a “powers” issue that typically if issues are unresolved they will review.
Wannabee has no standing.
The R party is led by Trump?
The party that has always been for liberty? For free trade?
For don’t interfere with free enterprise?
Many who voted for him wanted to lob grenades at the government.
Unfortunately those that were standing to close are getting hit by the shrapnel.
Nate says:
The R party is led by Trump?
The party that has always been for liberty? For free trade?
For dont interfere with free enterprise?
Many who voted for him wanted to lob grenades at the government.
Unfortunately those that were standing to close are getting hit by the shrapnel.
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
Free Trade? The Republican party was no free trader. In fact, that issue was one of the many issues that led to the civil war as it increased dramatically the cost of farming equipment for southern plantations ever more making them more dependent on hard scrabble working slaves. It was the northern industrialists that pushed for high tariffs to protect their own profits from cheap overseas slave labor and these industrialists flocked to the Republican party and the party became a combination of northern indusrialism and abolitionists. The democrats were a coalition of northern and southern farmers suffering under retaliatory tariffs on their goods and having to pay the higher price for American made goods as well.
Trump has reconstituted that party to some extent pushing against world-wide virtual slavery of labor forces competing against American made goods. The new agreement between Mexico US and Canada has a mandate to pay good salaries to Mexico which benefits both US labor and Mexican labor.
Wow R’s are abolitionists? Glad to hear they oppose slavery. Trump is hoping Andrew Jackson will keep us from going to war over it.
Nate says: – ———Wow Rs are abolitionists? Glad to hear they oppose slavery. Trump is hoping Andrew Jackson will keep us from going to war over it.
R is Party of Lincoln
Andrew Jackson was a Democrat. In fact he was one of the founders of the modern Democrat party.
Slavery still exists in this world. Funny thing about the neocon philosophy along with neoliberalism is to export American values and democracy. However, it turns out that while the slaves of the world don’t like being slaves; they also don’t want western values.
So the best way to help them is via trade agreements that limit the incentives to exploit labor and protects American labor and small business from huge international corporate abusers of labor, shifting production countries as needed to earn their dirty profits. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/FTA/USMCA/Text/23_Labor.pdf
is a trusted QQ Poker Online as well as Bandar Ceme Online betting site that supplies on-line card video games such as Online Casino Poker, DominoQQ, Capsa Online, Ceme
Online, Ceme99, Online Gaming Online Casino Poker
Sites. QQ Texas Hold’em Ceme, the best and most safe on-line texas hold’em representative site with 24 hour IDN Online Casino poker
solution. For those of you Lovers of the game Online Online
and also that want to play gambling Online Online poker, Online Ceme,
Domino QQ, City Ceme, Online Gaming, Bandar Capsa Online in 1 ID
One week to go to the next datapoint , meanwhile check the original climate scientists video
https://youtu.be/aMTLs4qfJtI
and nothing has changed since
https://youtu.be/Z5GkdJtV8nk
Yet yet again — what led you to the conclusion that a kid on a merry-go-round is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round?
DA,
Yet, again, and again, and again . . .
What led you to think a kid on a merry go round isn’t rotating about an axis in the centre . . .?
“to turn or cause something to turn in a circle, especially around a fixed point:”
Off you go now, and make up your own definition if you don’t like the one I provided.
Cheers.
How do you determine if a merry go round is rotating or not?
Why do you care? Cant you figure it out for yourself? How hard can it be?
Cheers.
The US continues the greatest nation, ever.
What happens if US creates a spacefaring civilzation?
Well obviously it’s continuation of US being the greatest nation, ever.
But by opening space, the US could create a greater nation.
England basically created the US, but there also other nations involved with creating US, obviously. And brits didn’t discover the New World. And you can make huge list, if you want. And was as though England created US in terms of plan, more like series of major errors.
Or US could in terms of starting a spacefaring civilization, could be involved, than then seen as mostly dropping the ball.
Or any spacefaring civilization has to be global- it will involve all nations on Earth.
Some worry China will contribute and therefore be dominate the future of space, but it can’t be the present China, all you have to do is look at what China is currently doing in regards to Hong Hong.
Anyhow, it looks like China will be involved, as will India, and as will Africa- and Europe in some major ways. But Russia will need to change, even though currently they seem to dominate player. And Russia has long dreamed being involved and has been doing space exploration for as long as US.
Present major players also Japan and Korea either or both end up being more dominate than Russia.
But my point is the exploration and development of Moon, Mars, and other, could create a greater nation than US.
With Mars, a lot interest is related to making a different type of government/nation. The isolation is similar to New World and such isolation would allow or demand an independence of governing. Plus all nation on Earth, are experiments, indicating what works and what doesn’t. US was created with knowledge of Brit, roman, and ancient Greece, lessons learned. With Space we are the information age, and those involved on the ground [on Mars] are going to highly education and have “lessons” from all nations of Earth.
Anyhow, political evolution/advancement is one most exciting aspects of becoming being spacefaring. And obviously advancement of science and technology. And making life on Earth, better.
Or only significant aspect about US is it’s effect upon everyone on planet Earth- ie, the global increase in wealth. And any great nation created in space, likewise has have huge and good effect upon everyone.
Or some worry, the US will become more isolationist, if US opens space frontier, it’s the complete opposite of isolationism.
It wont be a US colony indefinately. Colonies have a tendency to become independant over time.
A wise power lets them go peacefully.
I agree completely, men should be free to the extent there isn’t incontrovertible evidence that their actions (thats real actions not projected actions) are harming others.
Key to actually understanding all this is the Greenlanders have won the right to vote for independence.
Polls find 80% would prefer independence.
The only thing holding them back is Denmark and the EU in determining what they can and cannot do with the resources of the island continent they live on. Thus they are dependent on welfare which is exactly where Denmark and the EU wants to keep them.
Polls show why people are not ready to vote for independence at this time despite preferring it. They are concerned about what will happen to their standard of living if they give up the block grant from Denmark.
Enter stage right a man with a solution. Nothing here is settled.
What’s the difference between Donald Trump and Greenland?
Greenland’s not for sale!
Start a new space colony? Great idea!
Start with sending all the gun owners there.
And what if they don’t want to go? Would you try to force them?
Maybe that’s why they’re gun owners….
Just tell them that the alien natives there are hostile to humans need to be wiped out. Just like the good old days when we fought the injuns. That should attract quite a few gun-toting citizens.
cd,
I suppose you will threaten them with shiny electrodes or waterboarding if they show any reluctance to do as you order?
You are blithering idiot! All talk, and no action. Luckily, you are about as important as nothing at all in the scheme of things. What a fool you are – you have realised that CO2 has no heating ability, so you figure that trolling will at least get you some Brownie points amongst the rest of the cult members.
Bad luck – they will throw you under the bus without a thought, if it suits them.
Carry on trolling. You might get good at it, if you work hard, and put a bit more thought into it.
Cheers.
Flattery will get you nowhere.
No one sending them there, they are buying tickets and buying land- or providing the service transporting people and stuff to Mars and/or improving land to sell.
Assuming Mars is viable place to live. One of main things required to make Mars a viable place to live, access to cheap drinking water, access to water which can be made into drinking water at a low cost- assume low cost is water similar to Earth ocean water or something easier\cheaper to make into drinking water.
Something comparable the huge aquifer in Sahara desert would work.
Another aspect which makes Mars a more viable place to live, is if the moon has mineable water which can commercially be made into rocket fuel. Or in terms of dollar amount, lunar water has to be less than $500 per kg and Mars water has to less than $10 per kg.
Where in comparison Earth water is about 1 cent per kg or less. Though people on might buy drinking water for more than $1 kg, but I mean tap water and/or farm water and including the total infrastructure cost of getting the water.
Of course Mars settlers will also need electrical power, but this less dependent on what needs to explored on Mars, in order to determine if living on Mars is viable. And also got to know the long term health effects of living 1/3 earth gravity world- not something necessarily requiring specific Mars exploration, though if one has Mars crewed exploration of Mars, one will get more information on that particular aspect.
Also if find alien life on Mars that could be problem with living on Mars.
There people who just like to live on Mars without having Mars be first explored, which think that is pretty brave and perhaps is likely to be ultimately, fatally foolish.
US role [and other nations] is to explore the Moon to determine if there is mineable water, and then US should explore Mars, to determine the degree or whether people can live on Mars.
It not Congress view {nor is there any public support] that US will fund any kind of space colonies.
Explain to me again. Why would anyone want to live on Mars?
Your comments are nothing more than a school-boy’s fantasy.
–Dr Myki says:
August 24, 2019 at 9:36 PM
Explain to me again. Why would anyone want to live on Mars?
Your comments are nothing more than a school-boys fantasy.–
Main reason, is millions of people want to live on Mars- it doesn’t include me. Can’t say, I am the adventurous type of person, but if I was a teenager, I could possibly be more into it.
Mars has a lot to do with the future. And would guess there is religious aspect about it. Or it seems Mars fans are quite religious, and lunar fans are more “practical”- perhaps a tad boring.
I started with interest in using resource of space rocks, and I think is one wiser things human have done, was to develop a program to detects and map, NEOs.
There are almost 1000 Earth crossing space rocks, which are 1 km or larger in diameter. And over the decades we have found most of them- and none of them will hit earth is next few centuries, but there more space rock smaller than 1 km in diameter, which there is still some degree of uncertainty. And higher amount of them we have not found yet.
We have not rock bigger than 50 meters in diameter hit Earth in last hundred year. It thought the last significant rock to hit Earth was the Tunguska event. Wiki:
“The Tunguska event was a large explosion that occurred near the Podkamennaya Tunguska River in Yeniseysk Governorate (now Krasnoyarsk Krai), Russia, on the morning of 30 June 1908 (NS).The explosion over the sparsely populated Eastern Siberian Taiga flattened 2,000 square kilometres (770 square miles) of forest, and caused at least three human casualties.
…
“The Tunguska event is the largest impact event on Earth in recorded history. Studies have yielded different estimates of the meteoroid’s size, on the order of 50 to 190 metres (160 to 620 feet), depending on whether the body entered with a low or high speed.”
Well, known impactor in say last 10 thousands. Ocean covers 70 % planet, and without eye witnesses there would not be people looking for this impact site, and what is “found”- other than pattern of trees knock down, is not much evidence of the event. Or predictions of such impactors hitting Earth is 1 every few centuries. Or odds favor many of such small events occurring in last 10,000 years, but the evidence of them is problematic.
What is good about Mars, other than perhaps misguided belief?
Personally I a bit more interested in planet Mercury and might more interested in moons of Mars, rather than the planet.
And I no interest in the Moon until Clementine detected water at lunar poles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_(spacecraft)
I was interested in idea of mining space rock for water, but there were problems with idea doing it economically. Perhaps a good space rock could found, none so far, that know about.
Anyways, after water was found on Moon, I thought that it is obvious, and of course NASA will explore the Moon to determine whether lunar polar region has mineable water. That was 1998.
NASA did do, LRO, and LRO is still flying. NASA has had plans to send lander for about a decade. Bush and congress directed NASA to explore the Moon and than Mars. Crickets.
Now we sort of fumbling towards it, and not really in way, I think it should be done.
NASA has long been interesting in exploring Mars, it has had large robotic effort in regards to Mars.
NASA is like moth to light in regards to Mars, Mars exploration program is sort like the New Green Deal, the appeal is it’s a huge unrealistic project. So having the dream of Mars exploration program, has been politically useful in terms funding Mars robotic program. NASA claiming going to Mars in next decade or couple decades, is PR. I think it’s bad PR, but if wanted lot Mars robotic missions, it seems to have worked.
One could say NASA has done a lot brainwashing, and rather not fight against it, and heard some good idea while arguing against the idea. The debate of Moon v Mars and Robotic vs manned are very old things people like argue about.
So have sort of melded them together.
And goes like this, without the potential manned exploration, you don’t get robotic exploration. Also you got a huge amount of robotic exploration of the Moon prior to Apollo landing on the Moon. Or manned needs robotic exploration and robotic needs Manned exploration- use both. But unlike Apollo I would have manned and robotic mission more closely tied together.
And was happy when robotic guy, said the obvious, that we really do need crewed mission to adequately explore Mars- robotic is slow, crew can do a lot more in shorter time period. So I would combine them, just we combine Earth exploration with crew and robotic missions. It’s dumb to think it’s one or the other- it’s simply different parts of NASA feuding over funding.
I got to go. I will get back to this.
Why Mars?
Should start with what wrong with Earth.
Earth difficult {as in has not been done] to have single stage to orbit or SSTO rocket.
Mars would easy in this regard.
One could also do suborbital travel, though due to lower gravity it takes longer to orbit or suborbit Mars as compared to Earth. Earth is less than 1 hour to get from any point to any point. Mars more than 1 hour to get from any point to any point
You less gravity loss with Mars. Earth gravity loss is about 1 to 1.5 km/sec to get to orbit or escape. Mars is .5 Km or less. Moon is .1 km or less.
Mars also less than 1/2 the escape velocity of Earth. Moon is less than 1/4 of Earth escape velocity.
What wrong with Mars.
It gets hit with twice as many space rocks as Earth does, but this also an advantage. Mars has more Mars crossing space rocks and mainly due to Mars lower orbital velocity, they impact with lower average velocity as compared to Earth. And because of Mars smaller gravity well the minimum impact velocity is 1/2 of Earth [it’s the same as escape velocity].
To get to other planets, Venus is better location than Earth or Mars. And Mars is worst than Earth.
Or it not easier, or not as easy someone might imagine to get to the Main Asteroid belt or to get to Jupiter from Mars, but there plenty space rock near Mars.
So, from Mars it’s easier to mine space rock, and Mars ancient surface has space rocks which impacted Mars and could mined. And you can steer space rocks so as to impact mars surface [or be captured in it’s orbit] and mine them.
So if interested mining space rock, Mars has advantages, plus it doesn’t 7 billion people living on it {which might be worried about a space rock mining “mishap”- which mainly translates into a liablity cost or simply prohibited by law.
Now, I thought about being space rock which less than 20 meter in diameter to Earth’s gravity well. There is liability aspect to it and could be outlawed. But bringing some bigger than 100 meter space rock to Earth’s gravity, gets level where it’s not really possible get liability insurance, and I would probably favor laws outlawing it.
Whereas with Mars one could probably bring 10 km diameter space rock into orbit or plan to impact it or Mars surface.
Now one advantage to Mars is it’s possible Mars has a very quantity of water. Or we pretty sure Mars has trillion of tonnes of water, but I mean millions of trillions of tons- And relatively easy to access the water.
Another advantage is you probably more easily dig deeper on Mars as compared to Earth.
Low gravity and dig deeper gives you cities which has more vertical space. Or we build high rises, because if there demand for it, it’s cheaper.
Or people imagine living underground for radiation safety, but saying living underground, because you can, and because inherent advantages to it {and you can pipe in natural sunlight}. And related to this, is there could vast natural underground area- there could vast caverns with lakes in them].
But what is important about Mars is near term use or the question is what minimum exploration needed. And that is looking water fairly near the Mars surface, so fairly near is less than 500 meter deep. There might interesting stuff [scientifically interesting] deeper than 5 km, but if get to point of having settlements, one would getting lot exploration done by the Martians.
Another aspect of why Mars, is NASA already exploring Mars, and question could be, how could NASA explore Mars better, or how NASA explore Mars so it’s more than pretty pictures and is important to the people who paying for it.
What else should NASA do?
One reason I want NASA to explore Mars is because I don’t want NASA mining the Moon. I also don’t NASA mining gold on Earth.
I don’t want NASA mining anything, I want the pros to do the mining.
So politically, the Mars fans don’t want NASA to waste anytime with the Moon, and I am on their side.
And ultimately purpose is to get to things like Earth solar power satellite- which mostly going to related to the Moon and/or space rocks.
But if want L-5 colony stuff and people living on Moon [rather living on Earth and working on the Moon via teleoperations] you probably want to exported food which grown on Mars, but probably living on Mercury and Venus [or their orbits] by time that important.
“Explain to me again. Why would anyone want to live on Mars?”
So, there are basic reasons, and it needs exploration and as I said endlessly, needs to be determined if there places on Mars in which can easily access drinking water.
Or if there was a lake on Mars {naturally occurring] that would indicate where one should live on Mars. And one knew how to get cheap access to water, one could instead make an artificial lake on Mars.
But a big factor of “Why anyone want to live on Mars” is what kind people are living on Mars. What kind of government do these people have and does it align with your values.
The point is I am not going to say what kind of government would be better, but instead, I will simply point out that there are people who want some kind social organization- and of course all of them could be wrong and they could make a bad society which no one wants to live in.
So having a lake on Mars, will make the place with lake more desirable than other places on Mars which don’t have a lake, but people living near lake and their governmental system or how they interact with each other, simply the people there and the future they are in the process of building, could be very attractive aspect.
So Mars offer a possibility of having and building a world, some people want.
Now, I am saying it’s a good thing or proper direction, but there people who think that Earth is doomed. And if you really think this is the case, why live on Earth?
How about if you simply don’t think Earth will be a lot better place to live in the future.
I think Earth will be much better in the future, and I think pretty good right now. I like it. But I aware that people have different views regarding this- the vast majority of them could be merely lying and whining because they are idiots, but they could be few who actually want something different, and maybe they could successful. And they might even pull it off, and maybe people living on Earth might learn something from the success of people living on Mars.
gbalkie: if the US is so great, why is its life expectancy declining?
DA,
Oooooh! What a gotcha!
Are you really so stupid you don’t know the answer to your own question, or are you just pretending?
Maybe you need someone to make America great again, if you think its greatness has diminished. What’s your definition of great, anyway? Don’t know? Can’t say?
Why am I not surprised?
Cheers.
Questions …questions…
but no answers !
And why is the average IQ declining ?
Exhibit A: MF
DM,
And if I went back to the US, it would rise again.
Tell me something I don’t know. That was too easy.
Cheers.
https://tinyurl.com/y8v85xy6
And
https://tinyurl.com/y63os4pv
Booze and drugs
Also what the news didn’t mention:
“Recent studies of medical errors have estimated errors may account for as many as 251,000 deaths annually in the United States (U.S)., making medical errors the third leading cause of death. Error rates are significantly higher in the U.S. than in other developed countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and the United Kingdom (U.K). At the same time less than 10 percent of medical errors are reported.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28186008
Also all the pseudo science in terms of what is healthy to eat.
David Appell says: “if the US is so great, why is its life expectancy declining?”
U.S. Life Expectancy Drops for Third Year in a Row, Reflecting Rising Drug Overdoses, Suicides.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-life-expectancy-drops-third-year-row-reflecting-rising-drug-overdose-suicide-rates-180970942/
The two causes may be related. Excessively high expectations, regulation, doom and gloom naysaying about earth’s capacity and future.
Gee David you are the cause of declining life expectancy. . . .who woulda thunk!
If some one wishes expert view regarding running a blog then i
propose him/her to visit this web site, Keep up the good job.
Mike Flynn
“Who is saying that there is no man made heat?
Of course there is, and far more than 100 years ago!
Thermometers even detect the extra heat! ”
May I congratulate you on progressing to climate change denial stage 3.
Stage 1 is “There is no global warming”.
Stage 2 is “There is global warming, due only to natural changes.”
Stage 3 is ” There is global warming, we caused it, but it is not due to CO2.”
Stage 2 is “There is global warming, but
E-man, you seem pretty good at offering your opinions and pseudoscience. Do you ever have any actual facts?
Just curious.
Em,
You seem to have joined the Psychobabble Psychological Consensus-is-fact Club.
Who has ever denied the climate changes? It is the average of weather, no more, no less.
If you are also one of the idiotic “Stop Climate Change” crowd, what happens if you “Stop Climate Change”? No more changing weather? Good luck with that!
You might convince more opponents of the justness of your religion, by providing facts to contradict my statements. You seem to agree, you just don’t like me pointing out the blindingly obvious – thermometers react to heat, CO2 provides no heat, and nobody can even describe the GHE!
Carry on psychobabbling. Cry, gnash your teeth, rend your garments. I don’t care. Neither does Nature, it seems.
Cheers.
EM, please don’t antagonize the inmate – his blood pressure is already too high.
Says another dimwitted pseudoscientific GHE true believer!
Trying to avoid the fact that CO2 heats nothing, are you?
Good luck with that.
Cheers.
Calm down – you are becoming mote incoherent than usual.
Says another dimwitted pseudoscientific GHE true believer!
Trying to avoid the fact that CO2 heats nothing, are you?
Good luck with that.
Cheers.
DREMT and other anti-rotators:
Specify how to determine if a merry go round is rotating.
DA,
Specify why anyone should accede to your ridiculous demands.
Are you truly so stupid you can’t figure out if a merry go round is rotating? If that is the case, I suggest you stay away from fairgrounds.
You should probably stay away from anything with wheels, ceiling fans, propellers, luggage carousels, electric power tools, engines and so on. These have parts which are known to rotate from time to time. If you can’t tell if something is rotating, you should avoid anything that does.
Walking into a rotating aircraft propeller can cause serious personal injury or death. Even rotating your head too far on your shoulders can result in death. Best lie in bed – don’t even turn over, in case you inadvertently rotate your body!
You don’t need to thank me – it’s my pleasure.
Cheers.
DA, now you have stopped with the distracting questions, opting instead for the distracting directives.
It’s a lot easier to just face reality.
I get that you are unable to define rotation. So butt out for once and leave this thread to people who do want to discuss the science.
DA, you have NO interest in science. You are here to pervert and corrupt science. You reject reality. You reject the simple example of a racehorse because it destroys your pseudoscience.
Learn to face reality, then learn some physics.
Can’t you keep your narcissistic nose and need for attention out of just ONE thread, so people who want to discuss the science can do so? Can you be at least somewhat respectful in the way?
DA,
That’s a laugh! There is no science supporting CO2 heating the globe! If you want to discus fantasy – go ahead. There is nothing to stop you. All the discussion in the world plus a bus ticket, will get you a ride on a bus.
Discuss away!
Cheers.
DA, you can try to project you flaws onto others, but the evidence is clear. You are a failure.
Your trolling is just an effort to pervert and corrupt science. You are afraid of reality.
Nothing new.
Exactly what I mean — you are here only to call people names. Trying to fill something up in yourself.
DA,
Ooooh! Mind reading again? I believe there is a psychological term “projection”.
The resident psychobabbler can, no doubt, explain the term to you.
Cheers.
DA,
I get that you are trolling and trying to divert attention away from the fact that CO2 heats precisely nothing, which is why neither you nor anybody else can describe the GHE.
Either produce some science to back up your stupid “CO2 makes thermometers hotter” claim, or butt out. The day of the pseudoscientific GHE true believer is not over, but it seems that twilight approaches.
I believe Michael Mann just redefined “losing” to mean “not losing” in the recent apparent dismissal of his defamation claim against Tim Ball. Apparently, the court ordered Mann to pay Ball’s costs, which might be considerable after a decade of meritless litigation. Boo hoo.
I assume you will redefine “rotation” to mean “non-rotation” (and vice versa) if it suits you. As in the case of the slightly dim Michael Mann, redefining does not change facts.
Ah, the rich tapestry of life!
Cheers.
Are you also unable to be at least minimally respectful and stay out of conversations in which you have no interest? Is that really so difficult for you??
DA,
I do as I wish. If you don’t like it, don’t accept it.
As far as I am concerned, respect is earned, not commanded.
You cannot back up your silly claims of CO2 induced heating, any more than Mann could back up his silly “hockey stick” calculations in court.
You prattle on about science, but you can’t even describe the GHE in any scientific way. Some science! CO2 heats nothing. No GHE. You have no clue. If you don’t like what I say, tough. I couldn’t care less.
Cheers.
I honestly can’t tell if you two are men, or 13-year old boys.
DA,
And you expect others to care because you are stupid and ignorant, or in spite of it?
Cheers
DA claims “I honestly can’t tell…”
DA, that’s one of your problems. You can’t do anything “honestly”.
You try to twist, distort, deceive, and confuse. You can’t face reality. You refuse to admit that a racehorse does NOT rotate on its axis.
And you, even after being banned here, you thought yourself so self-important you were entitled to come back, being even more of a troll who only calls people names. You contribute nothing.
I believe this the 45th occurrence of the exact same post from MF.
Originality is not one of his strong points.
DM,
You may believe anything you like, even your current fantasy.
Your belief still does not create fact from fantasy, as anyone can see for themselves.
You might choose a more subtle form of misrepresentation, or you might not. How stupid and ignorant do you wish to appear?
Cheers.
I am not sure of the syndrome – some patients can’t help themselves but respond to each and every provocation. They lead miserable lives.
DA, even after having been shown your physics is wrong time and time again, you believe yourself so self-important you are entitled to come back, being even more of a troll who contributes nothing.
Leftist propagandists can’t be honest. The agenda is the only thing. They tell so many lies they believe them.
… as you tell another lie and believe it.
Hey man (SPA), that is a pretty p…-weak post you just made. Haven’t you got anything else to say?
cd,
Hey man, that’s a pretty pointless comment. Haven’t you got anything better?
Cheers.
Does the truth hurt? Probably not to a bunch of sociopaths.
You want facts?
My pleasure.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
No !
Don’t show them facts!
That enrages them even more!
Sorry E-man, that is “pseudoscience”, not facts.
Here are some facts:
High haze in blue sky:
Directly overhead –> 21.3F, 5.9C
Ground –> 82.7F, 28.2C
The surface warms the atmosphere, not the other way around.
Learn some physics.
Also E-man, not placing your comments where they fit means you don’t know how to use your “smart” phone.
Your “smart” phone is making you look dumb….
“The surface warms the atmosphere, not the other way around.
Learn some physics.”
You made a small error.
That should have read:-
“The surface warms the atmosphere, and the other way around.
Learn some physics.”
Always glad to help.
On posting:-
1) I dont have a smart phone, I have an elderly and somewhat idiosyncratic tablet.
2) When I put comments “where they fit” they tend to go unnoticed because the conversation has moved on.
3) IHTFS. It keeps banning comments or slotting them into the wrong place. Do you have some special pull which lets you avoid such problems?
Wrong. You’re trying to re-use energy. It doesn’t work that way.
Learn some physics, especially thermodynamics.
And you just need to take more care when replying with a comment.
1) Make sure you click on the right “reply” button.
2) Make sure your comment does not contain forbidden words or letter combinations that have been identified numerous times.
JDHuffman
“Wrong. Youre trying to re-use energy. It doesnt work that way.”
A hydraulic analogy for the GHE would be an eddy in a river.
While the net flow is downstream, you see eddies in which you see water flowing upstream against the current.
Similarly the GHE returns a proportion of the outgoing energy to the surface, slowing the rate of heat loss from the surface to space.
E-man, you are confusing several different aspects of physics. Radiative heat transfer is nowhere analgous to hydraulics. You analogy is ridiculous.
But, since you believe such nonsense, that makes it “pseudoscience”. So don’t call it “science”.
Em,
Slowing the rate of heat loss only reduces the rate of cooling. Lowering the absolute temperature also reduces the rate of heat loss. As does increasing the temperature of the surrounding environment. No getting hotter.
Thermometers react to heat, and get hotter if heat is present in sufficient quantity and of sufficient temperature.
Put as much insulation as you want around your hot or cold beverage, wait a while, and your beverage has heated or cooled to ambient temperature. The insulation does not discriminate- it is catholic in that regard.
This is why nobody can describe the GHE – it is a physical nonsense, which would require the operation of magic at some point. You have no doubt tried and failed. If you haven’t, you are trying to promote something you cannot describe, and know nothing about!
Whatever you think are achieving, it is certainly not related to the scientific method.
Cheers.
‘
The surface warms the atmosphere, not the other way around.
Learn some physics.’
My house heats the insulation, not the other way around. Still it seems to keep my house warmer than without it.
Go figure.
Im mean figure that out, JD.
N,
The variations in the Earth’s surface temperature are caused by external heat sources.
So are the variations in the exterior surface temperature of your house.
If you are stupid enough to believe the temperature of the interior of the Earth is dependant on the GHE, good for you. Gavin Schmidt’s idiotic paper claiming that CO2 was the principal control knob controlling the Earth’s surface temperature was actually published!
Rather a pity that he was, like you, too dim to realise the difference between external and internal energy sources. Maybe if you could actually find a description of the GHE, you could provide a useful analogy for those incapable of understanding basic physics. – like yourself or Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann.
But alas, you can’t. So sad, too bad. Boo hoo.
Cheers.
Nate says:
My house heats the insulation, not the other way around. Still it seems to keep my house warmer than without it.
—————
You don’t understand what insulation is. You need to consult an engineer specifically trained in heat loss calculations to gain insulation value from radiant barriers designed to restrict heat from rising and in walls.
They need a sealed airgap on the cold side of the barrier and ideally on both sides of the barrier. So the best design is a reflective foil barrier in a sealed cavity with the foil barrier splitting the cavity in half.
Not cost effective. Standard insulation is a much better buy.
Reflective radiant barriers are the best at preventing the down flow of heat. Thus they work well upfacing on roofs and down facing in attic spaces. But don’t take my word for it consult an engineer if you plan on installing a radiant barrier so you don’t throw your money away on “trailer trash” insulation that isn’t going to do anything.
Thanks Bill for that, I guess??
Pretty sure I understand the basics of insulation, but that seems to miss the point anyway.
Em,
Facts like this? –
“The chaotic nature of the atmosphere means that even the tiniest error in the depiction of initial conditions typically leads to inaccurate forecasts beyond a week or so. This is the so-called ‘butterfly effect’. ”
Or this –
“The nonlinear and chaotic nature of the climate system imposes natural limits on the extent to which skilful predictions of climate statistics may be made.”
Future climate states are not predictable, according to the IPCC previously. It doesn’t look like anything has changed.
Mostly, the report is the usual mass of pseudoscientific GHE true believer guesses, estimates, assumptions and opinions.
Maybe you might like to present some of the “facts” which support the odd notion that CO2 can make thermometers hotter?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Look a little closer.
Over a day or so the atmosphere is deterministic and predictable given enough information and computing power. Chaotic effects are small.
Over a week or so chaotic effects start to become significant under some conditions. Do multiple predictive runs using slightly different starting conditions and you can spot chaos. If all your runs are similar you are under the chaotic threshold and can make reliable weather predictions. If the runs vary you are over the threshold and reliability drops.
Over the range from a couple of weeks to a couple of years chaotic effects dominate and prediction is unreliable.
Once you start predicting long term changes in averages, you are back into deterministic territory and predictions improve.
In summary, you can predict conditions a few days or a few decades ahead. It is the period from a few weeks to a few years where prediction is most difficult.
Well, I think you predict global climate for 1000 years, if knew what doing, millions of years.
We in icebox global climate, the average ocean temperature varies from about 1 to 5 C.
1 and 2 C is definitely a glacial period, 4 and 5 C are definitely interglacial period. 3 C can be either. We are at 3.5 C
I don’t think ocean temperature has changed more than 1 C in a thousand years. No reason to assume our ocean temperature will change by 1 C or more in thousand years.
It doesn’t seem to me than ocean temperature as changed much in last 4 thousand years.
A change of 1 C in ocean temperature has a dramatic effects upon global temperature and global climates.
And then we the thin layer of ocean surface temperature which currently a global average of about 17 C.
The ocean surface temperature changes rapidly and it controls global surface temperature, or it is global surface temperature.
Ocean surface temperature, warms land surface temperature, and presently causing global land temperature to be about 10 C.
The most famous example of ocean surface temperature affecting land surface temperature is the gulf Stream warming Europe, which said to warm Europe by about 10 C or more.
And with Gulf stream warming Europe, Europe’s average temperature is about 9 C.
Canada does get such large amount of ocean warming and Canada average surface temperature is about -4 C
And of course most Canadian live very close to their southern border with the US. Continental US average temperature is warmed by the ocean and it’s average temperature is about 12 C.
So average ocean temperature keeps the ocean surface temperature within a range of temperature, and ocean surface temperature is global average temperature, the 17 and 10 averaged is about 15 C.
Em,
You haven’t the faintest idea about chaos, have you?
Just a load of pointless unsupported assertions. Here’s a snippet from Wikipedia –
“This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:
‘Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.’
Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.”
So called “climate scientists” live in a dream world, believing they can predict the future from endlessly estimating and analysing the past. If 132 models give different results at all time scales, do you really think that averaging 131 results known to be wrong (only 1 can be correct, at best) will produce a correct result? The future is unknowable, and this has been acknowledged by the IPCC previously.
Keep believing the fumbling bumblers if it makes you happy.
Cheers.
Em,
“You havent the faintest idea about chaos, have you?”
It seems that neither do you.
After all, the butterfly is always in the box.
bobdroege says:
“It seems that neither do you.
After all, the butterfly is always in the box.”
————
Thats just drive by sniping without adding anything. Doesn’t help at all.
MF is making an important point. Effectively chaos exists in the system because the system’s state is always changing in so many ways it never returns to the same state.
This is a serious issue with trying to verify something by simply observing the weather. The object of a scientific experiment is to have a control where everything is the same but the one test variable. But climate is never the same it is fallacious assumption that in the long run the climate will return to its original state and to the extent it doesn’t its going to send the wrong signal.
I offered up evidence that ice extent has been level now for 12 years with a melt rate about a 1/3rd what it was in the previous 18 years. Temperature adjustments has been the difference for temperatures not tracking that change in what is really happening out there in the environment.
I would say that the models are performing a lot worse than we thought.
Bill Hunter,
“Thats just drive by sniping without adding anything. Doesn’t help at all.
MF is making an important point. Effectively chaos exists in the system because the system’s state is always changing in so many ways it never returns to the same state.”
My point was that Mike Flynn and anyone who says you can not predict what happens in a chaotic system are wrong.
So what it the climate system, is it completely chaotic and unpredictable or does it exhibit long term persistence.
The sun, moon and earth being a three body system is also chaotic but we are still able to predict eclipses.
Don’t quote Lorenz unless you understand him, Flynn does not.
Morrison is more better
“The future’s uncertain and the end is always near”
Bill Hunter
“I would say that the models are performing a lot worse than we thought.”
With respect to the sea ice extent the melt, even given that the ice extant by cherry picking is similar to 2007, the ice loss is still way ahead of the models.
This site shows volume and thickness down compared to 2007
https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2019/08/piomas-august-2019.html
bobdroege says:
My point was that Mike Flynn and anyone who says you can not predict what happens in a chaotic system are wrong.
—————
I didn’t see Mike make that point. It seems to me Milankovich orbital theory is inadequate because orbital variation follows interesting paths that seem pretty hard to translate into the variation we see occurring from glacial to interglacial and so on.
There is huge uncertainty in the monitoring numbers we have a stalled ice melt and it would only match temperature change if we reversed out all the last 10 years or so of temperature adjustments. We have slow rising sea levels on tide gauges we adjust for isostatic rebound, estimates of ocean bottom warming, and estimates of ice loss from the ice sheets.
But we see for example differences in ice sheet behavior when you separate out floating ice shelves (that are not going to increase sea level when they melt) from ice actually on top of the land above sealevel.
Point being is to run an experiment no matter what type it is you first need to eliminate the uncertainty in the measurements. And resourceful hockey stick artists aren’t getting the job done. Models are not fixing our monitoring system. We seem to only offer that stuff up to give everything the “color” of science. How much fudging can be done and stay in bounds of any measure of scientific integrity? Well the British investigation of the “hide the decline” debacle said. . . .as much as we need. The hockey stick creators were able to erase the MWP and LIA. So clearly to be convinced folks should demand to see a lot more change that all what that might have been. I am not in the philosophical group that thinks chaos is real. I am in the group that think it is a huge obstruction to understanding because of our inability to measure the right things to a sufficient degree of accuracy to cut through the BS and uncertainty.
bobdroege says: With respect to the sea ice extent the melt, even given that the ice extant by cherry picking is similar to 2007, the ice loss is still way ahead of the models.
————
What model? When this started they expected the most heat in the mid tropical troposphere. Then the ice started melting fast and now they are expecting the most warming in the Arctic and quickly adjusted the temperature records to pick that up in the arctic by modeling temperatures never measured in the arctic.
Now you are telling me the melt after extent melt virtually ended in 2007 and volume melt virtually ended in 2012 (having some thickness to burn through to get to an equilibrium, unlike the thin edges on the extent).
Yet now arctic modeled temperatures extrapolated mostly from distant land stations are still warming like bugger but the ice melt is slowing down?
Look I don’t know if ice melt is going to take off again or not. The timing now finally probably sometime between 2011 and 2019 should be showing a diminishing ocean oscillation that drove a good portion of that melt like it did in 1944 for Larsen’s patrol and NE passage WWII battles on the other side of the Arctic.
This is about the point Nate jumps in with an imagined hockey stick that was able to look where nobody was able to see in the 1930’s and 40’s and tell us there was no low ice then.
What model?
This one.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fneven1.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a0133f03a1e37970b017744cf5360970d-pi&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fneven1.typepad.com%2Fblog%2Fmodels%2F&docid=pUiEJMBon0Z_QM&tbnid=lLCqt1f63v22AM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiui6b7zqjkAhVkuVkKHZy-D44QMwhDKAAwAA..i&w=1024&h=721&safe=strict&bih=657&biw=1396&q=models%20of%20ice%20extent&ved=0ahUKEwiui6b7zqjkAhVkuVkKHZy-D44QMwhDKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8
“Point being is to run an experiment no matter what type it is you first need to eliminate the uncertainty in the measurements.”
Nope, I don’t think that’s true. When you run an experiment, and I am running on right now, the point is to know what your uncertainty is, because you can not eliminate it.
I hope that link posts, it’s from Neven’s Sea Ice blog.
bobdroege says: This one.
********************
What that chart appears to be showing is natural variation beginning around 1975. The fact the CO2 driven models didn’t account for it. That certainly is NOT an indicator the CO2 models know what they are doing.
Point being is to run an experiment no matter what type it is you first need to eliminate the uncertainty in the measurements.
+++++++++++
+++++++++++
bobdroege says: This one.
********************
Nope, I dont think thats true. When you run an experiment, and I am running on right now, the point is to know what your uncertainty is, because you can not eliminate it.
I hope that link posts, its from Nevens Sea Ice blog.
++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
I would recommend you read the articles here: https://judithcurry.com/?s=uncertainty
Dr. Curry actually gets into explaining issues of certainty, the IPCC did it without a single explanation of how they did it. . . .thats because they have no legitimate excuse for what they did.
Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite justification seemed to be on the net the simplest
thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get
irked while people think about worries that they just don’t know
about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole
thing without having side effect , people can take a signal.
Will likely be back to get more. Thanks
While you are bickering nonsense here Mikey the climate charts schyster Mann lost his lawsuit and ordered to pay up .
Could not defend his fake hockey stick chart.
https://i.postimg.cc/FsQ6hVyn/foxstick.jpg
bobdroege,
I’m still not finding ANY evidence for above freezing temperatures on the 90% of Greenland that I’m talking about. Other than the coast and the far south portion for a matter of hours at a time, there is no melt happening during the current ice minimum.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=gfs®ion=namer&pkg=T2m&runtime=2019082606&fh=-72
The ice loss you are seeing at the coast is irrelevant. In the same way a flowing creek in the spring means a healthy wetland up stream, lots of ice flows means a healthy Greenland ice sheet. Since 2012, the north Atlantic temperature has been dropping, and the ice has been increasing in the arctic. You can see this change on the NASA satellite data. Them be the facts. Sorry that they don’t align with your agenda.
bobdroege
You can see the mass gains and losses here on a daily basis at various weather stations:
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
There has been no losses in the interior of Greenland. It’s all at the coast. All normal stuff, nothing to be worried about.
Scott R,
Actually your Polar Portal does show losses in the interior, and accumulation on the coasts.
Did you click the acc tab?
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
And the sea ice minimum is two months after the Greenland Ice Sheet maximum melt.
They don’t happen at the same time.
bobdroege,
Yes you are right that’s what the acc tab SAYS, but this does not pass the sniff test. The ONLY station on the ice sheet has reported no above freezing temperatures.
http://promice.org/WeatherArchive.html?promiceStationStationid=211&stationid=211
My guess is the expert scientists creating this data in their infinite wisdom accidently counted the same changes in the ice twice as it compacts in one area and actually melts into the ocean in another.
It would be the same thing as taking a GPM at one spot on a river and adding it to the GPM at another spot on a river.
There is no melting on the ice sheet, away from the coast.
As far as the exact minimum for Greenland vs Arctic, it is inconsequential to this conversation. We are close to the yearly ice minimum are we not? So if we are to melt the Greenland ice sheet directly, now would be the time.
You know what bobdroege? I think we have another issue with the acc tab. It says “accumulated anomaly”. In other words, it is only showing the accumulated departures from average. If the average is a huge gain, a accumulated departure showing a loss is not really a loss, just a reduction in the amount of the normal add. So this isn’t really a mass change map. Get it?
I was worried for a minute there that I couldn’t trust polar portal. The acc tab might be good data after all.
Scott R
“So this isn’t really a mass change map. Get it?”
As usual, you write lots and lots of comments, but what exactly is behind them?
What do you think about this graph below?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18_E-mr9ud5G1PnpBoOGvUWCCNlbyKmgR/view
“In general, higher-elevation areas near the center of Greenland experienced little to no change, while lower-elevation and coastal areas experienced up to 13.1 feet (4 meters) of ice mass loss (expressed in equivalent-water-height; dark red) over a 14-year period. ”
Does that pass the terribly experienced Scott R’s sniff test?
How would 90% of Greenland look like on the graph above?
Bindidon,
My point is that Greenland is not losing mass, it is in fact gaining mass. The maps are slanted to give the appearance of ice loss when in fact it is the summed departure from an average which is a HUGE gain each year. I believe this is why there is such confusion amongst climate change enthusiasts regarding the matter.
There is no possible way that the ice sheet could be losing it’s mass directly from the center (the 90%). You will always have a gain there, and a loss at the coasts. The rate of change will vary from year to year but it shouldn’t worry people. I expect that the Antarctic is the same as this at it is even colder there.
Basically it means that we are continuing to come down off the Holocene optimum and slowly head towards the next ice age. Humans have done nothing to disrupt the long term cycle. It also requires the fact that sea level change is attributed to isostatic rebound, or other geological processes rather than ice sheets melting. This is in-line with my observations that the sea level rise has been linear.
lol… the sniff test usually points me in the right direction and helps me dig deeper for the facts. Everyone should use it. It is true that I’ve been doing climate for only 10 months, but I have a formal education in mechanical engineering and 16 years of mechanical / electrical / systems experience, reading and analyzing data. It’s like learning a new instrument for me. I started with Piano, then I moved to Trombone and guitar. I didn’t have to re-learn how to read music. I mostly needed to strengthen my technic and gain experience. Hopefully I will eventually be a value to the community as I think this study is extremely important to humanity, and honestly my family.
As far as the chart on your google drive, please think about what I said about the “departure from average” vs “mass loss”. There is a big difference. Looking at this chart:
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
It appears that even the warmest year 2011-2012 had a positive mass gain.
‘My point is that Greenland is not losing mass, it is in fact gaining mass.’
What is it with you guys making up and declaring your own facts?
Seriously, that doesnt help your credibility.
The GRACE satellite measurements definitively show that Greenland has been losing mass.
https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/30/greenland-ice-loss-2002-2016/
Nate,
I did not make this up. You need to study the data more carefully. The net mass change is a positive number and has been as long as we’ve been recording the data. It is only the rate that the mass is added that has been decreased.
The mass gain during winter (which lasts for 9 months)is around 600 gt per year:
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
That has always beat out the mass loss as shown on the link you provided. Your data is not the NET. That is the gross loss for each year.
So the ice loss is speeding up as we add more mass to the system. I don’t see the problem… you have more new snow weight pushing more glaciers faster down the hill.
‘Your data is not the NET.’
No, it is NET Mass change measured by GRACE satellite. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GRACE
You are simply declaring things that are demonstrably FALSE. What’s the point of that?
And here is NET mass changed measured another way:
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/19/9239
Nate,
That Grace data chart you posted is a summation of net losses. Look at the Y axis. You are steadily moving down from 0 in 2002 to 3748 in 2016. That’s 268 gt per year on average calculated by taking the total loss of 3748 and dividing by the number of years, 14. It says right on there 281 gt per year. According to the polar portal, we are gaining 600 gt in the winter, which lasts for 9 months. It shows we are losing a portion of that each year… very close to that 281 value.
If you were correct, you would see an annual amplitude of 600 + 281 = 881gt lost every year between the beginning of May and the end of August. That is simply not what the grace data is saying. That’s because it is a summation of gross summer losses, not net season changes. A spin on data to scare you.
In order to prove me wrong, you will need to prove that the 600 gt of new snow added each year according to the Danish Arctic research is wrong.
Nate,
One other point. The reason the center of the map for the GRACE is white and not blue…
Think of it this way. Snow has been falling on Greenland for ever and ever basically. The system has reached it’s saturation point. What that means is that snow falling faster will not stack up and increase the elevation. More snow falling will simply push other snow down the hill faster and faster. Since it appears that currently mass is being added every year, we can hypothesize that more snow is falling now than what was falling 1000s of years ago. So the snow exiting the system is doing so at a faster and faster rate as it tries to reach equilibrium with the increased snow fall.
Bottom line? What we are seeing in Greenland is an indication that we have pasted the Holocene optimum, and are over the hill heading towards the next ice age, all be it at a glacial rate. lol
The increasing mass of the summer melt as a stand alone is a sign of the END of the interglacial.
Appears maybe the difference between Nate and Scott is Scott’s data doesn’t include ice shelf calving and melt whereas Nate’s does.
Since ice shelf melt and calving is controlled by local seawater temperatures they are subject to much higher levels of variation that only temporarily affect the total icesheet/shelf combination.
Localized ocean surface temperature oscillations are a solid fact that result in temporary anomalies of several degrees. So including iceshelves in the calculation doesn’t really tell you anything about the icesheet on Greenland (because ice shelves are not on Greenland). Same disconnect was seen in the Antarctic a decade ago where ice shelf calving became the polar bear of the Antarctic. Nate will continue to foist this propaganda every minute he gets the chance. Just be a aware of where he is coming from. . . .a tool and fool of deception center.
Ocean oscillations are solid fact in science. These effects are seen in coastal conservation efforts and verified by studies on these effects on local biota over generations, and over the centuries. Fossil evidence locks it into certainty.
Thus both Nate and Scott’s sources are right. Nate just wrong in telling Scott he is wrong.
No telling how deep this disconnect goes. Floating ice shelves don’t raise sea level when they melt. Yet as we try to figure out the error of tidal gauges we are using a lot of plug figures like expected deep ocean warming, expected ice sheet melt, and expected isostatic rebound.
When tidal gauge readings fall short of expectations these become the arguments to make adjustments. When deep diving buoys demonstrate cooling or less warming at depth these expectations become the basis for tossing out cold buoys as suspected “leakers”.
In financial accounting all this is only tolerated to the extent that the uncertainty is carefully and completely disclosed to the public and is consistent across all the literature issued by an institution. But in the world of climate science its like a herd of cats with yellow journalism as its main source of information being divvied out to the public.
We are in a crisis and the crisis is “the science is settled”. So instead of focusing our expenditures on addressing uncertainty huge bales of money are being spirited off on special interest ventures.
A symptom of all the above, it was recently reported that one of Greenlands largest glaciers had stopped shrinking and was expanding. I would expect the largest glaciers going to the sea being the first to expand from pressures building in the interior. Coastal glaciers would be the last.
Some additional land based ice melt should be expected from continued warmwater influenced climate nearby. Its my view glacial science has long understood that the interior ice sheets might be expanding and has chosen to ignore it and focus on the short term patterns of changes in these effects near sea level.
Sea ice melt has all but stalled. This is consistent with well known ice oscillations seen over the past 150 years. Warmists are perfectly within their rights to think this stalling will soon result in a new round of major ice melt and will probably ignore that most of the last round of ice melt was seen in the 1930’s and 40’s only to be wiped away by hockey stick artists.
Yes folks science on statistics is at least half art. Half art and half mathematics. Picking populations to do mathematical analysis on is pure art. Using all temperature data available is also art because the weather stations were artfully deployed in the first place and worse they were deployed artfully to serve an entirely different purpose than estimating the mean climate of the world.
Scott R
Are you really unable to read simplest graphs?
Look at
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_combine_SM_day_EN_20190827.png
Don’t you see mass loss and mass gain for 2018/19?
And now, compare that graph above with this one, for 2011/2012:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_combine_SM_day_EN_20120827.png
Got it, Scott R? Or don’t you WANT to get it because it doesn not match your egocentric narrative?
Now, GRACE’s graph again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18_E-mr9ud5G1PnpBoOGvUWCCNlbyKmgR/view
Don’t tell me you don’t understand that the GRACE plots contains both loss AND gain for every year!
Nobody can be so unexperienced and/or ignorant.
Nobody!
Bindidon says:
Are you really unable to read simplest graphs?
Now, GRACEs graph again:
Nobody can be so unexperienced and/or ignorant.
Nobody!
——————–
Yep Bindidon, I see it I see a huge flattening in the ice loss curve post 2012.
Bill Hunter
“Yep Bindidon, I see it I see a huge flattening in the ice loss curve post 2012.”
Wooaaah!
You are really a specialist in eye-balling at minor changes while ignoring the rest.
Rien de nouveau.
How would that look like, if GRACE had done the work from 1979 till now?
*
What about looking at this?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12yPvYDIiqrsXufCcxvN5tfyHyD_QRB3T/view
Unfortunately, there is no such data for ice sheets outside of professional ‘.nc’ files in NetCDF format.
*
As I always use to say: Warmistas aren’t good people, but Coolistas aren’t better.
Oops! I forget to mention the sources for sea ice:
Arctic
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
Antarctic
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/monthly/data/
Bill Hunter I think you missed my observation about the GRACE data. It is not showing the 600 gt added each year. It is therefore a summation of gross losses at the coast only.
Bindidon,
You need to click on the “ACC” tab first to see the accumulated snow as part of the equation.
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
If you do that, you will see that even in the warmest year, 2011-2012, there was a small mass gain.
The average year we add just under 600 gt from Sep to the end of May. Then we lose on average about 225 gt from Jun – Aug.
For 2011-2012, we gained 600 gt, then lost 550 gt roughly.
For 2018-2019 we gained about 525 gt, then lost 375 gt.
You can make a fair case that the losses are increasing, but since the gains are increasing, there is more mass pushing the ice down the hill. A saturated system like this will always seek equilibrium. The net losses will keep increasing until they equal the gains. Overall, the current state of the Greenland ice sheet is that the amount of ice flowing into the ocean is increasing, and the mass is increasing. That means we have an increased cooling effect on the ocean and are on track for the next ice age. Humans have not disrupted that.
Let me correct / clarify myself… the winter gains are not increasing. The amount of mass in the system IS increasing. Therefore, the summer losses will continue to increase to seek equilibrium with the winter gains.
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/mass-and-height-change/
Don’t need to say more.
Bindidon says:
Yep Bindidon, I see it I see a huge flattening in the ice loss curve post 2012.
Wooaaah!
You are really a specialist in eye-balling at minor changes while ignoring the rest.
———————–
Its just an indication of a pause Bindidon. I realize you live droolingly for the next record month that gets reported but its still a pause.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bindidon says:
What about looking at this?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12yPvYDIiqrsXufCcxvN5tfyHyD_QRB3T/view
Unfortunately, there is no such data for ice sheets outside of professional .nc files in NetCDF format.
——————–
You are showing me a graph without a source Bindidon.
Authored by Patrick Michaels and Caleb Stewart Rossiter via The Washington Examiner,
“Computer models of the climate are at the heart of calls to ban the cheap, reliable energy that powers our thriving economy and promotes healthier, longer lives. For decades, these models have projected dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, with catastrophic consequences.”
zerohedge.com
by Tyler Durden
Mon, 08/26/2019
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-26/great-failure-climate-models
[Scott Adams Retweeted 3 hrs ago]
…
And:
“This is a critical error. Getting the tropical climate right is essential to understanding climate worldwide. Most of the atmospheric moisture originates in the tropical ocean, and the difference between surface and upper atmospheric temperature determines how much of the moisture rises into the atmosphere. That’s important. Most of earth’s agriculture is dependent upon the transfer of moisture from the tropics to temperate regions.”
Scott Adams says does not understand the science, but worried about climate Change. But I would guess he getting less worried, the more he looks at it.
I have never been worried about global warming/climate change/Climate emergency.
Global warming is good thing- and we are not getting enough of it.
gbaikie says:
Global warming is good thing- and we are not getting enough of it.
—————
Exactly the world’s population center is huddled around the equator. Mankind could be responsible for making an ideal climate.
The nice thing about the experiment is that if it proves we are making our ideal climate, we will have a thousand years or so according to climate science to figure out how to keep it.
In future we will able to change climate/weather- anywhere, and any time.
If Human Nature doesn’t change {and it probably won’t} people will spend even more attention on “climate change”.
What is kind of key, though is will government basically stay the same- if roughly stays the same, the endless talk and no results continues.
Creating hurricanes might done as protest against something.
Or Hurricanes might be said to natural, and therefore we should have them- though probably and mostly, keeping them away from population centers.
Explain to me again. Why would anyone want to live on Mars?
For some reason, I am sure about yet, I do find this an interesting question.
One way to answer it, is that in my opinion, that people should not want to live on Mars, yet.
But also, since it appears NASA might be too incompetent, that might not “ever” explore Mars. I have in the past, voiced some support for the general idea of one way trip to Mars:
“Mars One was a small private Dutch organization that received money from investors by claiming it would use it to land the first humans on Mars and leave them there to establish a permanent human colony.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One
Quite skeptical of effort, but not against one of one way type stuff.
And roughly I think NASA should explore Mars is similar way, but I would insist there were abort option. Or don’t think you should land crew on Mars without having spacecraft already at surface which “in emergency” could allow crew to leave immediately.
Or other than bad PR and/or almost intentional murder, it could/should have bad mental effect upon the crew, if have live idea of knowing there no possible escape, but rather the plan would a long stay, but always have an escape option.
So I would not advise anyone to mine lunar water or live on Mars at the present time. Or the Moon needs to explored before one can decide to mine lunar water. And Mars needs to be explored before anyone should want to live there.
And exploration might indicate lunar water in no mineable and Mars is not livable.
If that is case NASA should find some other place to explore in our solar system- I would suggest focusing on mapping “local” space rocks which have low delta-v and could have mineable water.
Or perhaps planet, Mercury.
Oh, also instead just exploring Mars near surface, if there is found a specific reason to indicate it’s justifiable, one might focus Mars exploration at deeper underground areas. But I tend to think the surface of Mercury polar regions is a better option then that.
Explain to me again. Why would anyone want to live on Mars?
So, without the exploration first, I don’t want this.
I also have doubts about exploring Mars, if the Moon doesn’t have mineable water.
But mineable lunar water is not really something NASA can claim to exist or to not exist. Or it could be unclear whether lunar water is mineable and it’s those who are investing their capital who will making choice to bet whether can make money mining lunar water or not.
It’s also possible that lunar water once explored might not mineable at that time, but could become mineable 10 years later- due to numerous changing circumstances which could make it possible within 10 years.
Anyhow I think there is mineable lunar water in lunar polar regions and it seems to be mostly a matter of where exactly are the better places to mine lunar water.
And I think it’s quite possible that two mining companies could look at same data, arrive at two different locations which they regard as the best location.
And in terms of Mars, after or during NASA mars exploration, it’s similar thing, investors will have look at exploration results and determine if they want invest in Mars “land improvements” which lead to people who want to live on Mars, to invest in the high upfront cost of doing this.
In regards to this:
–If that is case NASA should find some other place to explore in our solar system- I would suggest focusing on mapping “local” space rocks which have low delta-v and could have mineable water.
Or perhaps planet, Mercury.–
It’s been awhile since looked exploration results of Ceres {dawn mission} and wondered what is being said about recently:
“Dwarf planet Ceres’ ‘lonely mountain’ mystery has been solved”
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/dwarf-planet-ceres-lonely-mountain-mystery-has-been-solved-ncna1019796
–June 22, 2019, 3:11 AM PDT
By David Freeman
Scientists have come up with a mind-bending explanation for the origin of a strange, streaked mountain on the dwarf planet Ceres, a 600-mile-wide body that orbits the sun in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.–
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahuna_Mons
https://earthsky.org/space/mountain-ceres-ahuna-mon-image
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/dawn/overview/
And another quote from first link:
“The presence of liquid water on Ceres suggests that it might be habitable. But Genova said that while Ceres could be “investigated for the possibility of habitability,” the new research didn’t provide any evidence of life on the dwarf planet.
“I don’t think people think there is life on Ceres,” said Erwan Mazarico, a researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, who wasn’t involved with the new study. ”
So is habitable by humans, or in terms viability of human settlement, how stack up against Mars.
Well it seems it one thing that if something like it on Mars it could make Mars viable for human settlement- it apparently lots of water near the surface- as in about 1/2 trillion tons [more water than is needed for Mars settlement.
Or volume of mountain: 20 km diameter and dome/cone shape 4 to 5 km high. And erupting {maybe not much] saltwater.
So, 20 km diameter disk 1 km high {base of the volcano] is radius squared times pi: 314 billion cubic km of salty/muddy water.
It’s been erupting for millions of years, maybe + 100 million year and water is evaporating and leaves behind, mud and salt. Or the interior source of water could less salty and muddy than what left over after evaporating. Or sort of vaguely similar to rocky glacier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_glacier
But it is a huge [and a weird and evaporating] mountain.
Now argument against settlements are numerous. First is hard to get to in terms crewed mission. And as a lot less gravity than our Moon and Mars gravity may not be enough gravity to live healthy for periods longer than a year.
So my view has been that the value water for use of rocket fuel is related to getting water to Earth high orbit.
I think water in terms less than say less 50,000 tons is worth $500 per kg on the Moon, and $1000 per kg [1 million dollars per ton] or 50,000 tons gross value about 50 billion dollars when at High Earth orbit.
Though perhaps 1000 tons is worth a million per ton at Venus orbit or gross value of 1 billion at Venus orbit.
Or if sending water to Earth, it might first go to Venus- or Venus has more launch windows than Earth from Ceres. And Mercury has more than Venus.
What orbital speed of Ceres:
“Average orbital speed 17.905 km/s” And:
Inclination 10.593 to ecliptic
9.20 to invariable plane
Mercury is 7 degree, and Ceres higher than that.
And the high inclination is problem in terms getting to either Mercury or Ceres from Earth’s orbit around the sun.
Mercury distance from Sun offer fastest hohmann transfer time to Ceres. From Venus distance it’s slower, Earth distance slower than Venus [and Mercury].
Complicated.
But sending cargo and having long transit times, you do it directly from Earth {so, something like Dawn spacecraft did} and due to Ceres slow orbital speed, it’s not as hard to change inclination, but planetary launch windows are wider apart than going to Mars.
Or Mars: “The energy needed for transfer between planetary orbits, or “Delta-v”, is lowest at intervals fixed by the synodic period. For Earth / Mars trips, this is every 26 months (2 years and 2 months)”- wiki. So guessing 2.5 to 3 years wait before can launch again to Ceres {talking about launch window not travel time needed to get there].
Screw it, what people think time to get to Ceres:
http://www.pagef30.com/2009/04/why-ceres-might-be-better-location-for.html
So this guy just says use VASIMR or something.
Not fan VASIMR but nuclear Orion would solve a lot problems.
Anyhow the guy proved I was idiot. And he/she is correct about launch window aspect of Ceres, it’s 467 days rather Mars being 780 days. So launch window would be greater than Mars {not 2 1/2 to 3 years}, but still correct about Venus and Mercury having ever shorter time periods than Earth.
I didn’t realize Mars had this odd relationship with Earth, which in a sense makes Mars most/more isolated in regards to Earth {due to less difference of their year periods}.
Well, you learn something every day.
Wonderful site you have here but I was wondering if you knew of any message boards
that cover the same topics discussed in this article? I’d really like to be a part of group where I can get feed-back from other knowledgeable people that share the same interest.
If you have any suggestions, please let me know.
Appreciate it!
It’s a endless loop:
“Explain to me again. Why would anyone want to live on Mars?”
So, again, no one should at this time, should want to live on Mars.
What instead what they should want, is Space Power Satellites.
And can’t have them yet.
And reason is the launch cost from earth surface to GEO, is too expensive.
So got to lower that cost.
How can it be done?
One could do nothing and wait, and launch costs could lower more.
Launch costs are lowering.
Who lowering launch cost?
NASA? Nope.
US Military space. Little bit.
European, Arianespace. Yup.
Arianespace wanted and was successful at capturing a good
portion of the global space satellite market.
Has the global space satellite market lowered launch cost?
Yes, all markets will lower costs. That is what markets do.
Who is lower launch cost recently, SpaceX.
And others are also trying to do this.
And Bezos, CEO of Amazon is getting into the game.
SpaceX, CEO, Musk says he wants to live on Mars.
And he thinks he needs to lower launch cost by a lot in order
to live on Mars.
Bezos is mostly interested the Moon and in the future SPS {he thinks it take a long time before we get Space Power Satellites and it will involved the use of the Moon’s resources}.
I think sooner is possible, but I think the soonest is about 50 years.
But in order to do this within 50 years, we need a bigger space market.
It seems the Moon is best pathway to a bigger space market- assuming there is commercially mineable lunar water.
So Congress has been directing NASA to explore the Moon and then explore Mars. And Bush and Trump also want NASA to do this. Obama wanted NASA to go to a space rock. Which sort turned into idea of getting a small space rock and bringing it back to be in a lunar orbit.
But that didn’t very far, and has sort of morphed into the Gateway station- which is currently being funded.
I been saying, that NASA should spend a total of about 40 billion dollars for lunar exploration program which be completed within a 10 year period of time.
I wanted NASA to do a LOX depot in LEO, and do bunch of lunar robotic mission, and finish the lunar program by sending crew to the lunar polar region and to bring back lunar sample, doing this to determine if and where lunar water could be mineable.
What happening is Gateway to be in lunar orbit, and sending crew to lunar poles by 2024. And constant announcement we going back to Moon to stay, and Trump stressing that NASA going go to Mars.
So would say, Trump wants to do the exciting stuff- roughly put a woman or two on lunar surface and point NASA to Mars {Mars program can barely start by end of Trump’s second term]. And I would not have Mars program start by end of Trump’s second term.Or I would ending lunar program before 2029 and most of time would be doing LEO depot and lunar robotic missions, and few year from 2029, do crew landing. And also around to time, ending NASA involvement with ISS, so it would have enough funding to do Mars exploration program. Or if want to do ISS and Mars exploration at same time- will require a significant increase in NASA’s budget.
And looks like, gateway, ISS, Lunar base, and Mars exploration is “somehow” going to be going on at the same time. Or it seems something will break.
Or I thinking one could ISS and Lunar program at same time, with modest increase in NASA budget. And both ended before Mars program. And something like the Gateway, would be done with private investment.
So if NASA was exploring Mars, this could helping to any Lunar rocket fuel commercial operation assuming there was mineable lunar water. Europe and other nations might do lunar bases, if there was commercial lunar mining. And having commercial lunar mining would provide stronger congressional support needed for the long and difficult and expensive task of doing a good job of exploring Mars.
SpaceX’s Starhopper Successfully Completes Final Test Flight
This was the second and final flight for the SpaceX test rocket.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a28819723/starhopper-final-flight/
–Update: SpaceX’s Starhopper took flight around 5 p.m. CT on August 27 and successfully completed its 150-meter test. The whole flight lasted a little under a minute.—
“Starhopper will never see space, but SpaceX CEO Elon Musk hopes its successor, called Starship, will eventually transport up to 100 people (and roughly 150 tons of cargo) to far-off destinations such as the Moon or Mars. Starhopper is propelled by SpaceX’s Raptor engine, which is powered by liquid oxygen and cryogenic liquid methane and will eventually be placed in the Starship and Super Heavy rockets.”
And Starship flying within about 2 years- or that is the plan.
Re:
–And looks like, gateway, ISS, Lunar base, and Mars exploration is somehow going to be going on at the same time. Or it seems something will break.–
The problem is NASA is badly managed. Or NASA is better managed than most US government Agencies/Departments, but let’s say NASA could very significantly improve in terms of managing. Starting big stuff, like don’t lose 4 billion dollars and having no clue about where it went.
And get even better than this, that would be good.
But doing above, Gateway, ISS, Lunar Base, Mars exploration, AND SLS/Orion and still not finished the James Web telescope, plus doing dozens of other things- including failing to even adequately archive data gained from exploration, and etc, etc. Something will break and badly.
A related matter:
“NASA’s renewed focus on returning humans to the Moon on an accelerated timetable means that an SLS will not be available to launch the Clipper mission to Europa before 2025 at the earliest. Given all of the foregoing factors, we urge Congress to consider removing the requirement that NASA launch the Europa Clipper on an SLS and allow the Agency to decide whether to use an SLS or a commercial vehicle based on cost, schedule, vehicle availability, and impact on science requirements.”
http://www.nasawatch.com/
Switching on the Atlantic heat pump
“34 million years ago the warm greenhouse climate of the dinosaur age ended and the colder icehouse climate of today commenced. Antarctica glaciated first and geological data imply that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, the global ocean conveyor belt of heat and nutrients that today helps keep Europe warm, also started at this time. Why exactly, has remained a mystery.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/27/switching-on-the-atlantic-heat-pump/
Continuing:
“The climate at this time was very warm, with atmospheric CO2 levels two to three times the present day levels, and this contributed to extremely fresh Arctic waters. The study begs the question of whether in a future warm world, in which the Arctic may again be very fresh, the sinking in the Atlantic may cease again, which may dramatically alter the climate of Europe. Without the Atlantic conveyor belt, Europe can experience both colder winters and hotter and drier summers, making a more extreme and inhospitable climate.”
Hmm, “more extreme and inhospitable climate” like, say, Canada
Anyhow, an example of how “global warming” can cause cooling.
Or if Europeans imagine weather is now bad, this could example of global warming making some bad weather. Assuming it does turn off or strongly affects the warming of gulf stream.
But it seems to me that have make arctic ocean warm in the winter and requires a lot of “global warming”
And they end the article:
Our study helps to bridge the gap between climate modelling and geological observations of the deep past. We hope this will inspire further research from both communities on the deep circulation of the ocean, says Hutchinson.
Australian: New Report: Electric Cars Have Higher CO2 Emissions
“Electric vehicles in Australias eastern states are responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than regular petrol vehicles, according to an expert report that warns Labors green cars policy would require up to $7 billion in upgrades and installation of recharging infrastructure across the nation.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/27/australian-new-report-electric-cars-have-higher-co2-emissions/
I imagine if Chinese {or india} use more electric vehicles {and it could help the urban pollution problems] it would be very expensive, but could also cause higher CO2 emissions.
gbaikie says: – Australian: New Report: Electric Cars Have Higher CO2 Emissions
————
The promoters of electric cars to save the world from CO2 know that.
The plan is to get everybody on electric cars while electric energy prices are low due to fossil fuels, then charge them for the upgrades to renewables.
The deal is for “big money” to take away freedom of choice one step at a time using pure BS as the reason(lying to early adopters that they are saving carbon emissions among other lies). Doing it in baby steps it won’t meet as much resistance.
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
6h hours ago
More
They do stories so big on Elizabeth Pocahontas Warrens crowd sizes, adding many more people than are actually there, and yet my crowds, which are far bigger, get no coverage at all. Fake News!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
It’s so funny.
My prediction is Trump going to get vast crowds- not because it’s practical. But rather, it a challenge.
Warren unlike most of presidential candidates {save Bernie and his bros} is managing to get fairly large crowds.
So Trump will go to California {it’s not state he needs] If California could give him a huuge crowd. Or he might campaign in California with the sole purpose of getting a big crowd {winning the State is not the point}.
Brit Hume
Verified account
@brithume
2h hours ago
Imagine trying to watch the thing.
@ByronYork:
“CNN announces seven-hour Democratic presidential candidates’ town hall on climate change. Ten candidates to appear consecutively, 40 minutes each.”
Anyone going to watch the 7 hour event?
At least they trying to show that climate emergency is important enough to bore everyone to death.
The 40 min rule is going to be very helpful to Warren, I bet she could talk hours about any topic.
It’s the other candidates who going struggle with 40 min- so they will provide the comic gold. And Biden will provide the torture.
Angular momentum:
the quantity of rotation of a body, which is the product of its moment of inertia and its angular velocity.
Angular velocity:
the rate of change of angular position of a rotating body.
This proves you can copy/paste somebody else wrighting , too bad you don’t actually grasp what it means as that would lead you to a conclusion the moon rotates about its axes
Eben says: too bad you don’t actually grasp what it means as that would lead you to a conclusion the moon rotates about its axes.
==============
Nope he has it right you still have it wrong. Are you the last one to see the light?
I see moon non-spinners are delusional as well, since their numbers are minuscule. Probably about the same as flat-earthers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File%3ATidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“Moon on the left” – how “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Is a rotation, so has angular momentum about the Earth, and none about its own axis. Is the correct representation of what orbital motion actually is.
“Moon on the right” – how “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Not a rotation, so no angular momentum about the Earth. Yet “Spinners” wrongly claim that it has. Whoops. Is also not the correct representation of what orbital motion is. “Spinners” lose argument.
“Non-Spinners” win. Argument over.
Does your blog have a contact page? I’m having problems locating it but, I’d like to send you an email.
I’ve got some recommendations for your blog you might be interested
in hearing. Either way, great site and I look forward to seeing it grow over
time.
I’m really loving the theme/design of your site. Do you ever run into
any browser compatibility problems? A handful of my blog audience have complained about my site not working correctly in Explorer but looks great in Safari.
Do you have any tips to help fix this problem?
Heres a comparison of the global-average surface air temperature variations from three reanalysis datasets:
Daftar Joker, Daftar Vivoslot, Daftar Fafaslot Click Here
ジョーカーでは、多くの可能なオンラインギャンブルゲームを提供しています。この良い情報を共有したいと思います。Click Here
He ledo su pgina, es muy buena, puede servir de inspiracin para crear un sitio web para juegos de apuestas online, joker, vivoslot, fafaslot y quiero compartir esta buena informacin, por favor vea Click Here