July 2019 was probably the 4th warmest of the last 41 years. Global “reanalysis” datasets need to start being used for monitoring of global surface temperatures. [NOTE: It turns out that the WMO, which announced July 2019 as a near-record, relies upon the ERA5 reanalysis which apparently departs substantially from the CFSv2 reanalysis, making my proposed reliance on only reanalysis data for surface temperature monitoring also subject to considerable uncertainty].
We are now seeing news reports (e.g. CNN, BBC, Reuters) that July 2019 was the hottest month on record for global average surface air temperatures.
One would think that the very best data would be used to make this assessment. After all, it comes from official government sources (such as NOAA, and the World Meteorological Organization [WMO]).
But current official pronouncements of global temperature records come from a fairly limited and error-prone array of thermometers which were never intended to measure global temperature trends. The global surface thermometer network has three major problems when it comes to getting global-average temperatures:
(1) The urban heat island (UHI) effect has caused a gradual warming of most land thermometer sites due to encroachment of buildings, parking lots, air conditioning units, vehicles, etc. These effects are localized, not indicative of most of the global land surface (which remains most rural), and not caused by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because UHI warming “looks like” global warming, it is difficult to remove from the data. In fact, NOAA’s efforts to make UHI-contaminated data look like rural data seems to have had the opposite effect. The best strategy would be to simply use only the best (most rural) sited thermometers. This is currently not done.
(2) Ocean temperatures are notoriously uncertain due to changing temperature measurement technologies (canvas buckets thrown overboard to get a sea surface temperature sample long ago, ship engine water intake temperatures more recently, buoys, satellite measurements only since about 1983, etc.)
(3) Both land and ocean temperatures are notoriously incomplete geographically. How does one estimate temperatures in a 1 million square mile area where no measurements exist?
There’s a better way.
A more complete picture: Global Reanalysis datasets
(If you want to ignore my explanation of why reanalysis estimates of monthly global temperatures should be trusted over official government pronouncements, skip to the next section.)
Various weather forecast centers around the world have experts who take a wide variety of data from many sources and figure out which ones have information about the weather and which ones don’t.
But, how can they know the difference? Because good data produce good weather forecasts; bad data don’t.
The data sources include surface thermometers, buoys, and ships (as do the “official” global temperature calculations), but they also add in weather balloons, commercial aircraft data, and a wide variety of satellite data sources.
Why would one use non-surface data to get better surface temperature measurements? Since surface weather affects weather conditions higher in the atmosphere (and vice versa), one can get a better estimate of global average surface temperature if you have satellite measurements of upper air temperatures on a global basis and in regions where no surface data exist. Knowing whether there is a warm or cold airmass there from satellite data is better than knowing nothing at all.
Furthermore, weather systems move. And this is the beauty of reanalysis datasets: Because all of the various data sources have been thoroughly researched to see what mixture of them provide the best weather forecasts
(including adjustments for possible instrumental biases and drifts over time), we know that the physical consistency of the various data inputs was also optimized.
Part of this process is making forecasts to get “data” where no data exists. Because weather systems continuously move around the world, the equations of motion, thermodynamics, and moisture can be used to estimate temperatures where no data exists by doing a “physics extrapolation” using data observed on one day in one area, then watching how those atmospheric characteristics are carried into an area with no data on the next day. This is how we knew there were going to be some exceeding hot days in France recently: a hot Saharan air layer was forecast to move from the Sahara desert into western Europe.
This kind of physics-based extrapolation (which is what weather forecasting is) is much more realistic than (for example) using land surface temperatures in July around the Arctic Ocean to simply guess temperatures out over the cold ocean water and ice where summer temperatures seldom rise much above freezing. This is actually one of the questionable techniques used (by NASA GISS) to get temperature estimates where no data exists.
If you think the reanalysis technique sounds suspect, once again I point out it is used for your daily weather forecast. We like to make fun of how poor some weather forecasts can be, but the objective evidence is that forecasts out 2-3 days are pretty accurate, and continue to improve over time.
The Reanalysis picture for July 2019
The only reanalysis data I am aware of that is available in near real time to the public is from WeatherBell.com, and comes from NOAA’s Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2).
The plot of surface temperature departures from the 1981-2010 mean for July 2019 shows a global average warmth of just over 0.3 C (0.5 deg. F) above normal:
Note from that figure how distorted the news reporting was concerning the temporary hot spells in France, which the media reports said contributed to global-average warmth. Yes, it was unusually warm in France in July. But look at the cold in Eastern Europe and western Russia. Where was the reporting on that? How about the fact that the U.S. was, on average, below normal?
The CFSv2 reanalysis dataset goes back to only 1979, and from it we find that July 2019 was actually cooler than three other Julys: 2016, 2002, and 2017, and so was 4th warmest in 41 years. And being only 0.5 deg. F above average is not terribly alarming.
Our UAH lower tropospheric temperature measurements had July 2019 as the third warmest, behind 1998 and 2016, at +0.38 C above normal.
Why don’t the people who track global temperatures use the reanalysis datasets?
The main limitation with the reanalysis datasets is that most only go back to 1979, and I believe at least one goes back to the 1950s. Since people who monitor global temperature trends want data as far back as possible (at least 1900 or before) they can legitimately say they want to construct their own datasets from the longest record of data: from surface thermometers.
But most warming has (arguably) occurred in the last 50 years, and if one is trying to tie global temperature to greenhouse gas emissions, the period since 1979 (the last 40+ years) seems sufficient since that is the period with the greatest greenhouse gas emissions and so when the most warming should be observed.
So, I suggest that the global reanalysis datasets be used to give a more accurate estimate of changes in global temperature for the purposes of monitoring warming trends over the last 40 years, and going forward in time. They are clearly the most physically-based datasets, having been optimized to produce the best weather forecasts, and are less prone to ad hoc fiddling with adjustments to get what the dataset provider thinks should be the answer, rather than letting the physics of the atmosphere decide.
Berkeley Earth found that the UHI is negligible:
“The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeley’s analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#question-15
paper:
“Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications,” Wickham et al., Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:2
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000104
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
Gee David, you still fall for their baloney. I had an experience of a HUGE UHI effect changes just two days ago.
I left the city (250,000 Metro) around 10:00 pm, going north for about 9 miles, the temperature dropped rapidly from 84 to 72 as I drove out of the city into the sparsely populated rural area, with negligible buildings and concrete.
Then after showing my two teen daughters the much darker sky for stars, double stars and such, drove home around 11:45 pm, the change in temperature was just as rapid going back up to 82 from 71.
I see the obvious UHI effect every time I drive, the range is usually around 2 degrees when I drive through the river delta.
The UHI is real and often significant. I tire of the lies Berkely and other groups promote/
You need to read the quote again. BEST said, yes, there is a UHI. And they determined it doesn’t affect global averages.
They’re doing science. You call them liars because you can’t find anything wrong with their science, or don’t even try, but want to dismiss them anyway. There’s a name for people who do that.
Maybe you don’t know, but BEST was formed by a noted skeptic who wanted specifically to analyze the temperature records for himself. The Koch Brothers funded part of their research. Their team included a Nobel Laureate in physics. They did a lot of good work that you don’t get to dismiss by calling them “liars.” In the end, they found the same results as the other groups that model surface temperatures. BEST’s leader wrote:
“Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. Im now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
“My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earths land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”
– Richard Muller, New York Times, 7/28/12
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
The problem is no one knows best, the solutions is lets hype it, alarm it, and get ready to tax it, the poliournalists that covet this hype do it for one reason – Readers. Politicians each with their utterly biased poliournalists pedal this for political gain, they do it for one reason – Votes. Universities et el world wide appear to have unfettered access to vast amounts of money to study utterly ridiculous issues in an effort to reverse engineer so called global warming, they do this for one reason – Funds. These studies get vetted by a human centipede group of bureaucrats to advise governments and political news outlets. For all the reasons above you so called scientist sold your souls, the day this went political is the day science lost. And now it has gone into a religion all sense is lost, the proof Is this schools pedal some sort of religious link, primary school are turning out the modern equivalent to what Hitler did teaching them to count using weapons as symbols, kids fighting politics being abused by parents and schools to chain themselves up run in front of traffic and stop people going about their lawful business, All the Name of this new Relgion of Global Warming. At least religion stays true it doesnt start out saying ice age is coming, then carbon dioxide, then global warming, now climate change I.e. catholic, Protestant, Jew , Muslim merging etc.
When people realise this completely undabated religoscience has never been publicly debated for fear of being called a heretic much like the great scientists of old. YOU have collectively stuffed this so called religoscience up to the point it being an absolute joke. So lets call it ClimatoReligio you utter set of clowns.
Are you saying July isn’t, in fact, near or at a record?
DA,
I think he’s calling you an utter clown (being part of that set).
Oh well.
Cheers.
How the alt-Left media drives a story: Alleged, allegedly, may, conceivably, could, not conclusive, pattern, suspicion, suspicious, appear, apparent, impression, possible, likely, and finally…cannot YET prove. Just ask the current president of the U.S..
Steven,
my favorite is ‘x was slammed for y’,
on CNN it could be that it even was true, x was ‘slammed’ for y, but under a false pretence, so x didn’t y, and CNN knows it, and won’t say that to keep the fake news running.
The Jussie case was full of it. Yeah, Trump was ‘called out’, yes, ‘held accountable’, only that JS made it all up – and got away thanks corrupt prosecution.
David
The approach used by BEST was flawed. They looked at temperatures outside the city in all directions and compared the ‘rural’ temperatures with the urban temps. Dale Quatrocci has demonstrated that UHI affects temperature and precipitation for miles DOWNWIND of the city. Averaging that with the upwind temps raises the ‘rural’ average temps, thus decreasing the apparent UHI effect.
There is some question about just how much of a skeptic Muller was.
Muller was never a skeptic much less a “noted skeptic” so don’t BS us David.
Muller, afaik, was strongly biased, just let people think he was biased /the other way/ he really was.
They got to Mueller because of his investment in shale oil. Hit him in the pocketbook.
Robert, do yo have a reference for the Muller quote above?
Thanks.
Ok, let’s not dispute Best’s temperature findings. But how can Muller claim that “essentially all of this increase” is from “human emissions” ?
In all the considerable calculations he did (“the facts”) there is nothing to point to “essentially all” being human caused. His scientific work did not address the question of attribution.
Here, if you have five minutes to spare, global warming in a nutshell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w
where’s the science? its just muller spewing what a great job he did and what great people he worked with.
Here’s the science:
http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/
Actually Svante, besides the rat poor methodology of seeking a UHI signal, you are aware are you not that the US hardly is a world leader in population growth. So the science I am seeking is the science that supports Muller’s conclusions that the warming is manmade because UHI and other factors are not a factor. Any piece of evidence that one could say is relevant to that finding would be nice. . . .so make your case.
Read his references.
gotcha! You don’t know and don’t care. Ignorance is bliss.
I’m tired of looking everything up for you.
If you read up to page two you would have seen that others came to the same conclusion.
I think you will find a significant UHI effect in China.
Still, 70% of the globe is water, and that’s where you find 90% of the energy increase.
Svante says: – I’m tired of looking everything up for you.
—————
I was not asking you to look up the answer for mayself Svante. I was asking you to look it for yourself.
I gave you the answer of why the CO2 line does not continue to track the temperature line after 1870 and its because Muller is ignorant of any reason why it should. . . .even apparently ignorant of Henry’s Law. Its a paper full of conclusions and non-conclusion wholly dependent on its desired outcome.
Bill Hunter,
How do you mean it doesn’t track? Which years?
Why do you mention Henry’s Law? His curve is based on the atmospheric fraction. Of course he knows that a lot is taken up by the oceans.
Svante, it tracks before 1870 but not after.
Use your eyes!
The tracking error is shown in fig. 6.
At the top you can see that it matches the AMO.
The ten year moving average is +/- 0.2 C.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf
Svante says: – The tracking error is shown in fig. 6.
At the top you can see that it matches the AMO.
The ten year moving average is +/- 0.2 C.
—————
Good Lord! Graph 5 is manipulated to make CO2 look like a better explanation for the temperature fluctuation.
He then uses these manipulated results to dispute the effect of the AMO.
One can see the results are manipulated because once again like all things mainstream climate the warming and cooling subsequent to 1870 cannot be explained by CO2 and never has been. They just ignore it and try not to ever talk about it and you are so inculcated into the religion you can’t even see it.
What are you talking about?
He does not dispute the AMO, it is in fig. 6.
The long term temperature record matches the CO2 forcing.
Please describe this difference you see around 1870, and please be specific.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Richard,
You may not be so far from the truth as regards temperature as you are measuring from a low point in the Earth’s Temperature cycle, just after the worst of the Maunder Minimum to just after the end of the Grand Solar Maximum at the end of the C20th.
The Earth’s temperature cycle has a periodicity of 370 years approximately. Or at least this cycle does, there are others.
The cause is known to be the periodic nature of the solar magnetic field strength or the sun’s magnetic shields. One mechanism which causes the waxing and waning of temperature of the Earth is that the sun’s shields modulate Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) flux onto the inner solar system and thereby Earth’s received flux which modulates (via Svensmark et al) the cloud cover of the Earth and thereby the amount of sunlight on the Earth’s surface.
We are currently entering another cooling period which will last for decades.
The fact that CO2 does not cause warming was established after Arrhenius’s (1896) by Roentgen (1901) and Professor Wood (1909) by experiment (amongst others). In fact this doesn’t even matter as the method of measuring CO2 used by the warming crowd, the Ice Core Record as it is known, does not work according to it’s originator and devloper of 20 years. The atmospheric record in which CO2 content was measured direct from the atmospere goes back to 1756. This shows a multidecadal variation such that atmospheric CO2 content was higher than it is today in 1942 (peak) and about 1860 (about 460ppm).
Everything about AGW is made up to promote global population reduction as first used by Hitler in his well known Sustainable Development units in WW2. AGW has nothing to do with science and everything to do with Power.
X
Thank you for pointing out that journalist David Appell never ceases to promote baloney.
In this case, he knows that the UHI is a substantial challenge to claims that the Earth is warming. It is warming around many surface stations as urbanization creeps ever closer. That is why many alarmists prefer surface stations to satellite measurements. They have no problem using urbanization as “proof” of CO2 warming!
Here is one very recent paper that found enough of an Urban Heat Island effect in China to explain about half of the observed warming since the 1940s.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811930102X?via%3Dihub
As to direct observations of the UHI effect, I too see it every time I drive through the Portland, Oregon metro area passing close to the airport observing station. Temperatures there typically range from 2 to 5 degrees F warmer than at both ends of my drive in rural areas.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
BEST did a global analysis and found the UHI effect negligible.
What objections do you have about the science they did and the methods they employed?
The triviality of the UHI has been known for at least 30 years:
“Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land,” P. D. Jones et al, Nature volume 347, pages 169–172 (1990).
https://www.nature.com/articles/347169a0
From their abstract:
“The results show that the urbanization influence in two of the most widely used hemispheric data sets1,2,4 is, at most, an order of magnitude less than the warming seen on a century timescale.”
DA,
BEST refers to Steve Mosher as a scientist.
BEST published in a predatory journal owned by OMICS. Only fools, frauds or fakes would choose to give money to OMICS.
BEST is a joke. Worth a laugh, but possessing little other utility.
Cheers.
You keep repeating yourself Apple. Oh, that’s what propagandists do. “Utopianism substitutes glorious predictions and unachieveable promises for knowledge, science and reason while laying claim to them all.”
gordon…”Temperatures there typically range from 2 to 5 degrees F warmer than at both ends of my drive in rural areas”.
Just north of you, in Canada, the temperatures are measured at Vancouver International Airport, which is right on the water. I live nearby and our temperatures in winter can be 10C cooler than 50 miles away in the Fraser Valley. We can be 5C warmer than just across Vancouver, in the heights of Burnaby (600+ feet).
In summer, our temperatures are moderated by the ocean and the UHI. About 150 miles NE, around Lytton BC, the temperatures can be 20C to 25C warmer. The region is a desert area with sagebrush and cactii. During winter, the area is at least 20C cooler than us.
This is an example of extreme variation in both temperature and climate within 150 miles.
NOAA and GISS would miss this completely since they use data from stations 1200 miles apart. Then they extrapolate such data to fabricate temperatures for intermediate stations.
I agree with what Roy is saying regarding weather. Meteorologists have it down pretty well and have become adept at making short range predictions using re-analysis.
However, one meteorologist interviewed on TV said he is not beyond getting on the phone to confirm the local weather conditions at other stations. Another admitted they predict outcomes but it is based on decades of good data. He admitted they are still sometimes wrong.
sunsettommy says:
“I had an experience of a HUGE UHI effect changes just two days ago.”
The paper is about the anomaly trend, not the absolute values.
And, UHI is not static, but progressive with urban growth.
But for some reason, the measured effect on the trend was negative.
Perhaps people reduce their foot print when they move from a small town to a multi story house in Shanghai.
Perhaps higher buildings improve vertical air mixing.
Perhaps higher buildings shift solar warming up and produce more shadow at the ground level where temperatures are measured.
Perhaps modern buildings use glossier materials.
Perhaps modern building are more energy efficient.
Plus a thousand other reasons.
How do you know?
It was checked it here:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf
Paper here, with AMO comparison etc.:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf
Svante says: Paper here, with AMO comparison etc.:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf
————–
I got to say that Figure 5 is one of the strangest and poorly explained graphs I have ever seen. The red CO2 line before the industrial revolution tracks closely with temperature fluctuation and at the start of the industrial revolution it suddenly and inexplicably stops doing that. It implies anthropogenic emissions slow down when temperature goes up and the graph fails to track a sojourns to the north and south post 1870. Can you explain why?
Model world.
bill hunter says:
“The red CO2 line before the industrial revolution tracks closely with temperature fluctuation and at the start of the industrial revolution it suddenly and inexplicably stops doing that.”
First note that the error bars are larger on the left, and that the temperature is dominated by Laki, Tambora (VEI 7, preceeded by the mystery eruption), and Cosiguina.
The biggest departure is in 1770.
The curves are aligned after 1980.
“graph fails to track a sojourns to the north and south post 1870. Can you explain why?”
They extract the residual in fig. 6 and it matches the AMO.
They find a maximum natural variability of +/- 0.17 C.
Later research shows that the AMO is the result of other forcings, notably aerosol pollution in the 20th century.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-natural-cycles-only-play-small-role-in-rate-of-global-warming
Svante says: – They extract the residual in fig. 6 and it matches the AMO.
They find a maximum natural variability of +/- 0.17 C.
————————
I am talking about Figure 5 Svante. There is nothing about the AMO in the construction of that graph.
————–
———–
Svante says: They find a maximum natural variability of +/- 0.17 C.
Later research shows that the AMO is the result of other forcings, notably aerosol pollution in the 20th century.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-natural-cycles-only-play-small-role-in-rate-of-global-warming
————————
OK, subtract .17 from the current anomaly.
Then figure what the PDO contributes and how the overlap if they do. And subtract that from the current anomaly.
Then figure out what the imbalance still left over from the LIA and subtract that, then maybe the residual is CO2.
You question if their is any imbalance left over from the LIA? LOL! There is no question there is, the only question is how much.
which it certainly does beyond any reasonable doubt
The residual tracking error between ln(CO2) and global temperature is shown in fig. 6. Subtract the AMO and we’re talking hundreds of a degree on decadal averages, not much left for the PDO.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf
Residuals are also calculated here, see :
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1
LIA recovery, yes. In physics, temperature has a reason. Explained without magic here, see diagram from 1500 to present:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-natural-cycles-only-play-small-role-in-rate-of-global-warming
We were in a long term decline from the Holocene peak 8000 years ago.
The LIA would have continued down without GHG emissions, just like MIS19:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28419-5
It was our GHG emissions that broke the LIA.
This is begging the question, Svante.
Svante says: – The residual tracking error between ln(CO2) and global temperature is shown in fig. 6. Subtract the AMO and were talking hundreds of a degree on decadal averages, not much left for the PDO.
———
Indeed if you manipulate the numbers you can make anything disappear.
You still need to explain the manipulation in graph 5 and set it to some rational reasoning well established in science.
What you fail to observe is exactly what auditors are trained to observe. The classic tale of shaving mills off interest transactions made daily in calculating interest on savings accounts on hundreds of thousands of accounts. You can’t even see the signs of it.
—————–
—————–
Svante says: –
LIA recovery, yes. In physics, temperature has a reason. Explained without magic here, see diagram from 1500 to present:
———-
No explanation is provided by your student paper for the forcings from solar and volcanos Svante. Hopefully he didn’t submit that to his teacher. . . .if he has one.
In addition its not even a study of climate its a study of SSTs.
I have pointed out that the PDO is a climate temperature effect without necessarily being a “mean” ocean surface temperature effect.
Local climate is greatly modified by upwellings of cold water periodically along the coastline. But the effect is only noticed when the wind changes direction back to a prevailing direction.
The PDO’s correlation (that can apparently only be erased by loosey goosey attribution to other causes) with climate is there whether you want to attribute anything to it or not. Its better correlated than the AMO and its better correlated than CO2.
The PDO index is not a heat index thus all the one track mind scientists in the world instantly disregard it. But evaporation like your hot spoon of soup is affected greatly by air moving rapidly over the surface.
Switch the pool of hot water with the pool of cold water, different water may exist under different wind conditions and gee maybe affect water vapor? Nah no chance water can only be affected by CO2 right? LOL!
You folks like to narrow climate change down to one single variable. . . .CO2. Water vapor, the big dog in the game, is just a mule for CO2 in your narrow mind.
So you have a thousand and one excuses to ignore changes in UV, Cosmic rays, magnetism, and TSI all of which on their own have some degree of effect on the water cycle. IMPOSSIBLE YOU SAY! CO2 IS THE COMMAND BEAST OF THE EMPIRE!!!
So believing that CO2 and its entire parade of effects is levied over ocean temperatures when we already know that CO2 is a slave to Henry’s law and dozens of mitigating factors . . . heat magically disappearing into the oceans at a greater rate than we can measure, aerosols with multiple potential light blocking effects on both IR and solar are redesigned to fit an explanation, gases emitted by volcanos are speculated upon as to their volumes. And of course ocean oscillations being much shorter duration can’t possibly be an explanation of longterm warming so we ignore it on the 40 and 50 year scales in addition to long term scales.
And to cap it all off the LIA only began to end in 1870 because thats a convenient ending date and gee 1700 doesn’t work.
So gently manipulated graphs like Figure 5 and your blog apprentice each of these other variables are handwaved away in the biggest and stupidest assumption ever seen in the history of science that climate has one single control knob.
Or at least that was the original take. Today grudgingly natural variation is allowed in only to explain the discrepancies, but limited to only explaining past discrepancies that have already been resolved!
So what is the right scientific answer to that approach? Well its to wait and see what gets resolved no matter how long it will take.
Notice that you never see any constructions with cloud or water vapor variability. Thats because of one huge stupid assumption that CO2 controls all that in whatever manner the climate modelers decide. The little red CO2 forcing lines implicitly assume that. All that is going on Svante is curve fitting in the same manner as astrologists fit planet movements to climate changes on earth. And you believe the machinations you want to believe.
—————-
Svante says: – We were in a long term decline from the Holocene peak 8000 years ago.
The LIA would have continued down without GHG emissions, just like MIS19:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28419-5
It was our GHG emissions that broke the LIA.
——————
According to cherry picked proxies like how July was the warmest month on record?
You think it could be this or it could be that.
The fact is they contribute very little.
Do you have any quantitative evidence of a strong long term impact of the PDO on global temperatures?
Svante, the PDO is in beautiful time with the multi-decadal oscillation seen in the temperature record, its pretty hard to not believe there is a relationship. Plus there is good evidence of a relationship. El Ninos and La Ninas are a shorter term oscillation from which the temperature effect can be measured about 90 days later in the global temperature record.
PDO’s in the positive phase is correlated to a higher number of El Ninos than LaNinas and vice versa in its cold phase.
Assuming all this eventually works itself out (as described by Akasofu in his paper) they don’t have a long term effect. But they could very well be having a multi-decadal effect elevating the rate of warming for several decades.
Considering the timing seen recently if it holds up over the long haul the maximum warming effect should have ended about 2016 give or take an ENSO cycle.
I intentionally pushed that to 36 years of warming to be in sync with the orbits of other planets whereas the temperature record cycle is more like 33 years but still within an ENSO cycle. There is no certainty of a continuing oscillation, or if the planet orbits affect it. I ascribe no certainty to it.
The only thing I know is warming in accordance with the models is not occurring and that based upon inductive logic (which is essentially what estimated warming from CO2 and its feedbacks are based upon) suggests that as the next decade unfolds if there is a multi-decadal oscillation still occurring it will likely reduce warming even more.
I happen to live in a part of the world where this oscillation has has a relatively much higher effect over the decades. Being an outdoors person, I find some deja vu with how the climate has been shifting lately.
California wildfires are mostly attributable to wet years followed by dry years. We have been seeing that a bit more just very recently. The warm phase brought extended drought to California, it moved the salmon north probably more due to stream flows than anything else (though agriculture is the political fall guy for that and they certainly have the ability to exaggerate the effect with dams holding back runoff).
Now just recently we are having record wet years. 2 now in 3 years. We are also still having dry years. That pattern is what creates fire risk. Verdant growth during the wet year followed by a dry year makes for very dangerous brush conditions.
This pattern created a form of conventional wisdom in California many decades ago that El Nino portended rainfall and La Nina drought. But during recent decades post 1980 that wisdom didn’t hold up well. We will have to wait out 2 or 3 more ENSO cycles and see whats cooking and whats not cooking.
OK, you have no quantitative evidence for the PDO influence.
That’s because there is not much room for it, unless you think it is in sync with the AMO.
The ln(CO2) curve is actually like that. CH4 forcing is 50% of the CO2 forcing. As you read in the Berkeley results, adding it separately did not improve the fit because they have grown in tandem.
You don’t have to wait and see, and forget about models, we have enough history to see what’s what.
Please, read the following paper in full. It explains most of what people discuss here. You might even find a PDO signal in there.
“Recent global temperature ‘plateau’ in the context of a new proxy reconstruction”:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000216
Svante says:
OK, you have no quantitative evidence for the PDO influence.
—————
Thats not true at all Svante. The PDO index is quantitative and the temperature index is quantitative, the only thing lacking is a quantification of the correlation. If you understood correlation you would know you don’t need to quantify a correlation that you can clearly visually see.
Its so well correlated its a waste of time going to all the trouble pin it down to multiple decimal points.
————-
—————
Svante says:
That’s because there is not much room for it, unless you think it is in sync with the AMO.
The ln(CO2) curve is actually like that. CH4 forcing is 50% of the CO2 forcing. As you read in the Berkeley results, adding it separately did not improve the fit because they have grown in tandem.
You don’t have to wait and see, and forget about models, we have enough history to see what’s what.
Please, read the following paper in full. It explains most of what people discuss here. You might even find a PDO signal in there.
“Recent global temperature ‘plateau’ in the context of a new proxy reconstruction”:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000216
——————–
I read the abstract and I am not interested in reading the entire article. It seems obvious to me you have little experience in this type of modeling.
I have done it not extensively but enough times to gain an understanding about proxy modeling. I have done it on ArcGIS and I have done it on custom models.
You have just been razzle dazzled into believing something is certain when it is clearly not. I am not even claiming that the PDO actually causes the warming though I can imagine ways it might. Correlation is not causation but correlation is being hawked everyday as causation in this business.
For instance CH4 growing in tandem with CO2 makes perfect sense, since warmer temperatures increase both oceans expelling CO2 and vegetation rotting in the jungle. That is not a claim that all the CO2 comes from natural warming but some of it almost certainly does. Quantified how much is going to be much more difficult than assuming anthropogenic is responsible for all the warming. Yet that is the same poppycock the NGO communities have been hawking like UFO hawkers forever all the way back to the Luddites where anti-progressives posed as progressives. The same thing is going on today.
bill hunter says:
I asked for the effect in degrees. If you have no correlation coefficient you have no science.
You don’t want to know. It’s not about me, it’s about science.
No, emissions are far ahead of Henry’s law, since oceans take up 30% of all emitted CO2.
It is quantified here: http://ocean.mit.edu/~stephd/Omtaetal_GBC_2011.pdf
“For instance, an increase in the global average temperature by 3C (which many models suggest with doubling of atmospheric pCO2 […] would lead to less carbon taken up by the oceans, eventually leading to around 10% higher atmospheric pCO2.”
Great science there Bill, proves physics is wrong.
Svante says: – I asked for the effect in degrees. If you have no correlation coefficient you have no science.
——–
Thats not true. In fact its ignorant. Science is observation. Quantifying that observation simply makes the science more useful.
I am just making an observation. Actually quantifying it as a correlation wouldn’t make it more convincing to you as you lack an open mind. So explain to me why I should spend a few hours of my time doing that? I’ve seen the correlation as has hundreds of scientists. The PDO at best is temporary climate change as what we know about it is its internal. In fact all the texts I am aware of peg it as an oscillation. If so it has no effect on the long term warming of the entire industrial age but only portions of it like one we are in currently and one that could be detected from the start of the industrial age ending in 1944.
I’m here to challenge my world view and learn.
You have an alternative world view and alternative facts.
I would like to check the facts but all you have is hand waving.
How many degrees do think the PDO impact is on the global scale? I think it’s less than +/- 0.1 C.
‘Thats not true. In fact its ignorant. Science is observation. Quantifying that observation simply makes the science more useful.’
More useful, yes. And when testing a hypothesis, essential.
In physical sciences hypotheses are quantitative. Testing them requires quantitative data. If not any hand waving can be called science.
Svante says: – Im here to challenge my world view and learn.
You have an alternative world view and alternative facts.
I would like to check the facts but all you have is hand waving.
How many degrees do think the PDO impact is on the global scale? I think its less than +/- 0.1 C.
Thats great Svante.
What I would say is attributable to ocean oscillations varies every year. The larger PDO’s effect requires probably a minimum of an 80 year temperature record to eliminate. So you can mostly eliminate it by looking at an 80 year record. However, that still doesn’t tell you how much it contributes to current anomalies without a clear picture of what state it is in right now on the longer term oscillation. I would say it is having very minimal effects right now that could be positive or negative but likely has most of its positive effects affecting the baseline for measuring the anomaly. In other words if we are now at the top of the PDO oscillation as it appears to be currently or near to crossing the line from a positive to a negative effect, which we may not know for sure for another decade or so sort of like solarcycle maximums getting picked a couple years after the maximum, ocean cycles may take considerably longer because of both its longer period and much larger variations within the oscillation, lasting a decade or more as opposed to variations in the solar record only lasting a couple of years or so.
So advancing the 80 year window should keep the ocean oscillation effect to a minimum to the extent it is a multi-decadal oscillation. After all we are only in the second complete cycle within the temperature record and at the beginning of that record it has far higher uncertainty.
I read one very interesting paper on ocean heat uptake that placed the surface ocean adjustment period around 10 years and did work on a deep ocean adjustment and concluded that we were about a 1000 years too short of a data series to estimate the rate of ocean heat uptake. Of course that doesn’t stop people from creating forcing models that projects what it is. But the gap between those points of view rests validation of the projections.
Thus you have folks estimating the effects of greenhouse gases, watching the planets circle the sun, watching the sun cycles, watching the weather, watching how fish in the ocean tend to move northward then southward again on a multi-decadal time scale and note the pattern almost perfectly matches changes in the temperature record over the past 150 years. One specie in particular, Pacific Bluefin tuna, have made 3 great appearances in US waters. First discovered in the 1880’s, disappeared by the end of the 19th century, then reappeared in the 1930’s, disappeared again date uncertain because of WWII, and reappeared in force once more in 2000, just now hitting a peak appearance.
So the oscillation is real. And you can verify it by matching a smoothed ENSO index to it, so the effects have a connection. And you can almost perfectly lay the oscillation over the temperature record with the alleged long term warming of which ever record you choose pulled out.
I worked as an auditor in an industry with a big record of feast or famine. The fortunes of the industry rose and fell with startling regularity. As an auditor when things started to go bad, industry would start noticing it and start to allow for losses from it. Coming in for the annual audit I learned to understand that they are recognizing losses and the losses are understated. Same thing on the upswing. They are recognizing profits and thus the profits are overstated. Notice how bias figures in. You search for something you want and you will believe you found more than what was real. Search for something you don’t want and you will fail to not see what is real.
Climate as a science is about where medicine was in the days of the leech and blood letting treatments. The doctors they weren’t dishonorable they were after all expected to find a cure and indeed they searched hard for it and early on found more cures than there were cures.
So you want me to quantify it for you. Hmmmm, thats a real crap shoot . You have 1) remainder imbalance from the LIA recovery (a certainty), you have 2) a solar grand maximum imbalance (a certainty with uncertainty whether the positive solar effects have sufficiently diminished – see also the centennial slowdown that appears regularly despite perhaps the grand events). All this might create a warming from TSI, 3)Magnetic changes, 4)solar wind effects on cosmic rays. You may have 5) a remainder imbalance in the surface ocean from the most recent PDO oscillation, I haven’t studied the AMO, but lets give it a 6) but I have no opinion on that other than to say it also likely affects global climate but its affects might be positive, negative, or neutral in terms of the current anomaly, you have 7) UHI both with its city faster warming and the enlargement of urban areas, you have 8) deforestation (most likely partly mixed into UHI affects do to an affinity of clearing lands next to cities more so than remote from cities), we have 9) large reclamation projects, reclaiming both precipitation runoff, storing the water behind dams, increasing water surface area exposed to evaporation. You have 10) irrigating deserts.
You have 11) temperature record manipulators of both the intentional and biased kind with a favoritism given to biases of the positive kind based upon the political environments that control those records. You have 12) what appears to be a centennial slow down in solar activity now just nearing a decade in. This one is difficult to pin down because perhaps the best alternative theory for global climate change is a change in the rate of evaporation of the oceans, thus such change could be a slave to strictly ocean temperature modification and thus not yet being felt in climate as it hasn’t been around enough to reverse historic surface ocean warming (but it is on the cusp perhaps of doing that). You have 13) acceleration of plant rotting processes from a warming atmosphere increasing methane. 14) you have melting ice on land releasing methane, 15) you have photoelectric effects creating nitric oxide naturally affecting ozone, 16) you have black carbon emissions, 17) you have other aerosols of an uncertain range of effects that could be positive or negative. And finally we have 18) anthropogenic emissions of CO2.
So you want me to distribute these 18 items to the various temperature records and their anomalies? Hmmm, why not start out with .01 as a decadal number for each? Then go look at how each might effect say satellite vs surface records and argue if the adjustment should be smaller or larger depending upon the methodologies used? Sort of like shooting in the dark with only a slight glimmer of star light.
This is what you say:
https://tinyurl.com/y6yaj777
Bill,
Sounds like you are saying there is way too much going on, and most of it is beyond my expertise anyway.
Yet you still are, somehow, able to form definite opinions that what climate scientists are doing is wrong.
‘Climate as a science is about where medicine was in the days of the leech and blood letting treatmeant’
Sorry not very convincing.
Svante says: This is what you say:
———————
Nonsense! Muller is speaking like a moron. First the range of possibilities expressed by computer models span 300%. My profession is as a truth teller and I can go into any circle of experts and extract the truth. My first rule of thumb is to understand the direction of bias. Rarely have to think about this much, just follow the money. My second rule of thumb is if the expert believes in a particular number of range of numbers; the correct answer is usually double the range away from the bias.
Such is the power of bias. Of course out and out fraud can multiply the results of bias. I am talking only about an honorable expert. In the professions bias is largely eliminated by introducing an anti-bias artifices called strict liability. Strict liability largely eliminates unintentional bias as it substitutes the interest of client onto to the professional.
But most business isn’t conducted by professionals.
Now Muller is doing nothing but projecting is bias. By no stretch of the imagination is the world doing what science thinks CO2 can do. The observations are in and their viewpoint is wrong. They can’t use excuses because their projections were onto a system they claim to understand. Are they liable for that? Well they certainly would under the standard of strict liability, because all you need to do to prove liability is convince a jury that the professional did not act in the best regard of its client. Thus all professional societies enact standards to deal with uncertainty. Standards relieve professionals of liability arising from uncertainty.
Climate science in that regard is a complete mess. Muller is doing nothing but expressing his bias. He can’t even hold up a numerical outcome that supports his viewpoint if for no other reason than the fact the range of outcomes is so astoundingly large. In that wide range of outcomes assuming the CO2 influence is correct are my list of 17 items not CO2 that they have no clue about. If you factor in that observations are a good 1 to 1.7 degrees off kilter (depending upon the temperature record you offer up) the real range of uncertainty should surround that range not the range selected by the Charney commission 4 decades ago.
——————
——————
——————
Nate says: –
Sounds like you are saying there is way too much going on, and most of it is beyond my expertise anyway.
Yet you still are, somehow, able to form definite opinions that what climate scientists are doing is wrong.
Climate as a science is about where medicine was in the days of the leech and blood letting treatmeant
Sorry not very convincing.
———————
You are merely projecting your own bias and refusing to accept any uncertainty. What medicine went through was a learning experience using their patients as guinea pigs. Today professional standards are the only thing that prevents that from continuing to happen. Even with professional standards treating your patients as guinea pigs isn’t completely eliminated just that it is mostly eliminated.
Climate science like all scientists wants to experiment with the world. We would be well advised to keep them in their place as an advisory body. Science advisory bodies are important, one merely has to open their ears and hear what every scientist agrees with and give due consideration to any scientist that doesn’t agree.
The main problem is that bias is not eliminated in any respect in climate science. Persons with dual loyalties are being funded by the government to conduct science. Yes they are qualified scientists but they don’t owe their loyalty to the people. And yes scientists have their opinions and its good to listen to all the scientists and not choose one group over the other understanding that science is not a popularity contest and is particularly not a popularity contest when people’s bias’ are toward an annual contract renewal for their employer or themselves.
‘You are merely projecting your own bias and refusing to accept any uncertainty.’
There is real uncertainty, then there is ignorance of known science. Two different things
I have biases, but they are not tattooed to my forehead as yours are.
Im not letting them REPLACE facts, when I don’t know the facts.
I have some basic medical knowledge, but not enough to diagnose or treat diseases.
I accept that I need to let people with much more training and expertise do that.
You?
Nate says: – There is real uncertainty, then there is ignorance of known science. Two different things
I have biases, but they are not tattooed to my forehead as yours are.
Im not letting them REPLACE facts, when I don’t know the facts.
I have some basic medical knowledge, but not enough to diagnose or treat diseases.
I accept that I need to let people with much more training and expertise do that.
You?
Well even doctors have differences of opinions Nate. My skepticism lays solidly and squarely on four foundations. One is experts like Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Fred Singer, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christy, and even Dr. Roger Revelle (the grandfather of global warming).
The second foundation it rests on is some rather extensive engineering experience in dealing with the issue.
The third foundation is my background in detecting the truth as an auditor in understanding bias and how evidence is gathered. A college major in philosophy which is the search for knowledge.
The fourth foundation is 30 years experience in public policy making and using science as a tool in formulating policy.
So how many of those foundations can you lay claim to? I recognize the uncertainty existing in the first foundation. The fourth foundation informs me of the role of science and its limitations. The third foundation gives me information about observed handling of answers, data, internal controls, and bias.
The second foundation is something I am working on to integrate into larger scale science and I am getting close. . . .close enough to see that the concerns particularly of Dr. Richard Lindzen are extremely well-founded. You won’t find much discussion and debate about it because mainstream science is better off not bringing any attention to it.
So if you want to label me as a science denier please don’t start out with how you delegated your own thoughts to somebody else.
“One is experts like Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Fred Singer, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christy, and even Dr. Roger Revelle (the grandfather of global warming).”
Lindzen’s prominent theory about low climate sensitivity has proven to not match reality. (Oh well, see Feynman)
Happer is not a climate science expert and is a political activist.
Fred Singer is political lobbyist and activist funded by fossil fuel industry, known for denying smoking health risks and funded by big tobacco.
These two should not be considered unbiased sources for science.
We dont know what Revelle would have thought about the obvious continued warming after 1991. His last graduate student said his views have been distorted by climate deniers.
Revelle’s daughter said this after his death in 1991:
“Contrary to George Will’s ‘Al Gore’s Green Guilt’ Roger Revelleour father and the ‘father’ of the greenhouse effectremained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.” Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore’s professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming. Nothing could be further from the truth. When Revelle inveighed against “drastic” action, he was using that adjective in its literal sensemeasures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate. […] Revelle proposed a range of approaches to address global warming. Inaction was not one of them. He agreed with the adage “look before you leap,” but he never said “sit on your hands.”[15]
“The second foundation it rests on is some rather extensive engineering experience in dealing with the issue.”
Such as?
“The third foundation is my background in detecting the truth as an auditor in understanding bias and how evidence is gathered. A college major in philosophy which is the search for knowledge.’
I appreciate philosophy majors are smart–my wife is one. But she was in no way prepared by her degree to understand, in depth, the scientific issues in climate science.
This is exactly what I’m talking about.
The lack of appreciation for the amount of expertise NEEDED to understand the issues in the vast literature in a scientific field.
I am trained in physics, and am familiar with the main climate science issues. Still I know it is nearly impossible for me to pick up a paper on ice core analysis or CERES top-of-the-atmosphere radiation (as I recently did), and determine that they have done it wrong.
And yet, you feel able to dismiss the findings of a whole bunch of unread papers.
This is bias and arrogance.
This recent book https://www.amazon.com/Know-All-Society-Arrogance-Political/dp/1631493612
discusses this infectious disease plaguing society today.
Nate says: – “Lindzens prominent theory about low climate sensitivity has proven to not match reality. (Oh well, see Feynman)”
“Happer is not a climate science expert and is a political activist.”
Fred Singer is political lobbyist and activist funded by fossil fuel industry, known for denying smoking health risks and funded by big tobacco.
These two should not be considered unbiased sources for science.
We dont know what Revelle would have thought about the obvious continued warming after 1991. His last graduate student said his views have been distorted by climate deniers.
—————
Uh, Nate you are probably the biggest propaganda stooge who posts around here. All these people were actually so well qualified in atmosphere physics they actually had jobs before the big hiring program started by Al Gore. In fact, Gore fired Happer from his job because he would not bend over for Al Gore’s propaganda.
Its interesting and I have personally experienced being politically undermined myself. It makes you angry but it doesn’t cause you to seek revenge or retaliate in an inappropriate manner when you have marketable skills. You just take advantage of another opportunity for which you are qualified. It is only those not qualified that seek revenge and cross the line of what is socially acceptable because those folks are the only folks really being harmed.
My personal views match many of those of Happer. 1) CO2 is good and more CO2 is likely even better. 2) warming is good and a bit more warming is likely even better. 3) I actually hope my thoughts on CO2 prove wrong, as it would be great if mankind could hold off another glacial epoch. 4) I am adamantly opposed to post normal science as a political tool as it raises the wants and needs of an elite class above that of the common class. 5) The idea that scientists and economists are best judges of political policy is complete BS. Indeed these groups have a role in the political environment as an advisory function but science itself is not a popularity contest. Credible skepticism by qualified scientists is a legitimate concern no matter who they worked for in the past because anybody qualified is going to have worked for an institution that has a bias.
===========
Nate says: –
Such as?
———-
Practical applications of radiant heating and radiant barriers in architectural design and engineering.
============
Nate says: – I appreciate philosophy majors are smartmy wife is one. But she was in no way prepared by her degree to understand, in depth, the scientific issues in climate science.
———-
You obviously lack the grey matter to judge what your wife is capable of.
===========
Nate says: –
The lack of appreciation for the amount of expertise NEEDED to understand the issues in the vast literature in a scientific field.
I am trained in physics, and am familiar with the main climate science issues. Still I know it is nearly impossible for me to pick up a paper on ice core analysis or CERES top-of-the-atmosphere radiation (as I recently did), and determine that they have done it wrong.
—————-
that simply because all that stuff isn’t wrong. What is wrong is in the interpretations and extrapolations from it. There is a greenhouse effect. No question about that. The question isn’t measuring it the question is understanding how the effect was created and then and only then can one understand how it varies.
To put it in layman’s terms, climate science has jumped the shark.
As science stands today on that issue, they handwave away experimentation because they believe in an untouchable worldly force unique to planets and not existing anywhere else in our known universe to create the greenhouse effect.
May as well be a verse in the bible. Today all that is going on to verify it is a molasses slow effort to computationally imitate the greenhouse effect using super computers and comparing their predictions to actual climate. But the effort has become a “travesty” in the words of one of its must revered scientists. There have been great advances in our monitoring of the climate and as that has occurred more and more data fudging has become the order of the day.
I am working on a paper not to prove that but to layout a roadmap to either verify it or reject it. . . .which of course I strongly believe rejection will be in order at the end of the road.
So to summarize. Yes there is a greenhouse effect. Yes greenhouse gases are a piece of the puzzle. Where I think the experimental work will lead is, Yes the addition of greenhouse gases will probably lead to a small additional amount of warming, and Yes feedbacks will be mighty, possibly more than 3:1 also possibly less. No it will not “disprove” the conventional wisdom on the matter; but instead will relegate itself to its place of yet to see any signs of it being true. . . .pretty much the same status as flying saucers. And no it will not erase a single iota of known science established by experiment or legitimate statistical correlation with observed causes and effects.
The remaining difficulty will be that I believe climate variation is mostly related to changes in cloud density and as time wears on we will eventually figure out that its not much at all related to changes in greenhouse gases other than water vapor.
======================
Nate says: –
This is bias and arrogance.
This recent book https://www.amazon.com/Know-All-Society-Arrogance-Political/dp/1631493612
discusses this infectious disease plaguing society today.
—————-
So speaketh the know it all! I am not the one here talking a political narrative right down to dotting the same “i’s” and crossing the same “t’s” as you are as you have in this post and many other related the exact political narrative opposing skeptical scientists.
I have made my views known from my own experiences that for instance I have respect for James Hansen as he has proven himself as a man of integrity, even if he seems a bit confused. I despise the Phil Jones and the others caught colluding with one another to inject politics into science.
I see the same political narrative in your discourse, though I have you labeled as a stooge because I see no signs of you actually colluding to invent that discourse.
Myself? I am a maverick. I am widely educated in all the aspects of the climate narrative. I am not a specialist in any of it. I am a truth seeker and am not attached to any particular invented narrative. I am a trained investigator of complex topics and know how to dissect a position down to its roots. I believe there is a dominance of homogeneous thinking across climate models on the the exact point not yet established in science regarding pre-feedback sensitivity as a forcing that actually reaches the surface of the planet. I haven’t studied the position of Dr. Richard Lindzen yet but am reserving it for later. I have only heard about it. His views seem very close to mine. It may be a huge mistake for you and your handlers (which you obviously have) to view Lindzen’s position as essentially a low sensitivity. If pre-feedback sensitivity of CO2 proves to be almost nothing despite absorbing X additional watts somewhere in the atmosphere; then that has more to do with the theory of forcing you ascribe to assuming X percentage of those watts actually reach the surface and producing feedbacks. The air currents argument I have heard used by Lindzen suggest that air currents affect the primary current popular theory of greenhouse gas forcing right at its roots. If you actually have proof that Lindzen is wrong I suggest you post it as it would end a lot of skepticism.
If say for example something else caused water vapor to enter the sky, condense and close the atmosphere window there could be major impacts of that occurring. If fact that occurs almost daily right outside of my house!!! And I know its not CO2 variability doing it!!!! If its on a world-wide scale its going to affect the global mean temperature a great deal.
Its a product of a popular notion of CO2 being the control knob of climate. But the wide range of outcomes of the climate models and their lack of centrally bracketing observations rather pointedly lends itself to establishing the notion that what is wrong with climate models is in fact what they have in common and the fact they stay within a range of possibility on an exceptionally wide spread is in fact an anomaly built in part on biased observation adjustments and in part on the uncertainty surrounding feedbacks.
I have experience in both political and legal environments where experts have differences of opinions. Always one side does as you are attempting to do above to discredit the motives and expertise of the other sides experts. That’s just a political fact in human discourse. Essentially all of it actually is a projection of “what I myself want to do, whether I would or would not”.
You are fool and a stooge to believe any of it without evidence of actual wrong doing.
============
Bill,
‘political narrative opposing skeptical scientists.’
Most of what I post has to do with the science issues, and mostly not colored by political issues. The two can and should be separated.
I don’t see that separation at all with with Happer, and with Singer, and Spencer and Christy, and it seems, you. Political beliefs and advocacy for less govt regulation is all over their views of the climate science.
Same for Hansen, he has become a full time advocate. Therefore he is no longer a good source for unbiased science IMO.
For you, given that there are thousands of climate science experts out there, but you cherry pick those who are skeptics and advocates, for your information and opinions, that reflects a strong BIAS.
My wife is an excellent detector of BS. I showed her your quote about philosophy training qualifying you to judge climate science, and she laughed and immediately called BS on it.
‘your handlers (which you obviously have)’
Ha! And paranoia too?
Lindzen. This is his big idea:
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf
and evidence against it:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C0249%3ANEFI%3E2.3.CO%3B2
Nate says: – Most of what I post has to do with the science issues, and mostly not colored by political issues. The two can and should be separated.
I dont see that separation at all with with Happer, and with Singer, and Spencer and Christy, and it seems, you. Political beliefs and advocacy for less govt regulation is all over their views of the climate science.
Same for Hansen, he has become a full time advocate. Therefore he is no longer a good source for unbiased science IMO.
Well you are simply naive Nate. The only reason you participate here is political in nature and you are in complete denial of it. In fact every single person talking about the subject has a political viewpoint on it. Sure there are some authors you never see on a blog discussing the topic that are devoted purely to the science end but if folks weren’t carrying their water for them they would be complete non-players in the climate debate.
In fact even though a scientist doesn’t participate in a blog that doesn’t mean he is not politically motivated. Most people get involved in whatever they do either to serve their own objectives or the objectives of the people who hire them.
Nate says: – My wife is an excellent detector of BS. I showed her your quote about philosophy training qualifying you to judge climate science, and she laughed and immediately called BS on it.
Well actually your comment here suggests she is a terrible detector of BS. Why? Because obviously she can’t even read.
I believe I mentioned a broad education whereby philosophy was one aspect of it that qualifies me (and I didn’t say understand climate science) to comment on the entire “climate narrative.” FYI, “climate narrative” is not identical to “climate science”.
However, there is a element in philosophy very closely related to science that perhaps your wife missed a good education on, that was in fact my primary area of concentration and that is logic and semantics. Conclusions must logically follow from experiment or they are illogical. And a major key to avoiding illogic is to ensure your semantics are properly and consistently identified. . . .actually quite a big problem in climate science as “climate” is not identical to “surface”. Surface is only one aspect of “climate” and in all my observations the only thing that comes close to measuring surface are actually satellites but because of interference in the satellite detection abilities at this point in time measurements taken are a mix of surface and atmosphere. But surface stations are worse because they inconsistently measure the wrong thing. Sometimes they are measuring a meter and a half or more above the surface, sometimes they are measuring up to 15 meters below the surface. Perhaps you are ignorant of the difference?
Perhaps your wife’s native language isn’t English and maybe that gives here a legitimate excuse for essentially laughing at herself. On the other hand, perhaps in the name of marital bliss she is merely tootin’ your horn for you.
Nate says: – and evidence against it:
Hmmmmm, your handlers must have neglected sending you this paper published a little more than 4 years ago that breathes life back into the Lindzen Iris theory.
Sometimes you have to wait for a theory to build a record of success.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2414
Bill, if you think I must have ‘handlers’ whatever that means, I would say your ability to draw correct conclusions from available evidence is poor, and bordering on delusional.
Your statement that ‘Climate as a science is about where medicine was in the days of the leech and blood letting treatments.’
is showing that your understanding of what is known in this field and what is still uncertain is highly flawed and biased, likely comes from ‘blog science’.
You can have opinions, thats fine.
But they are not equivalent to knowledge and genuine understanding.
The paper you cited is not presenting observational evidence. It appears to be another hypothesis (theory).
Nate says: – Bill, if you think I must have handlers whatever that means, I would say your ability to draw correct conclusions from available evidence is poor, and bordering on delusional.
————-
Your selective choice of what to believe is being relayed to you somehow. Whoever that is is your handler.
=================
Nate says: – Your statement that Climate as a science is about where medicine was in the days of the leech and blood letting treatments. is showing that your understanding of what is known in this field and what is still uncertain is highly flawed and biased, likely comes from blog science.
————–
As far as I know I am the only one making that comparison. Why? Because its very similar today. Yes science has evolved, but scientists have not. Even back in the days of blood letting they imagined diseases in the blood stream. What better way to get rid of them? So they had some science on their side, namely observations. From those observations they drew conclusions but did not know how to experiment for the answer beyond experimenting on their patients and thats exactly what mainstream climate science is advocating, namely experimenting on my planet.
============
Nate says: – But they are not equivalent to knowledge and genuine understanding.
————-
Genuine understanding does not occur until you see the result of the experiment. Yes it can occur via computer models and longterm predictions of climate via the computer models, but actually increasing CO2 is not actually a very good candidate for running that test because of its slow and steady acceleration will require a very long period of time to learn about it as the natural variation we have seen forever continues to confound and dominate the signal. Truth be known that patients dying from the experimental cures was a scientific wakeup call. Just stay away from me until you have your theory better established. If you don’t believe that I have a bridge to sell you. It has over a 100,000 cars a day crossing the bridge paying tolls your investment will be returned in less than 6 months. Interested?
================
Nate says: The paper you cited is not presenting observational evidence. It appears to be another hypothesis (theory).
thats correct Nate. And the reason for that is our ability to estimate cloud density cannot distinguish a cloud change that could explain the entire industrial age warming so far. Thus verification of the GHE of CO2 rests entirely on untested models itself.
‘And the reason for that is our ability to estimate cloud density cannot distinguish a cloud change that could explain the entire industrial age warming so far. Thus verification of the GHE of CO2 rests entirely on untested models itself.’
This is more hope and prayer than reality.
If you think a single paper with a speculative hypothesis
“We propose that, if precipitating convective clouds are more likely to…..”
is likely to overturn a half century of observational evidence, theory, and modeling, ie the current paradigm, then your philosophy degree has not done much to help you understand how science advances.
Nate says:
This is more hope and prayer than reality.
If you think a single paper with a speculative hypothesis
“We propose that, if precipitating convective clouds are more likely to…..”
is likely to overturn a half century of observational evidence, theory, and modeling, ie the current paradigm, then your philosophy degree has not done much to help you understand how science advances.
And you remain totally clueless as to how enslaved you have become to post-normal science.
We do have post-normal President, but climate science, not so much.
Media hype and coverage of it, perhaps.
But the science itself, Ive seen no evidence to support the claim that it is operating much differently than other sciences.
That is simply the propaganda machine’s portrayal of it, that you have bought into, hook line and sinker.
Nate says: – But the science itself, Ive seen no evidence to support the claim that it is operating much differently than other sciences.
That is simply the propaganda machines portrayal of it, that you have bought into, hook line and sinker.
————–
LMAO!! No mate its no different that science ever was. Science has always been a messy place of outrageous claims and extrapolations. Just that for most of what they call the science revolution concepts like Feynman’s has held a lot of sway and many science societies carefully managed science in a cautious and conservative manner.
I don’t when the change started, I haven’t studied it, but it would be an interesting study. But I do know when I was much younger science was not legally-mandated in virtually everything we do. When it started to be then gradually it became more corrupt and started moving back to that model of single payer instead of more private institutions. Science itself has become an industry and like most industries if they get too much power and too monopolistic they will become more and more corrupt.
Post normal science is in fact a philosophical argument that society should be managed to the “best science available”. Its like Stalinist Russia or before it the Holy Roman Empire and Caliphates. Even the German’s got into it with the 3rd Reich. People died of starvation, got burned at the stake, got summarily executed, got gassed all in the name of State sponsored science.
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.
I am absolutely dedicated to science but it has to be science.
Like a Missourian – Show me! You can’t, you haven’t seen it, you think equations extrapolated into the unknown return facts. You are a fool!
More diatribe, but no evidence.
Not clear what you’re even talking about.
Nate says: – More diatribe, but no evidence. Not clear what youre even talking about.
Nate you are too dazzled by authority to think for yourself. You are like a religious nutcase citing political/official versions of physics books chapter and verse like a Bible thumper.
Gordon and JD are simply thinking for themselves. Lots of good stuff in physics books if you can get yourself deep enough into them and actually learn what is known vs what is speculated about. Simply because somebody would rather believe their own thoughts about stuff we really don’t know the answer to doesn’t make somebody a science denier because he isn’t fully in tune with the official Al Gore book on science. The rest of the post was about Al Gore and his genius science slaves setting the world back a couple thousand years to the days of chiefs and witchdoctors colluding together to keep folks like you in line. Two thousand years has not changed what people are no matter how much some people want to tell others what to be and believe.
bill hunter says:
“Gordon and JD are simply thinking for themselves.”
You’re in la la land again.
‘religious nutcase citing political/official versions of physics books chapter’
Bill, just like the other guys you want to relabel ordinary physics, pseudoscience, and think that means you can just replace it with made-up BS.
And you want us to take you seriously about what is ‘post-normal’ science?
Nate says: – Bill, just like the other guys you want to relabel ordinary physics, pseudoscience, and think that means you can just replace it with made-up BS.
—————-
Nobody is relabeling any ordinary physics Nate. Let me try one more time.
1) photons are a concept. Their existance has never proven. What has been proven that photons are a concept of are some of their ascribed effects.
2) because the photon model is used to describe this concept, some people who don’t fully understand the concept and its limits are very apt to ascribe other effects of photons not proven yet in science.
3) the argument here is the flow of heat and the flow of energy. Already I have heard a concession that the flow of heat is in one direction and the person doing the conceding continues to argue the flow of energy is in two directions. Gordon is saying thats not true. The flow of energy is in the same direction as the heat and that can be mathematically proven by using math to calculate the net flow of energy. “net flow” is really a redundant term because flow is a net. Its the net of something moving in one direction after overcoming all resistances.
4) but you insist and claiming a flow of energy in both directions and can’t fathom the idea that all you are doing is paraphrasing a “calculation” and the individual forces used to come up with a flow after all resistance is overcome.
Therefore, you are claiming the existance of a physical fact based upon the component of a calculation and calling it a “flow” when it very may well be either alternatively a “resistance” or an “attraction”.
Science has not yet broken down the individual calculations. The blackbody law prescribes an impossibility thus its incapable of proof with what science we have today. What it is is a useful concept for mathematically determining flow (or net flow if that redundancy makes you feel better). All I am suggesting is this second flow you are so fond of has absolutely no real effect in the world that anybody has yet identified.
Example, the math of energy exhange via radiation is an object will radiate at its greybody capability. Its ability to radiate at that greybody capability is identical to its ability to absorb radiation.
thus if you have an object that has a “blackbody” radiation capability of 400watts/m2 solely determined by its temperature, it might have an emissivity factor of .75 and only be radiating 300watts/m2.
Then if this radiating object is completely surrounded by something that has a “blackbody” temperature capability of 200watts/m2 and has the same emissivity as the warmer body.
Conclusion: The flow of energy is 150watts/m2 from the warmer object to the colder object.
Going on and on about the cooler object having a 150watts/m2 flow toward the warmer object and the warmer object having a 300watts/m2 flow toward the cooler object is purely a discussion of mathematics and thus has zero real world consequences. And thats all I hear Gordon trying to tell you. But you are so hung out to dry on the idea that cooler objects warm warmer objects you simply cannot open your ears or your brain to what a crock of shit that is.
Its like you sitting there counting Ah 2 photons from the warm object and 1 photon from the cold object. No proof of this exists because the only thing in the entire world that suggests it is if you use those numbers in a calculation you get the right result. But its totally irrelevant if its real or not, one would never be able to measure it with today’s technology if it were real so why be so insistent on your unproven belief?
bill, this is not very hard.
Heat is net energy.
Energy from hot to cold object:
ε * σ * Th^4 * Ah
Energy from cold to hot object:
ε * σ * Tc^4 * Ah
Heat transfer between two objects:
ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah
So you can reduce the heat flow by increasing Tc.
Questions?
And photons carry energy that will add thermal energy upon absor*ption.
That energy can be detected, see single photon detector here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_counting
And temperature is stable if net energy/heat is zero.
So you disturb the balance if you mess with the Tc of the atmosphere.
That means Gordon is wrong.
“Lots of good stuff in physics books if you can get yourself deep enough into them and actually learn what is known vs what is speculated about.”
good advice, you should try it Bill.
You will learn that there is lots of direct evidence that photons exist. Such as photon detectors, the Compton effect, fluctuations in intensity of starlight, etc. Just read Feynman Lectures.
Not sure why so many of you guys claim photons are not real…
Two -way energy flows. Well its difficult to understand many things if there were not a two way flow of energy and photons.
One is a far away planet or dwarf star emitted its radiation long ago, and we can detect it here with a detector pointed at it.
Even if that detector is warmer than the planet and emitting its own radiation toward the planet.
The Net flow would be from the detector to the planet.
You are claiming that flow from the planet is not real? Even though it was emitted perhaps hundreds of years ago?
Many problems with that, including causality.
Its much simpler to understand radiation heat transfer as a two way flow of energy. And that is how its described in most heat transfer courses.
Such as http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
Svante says: –
bill, this is not very hard.
Heat is net energy.
Energy from hot to cold object:
ε * σ * Th^4 * Ah
Energy from cold to hot object:
ε * σ * Tc^4 * Ah
Heat transfer between two objects:
ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ah
So you can reduce the heat flow by increasing Tc.
Questions?
You have the math right but the logic wrong. The correct way actually supported by science to say it is:
Heat can not exceed is net energy.
(the correction here recognizes that energy can be exchanged without a heat exchange e.g. latent heat)
Maximum potential of Grey body Energy from hot to cold object:
ε * σ * Th^4 * Ah
Maximum potential of Grey body Energy from cold to hot object:
ε * σ * Tc^4 * Ah
Energy Heat transfer between two objects:
ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ah
Maximum potential of heat transfer between two objects:
ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ah
So you can reduce the heat flow and the energy flow by increasing Tc.
(Note: Even the above is a bit overbearing as these processes involve molecules and molecules have other means of transferring energy but in the above we are artificially limiting it to exchange by radiation alone for the sake of simplicity)
===============
Its a bit difficult communicating without an edit function but my strikethrough html didn’t work above. So the word “is” should be removed from the first modified sentence. And the word “heat” should be removed from the 4th sentence to read “energy transfer” instead of “energy heat transfer”.
Svante says: – And photons carry energy that will add thermal energy upon absor*ption.
That energy can be detected, see single photon detector here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_counting
Indeed light quanta (pl) have been detectable for a long time. Its especially easy to detect when its from a relatively high energy source, it gets progressively more difficult to detect when its from a relatively low energy source. Sensitivity has been increasing over time. But so far all the single photon detectors I am aware of that can detect IR are cryogenically cooled.
Here is a sentence out of an abstract on that: We present our studies on the quantum efficiency (QE) and the noise equivalent power (NEP) of the latest-generation, nanostructured, superconducting, single-photon detectors (SSPDs) in the wavelength range from 0.5 to 5.6 /spl mu/m, operated at temperatures in the 2.0- to 4.2-K range.
Thus these are hot object photons/light quanta. But it may be possible to increase sensitivity and reduce the signal loss coming from the signal processing used to detect temperatures of cold objects down to a single photon/light quanta level but still it would be detecting an energy loss rather than an energy gain. In that previous sentence I am not sure how much signal loss would play into the game, but the concentration is on very expensive super cooled detectors and the huge advantage of the signal processing detectors is their cost is so much lower so it seems that signal loss would be a likely reason for the investment in far more expensive equipment.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1439702
Svante says: – And temperature is stable if net energy/heat is zero.
So you disturb the balance if you mess with the Tc of the atmosphere.
That means Gordon is wrong.
I don’t think so Svante. I mean the iconic graphic of the global warming hysteria is a CO2 molecule receiving x watts/m2 from the surface and dispersing that as .5x watts/m2 up and .5x watts/m2 down leaving no energy to disturb the atmosphere.
Even in a potentially more correct depiction of up energy from the surface being .5x watts/m2 up to the CO2 molecule and .5x watts/m2 comes up with the exact same result with nothing left to affect the atmosphere.
And its really not all that unusual such a take is seen by science. Because it is said it is impossible to actually warm an atmospheric gas molecule without having it collide with a warmer solid surface first. Certainly with the iconic graphic of global warming hysteria is completely consistent with that notion anyhow.
What isn’t consistent between the two models shown above is “claimed” surface warming from the .5x watt/m2 downwelling radiation.
So you may have to read that several times to ponder the conundrum.
There is actually one exception to the above that I am aware of about the impossibility of warming gas molecules in the atmosphere without a collision with a solid object. And that is the release of latent heat from super cooled water vapor. Though I have seen some argue vehemently against that as well, but I think they were in denial of effects of supercooling or perhaps, they weren’t clear, in denial of supercooling itself.
Another clue for you on the alleged “single photon detector” is the statement I provided above giving a hint of the technology employed to allegedly detect a photon.
It says: “superconducting, single-photon detectors” Superconductors huh? Its not detecting a photon its detecting the heat result down to the level of a quanta.
Nate says: ———- You will learn that there is lots of direct evidence that photons exist. Such as photon detectors, the Compton effect, fluctuations in intensity of starlight, etc. Just read Feynman Lectures.
Not sure why so many of you guys claim photons are not real
Two -way energy flows. Well its difficult to understand many things if there were not a two way flow of energy and photons.
One is a far away planet or dwarf star emitted its radiation long ago, and we can detect it here with a detector pointed at it.——-
Nate you are assuming a lot of stuff about what people believe which isn’t true.
I have not said photons are not real, I have said that we know very little about photons other than their warming effect and frequency of radiation.
However, all I have heard anybody claim about that is a photon from a cold object cannot warm a warm object. Thats a fact!
It doesn’t matter that the projected photon has energy, it doesn’t matter that a photon may be flowing toward a warm object, all that is known about the real world consequences of photons is the effect measured after an exchange of photons.
Thus if you assume photons only run from hot to cold you can still build a mathematical model that gets the right answer every single time. Its as simple as integrating two SB equations into one equation and producing the energy flow and the likely heat flow. And the answer is the hot object cools unless its heated to compensate, and the cool object warms unless its being cooled to compensate. . . .but zero heating or cooling is going the wrong way.
Bill, you produced another gish gallop.
Can we please do one step at a time?
You seem to think that heat is temperature?
In thermodynamics it is not, the unit is J in SI system.
Svante says: —– Bill, you produced another gish gallop.
Heat can not exceed [is] net energy.
(the correction here recognizes that energy can be exchanged without a heat exchange e.g. latent he
You seem to think that heat is temperature?
In thermodynamics it is not, the unit is J in SI system.——–
Have you lost your mind? Joules is a unit of energy in the SI system. Heat is the transfer of that energy due to a difference in temperature.
Phase changes (latent heat) don’t involve a transfer of energy or heat.
bill hunter says:
First you say: “Joules is a unit of energy”.
Then: “Heat is the transfer of that energy”.
Which unit do you propose for heat then?
“Latent heat is thermal energy released or absorbed”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
‘Bill, you produced another gish gallop.’
Yep thats exactly right, Svante.
Bill posts a lot of gobbledegook that doesnt really rebut what people have said, and it is hard to follow.
He should try to be more concise and get to the point.
‘1) photons are a concept. Their existance has never proven. What has been proven that photons are a concept of are some of their ascribed effects.
2) because the photon model is used to describe this concept, some people who dont fully understand the concept and its limits are very apt to ascribe other effects of photons not proven yet in science.’
‘I have not said photons are not real, I have said that we know very little about photons other than their warming effect and frequency of radiation’
Confusing.
Well, how do i know that you are not just part of the simulation?
Photons existence are as much proven as the Moon’s existence. We know an awful lot about their properties! What is it you don’t think we know?
‘4) but you insist and claiming a flow of energy in both directions and cant fathom the idea that all you are doing is paraphrasing a ‘calculation’ and the individual forces used to come up with a flow after all resistance is overcome.’
I gave you a rebuttal for this with the example of detecting a faraway emitter.
The existence of that far away emitter and the flow of energy from the emitter to the Earth over many years is as proven as the Moon’s existence is proven.
And you have not addressed this.
Svante says: —– Which unit do you propose for heat then?————–
You are getting pedantic here Svante and missing the important points. Not all energy transmitted by radiation from the surface and its emissivity ends up in the atmosphere with its emissivity. I suppose what doesn’t might end up on some asteroid somewhere as heat.
Nate says: ———–
4) but you insist and claiming a flow of energy in both directions and cant fathom the idea that all you are doing is paraphrasing a calculation and the individual forces used to come up with a flow after all resistance is overcome.
I gave you a rebuttal for this with the example of detecting a faraway emitter.
The existence of that far away emitter and the flow of energy from the emitter to the Earth over many years is as proven as the Moons existence is proven.
And you have not addressed this.————
You fail basic logic Nate. Your rebuttal of an attractor model only asks how could a surface reach out across light years of space to determine how much EMR to emit. Well science did puzzle on this for sometime thinking about “ether” being the medium. But your self-proclaimed proof is just a question not a proof and you don’t know the difference.
One cannot “prove” a negative only one too dim to penetrate their own ignorance to see its a question to be resolved rather than a proof thinks its a proof.
Fact is the only reason the attractor theory was abandoned is as I pointed out several times in this thread, it comes up with the exact same result as the photon model comes up with, thus there is no burning need to resolve the question.
And the only reason I bring up is to go after people that believe there would be a difference between the two models in results because they extrapolate something about photons that simply isn’t true.
In this case its your argument with Gordon and JD. They say backradiation doesn’t warm anything and you claim it does. The attractor model would not have a photon to warm anything, so the only reason you believe what you believe is because you are extrapolating a quality to a photon that you know absolutely nothing about or anybody else knows anything about. Gordon routinely deflects your arguments with several responses. The photon bounces off, the photon is rejected, the photon doesn’t result in heating. All true. I threw in on it and Gordon asked me to explain. I actually used the explanation of Svante above that backradiation photons slow cooling. Gordon never responded likely because he wasn’t going to pick that bone. He would rather take on the ignorant that think backradiation has some capability of heating something, with heating being the actual positive flow of joules of energy for one object to another. A photon generated from a surface returned to the surface has no such capability.
Poor Svante who has it largely right, though he has some weird inconsistent perspectives of the temperature of the atmosphere, actually thinks you know more than him. I am trying to tell him he is wrong about that.
‘You fail basic logic Nate. Your rebuttal of an attractor model only asks how could a surface reach out across light years of space to determine how much EMR to emit. Well science did puzzle on this for sometime thinking about ‘ether’ being the medium. But your self-proclaimed proof is just a question not a proof and you dont know the difference.
One cannot prove a negative only one too dim to penetrate their own ignorance to see its a question to be resolved rather than a proof thinks its a proof.’
Hilarious, IOW, you have no argument supporting your viewpoint, just insults and philosophical nonsense.
What is an ‘attractor’ in your view? And what is your evidence for it?
And what about causality, that you ignore in your ‘attractor’ view.
‘But your self-proclaimed proof’
I never claimed proof. I said this:
“Its much simpler to understand radiation heat transfer as a two way flow of energy. And that is how its described in most heat transfer courses.”
As you should know, nothing in science is ever proven.
‘I suppose you are also ignorant of the attraction of another form of electromagnetism, namely magnetism. Also there is the potential differential that electricity senses before it flows. Your point of view is not supported by either of the other two forms of electromagnetism which is supported because of a known pathway for it to occur. The idea of photons is built on ignorance of such a pathway, yet you want to extrapolate attributes to it despite knowing zip about it beyond the common attribute shared with the other models.’
Huh? Really messed up stuff there Bill, not connected to anything in real physics.
I think I’ll stick with regular optics and causality.
Nate says: —————What is an attractor in your view? And what is your evidence for it?
And what about causality, that you ignore in your attractor view.——————-
You have practically no imagination Nate. First you want me to provide evidence for my theory while you want to shove another theory down everybody’s throats without any evidence yourself.
I suppose you are also ignorant of the attraction of another form of electromagnetism, namely magnetism. Also there is the “potential differential” that electricity senses before it flows. Your point of view is not supported by either of the other two forms of electromagnetism which is supported because of a known pathway for it to occur. The idea of photons is built on ignorance of such a pathway, yet you want to extrapolate attributes to it despite knowing zip about it beyond the common attribute shared with the other models.
Nate says: ————-But your self-proclaimed proof I never claimed proof. I said this: Its much simpler to understand radiation heat transfer as a two way flow of energy. And that is how its described in most heat transfer courses. ————-
No proof huh. LMAO!!! Well join us skeptics then and start after the fools that think it has been proven.
Nate says: ————-As you should know, nothing in science is ever proven.——————–
This gets funnier by the minute!
sunset…”Gee David, you still fall for their baloney. I had an experience of a HUGE UHI effect changes just two days ago”.
Here’s another one. I was traveling on the Canadian prairies during sub-zero weather. I ran into one of the nightmares where blowing powder snow suddenly wells up around your vehicle and you can see nothing.
Quite scary. There’s nowhere to pull off the road and if you do you are likely to be hammered from the rear by an idiot speeding through the whiteout.
As I exited the white out, my accelerator cable froze open. It was a sheath type and the inner wire froze to the sheath. I managed to get the hood up and in place despite a considerable wind and the wind chill forced me to be out of the car no more than half a minute.
I managed to get the cable disconnected from the carb and I raised the idle to a point where I could slowly travel at idle speed to a major city, about 15 km away. When I got into the city, surrounded by heated buildings, I got out, able to bear the cold, and work on the frozen cable.
Lo and behold, the cable unfroze once in the city. It began moving easily through the sheath so I reconnected it and carried on.
The same wind was still blowing into the city but the buildings prevented it cooling so much and it was obviously warmer in the city by a good margin.
I know wind chill is not included in meteorological measurements but to me its similar to the UHI effect. It can make objects and humans cooler, like my accelerator pedal.
Thermometers in Stevenson boxes are not measuring the true effect of the cold.
The same can happen with windshield washer fluid.
It can freeze when you travel along, but if you stop the engine heat can reach the rubber hoses and unfreeze the fluid.
Engine heat output is less when you idle, but there is also less cooling. The net result is warming, just like the greenhouse effect.
The warmist response to your real world observation, GR: but of course, we expect more of this in a warming climate..:-)
I would point out that the difference between the hotest July and the 5th hotest July is also indistinguishable from zero …
Still this negligible difference is good for a huge banner “HOTEST” whatever. Vive la petite difference.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7445&fbclid=IwAR06X9kqUS6NWWaGRqvCQcMisTjI54eXun1BhyL3TdAmrOkMYWEHacZIrZs
NASA JPL clearly shows an large UHI contamination in the European heat wave.
Oh–Indeed!
Just wow.
Wow indeed! It would be a fun exercise to overlay a weather station map on this type of analysis. Certainly would beat the pants off Best methodology.
David the methodology of identifying urban and rural in the Berkeley analysis was very flawed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/04/berkeley-earth-very-rural-and-not/
read it for yourself.
by Willis Eschenbach? Are you serious??
Why do you fall for people like him??? It has to be that you want a certain result and you will look around until you get it. Not any reasoning based in science, but any reason whatsoever. That’s why you read WUWT.
What exactly is it you think Willis wrote that disproves BEST?
David Appell says: – by Willis Eschenbach? Are you serious??
———–
So what am I supposed to do David? Ignore the gridding pictures and how obviously stupid they are for determining urban vs rural?
You do have eyes in your head don’t you? Or are you a robot?
Apparently David Appell thinks you should trust non-scientist Steven Mosher over and above Willis Eschenbach, for reasons unspecified.
Mosher the English graduate likes to play a similar game. A few years ago he mocked Steven Wilde for only being a lawyer.
Deplorable and proud of it!
Do not confuse the absolute UHI effect with its effect on the anomaly trend.
The former is strong, the latter is weak.
The reason that BEST fails to find any significant UHI effect in their manufactured “global” land-temperature index is because that index is a but data sausage of chopped-up records. The bona fide low-frequency spectral content of station data is mangled by their aphysical “break-detection” algorithm and the aggregate regional trend is thereby “homogenized.”
I’ve read over 50 of the comments listed and I noticed a very interesting exclusion. It’s a item with about 330,000 times the mass of earth, that any ninny can observe daily. It’s called the sun. Now, I’m no fancy phD, just a common man. I find it bewildering that all of you with such regal educations can not construct a model which incorporates the sun. Bewildering. The work of Valentina Zharkova accurately predicts the solar minimum we are starting. Her work has been shown to be very accurate and predictive. There will be no denying the hogwash of climate change as we enter the solar minimum. Just wait another year or two and all bets will be settled as will the science. AGW is globalist machinations for power and control. Buy long johns, not Bermuda shorts fellas. 2023 is gonna freeze your ass off.
Berkeley Earth is wrong as it uses monthly averages.
1. Maximum UHI is much higher than averages over a year but occurs only during a fraction of time.
2. Maximum values occur on days without wind and certain other conditions (clouds..), when the additional heat generated in the UHI remains locked.
3. On other days that heat is still generated but dissipating.
4. It is then not attributed in total to its origin, but partly to surrounding rural stations.
5. The implications on climate records may be significant:
6. Example:
UHI area: 10% of total area
UHI max: 5 deg
UHI average 0.5 deg
On year average, of UHI generated heat gets transported to and measured at rural stations
Simply taking averages,overall warming would be estimated to have increased due to UHI by: 0.5*0.1 + 0.0*0.9 = 0.05 deg. (0.5 deg over 10% area + 0.0 deg over 90% area)
Taking into account, that heat moved out of the UHI cell and was partly measured elsewhere, UHI contribution would have been:
0.5*0.1 + *5/9*0.9 = 0.3 deg.
(0.5 deg over 10% area + of max UHI, spread over 9 times larger area deg, over 90% area)
Which is 6 times higher.
More Hogwash from Berkeley and Mr. Appell. First, you cant address UHI by Raising older temperatures. That just dirties the entire record. Second, the Adjustments done are no where near what are required to make the measurements consistent with good sited rural stations nearby. Third, the margin of error increases with each adjustment and needs to be shown in addition to the existing margin of error from the devices and techniques used. Simply put, if you remove the warmer night time lows reported and do not mess with the historical data, the warming is less than 1/2 of what is claimed. Anyone who says UHI has no effect on average global temperature measurements is a straight out liar.
As well as UHI also the 25 % decrease in wind speed over the last four decades (very good correlation with the amount of installed wind power capacity) must be considered as reduced wind speed will cause more warming from the sun, less surface cooling, less evaporation, less humidity, less clouds and increase in hours with sun. Temperature impact from less wind will be most significant in regions affected by ocean air.
Roy wrote:
We are now seeing news reports (e.g. CNN, BBC, Reuters) that July 2019 was the hottest month on record for global average surface air temperatures.
Roy, you misrepresented two and a half of those three articles by leaving out their qualifiers.
CNN’s headline is “Record heat waves *MIGHT* have made July the hottest month ever recorded” (emphasis mine)
Reuters’ headline is “July *MAY* set global record as hottest in recorded history: United Nations” (emphasis mine)
The BBC’s headline isn’t accurate: “Climate change: July ‘marginally’ warmest month on record,” but their subhead says “A preliminary analysis of global temperature data for July suggests it *MAY* have “marginally” become the warmest month on record” (emphasis mine). They write that their tally is for the first 29 days of July, and later write “The July figures *ARE LIKELY* to be the highest recorded in the organisation’s 40-year dataset” (emphasis mine).
Dear David,
Those who promote climate hysteria perpetually use weasel words to avoid being proven dead wrong time and again. Claims that the Earth “could” “maybe” “might” cease to exist tomorrow (or in twelve years!) are hardly science. They are scare tactics used to promote political and economic programs.
Hence, we should ignore all such claims. They are no better than political propaganda, designed to encourage superstitions that have little to no scientific basis.
The facts we can state with certainty are that the monthly Global Temperature but NOT the Global Temperature Anomaly reached its THIRD highest value in the UAH analyzed satellite record this July. The record high Global Temperature was reached in July 1998 at +0.51 C above the 30 year average, which translates to an actual temperature of about -7.3 C for the lower troposphere. July 2016 came in with an anomaly of +0.39 C and July 2019 with an anomaly of +0.38 C.
Hence, July 1998 retains bragging rights for the hottest month in the satellite record. And it is conveniently located near the middle of the 40 year satellite record, frustrating continual alarmist attempts to claim that the Earth is getting dangerously hotter. It is in fact continuing to go through PDO or ENSO ocean cycles popularly called El Ninos.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
These were not “weasel words.” The articles recognized that the full dataset for July was not yet in, and said so. Roy misrepresented the articles by saying they said things they did not in fact say. But I can understand why Gordon would not care about misrepresentations — they’re his entire schtick.
Roy should issue a correction.
Dear David,
So you are now denying that alarmists use weasel words ALL THE TIME? Since words are your business as a journalist, I would have thought that you easily would recognize weasel words!
News organizations always like to get the jump on others by guessing that something “might” happen. If it is something that they find useful for their political outlook, they get to emphasize it twice, if it turns out to be true. Once before and once after it happens. And if turns out to be false, they can just ignore that they ever said it, because of the weasel word “might.”
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
Qualifies are used to communicate the fact that measurements never have zero percent uncertainty.
Like the qualifier in the Scafetta paper you hawked.
David, please stop trolling.
DA…”These were not weasel words.
Everything out of CNN these days are weasel words. Have not heard such biased reporting for a long time.
If I ever have a weasel I’m gonna name him David.
From your link below:
“…we conclude that about 50% of the recorded warming of China since the 1940s could be due to uncorrected urbanization bias.”
“could be…” = weasel words.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811930102X?via%3Dihub
David, please stop trolling.
gordon…”Hence, July 1998 retains bragging rights for the hottest month in the satellite record.”
Over at climateaudit.com they have claimed a while back that 1934 still holds those bragging rights in the United States.
climateaudit is the home of Steve McIntyre who, with Ross McKittrick helped destroy the hockey stick propaganda.
https://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/
Reports of my death *MAY* have been greatly exaggerated.
There goes Mr. Appeal to Authority Apple !
Get on your boots !
.
.
US — January 2019 through July 2019:
Coolest January through July period for the US since 1895, based on average daily maximum temperatures of all USHCN stations.
(14th coolest if you only look at daily minimum temperatures)
This affects 330 million people, so it is important.
44 years of “global warming” (since 1975, and we in the US have the coolest January through July on record:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/08/us-january-2019-through-july-2019.html
.
.
.
Concerning UHI:
It is impossible to do a fair analysis.
You would need a lot of (always) rural weather stations with very long term continuous records to compare with nearby urban and suburban stations, to see if economic growth near those stations was having a warming effect.
But there are very few rural stations outside the uS with continuous long term data.
Therefore, a fair study is impossible.
Whatever the results of the study, with land being only 29% of out planet, the effect of changes in UHI on the global average temperature would have to be mall
.
.
.
My own analysis of the NASA-GISS questionable attempt to quantify UHI::
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/05/urbanization-bias-adjustments-are-tiny.html
David
And Rolling Stone unequivocally says, “July 2019 is now the hottest month in recorded history, the U.N. confirmed on Thursday.”
Clyde Spencer
“hottest month in recorded history” ???
The truth requires a lot more words, and thought.
Not that climate alarmists want the truth.
Truth is not a leftist value:
“July 2019 may have been the warmest month since 1880, based on haphazard, non global, ever changing from arbitrary revisions, surface temperatures.
These questionable data were all gathered DURING a warming trend, that started in roughly 1700.
During that warming trend, new “hot” records were EXPECTED,
and not a surprise, until the warming trend ends, and a cooling trend begins.
All past warming trends in Earth’s history have been followed
by cooling trends.
If the heat island effect does not exist could you explain why on the hotest day last week my drive from a small yorkshire city to my rural home resulted in a two degree drop in temperature.
Please reread Berkeley’s words. They say UHIs exist. The question is how much effect they have on the global mean surface temperature.
DA,
Who cares? It is well known that heat affects thermometers. More heat, higher temperatures!
Only pseudoscientific GHE true believers think that CO2 creates heat. A ragtag collection of fakers, fools, and frauds.
Cheers.
Flynn:
No one said CO2 “creates heat:
CO2 greens the planet.
CO2 slows cooling by an unknown amount, based on lab experiments.
That makes the planet warmer than it would otherwise be.
In the 78 years of adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere, since about 1940, there has been mild intermittent warming.
Some people blame that warming entirely on CO2, the IPCC says “over half” is man made, but the correct answer is “No one knows”.
The roughly +0.6 degrees C. warming claimed from 1940 through 1978 is equivalent to +0.77 degrees C. per century.
Climate alarmists have been claiming about +3 degrees C. warming in the next century, since the 1970s.
They have obviously been wrong for decades, and should be ignored.
While the precise effect of CO2 on the climate is unknown, it is just as wrong to claim CO2 has no effect on the climate.
richard…”CO2 slows cooling by an unknown amount, based on lab experiments”.
Do you understand how cooling happens at the quantum level? Electrons in atoms drop to lower energy levels and emit electromagnetic energy.
How does CO2 prevent that from happening, unless you cool the CO2 and/or surround the hot body with CO2 at a warmer temperature?
The rate of surface cooling is determined by the temperature of the atmosphere in contact with the surface. The atmospheric temperature affects direct conduction from surface to atmosphere and that’s what controls the rate at which electrons drop to lower energy levels.
0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere will have no effect on that temperature. The Ideal Gas Law reveals about a 0.04C warming contribution for CO2 for a 1C overall warming.
I originally typed:
“The roughly +0.6 degrees C. warming claimed from 1940 through 1978 is equivalent to +0.77 degrees C. per century.”
That should have said “1940 through 2018”, not “1940 through 1978”.
David “Appeal to Authority” Apple held a strong magnet over my comment and jumbled the numbers.
.
.
Mr. Robinson:
The effect of CO2 on infrared energy has been demonstrated in closed system water vapor free laboratory experiments.
The actual effect of CO2 in the NOT water vapor free atmosphere is unknown.
Glad to hear you have figured it out.
Please post a picture holding your Nobel Prize when you get one.
Richard Greene: you say: ‘CO2 slows cooling by an unknown amount, based on lab experiments.’
Can you supply references for this, please?
Mark Wapples says:
August 2, 2019 at 8:59 AM
If the heat island effect does not exist could you explain why on the hotest day last week my drive from a small yorkshire city to my rural home resulted in a two degree drop in temperature.
————————————-
of course uhi exists. towns will be warmer.
One other thing you need to take into account when comparing absolute temperatures (as your drive does) is the change in altitude of the 2 locations – higher usually is colder.
another is terrain – we are surrounded on 3 sides by 70 metre high hills. in winter these can make a difference of -5°C compared to a town 8 miles away
The real question is does the delta in uhi affected temperature track the rural temperature.
the reports referenced suggest a delta increase in temp for the uhi is the same as the delta increase in rural.
“The real question is does the delta in uhi affected temperature track the rural temperature. the reports referenced suggest a delta increase in temp for the uhi is the same as the delta increase in rural.”
No, that’s NOT the real question. The real question is “How has the global average temperature changed over time?”
If the UHI effect does track with the surrounding area in terms of delta, well, that’s nice… but only if the UHI has not changes in relation to the monitoring station.
If the UHI area has grown larger (as nearly all have) and is now affected a temperature monitoring station that it was not affecting before, then that station reports a higher temperature, relative to its own prior recording, than it did before, even if the actual temperature is exactly the same.
And if you check the actual status of the ground monitoring stations (at least in the US), a large majority of them have indeed become poorly sited over the last several decades.
Cities cover only 0.2% of the globe.
Here I did a little calculation that shows if the city areas are 5 K (9 F) warmer on average than the global average, the UHI only contributes about 0.01 K (=0.2%*5K) to the global mean surface temperature:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/08/how-large-is-urban-heat-island-effect.html
DA,
The following may be of interest –
“The old saying is that figures will not lie, but a new saying is liars will figure. It is our duty, as practical statisticians, to prevent the liar from figuring; in other words, to prevent him from perverting the truth, in the interest of some theory he wishes to establish.”
You wouldn’t attempt to pervert the truth to push some fable about CO2 creating heat, would you?
Back to your pointless calculations, I suppose.
Why is the Earth’s surface no longer molten? Not enough CO2, do you think?
Cheers.
DA, I think the more relevant question would be …. what % of the globe do you find stations in UHI impacted areas vs. the % of stations in rural areas. Doing a straight weighted average here would be disingenuous.
David
But the warming effect extends downwind for tens of miles, potentially increasing the impact on global average temperatures, assuming it is even measured. Therefore, your estimate is a lower bound. Because thermometers in cities are much more common than in adjacent rural areas, the global average is systematically biased towards the UHI.
Additionally, NASA commonly reports average temperatures to three significant figures to the right of the decimal point, and often uses a few thousandths of a degree as justification for trumpeting a new ‘unprecedented’ record temperature.
clyde…”NASA commonly reports average temperatures to three significant figures to the right of the decimal point, and often uses a few thousandths of a degree as justification for trumpeting a new unprecedented record temperature.”
You also have to watch the fine print with GISS. When they declared 2014 the warmest year ever, they did so based on a 38% confidence level that they were telling the truth. NOAA bettered them by using a 48% CL.
It boggles my mind as to why a scientific organization would participate in such chicanery. Both are obviously political animals.
“Cities cover only 0.2% of the globe.”
Wrong again, as usual, Mr. Appeal to Authority Apple.
The issue here is temperature changes caused by changes to the environment near a weather station.
A rural station becoming less rural could have a greater non-CO2 warming effect than an urban station changing locations.
Economic growth and land use changes can affect any weather station, rural, suburban and urban.
A rural station that had been surrounded by green weeds could read warmer after the weeds were killed with chemicals, or dug up, leaving brown dirt surrounding the weather station.
Also, it is a well known fact that climate alarmists regularly drive their cars to “inspect” surface weather stations, and during the “inspections”, they face their cars away from the station to aim hot exhaust air at the temperature sensors. This accounts for 15.75913% of all “claimed” global warming.
Re: “But most warming has (arguably) occurred in the last 50 years, and if one is trying to tie global temperature to greenhouse gas emissions, the period since 1979 (the last 40+ years) seems sufficient since that is the period with the greatest greenhouse gas emissions and so when the most warming should be observed.”:
pre-industrial CO2 is generally believed to be ~280 PPMV
1979 global CO2 was ~336 PPMV
2018 global CO2 was ~408 PPMV
The direct radiation change effect of a change of CO2 is generally considered as proportional to the change of the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Using the numbers above, the log(10) of atmospheric CO2 concentration increased by .07918 from pre-industrial to 1979, and by .08432 from 1979 to 2018. This means 48% of the change of the radiation effect of atmospheric CO2 due to increase of CO2 from pre-industrial to 2018 happened by 1979.
The radiative formula for CO2 does not use log-base-10, it uses log-base-e, that is, ln.
No physicist would ever use log-base-10 for anything.
log_10 = log_e/log_e(10). It’s just a proportionality. And, decibels is a common scale used in physics. Try again.
David still lives in his parent’s basement and didn’t get the memo.
To be fair you get the same answer whether log-10 or log-e is used either way.
You do for the ratio, but not for the forcings.
I realize the preference to use base of e for physics and I used base 10 instead because it’s the “common one” that is the basis for decibels and I have a lot of audio electrical engineering experience and choice of log base does not change ratios. The IPCC figure in W/m^2 is 5.35*ln(CO2/CO2ref), which is equal to 5.35 * (ln(CO2(newer))-ln(CO2(older))), where ln is log base e. When the log is using a base other than e, the coefficient of 5.35 gets multiplied by the log base e of the base other than e.
As for direct W/m^2 change from CO2 change, I figure:
From pre-industrial to 1979: .975 W/m^2
From 1979 to 2018: 1.039 W/m^2
From pre-industrial to 2018: 2.014 W/m^2
Well, you can’t take the log or ln of a number with units (like your CO2 numbers, which have units of ppm). It’s proper to stick with the ratio, in which case the standard radiative forcing calculation uses the ln(), not the log10().
Why use log10 when there’s no need to?
DA,
“Why use log10 when theres no need to?”
If all he had a table of common logarithms, he might well need to. You can provide alternate answers to your stupid and irrelevant attempt to look clever, at your convenience.
Feel free to waste as much of your own time as you want.
Cheers.
donald…”I used base 10 instead because its the common one that is the basis for decibels and I have a lot of audio electrical engineering experience and choice of log base does not change ratios”.
I was just going to say that. My background is in electronics and I am used to db ratios with log10.
DA…”Why use log10 when theres no need to?”
You are so anal. Maybe Donald likes 10 better than the Napierian 2.781828182.
log(10) of 10 = 1
log(10) 0f 100 = 2
log(10) of 1000 = 3
Neat, eh???
ln of 2.781828182…. = 1
ln 10 = 2.3025
ln 100 = 4.6051
ln 1000 = 6.9077
Note they all increase in the same ratio as for log(10).
Sometimes when you have decimals and zeros it’s neater to use log(10).
With sound power ratios…power (db)= 10log(10).Pout/Pin
If Pout = 2 Pin the ratio is 2:1.
power in db = 10 log(10) of 2 = 10 log(10) x 0.301 = 3 db
We know in the sound industry that a doubling of power, or a halving of power is a ratio of 3 dB.
Does not work as well with natural logs.
donald…” This means 48% of the change of the radiation effect of atmospheric CO2 due to increase of CO2 from pre-industrial to 2018 happened by 1979″.
The math is tidy but it ignores other physical factors, like the little Ice Age. If global temperatures were indeed 1C to 2C below normal till 1850, a re-warming of 1C or more since the LIA makes more sense than logarithmic value related to a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Besides, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since the pre-Industrial Era is controversial and not proved. Kreutz, a German chemist, took over 60,000 CO2 readings in the 1930s and found CO2 concentrations of over 400 ppmv.
A global temperature is a statistical average – and not well defined at that. It is as real as an average family with 2.6 children.
2.6 children. I dont have a problem with that.
Anyway some of the regulars here have 0.6 of a brain.
A statistical average that could be calculated in 100 different ways.
An average temperature that no human actually lives in.
A statistical average of an ever changing number of weather stations, with far from global coverage, with a majority of surface grid cells REQUIRING some or all temperatures to be wild guessed by government bureaucrats with science degrees, who all want to see more global warming.
Government bureaucrats who have the nerve to claim record heat in parts of Africa that have no thermometers !
1200 stations in Africa:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/africa
Pick 20 random stations here to see the global trend:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/timeseries/
‘An average temperature that no human actually lives in.’
Duh, thats why its called an average, and you seem clueless why they are useful.
Nobody hits 0.35 of a baseball, but if your average is .350, you get paid a lot more than if your average is .250.
If you learn that you get paid $20,000 less than the average of other garbage collectors in your town, you may get angry.
‘REQUIRING some or all temperatures to be wild guessed by government bureaucrats with science degrees, who all want to see more global warming.’
Empty, weird claim, that you never back up. BS.
I would tend to think a garbage collector can see what a stupid analogy that is. . . .perhaps he deserves to get paid more than you?
Nate says: – An average temperature that no human actually lives in.
Duh, thats why its called an average, and you seem clueless why they are useful.
Nobody hits 0.35 of a baseball, but if your average is .350, you get paid a lot more than if your average is .250.
—————–
Well since it does not appear that individual thermometers aren’t showing new record temperatures one would have to conclude that a rising mean temperature means things are more normal, less extremes in temperature. Of course averaging lows and highs together shades the fact that temperatures are becoming more stable and considering the nature of the greenhouse effect I would expect low temperatures to be the ones affected.
I have noticed for example that many ground surface records are trending at about 150% than UAH. Then you look at the breakdown of the surface record trends comprising 2/3rds increase in the temperature minimums and a 1/3 increase in temperature maximums. But these temperature maximums are not showing up on individual thermometers at least via looking at US state record temperature databases.
Further one has to recognize that without greenhouse gases and as a result the clouds and ice that cools the surface, daytime temperatures would be higher on average by a large extent. Further greenhouse gases themselves besides absorbing ground emitted IR also absorb small amounts of solar emitted IR.
Thus the case for additional greenhouse gas warming, especially via water vapor, for hotter days and being the cause of heatwaves is incredibly weak.
Lots of vague speculation in there Bill..
Nate says: – Lots of vague speculation in there Bill..
——
Thats a rather limp wristed hand wave there Nate.
Just the news media hyping things to get clicks, and tying it in to heat waves where the media is located, as usual.
None of the surface data sets are out yet for July…
The articles Roy cited were careful to use qualifiers on any claims.
But here’s another one that’s relevant:
“July was Earths hottest month on record, beating or tying July 2016,” Andrew Freedman, WaPo 8/2/19
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/02/july-was-earths-hottest-month-record-beating-or-tying-july/
“July was Earths hottest month ever recorded, on a par with, and possibly marginally higher than the previous warmest month, which was July 2016, according to provisional data from the Copernicus Climate Change Service. This European climate agency will have a full report for all of July on Monday, but a spokesperson said enough data (through July 29) has already come in to make this declaration.”
DA…”July was Earths hottest month on record, beating or tying July 2016″
Certain media outlets should be banned, like The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN. They no longer report news but propaganda based on personal bias.
The only good thing about the NYT is the crossword puzzle.
“Ocean temperatures are notoriously uncertain due to changing temperature measurement technologies (canvas buckets thrown overboard to get a sea surface temperature sample long ago, ship engine water intake temperatures more recently, buoys, satellite measurements only since about 1983, etc.)
The “etc.” being ‘Tom Karl.’
Roy’s group compares satellite readings of today to those of about 10 (is it? more) generations ago, by comparing readings at every transition to a new satellite. How is that any better?
DA,
On the other hand, how is it any worse?
Cheers.
gary…”The etc. being Tom Karl.”
Good point. Why Karl would go back, after the fact, and re-assess the SST with such a bias as to erase the flat trend from 1998 – 2012 has just been revealed to me.
Karl was connected to the IPCC ‘hide the decline’ shenanigans with the hockey stick fiasco. The IPCC knew the data had been fudged yet they rushed out the hockey stick. Karl was into it up to his ying-yang along with the IPCC, Mann, and Briffa.
That enhances my proof that NOAA is a political outfit, not scientific.
Of course there is an Urban Heat Island effect. Tarmac, bricks and concrete absorb IR radiation during the day and release it during the night. If anyone doesn’t believe me find a building with north and south facing sides and put the palm of your hand on each aspect of the bricks at sunset. Add in to that heat from people, cars buses etc. To make the inaccuracy even more striking, temperature stations are placed adjacent to airport runways heat island + heat from jet engines. All of course inferring that the climate is warming at the same speed as collective common sense is diminishing!
Tell that to the 776 inhabitants of Vrargues (46)Hrault, France)or the 3500 of Gallargues le Montueux… Or the inhabitants of Paris (France), where the record high jumped from 40.4 (1047) to 42.6 a few day ago… Some late UHI effect!
Andrew Mark Harding says:
Of course there is an Urban Heat Island effect
Nobody said there isn’t.
DA,
You wrote –
“Nobody said there isnt.”
And . . . ?
Cheers.
“If you think the reanalysis technique sounds suspect, once again I point out it is used for your daily weather forecast. We like to make fun of how poor some weather forecasts can be, but the objective evidence is that forecasts out 2-3 days are pretty accurate, and continue to improve over time.”
Not in the UK though.
The BBC/MeteoGroup weather forecasts change their 5 prediction every day, including the 5th “target” day.
Yes. That’s normal procedure. You update the prediction for the same target time as new information becomes available. That’s why forecasts for 1 day lead time are typically better than 2 day lead time and so on. Even the broader public and laypeople in general almost universally accept that forecasts with short lead times are better than forecasts with long lead times so I don’t see what the problem is here. Maybe I missed your point?
bdgwx says: Yes. Thats normal procedure.
———-
I agree. I have 3 analytical models on one site for my look at weather. Two of the models are global and one for North America.
One of the global models and the NA model both update every 6 hours. The other global model updates every 12 hours. And one I don’t have the UK model mentioned above also updates every 12 hours.
Its the best forecasting I have ever had access to. Still though there are a lot of microclimates no data is available for. In fact I live in one so I have to take the forecasts and make my own adjustments as the models are negatively influenced by another microclimate station much closer to me (2mi) than the station that best matches my climate (10mi). The reason is apparently that closer station sits back from edge of and on top of a bluff that chops the wind down.
Further the 3 models generally agree but don’t agree and sometimes the difference is quite large right up to the last forecast. The maps are cool allowing you to click hour by hour and look at 3 different models.
Our Canadian government is heading into an election in October. One of the major platforms is Climate Change with the statement the Canadian north has warmed 3 times as much as the global average.
Canada’s north is among the least populated areas on earth hence very few temperature monitoring locations at best.
On what basis are they able to make the temperature differential case?
Dennis, Ross McKitrick shows how weak is the case for excessive warming in his Financial Post article: https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/ross-mckitrick-hold-the-panic-canada-just-warmed-1-7-degrees-and-thrived
Friends of Science critiqued the Canadian Climate Report point by point. My synopsis is: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/climate-change-not-as-advertised/
Thank you. Much appreciated!
dennis…”Our Canadian government is heading into an election in October. One of the major platforms is Climate Change with the statement the Canadian north has warmed 3 times as much as the global average”.
The Liberal leader, Trudeau, has proved to be a consumate liar. On one hand he preaches the propaganda you relay and on the other he pushes a pipeline to enhance his votes in Alberta.
He’s the one who fired a female cabinet member in the Justice Department for challenging his government on protecting a Canadian company caught cheating. Trudeau and the boys wanted to let them off with a wrist slap but the female member persisted on charging them and Trudeau had her fired.
From the National Post…”They wanted her to arrange a type of plea-bargain for SNC-Lavalin, a giant Quebec-based engineering firm, on charges of corruption related to dealings in Libya”.
Roy,
I completely agree on more utilization of reanalysis datasets for tracking the global mean temperature at all levels. I really wish there were a convenient site that displays surface, satellite, and reanalysis into a single summary so that on each monthly update everyone can see at glance the state of affairs from as many perspectives and datasets as possible.
It would also be cool if they could all then be statistically aggregated into a single value as a best-guess computed from all available datasets which might result in tighter error margins and more confidence in the overall warming trend.
bdg…”I completely agree on more utilization of reanalysis datasets for tracking the global mean temperature at all levels”.
You have not explained what is wrong with real, raw data.
Reanalysis is fine for weather predictions but they have scads of experience doing that, and it doesn’t matter if they are wrong.
World governments, on the other hand, are creating policies based on the same kind of data processing and their is evidence that NOAA, the main data supplier, is fudging the data for a political end.
Meteorologists don’t face political pressure aimed at creating policy. However, NOAA has demonstrated a willingness to bend the truth in the aid of a political agenda.
You still have not explained why they would lie about 2014 being an all time record when it wasn’t even close. NOAA had to know that but they used statistical chicanery to suggest it MIGHT have been the hottest year if the confidence level was reduced to 48% that they were telling the truth.
What reputable scientists carry on like that?
Gordon Robertson says: – You have not explained what is wrong with real, raw data.
——————
There is plenty wrong with the real, raw data. I outlined a few reasons why in this thread when David Appell asked if there was poor data in the system.
Other than that I agree with you and I would add:
The most important thing, is using an analysis by a climate modeling group whose longterm prospects are directly connected to the results they obtain. This lack of independence opens the door to what I might call “reasonable chicanery” which one sees in expert witness testimony by witnesses paid by one side of the dispute. I once had a job dissecting some of that chicanery out of large financial models in a litigation environment.
Roy mentions some real reasons for using the reanalysis data in terms of methodologies for homogenizing the raw data into a more representative sample.
Roy suggests this would be a benefit to the analysis, and especially in comparison to stuff similar to cherry picking sacred trees in Siberia.
Nick Stokes worries about the consistency of the data sources. Which is a legitimate concern, but these reanalyses have a huge feedback mechanism to substantially control that.
After all they get a sanity check and feedback almost every day on the results. Obviously weather modeling would not advance without that. The feedback isn’t going to instantly be specifically identified so the progress with weather modeling is a slow process with constant adjustments and a huge amount of progress has been made because of the need to fix stuff to do a better job tomorrow
Whereas the feedback on the climate models is apparently perhaps somewhere in the next millennium. . . .as evidenced by the fact that the reaction to error is to change the past observations permanently without changing the models. Changes in weather models are done experimentally with daily feedback on whether the change was demonstrating a skill improvement.
A fundamentally different approach when independence is ruling the day (weather analyzers actually have jobs not dependent upon climate alarm). Further weather forecasting is judged on how well it does tomorrow unlike climate forecasting where its being judged on how well it did in the past.
bdgwx: “I really wish there were a convenient site that displays surface, satellite, and reanalysis into a single summary . . .”
Nick Stokes’ webpage has a graphical viewer that shows various data sets plotted on a common baseline here: https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
He also does his own reanalysis NCEP/NCAR-based dataset with daily resolution, but that’s not included on the active plotter.
I should add that Stokes’ NCEP/NCAR July 2019 anomaly was quite a bit lower than July 2016 and slightly lower than July 2017.
Correction, July 2019 lower than July 2016 only. I made the silly mistake of looking at a plot for August when posting the above.
But did he “misrepresent” them? A weasel word in a headline highlighting “hottest” (note: seldom “warmest”) reads, to me, like a fig leaf covering an attempt to anchor the reader’s expectations. The reader attaches more value to the alarmist word “hottest” than to the “we are, after all, supposed to be reporting the truth rather than furthering an agenda” word “might.”
And the rest of each article will have buried the lede (bit of a stretch, I admit, for me to assume that “this is one of the hottest, but not THE hottest, Julys in the last, not millennium, but 40-year period” is the **lede**), highlighting how hot it was in France rather than how nice it’s been in Houston. I’d venture (without evidence) that statements about either hotter Julys or problems with the data set occur in no less than the fourth para of any of these articles.
I’d be more inclined to take climate change articles at face value – that is, to believe that the agenda of the writer and sometimes even the researcher is to alert us to the negative consequences of climate change rather than to restructure the US or global economy to be more “central command” oriented – if anyone, anywhere, ever acknowledged even one potential **positive** effect of climate change.
What positive effect of anthropogenic climate change do you have in mind?
There are more people on this planet than at any time in human history. And on average they are healthier, better fed and longer lived than at any time in human history.
What negative effects of anthropogenic climate change did you have in mind?
There are more people on this planet than at any time in human history. And on average they are healthier, better fed and longer lived than at any time in human history.
How is manmade climate change responsible for those?
DA,
You were asked –
“What negative effects of anthropogenic climate change did you have in mind?”
Can’t answer? Won’t answer?
What are you scared of, David? It’s a pretty simple question – or do you only demand answers from others?
How is the description of the non-existent GHE going? Are you still rushing about producing “evidence” for something you can’t even describe?
That’s not very “scientific”, is it?
Cheers.
Greening of the planet, by at least 15%.
Thousands of studies prove extra CO2 in the air improves plant growth.
A summary, at the link below, required over 1,000 pages.
Why don’t you read it Apple, and get back with us in a year or two?
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CCR-II-Biological-Impacts-full-report.pdf
I’m sure you’ll find one study by some hack leftist “scientist” that disagrees.
I should add that I’m 100% certain that climate is changing, because it’s never been static. My angst arises from the assertion that so much of current climate change results from human industrial activity that human industrial activity must be radically changed or curtailed – when there is NO current energy alternative that wouldn’t plunge the world into medieval conditions. Not even nuclear energy, until we have a cheap, reliable, small, environmentally sound way to STORE nuclear and other non-hydrocarbon energy so that we can travel with it.
My preferred approach has been and continues to be, first, assume that climate is continually in flux and harden our systems so that an ice age doesn’t starve vulnerable populations all over the world. And second, keep working on batteries; they’re not good enough yet and their environmental cost is far too high. In the meantime, prioritize natural gas and nuclear (which is easy because they’re already cheap and reliable) and keep working on emissions and waste management technology. Oh, and ceramics and other materials engineering, since we’ll need an alternative to plastics if we’re going to wean ourselves off petrochemicals.
I just came across this article today:
“How have solar cells undercut coal?” Physics World, 7/29/18
https://physicsworld.com/a/how-have-solar-cells-undercut-coal/
Concluding sentence:
“…the economics now well and truly favour solar. I think well see fairly rapid phasing out of coal generation in Australia despite the wishes of our present bunch of politicians.”
David,
Your quote sounds like wishful thinking. Glaringly overlooked is the intermittency problem, and the costs for having and maintaining back-up sources.
Clyde Spencer says: – Your quote sounds like wishful thinking. Glaringly overlooked is the intermittency problem, and the costs for having and maintaining back-up sources.
_______________
Indeed! If the quote were true the government would not have to intervene.
Natural gas “undercut” coal, Apple.
Not intermittent, expensive, subsidized, low density solar energy.
“My angst arises from the assertion that so much of current climate change results from human industrial activity that human industrial activity must be radically changed or curtailed”
Your angst is caused by the wide acceptance of the erroneous IPCC assertion that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused entirely by human emissions. See https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/stand-for-climate-truth/ for a discussion of science used to evaluate this point. This assumption fails scientific analysis so the whole house of alarmist cards falls down. Even if CO2 were capable of warming the planet dangerously we are not the cause and cannot fix it.
See
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/05/why-ed-berry-is-full-of-shit.html
Been there, seen that, agree with Mr Courtney. Berry’s model is valid because it describes flow of CO2 through the atmosphere without trying to analyze all the individual sources and sinks. His conclusion agrees with Harde 2019 which is mentioned in the referenced Berry article. Harde addresses several of the points raised at your site attempting to refute Berry. Bottom line is atmospheric CO2 is not responsive to human emissions (https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/)so the data agree with Berry not the IPCC.
Berry’s model is valid because it describes flow of CO2 through the atmosphere without trying to analyze all the individual sources and sinks.
And that’s EXACTLY why Berry’s model is wrong: he assumes a bathtub model, which definitely does not describe all the carbon flows and feedbacks between the atmosphere, ocean and soil.
It’s also why Harde is wrong.
That’s why no real journal would publish Berry’s claims.
David, please stop trolling.
Yes, this is correct. It is very obvious that CO2 is the effect, and temperature is the cause.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/derivative/plot/uah6/scale:0.18/offset:0.144
It is a scientific fiasco of the first order.
Have a read about molten salt reactors. Big development in China
Thank you Roy, for sharing your knowledge.
Reblogged in Norwegian here:
https://www.klimarealistene.com/2019/08/02/global-temperatur-juli-2019/
Roy, I agree with your assessment that reanalyses are the way to go for analyzing weather and climate and for comparisons to climate model output as well.
For a couple of years now I’ve been downloading and tracking CDAS and more recently NCAR R1 current daily output. I post the summarized daily CDAS output here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
I also have monthly CDAS/CFSR stats and graphs here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/
From my Monthly Trends page:
“The CDAS preliminary monthly average global mean surface air temperature for July 2019 based on daily CDAS averages was 16.640C, which is the fourth highest July since 1979 and the highest since July 2017. The highest July since 1979 was in 2016 at 16.714C. The July 2019 global mean surface temperature anomaly (unadjusted) referenced to 1981-2010 was 0.298C compared to 0.299C for June 2019 and was the highest July since 0.304C in July 2017.”
Very cool. I’m an advocate of reanalysis as well. I bookmarked your site.
The NCEP/NCAR R1 daily output finally came in about 8 hours late today. I just compiled the July 2019 global average surface temperature for the Sigma 0.995 pressure level, which corresponds to roughly about 50 meters above ground level, and came out to 16.321C (compared to 2-meter above ground level CDAS at 16.640C). The global mean surface temperature anomaly referenced to 1981-2010 came out to +0.523C and compared to +0.497C in June.
The much older NCEP/NCAR R1 uses a 2.5 degree lat/long grid, compared to 0.5 degree grid for the CDAS/CFSR/CFSV2, but has been extended back to 1948 as graphed here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/2019/03/02/global-daily-temperatures-since-1948/
It’s trite but true that the temperature of the air depends on where it comes from. It’s also true that most of the globe is inhospitably cold. The assumption that temperature at some previous time was somehow ideal is just that, an assumption. The warmest parts of the globe are also the most populated.
The air moves. Fundamentally, if one is interested in why surface temperature changes, one must look at changing surface atmospheric pressure.
But if you’re calculating global numbers, globally, the surface atmospheric pressure is constant.
DA,
So how much has global atmospheric pressure changed since 1910? Does it depend on global temperature?
Why?
Are you acting really stupid?
Why?
Cheers.
Erl…”temperature of the air depends on where it comes from. Its also true that most of the globe is inhospitably cold”.
When I read the nonsense about a warming Arctic (or Antarctic) it reminds me that it applies during about 1 month of summer. For several months of the year, there is little or no sunlight in both areas, and very cold stratospheric air descends.
As long as the Earth has a tilt we will always have very cold weather in the Arctic and Antarctic most of the year and that air will find its way to other parts of the globe.
Imagine the panic that may ensue when everyone realizes that plate tectonics is ongoing!
Roy wrote:
(3) Both land and ocean temperatures are notoriously incomplete geographically. How does one estimate temperatures in a 1 million square mile area where no measurements exist?
How does one compare a reading from a current satellite to one 10 or more generations ago? Isn’t that what UAH does?
One important finding is that “mid‐ and high latitude stations separated by less than 1000 km are shown to be highly correlated.”
“Global trends of measured surface air temperature,” Hansen & Lebedeff, JGR-Atmospheres, 20 November 1987. https://doi.org/10.1029/JD092iD11p13345
According to the BoM listed monthly mean sea levels, Sydney Harbour is lower than it was over a century ago.
That is arguably the best proxy for our missing long term thermometers.
That is arguably the best proxy for our missing long term thermometers.
Why?
DA,
Why not? He said “arguably”. Present your contrary argument, or just keep looking like a troll. Your choice, of course.
Cheers.
I seem to recall that SLs move in sync with temperatures.
Unlike CO2 which has a lag.
And if Ft Denison which is adjacent to the broadest part of the world’s oceans is showing a fall in SLs over more than a century there is a good chance that the true GAT isn’t doing any more than its natural variability.
So you think Ft Denison is representative of the entire globe?
DA,
You wrote –
“So you think Ft Denison is representative of the entire globe?”
Why would you possibly ask that (apart from a desire to appear trollish)?
Cheers.
Hmm, this says sea level at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour has been rising at 1.4 mm/yr.
https://www.ausmarinescience.com/marine-science-basics/sea-level-rise-1/
Try some factual measurements from a real SL gauge.
MSL May 1914 1.111m
MSL June 2019 1.058
53 mm lower than 105 years ago.
And bear in mind that a GPS chip is also showing some sinking as well, making any SLR recorded as even less likely:
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml
Here are the plots for those data:
https://is.gd/8PF1Bv
I don’t see that the mean level is decreasing. Or the min level.
I downloaded the data, and don’t find any of the trends since 1914 to be negative:
minimum: +1.3 mm/yr
maximum: +0.8 mm/yr
mean: +1.0 mm/yr
DA,
Who said anything about mean level increasing or decreasing?
Maybe you could stop trying to deny, divert and confuse – it just makes you look like the usual pseudoscientific GHE true believer, unable to accept fact.
Cheers.
When the MSL today is 53 mm lower [and possibly more considering the site is sinking slightly]than 105 years ago measured at one of the most stable sites in the world, that gives you some idea of how much the world has warmed during that time.
More positive than negative. Nothing that could be considered a crisis.
chungle: Again, where is the data showing 53 mm lower?
DA,
You wrote –
“chungle: Again, where is the data showing 53 mm lower?l
Trying for a gotcha, again, are you?
Are you attempting to appear more ignorant than stupid, or vice versa?
Cheers.
At that BoM link I gave you.
Their first MSL listing was 1.111m in 1914. Their last was 1.058 in June 2019. 53mm lower. Plus any sinking that occurred at that site over that 105 years. And it is sinking.
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml
DA,
You wrote –
“chungle: Again, where is the data showing 53 mm lower?”
Not trying for a gotcha, are you?
Cheers.
Chungle: And you think THAT’S how sea level trends are determined?
Please tell me that’s not what you think. Because it’s absurd.
C: By your logic, Sydney Harbor sea level has risen 108 mm since March of 2014.
That works out to 1.7 meters of sea level rise in the year 2100.
DA,
You wrote –
“C: By your logic, Sydney Harbor sea level has risen 108 mm since March of 2014.”
Unlike pseudoscientific GHE true believers, some people rely on measurements, rather than fanciful imaginings.
If you believe in the presumed magic of “trends”, you should rapidly accumulate a vast fortune on the stock markets. How hard could it be? Just invest after a trend has been upward for a while – that should work, shouldn’t it?
Cheers.
Yes you can cherry pick what ever numbers you like but when you take the first ever recording and the last recording then that is what has occurred with SLs over the longest period recorded.
Sea levels are no higher than when those records first started.
Just like Lempriere’s MSL mark at Port Arthur in 1841. He could plainly see the tide range stain on the rock face so he marked it half way up and guess what?
It’s still half way up 178 years later.
As knowledgeable scientists know, sea levels are not going anywhere, and if that is the case, GW is a non-problem and probably an asset.
“Chungle: And you think THAT’S how sea level trends are determined?”
Mean sea level has always been the standard benchmark for centuries.
Building regulations always stipulate minimum height above MSL for floor level of habitable rooms, roads and most seafront infrastructure but sea front councils choose that MSL datum from historic evidence.
Here’s a picture of Lemprieres MSL mark:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002GL016813
Svante, please stop trolling.
It’s not a picture of Lemprieres MSL mark???
#2
Svante, please stop trolling.
DA,
From your link –
“Both of these Australian determinations may include changes in the reference datum relative to the International Frame (IRF) due to the vertical movement of land.”
Precisely how was vertical movement of land established a century ago?
What difference does it make? Nature does whatever it wants – including trying to kill you, since the moment you are conceived. Eventually Nature prevails, whether you like it or not.
If you want to try to stop sea levels changing, I wish you luck. Let me know how you get on.
Cheers.
DA,
From your link –
“Error estimates are based in part on studies of how accurately the actual station distributions are able to reproduce temperature change in a global data set produced by a three‐dimensional general circulation model with realistic variability.”
Ooooh! Look! A model! With “realistic variability” plucked out of a fevered imagination!
Thermometers react to heat. CO2 produces no heat. Maybe you need to look around for a source of additional heat if your thermometer shows increased temperature, don’t you think?
Or you could just keep believing in magic – a GHE, for example.
Cheers.
Roy, I think there are two problems with using the reanalysis, perhaps you’ll comment on.
1. The reanalyses are typically not just spatial analysis of zero hour, but ‘spin-up’ to a stable state. That means during spin up, reanalyses use the very same non-physical parameterizations that the models use. I plotted CFS versus MERRA versus ERA and they seem to diverge, both from observation analyses and from one another. They also seem to ‘try’ to create a ‘Hot Spot’ whereas the observations don’t.
2. The reanalyses are ‘promiscuous’. That is, they take any and all data they can get, including very unreliable station data for stations that might have a few years early on and then cease. This puts poor data in the mix. In the same way that the sub-prime bundles hid crappy loans, reanalyses hide crappy obs.
Turbulent Eddie says:Roy, I think there are two problems with using the reanalysis, perhaps youll comment on.
—————
there is no question there is poor data in the system. . . .but how do you detect it? The current mode for correcting for poor data is some kind of blind homogenization process that is more likely to spread UHI error than eliminate it.
Then there is the matter of “well sited” stations. Yet the parameters for a well sited station are loosey goosey particularly regarding wind exposure that is heavily influenced by microclimates and can lead to wrong data. the fact that some 80 year old nerd volunteer might have run a station for a few years then died doesn’t mean the data is bad, it might be the best in the nation with the attention a system oriented elderly retired individual might manage the station by doting over the instrumentation. Actually I am thinking of my dad a retired aerospace engineer that got into volunteer work as a retiree including running a small weather station. there is no freaking way I could do as good of job as him no matter how hard I tried. He had extreme patience, high alertness, and a lot of time on his hands. Pretty much everything I don’t have.
Some guy somewhere sitting in an office in Colorado or New York has zero idea about the quality of the data or what it actually represents. the only thing you can guarantee is when he adjusts the data its going to move the direction the adjuster thinks it should go.
bill hunter says:
there is no question there is poor data in the system. . . .
What’s your evidence of this?
Just your say-so?
DA,
Feel free to believe that all data in the system is perfect, if you wish.
Some prefer to believe in human imperfections, particularly where data collection and recording is concerned. As you have stated, you can never ask too many questions – unless someone is questioning your fanatical in the non-existent GHE, of course.
Carry on believing.
Cheers.
Dr Myki says: – I bet that the first time the data indicates a temporary global cooling, you idiots will jump on it as 100% correct and proof that long-term global warming is not happening.
———
Don’t project your propensities on me!
I am pro-science. The best answer to this problem is coming from satellites. Most of the deficiencies of the surface temperature network doesn’t exist with satellites. Thus the best direction is toward validating satellite data by gathering good data on atmospheric markers that influence the analysis.
But there is the reality that warming has been proceeding along at about one tenth of a degree per decade for a long time including recent data. I remain unconvinced there has been any acceleration in that rate as my regular work deals with Pacific ocean temperature variation and the history of vast biological differences associated with ocean temperatures along the entire west coast is very rich. Even 3 degrees warming, which would clearly have some negative effects doesn’t seem certain to have net negative effects. Scientists using fancy tools but lacking real world experience tend to always over predict negative outcomes because that’s all they search for.
BH
Perhaps you’d care to explain how you know with such certainty that the method used by Spencer and Christy to convert upwelling microwave radiation into actual temperatures is accurate, especially given that they refuse to use ground-based data to calibrate their data. Make sure your answer involves science and is not just a reference to your belief in their integrity.
Midas says: – BH
Perhaps youd care to explain how you know with such certainty that the method used by Spencer and Christy to convert upwelling microwave radiation into actual temperatures is accurate, especially given that they refuse to use ground-based data to calibrate their data. Make sure your answer involves science and is not just a reference to your belief in their integrity.
—————
Strawman!!!!!!!
First, well clearly their independence is certainly less in question than folks pealing the alarm bell for the benefit of their industry.
But you obviously already knew that from the form of your question.
Second, I don’t recall saying I know anything about UAH methodology, nor have I expressed any opinion of it. So I have no idea why you asking that question.
I have only said I think satellites are the way to go for the long term as they avoid a long list of problems with surface stations that I listed in this comment section but I did not say I prefer one satellite system over another.
I have said in previous comments to other posts that we should be looking at all the global records as a range of possibilities, recognizing that there should even be some error bars around that range both because of potential error and the probability some unknown amount of natural influences are in the data and not being observed. That makes for a rather large range expressing a deep uncertainty about our knowledge of climate.
I am particularly attached to one of those uncertainty issues, that of the PDO. Years ago I noted a stunning correlation with the PDO index and estimated global mean temperatures. It may take a while but it suggests a lot of the warming since 1979 might be connected in some way with the PDO. I know California is definitely affected by it first hand. I know nothing of 45% of the ocean and we are distrustful of what we know about the other 55% to a significant degree.
So my message is one of uncertainty not certainty. Are you also almost completely uncertain? If not, then you should be the one explaining.
BH
Are you aware that the PDO was in a predominantly negative phase from 1998 to 2014? Since 1979 it has spent roughly equal time in positive and negative phases. Wouldn’t you expect the net result after all those years to be zero, if there was no other cause?
Midas says: – BH
Are you aware that the PDO was in a predominantly negative phase from 1998 to 2014? Since 1979 it has spent roughly equal time in positive and negative phases. Wouldn’t you expect the net result after all those years to be zero, if there was no other cause?
—————-
Well probably?
I think people need to step away from getting locked into the idea of a single influence on climate. Ocean oscillations are only one factor. Even before Dr Akasofu’s paper in 2009 I was well aware of 1) ocean oscillations as a major ocean variable in the work I do. A warming influence between 1976 and 1998. 2) the Little Ice Age and its recovery, I have read about all my life. And the most recent knowledge I obtained from my relatively recent interest in climate, 3) climate feed back that may take a millennium or more to play out. Since my area of work is in oceans I picked up on that instantly.
and finally 3) a recent solar maximum period that lasted and equivalent time as the Maunder Minimum that marked the depth of the LIA. Even cycle 23 was above average for the solar period from the Maunder Minimum to 2009.
So what is the state of the 3 items now?
1) For the 17 years you mention 1998-2014 the monthly index ranged from +2.51 to -2.33 and averaged -.235 so the index was only very weakly negative during that period of time. Of course the time is cherry picked also between two massive El Ninos.
ENSO has a similar range of values and depending on what nation you are anything less than .8 or .5 anomaly in either direction is considered neutral. So in that vein the index was neutral during your cherry picked most negative period of 17 years you could possible find.
2) The little Ice Age likely requiried a minimum of 400 years negative influence to get it to fall. the influence here whatever it is may take 400 years or more for feedbacks to play out, assuming nothing has switched of its rise. See 3 below.
3) The solar maximum may be dead. But I expect its primary effect to take the time estimated for relatively quick feedback of warming the surface ocean popularly believed to take 10 to 17 years. Which would place its primary effect playing out sometime between now and 2026.
So how does the temperature record fit with that. Rather beautifully I would say. If solar activity remains low in cycle 25 and the PDO goes solidly negative I would lean toward expecting some slight cooling in the next decade. Keeping in mind all that would still be battling the LIA recovery.
Until these things actually get quantified, including CO2 influence, its not really possible to predict what might happen.
In my view its much more satisfying to have a broad interest in art rather than all that faddish Al Gore, Michael Mann, Phil Jones pop art.
David Appell says: there is no question there is poor data in the system. . . .
Whats your evidence of this?
—————–
1) over representation of towns, cities, airports.
2) under representation of oceans
3) different types of equipment
4) poor siting of the equipment
5) different configurations of equipment set up
6) multiple national standards and complete lack of standardization in some nations.
7) under representation of mountain tops, tree tops, ice fields, sea ice, and polar lands.
8) no systematic methodology for identifying microclimates
9) no consistent standard of maintenance of equipment if a standard exists at all
10) blind homogenization techniques (subject of this post by Roy)
11) no analysis of any significant kind to determine sample representation or random distribution of sampling stations, a key consideration in doing any kind of survey work.
no doubt there is more.
Thats just an off the top list of things to consider in establishing global climate sites that an intern should be aware of. How come you aren’t? Next week will you remember?
I bet that the first time the data indicates a temporary global cooling, you idiots will jump on it as 100% correct and proof that long-term global warming is not happening.
Denialism at its worst !
Hypocrisy !
Pathetic!
Begone, troll!
Given that the ocean temperature data comprises 70% of the ‘Land and Ocean’ data, what exactly is your claim that the oceans are under represented based on?
Midas says: – Given that the ocean temperature data comprises 70% of the Land and Ocean data, what exactly is your claim that the oceans are under represented based on?
—————–
Not having a fair share of the thermometers. You are talking about manufactured data. The ocean has more than its share of manufactured data.
Bill, I have to be honest. I don’t think there is any evidence that would convince you because when that evidence is inconvenient or contrary to your viewpoint you not only reject it, but you invoke the typical conspiracy line that it must be manufactured.
BH
Please describe the process by which they “manufacture” data.
bdgwx says: – Bill, I have to be honest. I dont think there is any evidence that would convince you because when that evidence is inconvenient or contrary to your viewpoint you not only reject it, but you invoke the typical conspiracy line that it must be manufactured.
——————-
Convince me of what Bdgwx? 3 degrees of warming over the next century?
I haven’t seen any evidence suggesting thats the case as no temperature record I have seen supports it.
I have my opinions and could be convinced if there were evidence. But you need to state what evidence I am rejecting.
I think I am on the record in this thread of saying take all the temperature records, graph them and consider all of them all of having some likelihood of being correct, and that we don’t have the data to go any further than that. We obviously don’t have a clue which is the most correct.
there might be some minimal UHI adjustments we could make at this point. I am not sure.
But I don’t think we have near enough science to conclude we know what the effects of anthropogenic land use changes are. That would take a really serious effort to measure. Not something you can do from a basement, no matter how much Hollywood has suggested you can.
You need to look in the mirror and determine what it is about you that makes you want to accuse others of being a denier. Maybe the denier is you.
Midas says: =
BH
Please describe the process by which they “manufacture” data.
==============
You don’t know? Thats surprising. Its not exactly a secret. The manufacture data to plug into climate models by extrapolating temperatures from a single station out on radius up to 1500km.
bill…”Not having a fair share of the thermometers. You are talking about manufactured data. The ocean has more than its share of manufactured data”.
I have been trying to tell the alarmist twits here that NOAA synthesizes a good deal of its data, especially in the oceans.
One reason I prefer UAH data is that Roy and John have principles that are nor related to lining their pockets or receiving grants. The AMSU units on the sats scan the microwave radiation from bazillions of O2 molecules per stationary scan. The sat coverage of the oceans and surface is 95% whereas I doubt if surface/ocean thermometers capture more than 5% of the actual temperatures per locale on the planet.
I nearly gagged when Midas suggested calibrating sat data with surface data. The GHCN record is known to be disorganized and NOAA is known to fudge temperatures and play games with the data and stations. I put it down to their political affiliations related to AGW.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/
Why the heck would anyone want to calibrate a state of the art electronics system to a system of thermometers with horrible coverage?
midas…”Please describe the process by which they manufacture data”.
It’s well documented here.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/
Basically, as Bill stated, they interpolate two stations up to 1200 miles apart to manufacture data for an intermediate station. When all the interpolations are in they homogenize the works to make it smooth.
NOAA uses only 1 station to cover the entire Canadian Arctic and they have 3 stations in California, all close to the warm ocean.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
“I think there are two problems with using the reanalysis”
As I commented below, I think the main problem over long periods is homogeneity. It isn’t so much that they are promiscuous at a point in time, but the mix of instrument types and data sources keeps changing. This isn’t a problem for the forecast period, but it is over years and decades. Since they aren’t intended for such comparisons, no effort is putting into homogenising.
Turbulent Eddie
The proper answer to the “promiscuous” data problem is the rule of thumb of retaining no more significant figures in a calculation than the least number of significant figures in any of the multiplicands. Abiding by that rule provides an incentive to weed out less precise data. I suppose one could assign weighting to the contribution of measurement precision if one is desperate to retain all data. However, even that would result in a decrease in the precision if low quality data is used.
Hi David Appell! I have a question! Are you a socialist?
Hi Petwap! Are you a deplorable?
You have to wonder at the mindset of people who conflate science with socialism.
Hmmmm, is David Appell a product of gmo science?
Midas,
It is called social engineering.
Stephen P Anderson says: – Midas, It is called social engineering.
————
You mean David is the Manchurian Candidate?. . . .oH nevermind, I see you weren’t directing that at me. 🙂
For ten years I lived in London and worked at Heathrow Airport (home to numerous recent “records”). Every day driving out the temperature dropped two degrees or more into the Green Belt then climbed back up at the airport. In the winter, it was often marked by a change from water to ice and back again.
Or you could look at weather forecasts in the winter – snow all around London, rain in London.
“The only reanalysis data I am aware of that is available in near real time to the public”
I download NCEP/NCAR V1 daily, with about 2 days delay, and post the daily figures for global surface averge here, along with monthly totals, maps etc. In that index July was second warmest since 1994 (after 2016). Earlier years are patchy. This index is a long-standing one, and has lower resolution, but that doesn’t matter for calculating a global average.
The plus point for reanalysis that it is used for forecast only works for near current years. Pre 1994, say, it has been back-calculated from whatever data is available.
“If you think the reanalysis technique sounds suspect”
I don’t but some here will, because it is effectively to a GCM (or NWP equivalent) which ingests current data. I think that is fine, but there is one problem, which is homogeneity. Data sources change over the years, and the mix drifts. This isn’t a problem for forecasting, but is a problem for comparing results years apart. I don’t use reanalysis to calculate records, because I don’t think even 2016 and 2019 are really comparable. But it is great for tracking daily progress during a month. Much beyond that, I would always go back to an index calculated with known, if imperfect, instruments, rather than an unknown mix.
I must say that I think the accounts of “hottest month ever” are regrettable. They rely on superimposing the anomalies on the seasonal cycle, and given the preponderance of land in the NH, NH summer is always going to be the hottest on that measure. Anomalies are there for a purpose and are meaningful; this is not. July is nowhere near the highest anomaly.
Crap.
You would be one of the first to hail the data if it indicated ” the coolest month ever”.
FYI: It will never happen.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
You do understand that Nick is not an AGW denier, right? He is not your enemy.
All three of you are projecting your own bias.
How exactly am I doing that?
Begone, witless troll!
Midas says: – How exactly am I doing that?
————————
By clearly stating you are on a side! Science isn’t group think thus for you its political.
Dr Myki
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/
You remind me of a cartoon hero from my childhood: Lucky Luke, “the man who shoots faster than his shadow”.
Never is a long time.
Mr. Myki, the horse podiatrist:
Your comments are getting shorter, but are more tedious than ever.
Hopefully, the “shorter” trend will continue until they disappear.
The “coolest month” is irrelevant during a multi-hundred year warming trend.
We have been in a warming trend since roughly 1700.
All temperature compilations are DURING that warming trend.
Getting to the “coolest month” would require a new cooling trend that reverses the warming since 1700 (probably roughly +2 degrees C.), and only then would a “coolest month on record” be possible.
RG -As a horse podiatrist I know horse s… when I come across it. And your comments amount to an enormous pile.
Especially – “..the warming since 1700 (probably roughly +2 degrees C.”
Ian, please stop trolling.
La Nina sneaks quietly.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat5_sstanom_1-day.png
ren…La Nina sneaks quietly.
How’s it goin’ ren? Good to see you posting again.
Thanks. Greetings.
The measurements indicate a deep minimum of the solar cycle.
http://oi65.tinypic.com/2jcwtp5.jpg
If you take a line with a little positive slope through time and add a sin curve then the composite curve will have peaks that break the record value over and over. This is what seems to fuel media to produce dramatic narratives and all they are describing in reality is moderate warming through time with ENSO events.
Is it as hot now as the last peak interglacial 120kyr bp? No. Look at sea level as a simple proxy. So we are not even outside the range of recorded natural climate change during the recent past until we exceed 6m sea level rise.
I do think data show man made warming in the signal, but it seems less catastrophic than the alternative (less global energy supply and growing demand), and humans have no plan to combat the warming until an energy storage breakthrough occurs or society accepts nuclear. So until then this media hysteria is irrational. It’s currently like a alternative belief system and climate crisis has become a tool to fight capitalism with.
Why not just fund nuclear awareness and new battery research and plan for a moderate climate shift by building large habbitat corridors latitudinally? At least those are realistic plans.
It is also worth building underground water reservoirs in California before La Nina arrives.
Filling them with what water?
Water from Sierra Nevada.
ren…”It is also worth building underground water reservoirs in California before La Nina arrives”.
It would also help if they stopped wasting water in swimming pools, car washes, waterslides, etc.
Aaron S
You said, “If you take a line with a little positive slope through time and add a sin curve then the composite curve will have peaks that break the record value over and over.”
And that is why any claim about climate variability, or record temperatures, should be obtained from a de-trended data set. Crowing about record temps when there is a positive trend is just making scary noises.
How long does sea level take to fully respond to a change in global average temperature?
Nobody knows. The ocean responds mostly to evaporation and freezing of ice both injecting salt residuals into the ocean the net of which keeps the oceans much colder than the surface. So look for changes in precipitation and refreezing of sea ice metrics and try to figure out how much of that gets to the bottom of the ocean.
Of course they know. It would take tens of thousands of years for the ice to fully respond to a rise of a couple of degrees.
the only study I am aware of estimated surface warming adjustment time and stated there wasn’t nearly enough data to estimate how long the deep ocean to adjust and merely left it at over a thousand years based upon I think water sample dating.
And even at the thousand years we have no idea what the influence is of it popping to the surface beyond it having large impacts on local climates.
Here is a 1000 year reconstruction of the PDO. Its been predominantly positive for the past half millennium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation#/media/File:PDO1000yr.svg
Oh now I see. I didn’t notice you had changed from asking about ocean response to a temperature change to a full feedback including the ice. Well yeah maybe a 100,000 years, nobody knows all we know is its a really long time.
Bill Hunter, how can the PDO have much of a global impact when it has a cold and warm pole at all times?
Svante says: – Bill Hunter, how can the PDO have much of a global impact when it has a cold and warm pole at all times?
—————–
Well for a start its NOT the “PDO Index” that creates the correlation of the index to global temperatures.
The index merely quantifies a “state” of the ocean unrelated to temperature. That state is created by ocean currents and however they may be periodically influenced.
Other than a rather tight correlation with long term climate oscillations, I would think it would be tied in someway to evaporation variation in the north pacific ocean as the jet streams cross that area. In the northern hemisphere the north pacific is the largest of water crossings for the circulation of storms around the world.
It may be a misnomer to call the phases warm and cold other than the fact the warm phase may called that because it was discovered on the US west coast when the warmer water was in the northeast pacific next to the west coast.
So you have some huge processes at work likely accelerating and decelerating the exit of heat out of the ocean with wind patterns over waters of different temperatures likely has at least a northern hemisphere-wide impact.
Why does it demonstrate a multi-decadal pattern? Good question. Not sure if the multi-decadal pattern noted in arctic ice is associated but for sure science is polluted with ice hockey sticks just like its polluted with climate hockey sticks.
All the desire for political action is a pollutant on science.
I guess you have no evidence of correlation?
Berkeley earth extracted the AMO residual, and what is left after that is negligible.
BH
Why are you addressing everything except what my comment was about. Please read the comment I was responding to to put mine in context.
sealevel has been rising for 12,000 years most of that time faster than it is rising now.
It was stable for the last 6000 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
Svante says: It was stable for the last 6000 years:
—————-
Stable relative to what? The resolution of those dots on the chart in the relatively stable period vary by what looks like 5 meters.
Thats about 1,500 years of sea level rise at the present rate or 2,000 years at the rate in the 1990’s which may be the long term rate even now.
Yes, local values with errors.
Errors reduced by the black line least squares average.
Where is your evidence they are erroneous Svante. If they were erroneous they should not be in the record.
What we have today is a minimal acceleration in sea level rise, far far below historic, completely within precedence, and you want to call a few years with accelerated sea level rise as a portent of massive flooding.
bill hunter says:
Because the show different levels at the same time?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png
Sea level was within decimeters of today for two thousand years.
The 20th century added 0.2 m.
The current rate is 3.3 m per millennium and it is increasing every decade.
Svante says: “Sea level was within decimeters of today for two thousand years. The 20th century added 0.2 m.
The current rate is 3.3 m per millennium and it is increasing every decade.”
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
I thought the argument was that the anthropocene interrupted a long term cooling. Where is the decreasing sea level signal in your charts?
One cannot make a claim of decimeters rise in 2 thousand years by drawing a straight line through a handful of tidal gauges demonstrating a + or – variation of 2 meters. This sort of nonsense is ubiquitous in climate science.
“I thought the argument was that the anthropocene interrupted a long term cooling. Where is the decreasing sea level signal in your charts?”
Good point. Ice sheets have a lot of inertia, so I guess cooling was needed to compensate for their residual decline.
We should see what the latest science says. Is it your turn to look it up, or mine?
Then we have Marcott et al 2013 where the industrial revolution interrupted 3000 years of cooling that doesn’t show up on your sea level chart. The BS never ends and everybody looks around at each other and wonders why the public isn’t buying this shit.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/
Glacial Isostatic Adjustment is around 0.5 mm/year.
Download PDF here and see table 1.
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201908.0018/v1
Interestingly, there are still GIA effects from earlier ice ages.
-0.5 mm/year.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Is warming threatens us?
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_1-day.png
Currently, millions of square kilometers of Siberian taiga are burning.
Currently, 3 million square kilometers of forest are burning.
I’m very sorry. It’s about 3 million hectares of forest.
ren…”Currently, 3 million square kilometers of forest are burning”.
Usually caused by lightning, not much can be done.
ren
It’s too dry there since years. And… it is not only there!
Detrending and removing a partially chaotic signal is a tricky business. Even with quasi periodic like ENSO where there is a clear lag relationship between the ropical Pacific state and global lower trop temperature data, it is a challenge because the relationship is not 1 to 1. How do u defend?
Aaron S
“Detrending and removing a partially chaotic signal is a tricky business. ”
Yes, for us lay(wo)men it is.
But some people have learned how to do by using complex tools within e.g. MATLAB, which help them for example to extract ENSO and the like out of temperature or precipitation time series.
So let them do their work, or learn how they do and try to contradict them!
Clyde, Detrending and removing a partially chaotic signal is a tricky business. Even with quasi periodic like ENSO where there is a clear lag relationship between the ropical Pacific state and global lower trop temperature data, it is a challenge because the relationship is not 1 to 1. How do u defend?
Aaron S
You asked how I would defend. I think you have it backwards. I’m saying that to statistically characterize the chaotic and short-term periodic components, it is necessary to subtract what appears to be a linear trend (which might be periodic if examined with a longer time scale.) The residuals represent the non-linear behavior. The problem of lags are more an issue of assigning cause and effect rather than statistically characterizing the system behavior.
Three years ago I did a comparison of NOAA temps for US cities vs the rest of the climate division that the city belongs to. I found that, averaged over the entire US, cities had warmed by only 0.1 C more than their climate division in 50 years.
Day 150.
One hundred and fifty days of denial that the “Green Plate Effect” is debunked. Crazy.
tl;dr The average temperature isn’t even changing – when expressed honestly in Kelvin.
Does that logic apply when your body temperature rises by one degree? When you complain of a fever will you be happy to be told you’re faking it?
M,
Do you have a book of stupid and irrelevant gotchas?
Are you a fake, a fraud, or a fool?
Can you bring a corpse back to life by providing it with several overcoats?
Was Michael Mann more stupid than fraudulent when he claimed to be a Nobel Laureate in court documents, or just suffering from delusional psychosis?
The world wonders!
Over to you.
Cheers.
afterthought…The average temperature isnt even changing when expressed honestly in Kelvin”.
When plotted on an absolute scale with the vertical axis up to 15C, warming from the past century looks like a flat line trend.
Feels like it too.
The very low density of the solar radio stream indicates the lack of sunspots.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00986/ma7hyhb5j0t1.png
In medicine, it is usual to make policy decisions after as much data has been analyzed. They use https://www.cochrane.org that analyses all science available to come to a view.
It would appear the in the climate world ‘data reanalysis is similar and a good idea.
Always use as much data as possible.
omg… no wonder …. everyone is smarter than everyone else… ladies and gentlemen we are in the weeds.
paulagraham
“… we are in the weeds.”
Some of them look ugly but are quite a bit healthy…
Global Warming Provides A Marvelous Excuse For Global Socialism. – Margaret Thatcher
And that is ALL this is about.
Do not defy reality, climate change is ongoing and it is caused by humans, period.
nabil…”Do not defy reality, climate change is ongoing and it is caused by humans, period”.
Are you a philosopher, or a zealot? I see nothing scientific in your statement.
Click on my name and read recently published and more to come. I was not like that before, now I am convinced.
Nabil…from your site…”Life on earth changes climates and surface geology. Presently, deforestation is the climate knob. It adds climate heat to the surface of the earth. The balance is heat of fossil fuels required to power this civilization and population growth following farming of the deforested land”.
Your an engineer, prove what you claim. You might start by explaining ‘climate heat’. Climate is the average of weather, are you saying climate is now a source of heat.?
If so, I think you are philosophizing. Heat is produced by electrons moving to higher energy levels in atoms and atoms acquiring energy from hotter sources.
As an engineer, you should know that.
I know that and the proof is provided under the publications tab. Please go back and read……….
chungle
“According to the BoM listed monthly mean sea levels, Sydney Harbour is lower than it was over a century ago.”
It is amazing to see that people really think they can simply, arbitrarily choose a tide gauge station, and decide that from it’s trend over a century they can say something like
“That is arguably the best proxy for our missing long term thermometers.”
What a strage idea.
Commenter chungle seems to ignore how thoroughly different sea level values are measured all around the world.
If we look at the PMSL data (over 1500 tide gauges):
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
the trends for their data does range (if we drop some excessive outliers) from e.g.
Churchill, Canada: -10.03 mm/yr
via
Sydney (Forft Denison 2), Australia: 1.06 mm/yr
up to
Manila, Philippines: +9.93 mm/yr
*
What do you do, chungle, when you want to know Australia’s average temperature: do you takre that of Sidney and that’s it? Certainly not.
You try to build a valuable average out of all available Aussie stations, don’t you?
Yeah.
And for tide gauges, you’ll have to do the same… and then, you know if and how sea levels correlate with temperatures.
B,
What are you trying to say?
You seem to be contradicting yourself, but your meaning is unclear.
Cheers.
Flynn
Could you please stop posting your stupid and ignorant stuff eeverywhere?
Bindidon, could you please stop posting your stupid and ignorant stuff eeverywhere?
Huffman
In a few hours, Robertson will appear on this stage with his fat feet, and willingly come to the aid of his friends-in-denial…
Magnifique! Je m'en réjouis dès maintenant.
Buona notte
And then will you put on your dress?
Or will you deny Gordon is the one that caught cross-dressing?
B,
Maybe if you could quote some of the “stuff” you are complaining about, then I would be able to provide good reasons for not complying with your request.
As it is, I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about, so I’ll just refuse to do as you ask.
You can’t do anything about my refusal to bend to your will, so I wonder why you bother trying!
Do you suffer from an inability to learn from history?
Cheers.
Mike…binny…”Could you please stop posting your stupid and ignorant stuff eeverywhere”?
Now Binny is talking to himself. The end has to be nigh.
Sea level rise is virtually impossible to nail down, because the land is always shifting. The thing that gives me pause is the length of day (LOD):
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod_elfil.gif
Long term, LOD should be increasing with the tidal interaction of the Moon. Rising sea level should accelerate the increase, as more liquid mass is free to distribute itself equatorially, increasing spin inertia and decreasing the spin rate. Yet, as seen in the plot, LOD has been trending down for the past 30 years.
Regardless of the cause of warming, everyone is pretty much in agreement that the world has been warming, which should be increasing ice melt and increasing the sea level. So, this decrease in LOD is puzzling to me.
bart…”as seen in the plot, LOD has been trending down for the past 30 years”.
Good point Bart.
Maybe that will lead to time dilation. ☺
Not sure if you have attempted to do any calculations. But you would need to factor in the fact that the average density of the earth is about 5.5 times the density of water. And the inner core has a density 13 times that of water. I suspect 10 cm of sea level rise in 30 years would make little difference.
It is difficult to imagine how the inner core could redistribute its mass so as to change the MOI. Heavier components would have to migrate inward while ligher ones migrated outwards to reduce it. Moreover, inertia goes as radius squared of the elemental masses, and so is much more sensitive to changes in the mass distribution at the surface.
Roy Spencer writes in his head post (replicated at WUWT):
The best strategy would be to simply use only the best (most rural) sited thermometers. This is currently not done.
*
To be honest, I find this permanent UHI discussion a bit boring.
Anthony Watts never stopped to pretend since around 2011 that only a small subset of the USHCN stations would show a good siting, where the usual UHI problems are much less present than elsewhere.
This was acknowledged by NOAA in 2012: they published the list of 71 well-sited USHCN stations selected by surfacestations.org.
But USHCN has been given up, there was a switch to ClimDiv, and then Anthony restricted ‘good’ stations anew, which now have to belong to the Climate Reference Record, USCRN.
Indeed, the currently 114 CRN stations are the crème de la crème, as we love to say in my native tongue.
But all CRN stations (over 200 in the sum) are also present within the much greater GHCN daily data set, within which there are about 18000 CONUS stations (only this blog’s most ignorant boaster thinks and pretends these 18000 stations would not exist, and are synthesied by NOAA out of a few real ones, good grief).
Thus there was a possiblility for me to compare the CRN stations with all other CONUS stations within their common period (2004-now), without having the bias problem caused by a comparison of homogenised CRN data with what I generate out of (really) raw GHCN daily station data.
Here is a graph comparing 130 CRN and 6500 of the 18000 GHCN daily stations having all sufficient baseline data for the period 2009-2018:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zg9M-GZwNoIBln404Ay0voAL8V4PmSdK/view
The very best is that the 130 CRN stations show even a higher trend then the 6500 CONUS stations alltogether (0.35 C / decade for 2004-2019, compared with 0.28 for the complete CONUS set).
*
No doubt: UHI is a really existing problem.
But I begin to think that it only manifests itself when you solely compare individual nearby stations with each other.
*
People like Goddard aka Heller were never tired in listing ‘crazy’ stations showing trends considered too high; but they never and never talk about stations all around the world showing a negative trend in their data. And there are thousands of them!
Not sure what you mean Bindi. They talk about the stations showing a negative trend often.
Stephen P Anderson
“They talk about the stations showing a negative trend often.”
Stephen, I don’t speak about ‘they’. I speak about people like Goddard aka Heller.
Show me a post fairly talking about stations with negative trend in their data, instaed of all the time insisting on the UHI syndrome, and I’ll believe you.
*
I very well recall Heller’s ‘investigations’ on GHCN adjusted vs. unadjusted data, where he pretended that adjusted data was all the time higher in trend.
1. The guy only chose those stations fitting to his narrative.
2. Many of his examples were utterly wrong (I could see that with an own analysis in 2015).
No, he has talked about stations with negative trends before. Why wouldn’t he? It is an important point. Many historical rural negative trends would be strong evidence to argue against the UHI wouldn’t it? I know I’ve seen him discuss it.
Sorry to be boring, but…
“Show me a post fairly talking about stations with negative trend in their data, instead of all the time insisting on the UHI syndrome, and Ill believe you.”
And it is interesting to see you insisting on the little, insignificant hint on Goddard, instead of trying to argue on
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zg9M-GZwNoIBln404Ay0voAL8V4PmSdK/view
It’s now 2:20 AM at UTC+2, time to go to bed…
Bindidon, could you please stop posting your stupid and ignorant stuff everywhere?
binny…”(only this blogs most ignorant boaster thinks and pretends these 18000 stations would not exist, and are synthesied by NOAA out of a few real ones, good grief)”.
Never said they don’t exist, at least most of them, I merely claimed NOAA uses less than 1500 of them for their time series and they freely admit it.
That means they have to fabricate data for other stations, which they store at GHCN, and have the temerity to claim their database has increased.
Then again, what would the most idiotic poster, a Frenchman living in Germany, know about my state of mind. He (it??) never reads what I write because his comprehension seems to be compromised.
Robertson
“Never said they don’t exist…”
Of course you said that! You pretend that nearly all station data is synthesised. Forgotten? By me certainly not.
And you and nobody else are the person stupid enough to pretend that there would be only one station in the Arctic. Nobody else on Earth would be dumb enough to believe you.
*
“… I merely claimed NOAA uses less than 1500 of them for their time series and they freely admit it.”
And here again your stupid lie! And you name me “the most idiotic poster” !
Nobodey here, Robertson, is stupid enough to replicate dumb nonsense about this ridiculous 1500 number you were corrected so often about.
NOAA never ‘admitted’ that, Robertson! You are cowardly pretending this nonsense behind your fake name, that’s all.
Your phenomenal hatred at the work done by others tells us very much about your very poor career and about your very poor scientific education, Robertson.
You are nothing but a poor retired failure.
And the one who writes that is near 70…
Bindidon- well said! Quite a few posters have diagnosed GR’s problems over time. I don’t think anybody reads his comments anymore. He is like a stuck record.
binny…”Of course you said that! You pretend that nearly all station data is synthesised”.
I have never stated that nearly all station data is synthesized. I realize GHCN has a large number of stations but NOAA is using less than 1500 of them globally for the surface record.
Furthermore, the have added synthesized station data to their GHCN record and have claimed that data as having come from a real station. Therefore, NOAA claims, their record is larger even though they slashed the global surface station record from 6000 stations to less than 1500.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
“Alright Already, what is this Bolivia Effect?
Notice that nice rosy red over the top of Bolivia? Bolivia is that country near, but not on, the coast just about half way up the Pacific Ocean side. It has a patch of high cold Andes Mountains where most of the population live. Its the patch of yellow / whitish mountains near the top in this picture:
One Small Problem with the anomally map. There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia in GHCN since 1990.
None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.
So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years?
Easy. GIStemp makes it up from nearby thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle”.
************
If you half the integrity and the intelligence of the guy who runs chiefio you might be of some use to people. As it stands, you are no blody use at all.
MF, you are still confused.
The maps are of anomalies. Not absolute temperatures. Get it through your thick skull that the anomalies are not directly affected by the location of the thermometer.
Thus, to talk about Bolivia being hot because the nearest thermometers are near beaches or in the jungle is just plain rubbish.
BTW, what does this garbled mess mean?
“If you half the integrity and the intelligence of the guy who runs chiefio you might be of some use to people. As it stands, you are no blody use at all.”
If you halve the integrity..?
If you had half the integrity..?
Chiefio ??? Any guesses anyone?
.. no blody use..? = no body use? or no bloody nose?? or no bloody use?
Ian, please stop trolling.
Average global water vapor (WV or TPW for Total Precipitable Water) has been accurately measured by satellite and reported publicly by NASA/RSS since 1988. The numerical data for June, 2019 are at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201906.time_series.txt (last six digits are year-month). This is graphed as Figure 3 at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . Calculated in Section 8 there, water vapor increased about twice as much as calculated from average global temperature trend increase 1988-2003. WV increase correlates with crop irrigation increase with both trends increasing substantially in about 1960. WV increase is self-limiting and might have already stopped.
The planet atmosphere is still impoverished for CO2. https://twitter.com/DanPangburn/status/1105523403685941248/photo/1
CO2, in spite of being a ghg, does not now, never has, and never will have a significant effect on climate. Average global temperature tracks water vapor, not CO2.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAbq6CaVUAAPdos?format=jpg&name=small
Definitely agree about the impoverishment for CO2. We need more CO2. I think as long as the time integral trend of temperature continues up then CO2 will continue up.
SPA,
No cause for concern. Burning hydrocarbons results in CO2 and H2O at a minimum. Humans are merely restoring to the atmosphere what Nature tucked away for us in the past.
Unfortunately, Nature keeps removing the CO2 and H2O from the atmosphere, as in the past. The solution is to keep burning as much fossil fuel as possible. If that’s insufficient for human needs, there is plenty of fissionable stuff available. By the time that runs out, no doubt fusion or something similar will be available.
As a last resort, we can move to somewhere nice and warm, and sit in the Sun.
Easy peasy.
Cheers.
MF,
Fossil fuels only account for about 4% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. If we got all the nations to quadruple their hydrocarbon output it would only raise atmospheric CO2 to about 475ppm.
SPA,
At least 475 ppm is a start. As far as I know, energy production has gone up from 10,000 TWh in 1900 to around 140,000 TWh in 2017. Most of that was from burning stuff. I suppose it has to reach a plateau sometime, but you never know.
My care factor remains roughly zero. I remain confident that the universe is unfolding as it should, and I don’t want to waste a good worry just yet.
Cheers.
So how do you account for the rise from 280 ppm pre-industrial, which was almost constant for the previous 8000 years, up to 410 ppm today?
midas…”So how do you account for the rise from 280 ppm pre-industrial, which was almost constant for the previous 8000 years, up to 410 ppm today?”
Don’t have to, no one ever measured such a CO2 concentration in the pre-Industrial era. It’s conjecture based on cherry-picking proxy data from Antarctic ice cores.
M,
You wrote –
“So how do you account for the rise from 280 ppm pre-industrial, which was almost constant for the previous 8000 years, up to 410 ppm today?”
The pre-industrial figure is a fantasy, a product of a pseudoscientific GHE true believer imagination.
In any case, it is irrelevant, isn’t it? Unless you happen to be one of the loonies who believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Even you aren’t that silly, are you?
Let me know.
Cheers.
As opposed to people who take old data from the centre of industrial areas and believe they can compare it to modern day data from Mauna Loa.
‘It’s conjecture based on cherry-picking proxy data from Antarctic ice cores.’
Uhh, NO, just stop denying facts.
A measurement is not ‘conjecture’.
All the data is analyzed, so no ‘cherry picking’ involved.
‘Proxy’, well technically, but is a direct measurement of atm CO2 trapped in the ice, and lots of understanding of the trapping process.
Stephen: FFs are responsible for 46% of the CO2 in the present atmosphere (410/280-1 = 0.46)
Gordon Robertson says:
Dont have to, no one ever measured such a CO2 concentration in the pre-Industrial era. Its conjecture based on cherry-picking proxy data from Antarctic ice cores.
What evidence do you have that the data were “cherry-picked?”
David Appell says:
“FFs are responsible for 46% of the CO2 in the present atmosphere (410/280-1 = 0.46)”
1 – 280/410 = 1 – 0.68 = 0.32.
Deforestation and cement production are also significant.
Humans might have added about 30 ppm before the industrial revolution (fig 3B):
“Late Holocene climate: Natural or anthropogenic?”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015RG000503
Svante, your math is wrong.
The amount of additional CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil fuels is 410-280 = 130 ppmv.
As a percentage of the original amount, 280 ppmv, this is 130/280 = 0.46 = 46%.
I see what you mean, it’s a 46% increase.
I stumbled on your “46% of the CO2 in the present atmosphere”.
Midas, David, Svante, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Trolling Team says:
“Svante, please stop trolling.”
Yeah, David is very busy bringing scientific sense here, I shouldn’t be so nit-picky.
Never speak again.
Thank you, you were getting a bit repetitive.
Sorry, but those that defend the MegaTroll, David Appell, have forfeited their right to freedom of speech.
I’m still here.
I’m sorry that you can’t take (or perhaps understand) a joke.
I don’t know that I accept the hypothesis that irrigation has a significant impact, but your charts match up the temperature change with TPW, and that is something that CO2 does NOT do.
Quite right, the effect is logarithmic:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/results-plot-volcanoes.jpg
S,
I suppose there are some people silly enough to take notice of Berkeley Earth. Do you really believe that anybody knows what the Earth’s average land temperature was in 1750?
This is a fantasy of pseudoscientific GHE true believers. Complete fabricated rubbish.
Cheers
Flynn alias Begonia
If there is anybody fabricating rubbish – and that behind a faked pseudoreal name ! – then that’s you, Flynn.
Hombre sin cojones!
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
That chart is ridiculous.
Why?
Because it is a splice between instrumental and dubious proxy data, and the superficial match over the instrumental period is over low information, low bandwidth components. It is a case study in how to fool oneself.
It is nothing like the match between the rate of change of CO2 and temperature anomaly, which matches every nook and cranny. One cannot have temperature driving CO2 in this fashion, and CO2 driving temperature, as that would represent an unstabilizable, positive feedback loop.
BTW, Svante – to first order in a Taylor series
log(x) := log(x0) + (x/x0-1)
Taking the log doesn’t make much difference for the application at hand.
The atmosphere (lower troposphere, in essence) can only hold so much water vapor; the amount is a function of temperature. (See the Clausius-Claperyon equation.) That amount can’t increase unless the temperature first increases. CO2 and other manmade GHGs are what’s doing that initial warming. Then water vapor is a positive feedback.
This is what is known as rationalization after the fact. The fact is, temperatures do not track CO2.
No, it’s physics. Anyone interested in climate change should understand the basics of water vapor in the atmosphere.
No one thinks CO2 causes every wiggle in temperature. Natural variations (noise) still exist in a CO2 world. You should already know this.
David Appell says: – No, it’s physics. Anyone interested in climate change should understand the basics of water vapor in the atmosphere.
—————–
Nothing quite like a narrow minded physicist, like one of Pope Urban VIII’s where only one effect is considered, that the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west. What else do you need to know?
Hmmmmm, water vapor also creates huge negative feedbacks from clouds, cools the surface by being twice as efficient as common air taking heat into the sky, provides the vast majority of 200watts of radiation from the atmosphere to space, and coats the land with snow and ice.
Actually Bill, what I see is that the cloud feedback is thought by most to be positive:
Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.
Dessler, A.E., Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models, J. Climate, 26, 333-342, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1, 2013.
Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback,
Amy C. Clement et al, Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325 no. 5939 pp. 460-464
DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255.
Zhou, C., M.D. Zelinka, A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, An analysis of the short-term cloud feedback using MODIS data, J. Climate, 26, 4803-4815, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00547.1, 2013.
Dessler, A.E., Cloud variations and the Earths energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L19701, doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236, 2011.
David Appell says: Actually Bill, what I see is that the cloud feedback is thought by most to be positive:
—————-
Gee, David it probably seems that way after you have buried 104 watts or so of negative feedback into Albedo.
What they are really expressing is that past feedback is believed by the truly devout believers to not be an indicator of future feedback.
I reviewed one of Dessler’s papers in that era. It was very poorly done. He basically drew a scatter plot and fit a line to it, judging that a positive slope meant positive feedback. But, the slope of a line on a phase plot only indicates the relative phase for the dominant frequency components, and can be positive or negative regardless of the sign of long term feedback. Analysis of the longer term components shows that the feedback is decidedly negative.
DA: ‘C500, I never said the Earth will experience runaway warming.’
Quite so – however, you made the observation in reply to another post that ‘What I see is that the cloud feedback is thought by most to be positive’, along with references in support of your comment.
My point which stems from this is that a never ending positive feedback can’t be operating. Other factors have to be at work, and the comments from NOAA which I posted to back up my view support this.
Note that they say ‘The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a positive feedback loop. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop.’
Yet the media tirelessly plug the doomsday scenario regarding CO2.
DA: as water warms, it hold less CO2. CO2 is considered to be a greenhouse gas, and water vapour the major greenhouse gas. It’s easy to postulate a continuous positive feedback. Yet, despite the countless millenia of Earth’s history, runaway heating of the atmosphere has never occurred – which would surely be expected, even without CO2 generated due to human activities. Clearly there must be other regulatory factors involved. Here’s what NOAA says on its website:
Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.
As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to ‘hold’ more water when it’s warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a ‘positive feedback loop’. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.
Cloud tops absorb some solar input in day time and warm the atmosphere.
Clouds at night keep the surface from cooling radiatively.
The NET result is not obviously negative.
Venus, the warmest planet has loads of clouds.
C500, I never said the Earth will experience runaway warming.
The Earth is too far from the Sun to experience runaway greenhouse warming, by a few million km. But as the Sun is slowly getting more radiant — about +1% every 110 Myrs — we’ll experience runaway warming in about 1-1.5 Gyrs.
David, please stop trolling.
Come on, even Roy Spencer laughs at you:
“Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengtening the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface
He even calls out for deniers to stop questioning the GHE because it makes them look like idiots….hilarious:
“Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. ”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
RF,
The GRE is obvious to anyone like me who understands engineering heat transfer analysis. It is essentially all caused by water vapor and is what made the planet warm enough for life to evolve.
That average global temperature tracks water vapor and not CO2 is obvious in https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAbq6CaVUAAPdos?format=jpg&name=small
A possible explanation for the insensitivity of average global temperature to CO2 is presented in http://diyclimateanalysis.blogspot.com (2nd paragraph after Figure 1): ,,Well above the tropopause, radiation to space is primarily from CO2 molecules. If you ignore the increase in water vapor near the surface (big mistake), WV averages about 10,000 ppmv. The increase in absorbers at ground level since 1900 is then about 10,410/10,295 = ~ 1%. WV above the tropopause is limited to about 32 ppmv because of the low temperature (~ -50 C) while the CO2 fraction remains essentially constant with altitude at 410 ppmv; up from about 295 ppmv in 1900. The increase in emitters to space at high altitude (~> 30 km, 0.012 atm), and accounting for the lower atmospheric pressure, is (410 + 32)/(295 + 32) * 0.012 = ~ 1.4%. This easily explains why CO2 increase does not cause significant warming (except at the poles) and might even cause cooling. The exception at the poles is because its cold there at ground level so WV is already low.,,
We’ve been through this before, but you don’t want to learn. The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is an (exponential) function of temperature. What causes the initial warming that allows more water vapor in the air?
(CO2,etc)
Nope.
Great explanation.
It increases at an increasing rate, but it is not exponential.
Midas, see the Clausius-Claperyon equation, and integrate.
I’m sorry, it’s the fractional increase in saturation pressure that’s exponential:
“If one substitutes temperatures representative of near‐surface air in the present climate, the fractional increase in saturation vapor pressure with temperature is about 67% K−1; that is, the saturation vapor pressure increases 6%7% if the temperature increases 1 K [e.g.,Boer, 1993;Wentz and Schabel, 2000;Held and Soden, 2000;Trenberth et al., 2003]. In Earths atmosphere in the past decades, precipitable water (column‐integrated specific humidity) has varied with surface temperature at a rate of 79% K−1, averaged over the tropics or over all oceans [Wentz and Schabel, 2000;Trenberth et al., 2005]”
WATER VAPOR AND THE DYNAMICS OF CLIMATE CHANGES, Tapio Schneider et al, Rev Geophysics, 2010.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009RG000302
David Appell says: Weve been through this before, but you dont want to learn. The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is an (exponential) function of temperature. What causes the initial warming that allows more water vapor in the air?
(CO2,etc)
——————–
Heat causes more water vapor to be in the atmosphere, maybe CO2 too.
But everyplace I have been in the world with more water vapor in the atmosphere there has been more clouds too reflecting heat to space.
DA,
Yes, we have been through this before and you still do not appear to understand. The Clapeyron equation (AKA Clausius-Clapeyron equation) relates “between the volume change and the enthalpy change when a liquid changes into a vapor.” It only applies at saturation such as in clouds. All clear-sky is below saturation.
The fractional increase in saturation vapor pressure is merely the local slope of the vapor pressure vs temperature curve. It is calculated in the temperature range of interest and graphed at Figure 1.7 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com In the temperature range of interest it maxes out at 6.55% at 17 K and ranges down at both higher and lower temperatures to about 5.5 %. It is appalling that all those folks you referenced got such a simple thing significantly wrong.
The claim that WV has increased 7 to 9% / K is completely compatible with my finding that increasing WV from increasing temperature is augmented by increased WV from other sources, mostly irrigation. So, thanks for the link to that 9 year old paper. Apparently they have known that WV has increased faster than calculated from temperature increase of the liquid water for more than 9 years but failed to recognize the significance and clung to their agenda instead.
dan…”It is essentially all caused by water vapor and is what made the planet warm enough for life to evolve”.
Like the water vapour above the Arctic Ocean ice in winter when it’s -50C? Or the water vapour from the monsoon that freezes on Mount Everest, forming glaciers?
Let me tell you something about water vapour warming from experience. I have worked night shifts outside in the Edmonton, Canada area when it was -25C and dry. That’s cold, but if you dress well you can keep out the cold between breaks.
The coldest I have ever been on a night shift was at the Vancouver International Airport on a damp winter evening. The temperature was barely on the +ve side of 0C but the airport is right next to the Fraser River where it meets the ocean. The dampness went straight through me.
I was wearing multi-layer clothing, like in Edmonton, a heavy jackets and work boots. On top of that I was wearing waterproof gear. I was still cold.
Believe me, Dan, WV does not warm anything, if anything, it cools.
GR, everyone knows there is little water vapor around the poles. That’s were CO2 especially dominates.
GR,
You present a classic example of someone lacking engineering/science skill relating to heat transfer misinterpreting an observation. WV is a ghg. More of it increases the surface temperature of the planet. Of course if it condenses into a cloud it locally makes nights warmer by slowing radiation loss to space and days cooler by reflecting sunshine. But you got it right about CO2 not having a significant effect on climate.
WV is a ghg. More of it increases the surface temperature of the planet.
Of course.
But you can’t just ADD water vapor to the atmosphere — it will soon rain or snow out. You can only get more water vapor in the atmosphere if you *first* increase the atmo’s temperature.
Remind me never to hire you for any of my engineering needs.
David, please stop trolling.
David Appell says:
But you cant just ADD water vapor to the atmosphere it will soon rain or snow out. You can only get more water vapor in the atmosphere if you *first* increase the atmos temperature.
Remind me never to hire you for any of my engineering needs.
—————–
Saturated air has a relative humidity of 100%. There are many variables affecting humidity besides temperature, the primary one is wind speed. One potential variable for global climate change is changes in high frequency emissions by the sun.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3816.1
“Surface RH has relatively small spatial and interannual variations, with a mean value of 75%80% over most oceans in all seasons and 70%80% over most land areas except for deserts and high terrain, where RH is 30%60%. Nighttime mean RH is 2%15% higher than daytime RH over most land areas because of large diurnal temperature variations. The leading EOFs in both q and RH depict long-term trends, while the second EOF of q is related to the El NioSouthern Oscillation (ENSO). During 19762004, global changes in surface RH are small (within 0.6% for absolute values), although decreasing trends of −0.11% ∼ −0.22% decade−1 for global oceans are statistically significant.”
So there you go surface warming over the oceans accompanied with reductions (not increases as claimed by David as the only variable) in relative humidity.
Rogers…”Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space”.
************
I support Roy with most of his claims but this is one with which I disagree.
The rate at which heat dissipates from the surface is governed only by the temperature of the atmosphere in contact with the surface. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation governs this. The base equation from Stefan is j = fi.T^4, which is the amount of radiation given off by a body of temperature T.
There is another equation based on S-B related to heat dissipation, j = e.fi.A.(T1^4 – T2^4)
e = emissivity
fi = constant
A = the surface area of radiation
T1 – temp of radiating body
T2 = surrounding temperature.
This governs the net radiation loss rate.
There is nothing in this equation about CO2, wv, or anything else. It refers to the temperature of the atmosphere immediately in contact with the surface.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
That atmosphere is made up 99% of nitrogen and oxygen, 0.04% CO2, and over the entire atmosphere, all GHGs are about 0.3%.
Its obvious that N2/O2 controls the temperature of the atmosphere hence the rate of IR radiation.
ps. when NOAA satellites measure atmospheric temperatures they measure microwave radiation from oxygen molecules.
Yes, which means UAH & RSS *model* their temperature numbers, they don’t measure them directly.
PS: All measurements come from models in any case.
David, please stop trolling.
GR wrote:
The rate at which heat dissipates from the surface is governed only by the temperature of the atmosphere in contact with the surface. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation governs this. The base equation from Stefan is j = fi.T^4, which is the amount of radiation given off by a body of temperature T.
There is no term in the SB equation that shows a dependence on the temperature of what’s in contact with the radiating surface.
PS: You just admitted radiation is “heat.”
GR wrote:
There is another equation based on S-B related to heat dissipation, j = e.fi.A.(T1^4 T2^4)
This equation is about net energy flow.
The surface emits j1 up, and the atmosphere emits j2 down.
Both come from the SB law. The SB law has no dependence on whatever a body is in contact with; it’s simply proportional to T^4, where T is the temperature of the emitting body.
CO2 is a different process — radiative *transfer*.
DA…”This equation is about net energy flow.
The surface emits j1 up, and the atmosphere emits j2 down”.
Pseudo-science!!!
The atmosphere is in contact with the surface, at the surface. At that point, the atmosphere is warmed to the same temperature as the surface and the heated air rises. Cooler air from aloft replaces it and the cycle repeats. There is no downward radiation at the surface that can transfer heat.
As altitude increases, the atmosphere, including GHGs, gets COLDER. The 2nd law states clearly that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body. No thermal energy, or any other energy, is transferred from atmosphere to surface.
The form of the S-B equation with two T terms is related to quantum theory. It’s simple. If two bodies of the same temperature are in contact, no heat can be transferred. If one body is hotter than the other, heat is transferred from the hotter body to the cooler body.
With the surface/atmosphere interface heat is transferred by conduction, then convection, from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere. Like any other heat transfer, the greater the gradient between temperatures the greater the rate of dissipation from the warmer body.
S-B….j = fi.T^4 tells us the degree of radiation is related only to the temperature of the radiating body. It says nothing about IR being trapped by trace gases. If you want to slow down the rate of radiation you have to drop the temperature of the radiating body or place the radiating body in an environment with a lower temperature.
j = e.fi.A(T1^4 – T2^4) tells us j = 0 when T1 = T2.
It tells us radiation from the hotter body T1 is possible only when T1 > T2. If T2 > T1, the heat transfer is reversed.
GR says:
The 2nd law states clearly that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
Wrong.
Why don’t you simply READ any statement of the 2nd law before telling us what it means. Quote it and I will show you are you are wrong.
You’re also wrong about the SB Law. It simply says the EM emissions from a blackbody are j=sigma*T^4. It says nothing about what is near that body.
You are hopelessly confusing the SB Law with energy flows. The surface emits j1 up, and the atmosphere emits j2 down. So the net radiation flow from surface to atmosphere is j1-j2, and the net flow from the atmosphere to surface is j2-j1.
David, please stop trolling.
David Appell says: Yes, which means UAH & RSS *model* their temperature numbers, they dont measure them directly.
PS: All measurements come from models in any case.
—————
Indeed! Some models have very few variables compared to others and some models actually have representative sampling too.
Bill, the Standard Model of physics has 19 free parameters. Yet it describes the nongravitational world as well as we can measure it.
Einstein’s theory of gravity has two free parameters (c and G), neither of which is adjustable. It’s never made a bad prediction.
The test of a model is how well it matches observations, not how many variables it has. Fewer are always better, but climate is enormously complex and will always take many variables.
Re: representative sampling: actually you only need about 120 temperature stations around the world to get a good-enough measure of global temperature. See the papers referenced in this post:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/08/18/you-only-need-about-60-surface-stations/
David, please stop trolling.
David Appell says: Re: representative sampling: actually you only need about 120 temperature stations around the world to get a good-enough measure of global temperature. See the papers referenced in this post:
———–
That would be true if and only if environments in the world were homogeneous.
The analysis you show is on a 120 year scale with more stations creating less warming. The actual slope shows in the larger number of stations:
1) Less than one degree warming per century (.85deg)
2) about the same amount in the last 2 decades.
3) a pattern during the long term of short term acceleration and deceleration of warming suggesting the 4 decade view includes this spurious warming view consistent with what was pointed out by Dr. Akasofu.
Further the lesser number of randomly selected stations in comparison to the larger number shows.
1) considerably less warming in the past couple of decades going so far as appearing to be cooling.
2) Has more warming over the 2 decades prior to the 2 latest.
3) and shows more warming over the longrun.
So if you want to wait a hundred and twenty years to declare the “raw” data correct I am all for it. I will even allow you to drop it to 80 years and will register no concerns about short term natural phenomena messing with the calculations, though I would point out that the warming was in place for the long term data well back 120 years ago and seems unresponsive to increasing CO2. . . .don’t you think?
And of course this view does not compare any biases introduced in the homogenization process from of course the perfectly satisfactory sample you claim of raw data from 65 randomly selected stations that show cooling in the last 2 decades. Got where you are coming from perfectly David.
The Peruvian Current is very cold.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_samer_1.png
ren
The Peruvian fishers will appreciate!
Yep the upwelling in that current ships vast amounts of nutrients to the surface spurring biological production. Its analogous to a huge field being naturally-fertilized.
OK, I think the issue is settled now. Dr Spencer was wrong.
July had the warmest surface temperatures on record in ERA5 and JRA-55, the two most renowned reanalyses.
CFSv2 through Weatherbell is not reliable. It has a cooling version break in 2011 that haven’t been fixed.
Regarding the upper air, the first renanalysis to report through ESRL/WRIT, show that the lower troposphere was the warmest on record. Here illustrated by the 500 mbar geopotential height:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBHxSvTX4AAsZYH?format=jpg&name=medium
Generally, July 2019 and 2016 are close to each other, so it may be correct to call it a tie.
However, July 1998 on top (like in UAHv6) is way off, and suggests significant errors in this product..
Thanks Olof for your sound, polemic-free comments.
Thanks, Bindi
RSS TLT just reported and July 2019 was the warmest on record.
Likewise with JRA-55, July 2019 had the highest 500 mbar geopotential on record (=warmest lower troposphere)
binny…”Thanks Olof for your sound, polemic-free comments”.
Binny kisses up to an anti-UAH comment from a nobody.
olof…”OK, I think the issue is settled now. Dr Spencer was wrong”.
If you want to post stupid, ignorant comments, go to realclimate or skepticalscience. they would welcome you there.
Roy is an expert in this field and you are…who????
As he is an expert in the field then of course you agree with him that the greenhouse effect is real. Or is that where his expertise ends?
Midas, nice — I have exactly the same question for GR.
There is no question there is a greenhouse “effect”.
There is also very little question that greenhouse gases play a critical role in it. The questions are precisely if greenhouse gases alone are both necessary and sufficient for a greenhouse effect, and exactly how the greenhouse effect varies. In the later regard certain assumptions are made that may not be factual.
bill…”There is no question there is a greenhouse effect”.
We are awaiting an explanation of how it works, one that does not delve into pseudo-science like ‘net energy flows’ in which EM is treated as heat.
Gordon Robertson says: –
We are awaiting an explanation of how it works, one that does not delve into pseudo-science like ‘net energy flows’ in which EM is treated as heat.
—————–
In a nutshell Gordon, you are right. Your antenna has detected a fallacy that one heckuva lot of warmists ascribe to. However, it really isn’t what most of the folks actually designing models and running radiation transfer equations believe. . . .its just a bunch of group think scientists that ascribe to idea of injecting heat from back radiation. I have heard scientists say Trenberth should not be pushing the backradiation model because it is confounding.
I think he leave it in there because thats how you alarm people by making them believe they are going to boil away. We even have moron’s in this forum suggesting that.
But if you carefully consider that IR radiation physics is merely a convenient model to fit what we understand about energy transfer based upon the heat of objects and the heat of the absorbing objects, you can substitute the “radiation in all directions” model in quite a nifty way by assuming a magnetic like attractor model where IR only flows between poles at rates determined by their differential. You get the same result. The only reason its not popular is nobody can figure out how an emitter could reach out across space to determine how much IR to send. So we are stuck with the cartoon version of backradiation that does nothing but muckup thinking about it all.
ghg’s don’t warm anything in the most common sense of the word. What they do is slow cooling (low attraction), which doesn’t add one iota of any of the vibrational energy you talk about that would physically cause say the surface to rise one degree in temperature. Instead they aid in preserving heat that is already in the surface.
Its beyond question they do that, but the fact they do that falls short of explaining the complete set conditions necessary as greenhouse gases as cold as outer space doesn’t stop anything.
I see that as a crucial question regarding variability.
In support of greenhouse gases, if the atmosphere is warm and
for example, if the low temperature is 1 and the high temperature is 9, the mean is 5.
If the ghg slows cooling (which the atmosphere must be warm to do so) the low temperature only drops to 3 then you have a mean temperature of 6 which was one degree higher than before.
That’s likely why when examining temperature records low temperatures are rising much higher than high temperatures. Low temps can have negative feedbacks like condensation of dew reducing the ghe by spilling water vapor out of the atmosphere.
Now once lower temperatures are raised it raises the possibility
of slightly raising high temperatures as well because it takes less solar energy to raise the temperature from 3 to 9 instead of 1 but not enough extra normal solar energy to take it to 11.
However, raising the high temperature has even more ways negative feedback, from more convection to more cloud formation, and more precipitation.
And one also needs to consider all the lower latitude surfaces would be far hotter each day without any greenhouse gases and feedbacks like clouds that clearly reduce solar radiation from hitting the surface. So for high temperatures I don’t think there is any question that negative feedback dominates. In fact, everybody who argues for positive feedback highlights the nighttime greenhouse effect.
Temperature directly under the sun could be above boiling like on the moon. So almost all that additional high temperature stuff is likely restricted to higher latitudes where there is very little water vapor, where they could use more of it.
Lindzen favors negative feedback and so do I. I think climate science loaded the dice by increasing the greenhouse effect by not considering albedo. That albedo is one heckuva lot of negative feedback from water vapor.
Happer seems to agree recently saying the greenhouse effect is only about 10 degrees not 33.
The climate modelers manage all this uncertainty by not allowing convection or condensation and clouds to increase but they allow their primary creator water vapor to increase. They simply just believe greenhouse gases do it all.
So at the end of the day they use a fallacious argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) regarding natural variation to keep their train on the tracks.
Bill Hunter wrote:
So we are stuck with the cartoon version of backradiation that does nothing but muckup thinking about it all.
Bill, are you aware that downwelling IR has been MEASURED at the surface? Many many times.
That we receive twice as much heat from downwelling IR as we do from sunlight at the surface?
Bill Hunter wrote:
The climate modelers manage all this uncertainty by not allowing convection or condensation and clouds to increase but they allow their primary creator water vapor to increase.
That’s a lie, and one easily disproven.
Here’s a model description:
“Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0),” NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN464+STR, June 2004.
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/description.pdf
The word “convection” appears in it 49 times. Esp Ch 4.
On “condensation:”
“Treatment of cloud condensed water using a prognostic treatment (section 4.5): The original formulation is introduced in Rasch and Kristjansson [1998]. Revisions to the parameterization to deal more realistically with the treatment of the condensation and evaporation under forcing by large scale processes and changing cloud fraction are described in Zhang
et al. [2003].The parameterization has two components: 1) a macroscale component that describes the exchange of water substance between the condensate and the vapor phase and the associated temperature change arising from that phase change [Zhang et al., 2003]; and 2) a bulk microphysical component that controls the conversion from condensate to precipitate [Rasch and Kristjansson, 1998].”
“Cloud” appears 324 times, “clouds” 55 times.
GR, EM is heat. Retake physics 101.
David the fact they talk about clouds and convection doesn’t mean they allow them to increase.
This is simply a logic disconnect where its assumed that CO2 controls convective cooling of the surface and then doesn’t allow it to do what it has done for all of history.
This is Dr. Lindzen’s objection and his Iris theory. That if CO2 assumes a superior influencing role it is largely dismissed via the resulting effect it creates.
The basic unspoken tenant of the greenhouse theory is it restricts this cooling and thus clogs up the cooling apparatus all the way back to the surface. Such linear forcings simply do not compute for me simply too much water and water vapor flying around almost chaotically. You only see such linear forcings in solids.
Sort of makes me think of some guy trying to stuff a suitcase full of compressed air. Or if you imagination is too dull to imagine that how about stuffing a bunch of balloons in a suitcase. Sure thing David I can write you a computer model that will do it beautifully.
bill hunter says:
David the fact they talk about clouds and convection doesnt mean they allow them to increase.
Give me the page number in the model description document, or in their code, where they say they hold clouds and convection constant.
Lindzen’s iris effect hypothesis is still an hypothesis — unproven. And it would not do away with GHG warming by radiative transfer.
Gordon Robertson says:
We are awaiting an explanation of how it works, one that does not delve into pseudo-science like net energy flows in which EM is treated as heat.
In other words you want an explanation without the science.
Funny.
David, please stop trolling.
David Appell says: –Bill, are you aware that downwelling IR has been MEASURED at the surface? Many many times.
I am not going far down this road David. You obviously are not aware of the advances in electronic circuit wizardry in detectors that have enabled the reading the temperatures of cooler bodies without expensive cryogenics to cool the detector using essentially an electronic mirror that recognizes whether the sensor is gaining energy or losing it and often at what frequencies.
A big advance in electronics and materials that fills the brains of the uninformed with nonsense.
You need to distinguish between reality and the visual teaching tools to describe processes not fully understood.
The backradiation teaching tool accurately records the results if your mind remains disciplined on the matter, but an attractor theory provides the exact same results. Thus there is no need to go down that road. I am merely pointing out a theoretical cartoon model that correctly suggests all that is known, including ignorance of a means of attraction; that the worst attribute of is misunderstanding the nature of slowing of cooling being some kind of actual heating.
In window technology, they don’t use backradiation because it makes for cleaner computations and there is no concern about the existence of an attractor. Instead values are assigned as resistances instead of contraflows of energy.
Einstein went to his grave hoping to solve that issue and was quoted thusly just a few years before his death: “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.”
David Appell says: – Lindzens iris effect hypothesis is still an hypothesis unproven. And it would not do away with GHG warming by radiative transfer.
———
David everything is still a hypothesis. I go with Lindzen because it actually describes a logical process for a response to the greenhouse effect that is consistent with heat transfer equations and is consistent with all the other known factors in the atmosphere that further is actually standardized in both US and European manufacturing standards (for multiple plate insulation technologies) with full sets of equations that blow away any greenhouse effect arising from conceptual multiple layers in an atmosphere devoid of rigid plates.
It is actually the IPCC filtered version of the greenhouse effect that needs additional yet to be proven hypothesis like a restriction on convection to imitate multiple plates in the atmosphere. And of course its probably fairly easy to speculate about a resistance to convection defined as moving whole packets of air and ignoring the fact that before the packets of air start moving in unison diffusion is attempting to make water vapor a uniform gas in the atmosphere at a much faster rate than it does for CO2 making any speculation of resistance a very difficult proposition and explains fully why the Dr R Woods experiment back at the turn of the previous century falsified Arrhenius’ hypothesis.
And as Lindzen would probably say, the seeking of the reason for climate change leads to many hair-brained overly simplified theories. Actually rather prophetically the paper that led to US manufacturing standards expressed the same sentiment.
Excellent question! If I may butt in, this is as good a segue as any. Who the hell are YOU? You are a merchant of doubt, wasting your time with round-and-around arguments, your dubious background of knowledge stretched thinner and thinner with every post. Not that it stops you.
Like a baby chick myopically peering about for its mother, Gordon recognizes certain scientists as the be-all, end-all of authority, and his mind won’t change. He’s been imprinted. And watching him suck up is pretty sickening…
According to the BBC website July was the hottest on record according to satellite data.
“he assessment was carried out by researchers at the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S).”
“Globally, July 2019 was marginally warmer – by 0.04 degrees Celsius (0.072 Fahrenheit) – than the previous hottest month on record, July 2016.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49238745
Please go to the original source, BBC seems as unable to reproduce the original message as Dr. Spencer in terms of the CNN report;
https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-bulletins
“Global average temperatures for July 2019 were on par with, and possibly marginally higher than, those for July 2016, the warmest previous July and warmest of all months on record.”
If the argument is over 0.04 degC, it has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime.
john…”According to the BBC website July was the hottest on record according to satellite data”.
The BBC and CBC Canada have been pushing alarmist bs for years now. When I approached CBC about it I got a smart-assed answer claiming they only go with ‘official sources’, presumably the IPCC.
CBC science used to be run by uber-alarmist David Suzuki. It is now run by an equally idiotic alarmist called Bob McDonald. If CBC dares to print anything skeptical, Suzuki goes after them immediately, and they seem terrified of the idiot.
Ad hominem attacks based on no evidence.
What about the July temperatures do you dispute on scientific grounds?
David Appell says: – What about the July temperatures do you dispute on scientific grounds?
——————
Quite simply, which temperature records do you cherry pick?
I doubt anybody can deny there has been a trend of warming so would anybody actually expect anything different? The fact is natural variability can as easily explain the record occurring this July as anything else can.
The observation that the ocean surface is roiling explains the natural variability. Its effective s.d. is about 0.09 K. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ir1w3OrR4U
bill hunter says:
Quite simply, which temperature records do you cherry pick?
Which temperature records do you think are cherry picked, and which do you think were ignored.
bill hunter says:
The fact is natural variability can as easily explain the record occurring this July as anything else can
So go ahead and do this explaining.
David Appell says: – Which temperature records do you think are cherry picked, and which do you think were ignored.
—————-
Obviously you are English challenged David. Perhaps you should get somebody to interpret Roy’s post for you.
—————–
—————–
David Appell says: The fact is natural variability can as easily explain the record occurring this July as anything else can.
So go ahead and do this explaining.
—————-
Sure thing continued ocean warming, expected to be in place for over a thousand years combined with usual oscillations of ocean currents creating a pattern of acceleration of that ocean warming and a deceleration of it in a physical process very similar to that of ENSO and in fact marked by a dominance of one phase ENSO over the other phase of ENSO over multi-decadal periods of time.
I don’t see CO2 explaining that. Meaning of course that ignorance in climate science continues to rule the day and a very large puzzle has some very difficult pieces to yet put in place.
So for whatever reason even the gentle warming we have seen recently would make a July record month rather routine especially coming right on the heel of an El Nino.
Bill Hunter wrote:
Sure thing continued ocean warming, expected to be in place for over a thousand years combined with usual oscillations of ocean currents creating a pattern of acceleration of that ocean warming and a deceleration of it in a physical process very similar to that of ENSO and in fact marked by a dominance of one phase ENSO over the other phase of ENSO over multi-decadal periods of time.
No, I don’t want your opinion, I want you to cite science to support your assertions.
David, please stop trolling.
David Appell says: – No, I dont want your opinion, I want you to cite science to support your assertions.
Sure thing David. Just take the temperature record of your choice, the PDO Index, and the ENSO Index and plot them on a graph using the software of your choice. Easy peasy lemon squeezy!
DA…”What about the July temperatures do you dispute on scientific grounds?”
I repeat Bart’s comment: “If the argument is over 0.04 degC, it has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime”.
The instrumentation and analysis is not good enough to claim July was the hottest month of all time. For one, we don’t know that. For another, the surface record upon which the claim is based is fudged and political.
Roy gave the correct answer:
“July 2019 was probably the 4th warmest of the last 41 years. Global reanalysis datasets need to start being used for monitoring of global surface temperatures. [NOTE: It turns out that the WMO, which announced July 2019 as a near-record, relies upon the ERA5 reanalysis which apparently departs substantially from the CFSv2 reanalysis, making my proposed reliance on only reanalysis data for surface temperature monitoring also subject to considerable uncertainty]”.
That’s scientific enough for me.
GR wrote:
For another, the surface record upon which the claim is based is fudged and political.
This is your grand lie — never proven, repeated endlessly. Why haven’t you show any evidence by now?
David, please stop trolling.
Dr. Spencer: I can’t get my responses to comments through. The first one seems OK, but then that’s it, no more come on screen. Can you help?
Carbon500, certain words or letter combination are banned. For example, and “d” directly followed by a “c” will not work. The word absorp.tion must have something between the “p” and the “t”.
Some links won’t work.
The trick is to post parts of your comment to see which part has the problem.
Thanks JDH – much appreciated, a good suggestion.
A helpful answer from JDHuffman!
The sequence “g” “e” “r” “a” “n” was also banned, with and without interspersed “*”.
“nc” too?
Too many links does not work.
I also think there is a time block if you have too many failures, I had the same text go through the next day once.
Thanks for the extra information, Svante.
Cool in central Europe. The NAO index is falling strongly again.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.mrf.obs.gif
Also RSS TLT seems to have july – 19 as the warmest.
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v04_0.txt
It will soon cool down in medium latitudes in the northern hemisphere. Expect early waves of Arctic air.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JAS_NH_2019.png
All of this data manipulation to get temperatures higher is going to catch up with them. Pretty soon, they will have reported temperatures several degrees above actuals!
As the denialist frog said in the beaker of water – just before it boiled to death.
Yup, more imagination instead of reality.
Nothing new.
Thanks Froggy.
Ian, please stop trolling.
DM,
You wrote –
“As the denialist frog said in the beaker of water just before it boiled to death.”
Is this another attempt to deny, divert and confuse? Maybe you think that spouting nonsense will divert people from the fact that you cannot even describe this GHE which you claim exists.
No GHE. No CO2 heating effect. Just more pseudoscientific rubbish. The Earth is cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago. The temperature has dropped. You don’t have to believe it – Nature doesn’t care what you think.
Cheers
Poor MF, everything he reads seems destined to deny, divert and confuse him. Then he repeats the same nonsense for the umpteenth time.
DM,
Maybe if you could let people know what it is you are disagreeing with, by quoting me, you might convince others that you are not just having a pointless whine.
I’ll try to help you out.
Here’s a statement –
Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter.
Pseudoscientific GHE true believers would disagree with that statement on religious grounds, without being able to say why.
How about you?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are quite wrong on your false and misleading statement.
YOU: “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter.
Pseudoscientific GHE true believers would disagree with that statement on religious grounds, without being able to say why.”
I have told you “why” already. You are too dense and unwilling to accept a reality that does not fit your unscientific delusions.
CO2 does not absorb much of the solar input but it does absorb considerable upwelling IR from the Earth’s surface emission.
I have linked you to numerous graphs of measured values showing this. You are an unscientific person and will always be one along with a few others that make stuff up with zero evidence and no backing of any of their outrageous claims.
This blog is polluted with a few pretenders that know zero science (though they tell people to study it but they will not do so themselves).
I dislike you dishonest posting more than your ignorance. You have been told “why” so please do not blatantly lie about this point. It really makes you look quite the dishonest liar. Do you want to portray this image of yourself?
Norman still believes pounding on his keyboard is better than learning physics.
Nothing new.
Moe
It is funny that as dumb as you really are you give advice like “learn physics”. Most posters here know several times more physics than you are able to process.
You know how to troll other posters. That is all you have ever been able to do. With your extreme ignorance of actual physics you spend your time here trolling other posters and annoying them.
You are too stupid to grasp this point. I will make it anyway so you can troll it and feel important (since you are not, most posters think you are an idiotic troll).
Yes a racehorse rotates on its AXIS as it runs around the track. You are far too stupid to be able to process two events happening at the same time. Rather than go on a track use yourself and walk in a parking lot. If you do not ROTATE on your axis you will continue going straight ahead. If you rotate clockwise while walking (I know the thought process is most difficult for and arrogant idiot like yourself, but you might be able to troll this comment) you will make a circle to the right. If you rotate the other way you will make a circle to the left. The rate you rotate ON YOUR AXIS (a concept you can’t understand even when several posters attempted to help you, it was in vain) will determine the size of the circle you make. If you rotate at a fast rate as you walk forward you will make a small circle. If you rotate at a much slower rate as you walk forward you will make a much larger circle.
You are too dumb and illogical to follow the logic. To a simple mind like yours you will only see “rambling” or typing lessons.
Anyway you are too stupid to learn, too irrational and illogical to understand science. But you have a useless skill of trolling and annoying posters.
Well we will have to see the stupid troll post you put in response to this post. You do not have the discipline or self-control needed to ignore what I posted and you are compelled by your stupid dense mental structure to vomit out a worthless post that no one is interested in.
And, as usual, Norman believes pounding on his keyboard is better than learning physics.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Thanks. I predicted in my post you could not control your impulse to troll and you did demonstrate my understanding of troll behavior is spot on.
It is obvious logic, science and reason are not things you like. It is obvious trolling is your passion.
It is obvious you cannot control you addiction to it. Even though you repeat the same posts over and over they must still give you a Dopamine high or something.
You will troll over and over with the same troll comments (almost like you just copy and paste them). Nothing new. I would expect nothing more from you.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Poor Norman is still pounding on his keyboard, fruitlessly.
He labors under the illusion that if he types long enough, something intelligent will emerge. Yet, he never advances above being just another uneducated, immature typist. It must be so frustrating for him.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
I knew you could not resist trolling my posts. You have an addiction.
Like your goofy buddy Curly he seems to have an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. He should consider therapy for this condition. This goofy DREMT waits until a thread is running out of steam and then posts several times “Please stop trolling” on many comments. This behavior certainly seems to be OCD.
Your behavior is certainly an addiction to trolling. You love getting some reaction from posters. That is why you troll with very stupid unscientific points like a racehorse can run in a circle yet not rotate in doing so. This is bad science but certainly good trolling tactics as intelligent people think they can correct your faulty thought process. They can’t change a troll.
Also have either you or DREMT been able to walk in a circle without rotating your feet? When you are able to accomplish this let me know, maybe make a video of this amazing feat(feet).
Poor Norman is still pounding on his keyboard, fruitlessly.
He still only appears uneducated and immature.
Maybe if he types out even longer comments?
“This behavior certainly seems to be OCD.”
Or maybe that’s just what I want you to think…
Now Norman, please stop trolling.
JDHuffman says: – All of this data manipulation to get temperatures higher is going to catch up with them. Pretty soon, they will have reported temperatures several degrees above actuals!
—————-
No question the models drive the adjustments. One of the first things an auditor learns is if somebody is going to the trouble to fix something they had a reason to do it.
Proof?
Here is GISTEMP’s code. Show us where in it it is driven by models:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/
If you don’t have any proof, stop making outlandish claims until you do.
DA, for you to understand the issues here, you must have an understanding of the relevant physics. Please show us where you have ever indicated such an understanding.
David, the proof is in human nature, not physics. Its a natural process carried out every single day.
People without passion don’t drive any work, they may follow the orders of those with passion. Dr. Will Happer has talked of that recently being an expert first hand observer:
“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.”
This is no different than throughout human history.
The burden of proof is on those who wish to convince others and instead of rational argument insulting words are used, a sure sign that both the rent seeking profiteers and the enslaved can’t answer the critical questions.
And the rent seekers in frustration have invented post-normal science a process whereby the world takes a step backwards and throws onto the people the burden of proof that the rulers are wrong in what they do. Indeed, a horrible set of affairs that could set back individual freedoms thousands of years and its absolutely amazing how true Pushkin’s little soliloquy is in folks flocking to the task, most looking for their little cut of the big payoff.
Tropical storm develops in the Caribbean Sea.
“Last month set the lowest July #Arctic sea ice volume on record in this data set (PIOMAS). The volume was about 47% less than the 1979-2018 average!”
https://twitter.com/p_hannam
Dr Myki
You should always compare PIOMAS
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/PIOMAS.2sst.monthly.Current.v2.1.txt
with DMI’s ice volume data (daily, you have to average it)
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt
In Mkm^3:
1. July 2019
PIOMAS: 8.893
DMI: 9.216
2. 2003-2018 average (DMI’s start date)
PIOMAS: 15.509
DMI: 16.497
“The volume was about 47% less…”
But about 500% above “ice-free”.
DM,
You quoted –
“Last month set the lowest July #Arctic sea ice volume on record in this data set (PIOMAS). The volume was about 47% less than the 1979-2018 average!”
Presumably you were trying to make a point. What is it? Or do you just quote random statistics in an effort to appear smarter than you are?
What has your quote to do with weather?
Cheers.
MF
“Presumably you were trying to make a point. What is it? ”
Can you really be that dumb?
“Or do you just quote random statistics in an effort to appear smarter than you are?”
Certainly smarter than you.
“What has your quote to do with weather?”
Nothing.
What have your comments to do with climate?
DM,
You haven’t said what point you are trying to make, have you?
Whether you think you are smarter than me doesn’t provide a reason for your possibly random comment, does it?
Climate is the average of weather – no more no less. The IPCC states that it is not possible to predict future climate states (no surprise there).
You obviously have no relevant reasons for your comments. Others may form their own opinion, based on facts.
Cheers.
mickey…”Last month set the lowest July #Arctic sea ice volume on record in this data set (PIOMAS). The volume was about 47% less than the 1979-2018 average!”
In a few months it will be back to its average 10 foot thickness.
You see, mickey, when there’s little or no Sun for 5 to 6 months of the Arctic year, ice tends to form in the Arctic Ocean and all over the Arctic.
Did your mom not tell you that?
I don’t believe it – “numb-skull” still does’t understand what an anomaly is.
Gordon Robertson says:
In a few months it will be back to its average 10 foot thickness.
Sure, sure.
Actually the average thickness of Arctic sea ice is 1.5 meters, down from 3 m in 1979.
Gordon Robertson says:
In a few months it will be back to its average 10 foot thickness.
This past 12 months Arctic sea ice thickness peaked at 2.0 m, in May. That was the second lowest, afer 2017’s 1.8 m
2.0 m = 6.6 ft
DA…”This past 12 months Arctic sea ice thickness peaked at 2.0 m, in May. That was the second lowest, afer 2017s 1.8 m”
Propaganda. I wish you go check it mid-winter near the North Pole. There’s a decent chance you wouldn’t make it back.
You wrote “average.” I gave you the average, which is not what you claimed.
David, please stop trolling.
Reality: A readers letter in the Sunday Telegraph, page 23 on Tuesday October 1st 2013-from Captain Derek Blacker RN (retd), Director of Naval Oceanography and Meteorology 1982-84 noted the following:
SIR I was a meteorologist during the Seventies when glaciers in Europe and other continents in Europe had been growing for the previous ten years, and pack ice had been increasing during winters to cover almost all of the Denmark Strait between Iceland and Greenland. Scientists were then warning that the Earth could be entering another ice age.
The current deliberations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have conveniently overlooked this. Before insisting that humans have been the main cause of global warming an explanation of this apparent anomaly should be promulgated.
In connection with this letter, a look at information supplied by the Icelandic Meteorological Office is interesting. During the first two decades of the twentieth century, heavy sea ice was quite common along the coasts of Iceland, but in the 1920s a drastic change occurred. Sea ice along the coasts of Iceland became an uncommon characteristic and almost a forgotten phenomenon around the middle of the century. An abrupt change occurred in the mid-1960s. Heavy sea ice distribution occurred almost each year following, but since 1980 widespread and long-lasting sea ice off Iceland took place (sic) at rather irregular intervals.
The 1970s?? I doubt the IPCC has ignored this, though naturally it’s more interested in the decades since.
DA, missing the points made in the letter is necessary for you to avoid reality.
Good job. You’ve done it again.
David Appell says: – The 1970s?? I doubt the IPCC has ignored this, though naturally its more interested in the decades since.
——-
Yes just as I stated above, in the 70’s and prior to that there was zero money in CAWG hysteria.
RSS lower tropospheric temperature measurements has July 2019 as the warmest July. June 2019 was their warmest June.
David, please stop trolling.
Stephen: your number should be 47%.
David, please stop trolling.
The Bolivia Effect for Binny.
On the Gistemp graph, Bolivia is rated red, as in hot, yet Bolivia is in the Andes where temps are cool. Reason…there is no data in the Gistemp record since 1990. They have been synthesizing Bolivia temps using nearly hotter stations.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
“Alright Already, what is this Bolivia Effect?
Notice that nice rosy red over the top of Bolivia? Bolivia is that country near, but not on, the coast just about half way up the Pacific Ocean side. It has a patch of high cold Andes Mountains where most of the population live. Its the patch of yellow / whitish mountains near the top in this picture:
One Small Problem with the anomally map. There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia in GHCN since 1990.
None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.
So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years?
Easy. GIStemp makes it up from nearby thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle”.
************
If Binny had half the integrity and the intelligence of the guy who runs chiefio he might be of some use to people. As it stands, he is no bloody use at all.
Cam should remember that rugby song.
correction…”Reasonthere is no data in the Gistemp record since 1990″.
Should read…”Reasonthere is no data in the Gistemp record for Bolivia since 1990″.
Gordon Robertson says:
On the Gistemp graph, Bolivia is rated red, as in hot, yet Bolivia is in the Andes where temps are cool.
The graph is of *anomalies*, not absolute temperatures.
Sheesh.
DA…”The graph is of *anomalies*, not absolute temperatures.”
I have officially added you to the idiot list along with binny.
This shows many stations in Bolivia:
https://www.n_c_d_c.n_o_a_a.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation
http://www.ogimet.com/cgi-bin/gclimat?lang=en&mode=1&state=Boli&ind=&ord=REV&verb=no&year=2018&mes=04&months=
David, please stop trolling.
mickey…”The maps are of anomalies. Not absolute temperatures. Get it through your thick skull that the anomalies are not directly affected by the location of the thermometer.
Thus, to talk about Bolivia being hot because the nearest thermometers are near beaches or in the jungle is just plain rubbish”.
You are as much an idiot as binny.
Where did they get the temperatures so they could convert them to anomalies for a baseline?
What do you think anomalies represent, you space cadet?
Read and weep…
remove the hyphens in URl from from n-c-d-c to get link….if that’s not beyond your intelligence level.
https://www.n-c-d-c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
“Numb-skull” – do you not understand that a +10 degree anomaly at a baseline of 20degC is the same as a a +10 degree anomaly at a baseline of -20 degC?
The baseline is irrelevant when looking at trends.
Sigh!!!
mickey…”do you not understand that a +10 degree anomaly at a baseline of 20degC is the same as a a +10 degree anomaly at a baseline of -20 degC?”
Are you a masochist who gets off on looking stupid?
If the UAH 1981 – 2010 global average is 12C, and they show an anomaly of +0.1C, that anomaly represents a temperature of 12.1C.
Look at the UAH graph on this site. Along the vertical axis it states: T departure from ’81 = ’10 avg (deg. C)
T = temperature and the anomalies are temperatures in degrees C. Now all you need is the 1981 – 2010 average and you can add/subtract each anomaly from that baseline as NOAA advises.
UAH gives anomalies, never absolute temperatures.
Gordon Robertson says:
Where did they get the temperatures so they could convert them to anomalies for a baseline?
Read and learn:
What are temperature anomalies (and why prefer them to absolute temperatures)?
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q101
The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html
David, please stop trolling.
It is already autumn in the Central Arctic.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2019.png
I live in the foothills of the Dandenong ranges where the average block size is 1200 sq metres, as an old suburb the average house was a 100 sq meter, single car garage and a garden shed, the block was covered with trees, shrubs and grass.
Lately these houses have been redeveloped, the block has been bulldozed and 5 or 6 units constructed complete with a garage, shed and A/C unit, the rest of the block other than a half metre strip of garden is concrete driveway.
Don’t tell me there is no UHI effect.
I never claimed there was no UHI.
The claim is that it doesn’t influence the global mean surface temperature. That’s what BEST found, and what many before them have found.
David, please stop trolling.
Robertson’s stubborn comments about temperature time series
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-372390
*
I lack the time today for a detailed answer on this ridiculous chiefio blah blah.
The Bolivia effect! Jesus, how arrogant is one allowed to be?
*
Smith (that’s chiefio’s real name) posted this Bolivia stuff in 2009.
You don’t need to read his hundreds of boasting lines, a closer look at data is fully sufficient:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fqvcJ9ZKpCDofbm5Rr5Fhwrq_FtQ4WXk/view
You see the problem (it is really rare): the entire Bolivia country lacks data for a few years. Maybe that had political reasons, I don’t know.
*
Anyway, you have only two solutions to the problem:
– (1) all data you don’t have lead to a grey zone;
– (2) if AND ONLY if you analyse your temperature data on the base of a common reference period, you inspect sites around those having no data, and try to find some site(s) having similar anomaly behavior to those lacking data wrt this common reference period, and compute anomalies matching the two contexts as good as possible.
Analysing on the base of absolute data is a nonsensical blind-alley.
While CRUTEM (East Anglia, UK) and the Tokio Climate Center of Japan’s Met Agency prefer to leave grey zones in their grids, other institutions like GISS, NOAA, BEST choose the latter alternative.
You can best understand this choice when looking at the anomalies for two stations with completely different absolute data (one near sea, one in the mountain nearby): they are incredibly similar.
*
It is CERTAINLY NOT our job, let alone that of a blogger a la Smith and his ‘Musings form the Chiefio” (!!!) , to decide which solution is the more appropriate one.
We are lay(wo)men, not less, not more.
More about Bolivia when I have some idle time to do…
No gap here:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/bolivia
Svante
I’m afraid I wasn’explicit enough:
– I have shown RAW data, and not data processed by any homogenising interpolation algorithm, as is manifestly done by BEST;
– my use of the GHCN V3 raw data was to show the situation as it has been around 2009, as the ‘Chiefio’ wrote his simple-minded head post.
AFAIR, it was GHCN V2 in the history, but nearly all V2 stations were transferred to V3 at that time.
You must understand that BEST uses worldwide far over 30000 stations, compared with the 7280 of GHCN V2/V3.
Tomorrow, I’ll generate a plot out GHCN daily (it has 36000 stations worldwide).
binny…” my use of the GHCN V3 raw data was to show the situation as it has been around 2009, as the Chiefio wrote his simple-minded head pos”.
This is why you are an idiot. Chiefio was talking about Gistemp, not GHCN.
Robertson
There is, as usual, only one idiot here: namely Robertson who, instaead of accurately reading things, simply quickly scans them without understanding a bit.
If you had a bit of intelligence, you would have understood why I referred, in my reply to Svante, to raw GHCN V3, and not to data homogenised by GISS, NOAA, BEST etc.
Unluckily, mobody moreates this wonderful blog, so dumb people a la Robertson endlessly can put their clueless, useless rubbish in.
Don’t worry, I’m here.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
DREMT
Stop your own trolling: you are all but a moderator.
Look at Charles TM at WUWT, and learn.
Shhhh.
Bindidon says:
BEST has raw data too, but so palatable perhaps:
http://berkeleyearth.org/source-files/
Click on “data table” to get single station raw data file:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/152749
binny…”The Bolivia effect! Jesus, how arrogant is one allowed to be?”
I told you, the guy who runs chiefio is miles ahead of you in intelligence and understanding of the problem. You’re nothing more than a loud-mouthed alarmist who is a legend in his own mind.
Robertson
One more time, you show what a gullible follower you are of people who can write anything they want, under the condition that it fits to your own narrative: you will eat it.
If chiefio was a careful, intelligent climate blogger like Nick Stokes or Clive Best, you would never accept what he writes, and discredit and denigrate him exactly as you discredit and denigrate Nick Stokes.
A little hint concerning Smith, “the guy who runs chiefio [being] miles ahead of you in intelligence and understanding of the problem”.
This, Robertson
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
is the most ridiculous head post I ever read concerning temperature series in general, and those of GHCN in particular.
Below the probably dumbest chart ever published on a climate blog, you see
“The Day The Thermometer Music Died. Thermometers by Year Crashes.”
Your chiefio, one of the greates specialists evah, completely misanalysed NOAA’s data, and thought really that all stations were given up.
The rest of his head post is of a quite similar vein.
Years later, due to a hint by a commenter, Smith admiited his phenomenal mistake, but… “mit reichlich spitzen Lippen”, as Germans love to say, i.e.
cntnd, wrong click
i.e. very tight-lipped.
But you, Robertson, are a gullible believer of people a la chiefio aka Smith.
Simply because you automatically believe in anybody criticising GISS, NOAA etc.
If John Christy and Roy Spencer hadn’t moved their system from the ‘warm’ UAH5.6 to the ‘cool’ UAH6.0, you would discredit them as well.
And if Mears and Wentz hadn’t moved their sytem from the ‘cool’ RSS3.3 to the ‘warm’ RSS4.0, you would wecome them, instead of denigrating their work everywhere you can!
So you are, Robertson!
No hope to see you changing.
binny…”But you, Robertson, are a gullible believer of people a la chiefio aka Smith”.
I repeat, chiefio is order of intelligence above you and her understands what he is talking about, as opposed to you.
For the record…I believer nothing. E.M. Smith has done stellar work researching GHCN, NOAA, GISS and Had-crut. All you do is sit around creating phony Excel graphs.
binny…”And if Mears and Wentz hadnt moved their sytem from the cool RSS3.3 to the warm RSS4.0…”
That change coincided with them getting cozy with the in-crowd, lead by NOAA. I no longer trust RSS as far as I could throw them.
I wrote to them once complaining about them using bright red on their graphs to represent warming. RSS has been on the verge of climate alarm since they began. They have simply gone all the way.
Norman,
You wrote –
“CO2 does not absorb much of the solar input but it does absorb considerable upwelling IR from the Earths surface emission.”
When CO2 or anything else absorbs energy of any wavelength at all, it gets hotter. If the amount of energy decreases, the temperature drops. This is noted in relation to the atmosphere as a whole. It warms during the day, cools at night. The Earth’s surface temperature has dropped over the last four and a half billion years. It is no longer molten. No heat trapping to be seen.
Pseudoscientific GHE true believers believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun (or other heat source) makes the thermometer hotter. Nobody has ever demonstrated this physical miracle, because it is pure nonsense.
CO2 heats nothing. No GHE at all. You can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
Your GHE cult is comprised of fools, frauds, and fakes – along with an assortment of fumbling bumblers suffering from delusional psychosis and other mental impairment.
Keep thumping your keyboard if it makes you feel better.
Cheers.
mike…”Pseudoscientific GHE true believers believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun (or other heat source) makes the thermometer hotter”.
Certainly appears that way, Mike. The current paradigm seems to claim CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer slows down the IR radiation from the thermometer, causing it to warm.
I don’t get it, but like the other claim, that a positive net energy balance between a hotter and a cooler body overrules the 2nd law, that’s the way physics seems to be going. No one cares about established laws anymore, they just make up a pseudo counter-law to nullify it.
mickey…”Last month set the lowest July #Arctic sea ice volume on record in this data set (PIOMAS)”.
Why don’t you try sailing through the NW Passage in about October or November? They have been trying to do that since 1600 AD and no one has done it that time of year. Amundsen did in in August but they were so socked up in ice his crew were begging him to turn back.
When the St. Roch did it west to east 1940 – 1942, it was in June/July. They did not make it through till the following spring.
Amundsen tended to be a bit of a bs. artist anyway so no one really knows if he made it.
You alarmists seem to think the Arctic is a nice big ocean soon to be free of ice. Talk about numbskulls. The Arctic will NEVER be free of impenetrable ice most of the year because there is little or no Sun for half the year.
Gordon, whose claiming the Arctic will soon be ice free in winter?
(But it will be ice free eventually, all year around.)
DA…”Gordon, whose claiming the Arctic will soon be ice free in winter?”
Then why talk about it as if it’s true?
“(But it will be ice free eventually, all year around.)”
You dunce!!
How will it remain ice free when there is little or no sunlight half the year?
You alarmists have some serious awareness issues.
Here are the figures from the UK’s Met Office for this year to July:
2019 4.0 6.7 7.8 9.1 11.1 14.2 17.5
Subjectively, it’s been a typical English summer here, nothing remotely suggesting ‘climate change’, there’s nothing unusual about the July average temperature of 17.5 degrees Celsius, yet the barrage of alarming junk from the media has been relentless.
Carbon500
“Subjectively, its been a typical English summer here, nothing remotely suggesting climate change… ”
*
Why should anything suggest climate change in UK?
Binidon: ‘Why should anything suggest climate change in the UK?’ Exactly – where’s the dangerous man-made climate change?
Carbon500
1. Which this sudden switch from “nothing remotely suggesting climate change” to “the dangerous man-made climate change” ?
2. To appreciate this climate change, you must leave singular corners and move to a more global view.
For the moment, I can’t recall where to find a global gridded map with temperature trends for 1979 till present, like this one:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/december2018/Trend_to_201812.PNG
but… for surfaces.
Tropospheric trends of what happens at about 5 km above ground are very important for our understanding of climate affairs, but are nevertheless not representative of what we experience at ground itself.
Japan’s Met Agency publishes a monthly & annual surface temperature anomaly grid back to 1891
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/temp_map.html
but they unfortunately don’t offer a trend information like does UAH above.
We have to compute it by ourselves out of
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/grid/gst_mon_1891_last.gz
(I did that for UAH some years ago, but JMA’s grid is completely different.)
An interesting view over what happens is to compare JMA’s year anomaly map for 1998
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1998/gridtemp1998ane.png
with that for 2016
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2016/gridtemp2016ane.png
Please keep in mind that the 1998 El Nino was by far stronger than the 2016 edition (index of 3.0 vs. 2.5).
It is just a little hint.
Dangerous? Man-made? No idea, Carbon!
Ooops!?
“1. Which” of course should have been “1. Why”.
C500: Your number for July is 1.4 C above the 20th century average, differing by +1.2 standard deviations.
Nothing unusual?
DA: ‘the figure for July is 1.4C above the 20th century average.’
So what?
It’s not an unusual value in the CET record.
In fact so far this century, the average temperature at your one spot is 0.8 C above the 20th century average.
Nothing unusual?
DA: the CET is not a measurement of ‘one spot’ as you (hopefully) know.
Why should 0.8C be of any concern whatsoever?
DA,
You wrote –
“Nothing unusual?”
No, not at all. What do you ask? Couldn’t you figure it out for yourself? Are you thick or just slow on the uptake?
Cheers.
I’m amused by “might.”
A headline that “The Atlanta Falcons Might Have Won The Superbowl” is accurate, but not news. Better is: “The Patriots Win The Superbowl.”
A headline that “Hilary Clinton Might Have Won The Presidential Election” is accurate, but not news. Better is “Trump Wins Election.”
A headline that “July Might Have Been The Hottest Month” is accurate, but not news. Neither is “July Not Hottest Month.”
So why print “might have been” headlines and articles instead of waiting for the facts?
To control the narrative.
If your goal is to inform, then provide facts.
If your goal is to entertain, or to provoke a reaction, then provide speculation that supports your desired response.
Clearly the news articles with qualifiers are not actually news, they are opinion pieces. So they should be relegated to the opinion pages. The fact that they are not is proof that too often the entire paper is now an opinion page.
Sigh.
“So why print “might have been” headlines and articles instead of waiting for the facts?”
Because “facts” have uncertainties.
No data point comes without error bars. So comparing one to another is always a question of probabilities: with what probability is the July temperature for 2019 greater than that for the maximum before 2019?
To control the narrative.
{eye roll}
DA wants uncertainties. He must have uncertainties so that he can obscure reality. If he can’t obscure reality, then he must face truth and DA can’t do that.
His whole purpose here is to pervert and corrupt reality.
Nothing new.
Well, I guess we no longer need to wait for facts?
The Washington Post today gets rid of any uncertainty with this headline:
“It was the hottest month ever. Literally.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hottest-month-ever-literally/2019/08/07/03bdf2a4-b86d-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html
I’m trying to find the uncertainty in that statement.
(It’s got to be in there somewhere, probably with the optimist’s pony).
Jim, just ask some simple questions. That will reveal the uncertainties.
Yep, the media are not good at telling us all the caveats that scientists know are there.
That is well understood.
The public, and many posters here, do not appreciate statistical error.
binny…”If you had a bit of intelligence, you would have understood why I referred, in my reply to Svante, to raw GHCN V3, and not to data homogenised by GISS, NOAA, BEST etc.”
This only indicates what an idiot you really are. I posted a comment from chiefio in which he claimed there is no temperature records in the “Gistemp” record from 1990 onward yet they show temperatures for Bolivia well above what they should be.
So…you look up the “GHCN” record and claim, there are records here for Bolivia, what is chiefio talking about?
He was talking about GISTEMP, dumbass!!!
Are you capable of any logical thought at all?
Just to dumb this down a bit in the hope you will get it, chiefio claims GISS artificially created temperatures for Bolivia using stations on the warmer coast and in the jungle. Then they interpolated the warmer stations to get a fabricated temperature for Bolivia, and guess what, they got a warmer temperature for Bolivia?
Go figure…the Bolivia effect. Reminds me of Mike’s trick. If the temperatures are not showing in the right range to back your theory, because they are declining…why…hide the decline, of course.
All this evidence right in front of you and all you dumbass alarmists can’t bring yourself to see such chicanery with your authority figures.
Robertson
“Soyou look up the GHCN record and claim, there are records here for Bolivia, what is chiefio talking about?
He was talking about GISTEMP, dumbass!!!”
***
As usual: the less people like you understand, the more they insult.
Recently I was a ‘blithering idiot’, today I am a ‘dumbass’.
So what.
One thing is sure: you NEVER AND NEVER would insult me on any other climate blog: they are moderated (and of course not by a thoroughly partial pseudomoderator a la DREMT).
*
Now to your ‘comment’
Not only you don’t understand what I wrote: you are even unable to recall what you wrote.
Don’t you remember? YOU QUOTED your idol upthread:
“One Small Problem with the anomally map. There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia IN GHCN since 1990.
None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.
So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years?”
It seems to me, Robertson, as if you still would be unaware that GISSTEMP uses GHCN as source for its temperature series since evah (they just switched from V3 to V4).
And what your chiefio idol was talking about was this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16qezvIj8BKiV3Oq-Kk-tNhzTrvmX-R3F/view
Do you see the holes, even in the absolute data I can generate as well as anomalies out of GISSTEMP’s source?
Of course your chiefio idol then wrote (still YOUR quote):
“Easy. GIStemp makes it up from nearby thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle.”
All what you were able to retain were the words “beach” and “jungle”.
You of course did not understand that with ‘thermometers’, your chiefio idol referred to GHCN stations. To what else?
*
It was not much work to select, out of all Bolivia’s neighbour contries (Peru, Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, Chile), all GHCN stations located up to 500 km awy from Bolivial, to add these GHCN stations to those in Bolivia, and to generate a new absolute time series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hUYShfIZfBxu1rHftmZYIMP0JXYpFO1r/view
Now the different gaps (beginning with the greatest one, that of 1900-1994) are filled with information.
Do you see, Robertson, how HOT ! HOTTER !! HOTTEST !!! the Bolivia average became through temperature data coming from this 500 km enclosure, including these HORRIBLE beach and jungle sources?
*
And this, Robertson, is far far away from what professional people do.
While I simply added about 20 stations around Bolivia and computed the average of Bolivia plus 500 km enclosure, professionals look station by station for stations within 250 or 1200 km with a best fit (trend, elevation, etc), what of course leads to a result better than that of my simple layman’s approach.
*
I know: you will discredit and denigrate this comment as all others I wrote until now. I don’t bother, Robertson.
Feel free to continue calling me an idiot, a dumbass, etc etc. No problem!
Apart from your 3 or 4 friends-in-denial, I can’t imagine anybody appreciating, over the long term, your reckless, respectless and scienceless posts on this blog.
Bindidon
You are spot on with Gordon Roberson. He is a real fraud! He pretends that he studied actual College level physics but he can’t do or understand even basic simple math. He thinks he is smarter than Einstein. He can’t understand what a molecular vibration is even when I have linked him to videos explaining in detail what it is. He thinks all EMR is generated by electronic transitions. He read some article on it and pretends to be a expert. He is a phony fraud and you are correct not to let him bother you. These phony deniers are all trolls. He is on as well as JDHuffman, DREMT and Mike Flynn. They repeat their idiot nonsense over and over and all think they are some sort of experts in physics. Just trolls all four of them. I wish they would not post here. I like your research and investigations. I would rather have intelligent rational skeptics (which are on this blog) rather than seeing the constant stupid posts of the 4 phony trolls.
Norman takes out his frustrations by banging on his keyboard.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Addicted to trolling and has to post. Nothing new. Keep trolling Moe. It is at least better than your idiot physics of non rotating moon and cartoon physics based upon your own ludicrous ideas.
Since you are a scientific idiot you need to keep trolling. Then some new posters won’t realize how dumb you really are.
Try plumbing Moe.
https://vimeo.com/12390592
Norman is fascinated by other performing clowns, because he is frustrated trying to understand physics.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Maybe you are right. You might not be a stooge.
I have found the correct video of you and your goofy buddy DREMT.
You can help me, which of the dudes is you and which is DREMT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4AmLcBLZWY
(Norman likes me to copy/paste my same comment.)
Norman is fascinated by other performing clowns, because he is frustrated trying to understand physics.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Sorry it is your own desire to copy and paste the same thing not mine.
I would prefer you never respond to any of my posts. This will not happen so I will learn to endure your stupid posts. Not much else I can do. You are addicted to trolling. It is not just me you troll you troll as many people as time permits. I think if there were more hours in a day you could troll hundreds of more posts. True addicted personality.
Oh well, not much anyone can do to help an addict. I wonder if someone will come up with “Trolls Anonymous” to help out addicts like yourself.
Norman, please stop trolling.
N,
You wrote –
“I wish they would not post here.”
There is an old saying “Wish in one hand, and p*** in the other. See which fills up first.”
If you had a few facts to add to your comments, you might not need to waste your time wishing that inconvenient facts and people would go away.
Of course, your time is yours to waste as you wish.
Have you managed to find a description of the mythical GHE yet?
Cheers.
Norman…bindidon…”You are spot on with Gordon Roberson. He is a real fraud! He pretends that he studied actual College level physics but he cant do or understand even basic simple math. He thinks he is smarter than Einstein. He cant understand what a molecular vibration is even when I have linked him to videos explaining in detail what it is”.
Norman is an idiot like his buddy binny but he is more, an idiotic ass.
If Norman understood even basic physics, he would not have to refer me to anyone, he could explain physics himself. However, Norman is the kind of idiot, like binny, who reads a few books, misinterpret them, then try to spread his incomplete nonsense.
Recently, binny tried to get into the debate about whether the Moon rotates about its axis. He cherry picked a few lines from Newton and that was all he had to offer. He cannot explain angular velocity/momentum, he cannot explain the basis of orbits, yet he appeals to the authority of Newton as he does NOAA.
Norman, keeps talking about molecules but he apparently has no idea that molecules are models for the electrons and nucleii in atoms. Norman doesn’t even begin to understand that molecules are aggregations of atomic nucleii and their associated electrons that bond the nuclei to each other as molecules.
Norman fails to grasp that any vibration in a molecule is the vibration produced by the interaction of atomic nucleii and the electrons that bond them.
Molecules have no source of vibrate besides the vibration of the electron-nucleii pair and associated dipole actions related to the charges of both. The more energy the electron acquires, the greater the vibration. Any vibration in molecules is due to changes in the energy levels of the electrons.
Norman will never get that and he will continue to bray, like the ass (donkey) he is, tossing insults and ad homs in lieu of actual physics.
This is wrong Gordon:
“Any vibration in molecules is due to changes in the energy levels of the electrons.”
There is a distinction between electron energy levels and molecular vibrational energy:
https://tinyurl.com/y56nsm9s
Norman is great at physics and Bindidon is great at temperature records.
“Norman is great at physics…”
Svante, please stop trolling.
Yes, Norman can tell you how the temperature of a powered object is influenced up or down by the surrounding temperature.
Like in the “Simplest Green Plate” effect:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
Thanks, that was the one where Eli threw you all under the bus:
“Eli has not said anything about how the heat is being transferred, radiation, convection or conduction but since heat transfer, no matter the mechanism, is always proportional to temperature, the temperature of the blue plate must increase as more plates are added.”
You had all argued for months and months that via conduction (plates pressed together) the temperature of the plates would be equal, at 244 K. In that article, the originator of the Green Plate Effect disagrees. I have made that point before, and as usual, you people just lied about it, claiming that he only meant the blue plates temperature increase would be infinitesimal, if heat transfer was via conduction.
But that’s not what he says, it’s not what people reacting to his post in the comments obviously thought (and he doesn’t tell them otherwise), and his algebra is non-specific enough that clearly it is meant to apply to all heat transfer mechanisms, as his closing remarks that I quoted suggest.
The examples assume perfect conduction inside the plates.
With aluminum conducting 237 W per Kelvin and meter, one mm plates pressed together give a temp diff of about 0.001 C, so you can forget about that.
Eli’s plates are apart.
For conduction you have to insert another conducting material between them. Have your pick.
b’ > b means Tb’ > Tb (T for temperature).
“I have made that point before, and as usual, you people just lied about it…”
…and here we go again.
But yes, the first plate will warm as you press more aluminum plates on its back, even though the added plates are successively colder.
A thousand plates will give you 1 C if you press hard enough.
He goes through his math which comes down to describing that with one blue and one green plate, b’=2/3a and c=1/3a since he says a has to equal b’+c, where a is the energy input to the blue plate, and b’ is the output from the blue plate at equilibrium after the green plate (output denoted by c) has been added.
So if a is 400 watts, b’ = 267 watts and c = 133 watts. That is his solution for the 2-plate scenario, as anyone familiar with this topic will remember.
He then describes how this would change as more plates are added, and then, as I said:
“Eli has not said anything about how the heat is being transferred, radiation, convection or conduction but since heat transfer, no matter the mechanism, is always proportional to temperature, the temperature of the blue plate must increase as more plates are added.”
So no matter how that 400 watts is received and transmitted between the plates, he’s saying the end result is the same, and will be as more plates are added. You people want to try to rewrite what he is saying to fit in with what you’ve already committed yourselves to, but it just doesn’t work.
Svante is attempting the old “bait and switch” trick, that Swanson attempted. He’s trying to jump back and forth between “perfect conductor” and “aluminum”. The can’t just face reality. They have to use all their tricks.
They do the same thing with the moon/rotation. First they claimed Moon was rotating on its axis because, if viewed from inertial space or “the stars”, it “appeared” to be doing that. But, “appear” is NOT science, as demonstrated by the blue jet that appears to be flying upside-down, as viewed from the stars but, in reality, is not flying upside-down.
https://postimg.cc/TyRtsGKJ
And for children, there is the kiddie version:
https://postimg.cc/gxLLNpb2
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
That’s right, the left plate will warm up unless you have perfect conduction (which he has inside the plates, but not around them).
Conduction and radiation have different physical formulas, so they produce very different results. For perfect conduction there is no temperature difference. Vacuum makes a big difference.
Svante starts with his usual cheery, “that’s right” as he then goes on to misrepresent everything that’s been said.
First comment under the article, from “Fernando Leanme”:
“Ebenezer Rabbet figured this out for the case for fur coats: The thicker the fur, the warmer the wearer…”
Did Eli jump in and say: well actually, for conduction or convection, the “b’=2/3a and c=1/3a” and so on doesn’t apply, as that is actually just for radiative heat transfer…?
…of course not! What would have been the point of the article if the math were only meant to apply to radiation, when he’d already written an article on that the year before?
Show how the “b’=2/3a and c=1/3a” fits in with your 0.001 C temperature difference.
…remembering that b’ and c are the output from the blue and green plates, and that whether pressed together or not, part of that output will be radiation to space…
No, you lose the symmetry if you have conduction between plates and radiation outside of them.
So with incoming heat of 400 W/m^2:
a=400 W/m^2
b=a/2=200 W/m^2
b’=2a/3=266.6 W/m^2
c=b’/2=133.3 W/m^2
For radiation, j* = εσT^4, Tb must be:
T^4 = 200 / (1 * 5.670373*10^-8) = 7054209661.33974
Tb = 244 K
So for b’:
266.6 / (1 * 5.670373*10^-8) = 4702806440.89316
Tb’ is 262 K.
Now to send 133.3 W/m^2 (b’-c) between aluminium plates of 1 mm and 237 W/K/m pressed together you need a delta T (dT) of:
j*=(k/s)*dT
dT=j*/(k/s)
dT=133 / (237 / 0.002) = 0.001 K
Sorry I didn’t do it with units, it got to messy.
Svante tries another trick. His physics is WRONG, but his arithmetic is right. He ends up with the wrong answer, but believes he is right.
A simple example is how fast can a human run?
Distance = speed * time
So, if a human runs 1000 miles in 1 hour, then a human can run 1000 mph.
The answer is not reality, even though the arithmetic is correct.
Clowns hate reality.
So if the plates only have a 0.001 K difference between them, then the “b’=2/3a and c=1/3a” does not apply.
Thank you for proving my point.
Gordon Robertson
You are just plain wrong. That simple. You do not know what you talk about and just make mindless associations of words to try and pretend you studied some actual science (most know you are a fraud, pretending to be something you are not).
Here you try to criticize my approach. Again you show a complete lack of how science works. (If you had actually studied any you would know this…reality suggests you have read a few crackpot papers now and then and think you are this super genius expert).
YOU: “If Norman understood even basic physics, he would not have to refer me to anyone, he could explain physics himself.”
Read any science paper and you will see numerous references. I will use established science as my source unless I do my own experiments then I will explain the physics myself. You will just make up your silly ideas and pretend you know what you are saying.
Here is proof you are a phony fraud: YOU: “Any vibration in molecules is due to changes in the energy levels of the electrons.”
Very stupid statement and it shows you know nothing of Chemistry or Physics. You can pretend all you want, the people that know the subject just roll their ideas at your pretending. One day you may be honest and tell the truth but I don’t see that happening soon. You are basically a liar and dishonest human.
https://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/styles/cropped_article_image/public/blogs_2016/06/pinocchio-970×545.jpg?itok=tnKqT8Mt
So what does a stack of plates have to do with climate? The atmosphere is nothing like a stack of plates.
svante…This is wrong Gordon:
Any vibration in molecules is due to changes in the energy levels of the electrons.
There is a distinction between electron energy levels and molecular vibrational energy:”
********
There is no such thing as molecular vibrational energy. A molecule is a CONVENIENT WORD used to define two or more atoms bonded together by electron bonds, or by the charges produced by those bond.
THERE IS NOTHING THERE BUT ATOMIC NUCLEII AND ELECTRONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
from your link…”There are three main processes by which a molecule can absorb radiation. and each of these routes involves an increase of energy that is proportional to the light absorbed”.
The author is offering a very simplistic illustration and he/she uses ‘light’ incorrectly. Light is the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. I’d say the author is an amateur, either that or he/she is intending the information for kids in kindergarten.
Only electrons can absorb radiation IN AN ATOM.
AGAIN…THERE IS NOTHING ELSE IN A MOLECULE THAT CAN ABSORB RADIATION…..OR VIBRATE.
Here’s the CO2 molecule….
O=====C====O
The dashed lines represent electron orbitals bonding two oxygen nucleii to a carbon nucleii.
The only difference between carbon and oxygen as atoms is the number of electrons and protons they have. All atoms are nothing but electrons, protons, neutrons, and sub-atomic particles.
What do you see in the CO2 molecule that can vibrate, rotate, or transition? Nothing but electrons and the nucleii of carbon and oxygen.
Vibration is on the dashed lines between nucleii and it’s due to the electrons interacting with the protons in the nucleus.
If that linear molecule was struck and it began to rotate around its linear axis, what is there to change energy but the electrons in the bonds?
There are no secret mechanisms in molecules, the molecule is just a name to represent the electrons and protons of two or more atoms.
Bill –
“The atmosphere is nothing like a stack of plates.”
True.
Gordon –
“What do you see in the CO2 molecule that can vibrate, rotate, or transition?”
O=====C====O
O O
= =
= =
= =
= =
C
C
= =
= =
= =
= =
O O
O O
= =
= =
= =
= =
C
C
= =
= =
= =
= =
O O
My spaces disappeared. I was trying to illustrate the scissor mode seen here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration#/media/File:Scissoring.gif
“…the people that know the subject just roll their ideas…”
People roll their eyes at Norman’s inabiltiy to understand idioms.
“You are basically a liar and dishonest human.”
Always a bit of a worry when someone refers to others as “humans”.
As usual, DREMT tries to create faux controversies about who said what and when and who agreed and who didnt, while ignoring the reality that his facts are all wrong.
And ignoring that the conduction issue has been explained to him thoroughly and repeatedly, and he still refuses to acknowledge that it is negligible effect and a red herring.
Just Dumb babbles:
“They do the same thing with the moon/rotation. First they claimed Moon was rotating on its axis because, if viewed from inertial space or the stars, it appeared to be doing that. But, appear is NOT science, as demonstrated by the blue jet that appears to be flying upside-down, as viewed from the stars but, in reality, is not flying upside-down!”
This is Clownette logic. For example, a clown, like JD, is standing at the center of a spinning merry-go-round, with his feet firmly planted on its floor. Viewed from the inertial reference frame, the clown appears to be spinning on his own axis. But, no! From the local reference frame of the merry-go-round, he is not according to the Clownettes.
Now let’s say a portion of the floor at the center of the spinning merry-go-round can be removed, and the clown can step down onto the ground. Per JD, the clown is apparently standing still! Wait, but no, fool. Your eyes are deceiving you. The clown in reality is actually rotating on his own axis!!
Clownette logic in action.
And remember. Gordon firmly 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.
Gordon. The person who proudly claimed: “I studied a year of astrophysics but I learned my orbital theory in engineering physics.”
And meanwhile, Dr Em T cannot figure out how to answer the clown merry-go-round problem.
HGS, you can go on and on about people stuck to the floor of a merry-go-round all you like. You can’t try to redefine pure rotation out of existence, I’m afraid.
You draw a chalk circle on the floor at the edge of the merry-go-round. The atoms of the floor inside that chalk circle are not rotating about an axis in the center of the circle, from any frame of reference. They are all rotating about an axis at the center of the merry-go-round, instead. They are all moving in concentric circles about that central point, and not moving in circles about a point in the center of the chalk circle. That’s just a fact, and it remains a fact from any reference frame.
So you want to go on about a person slap bang in the center. Maybe you want to ask a series of questions about how that person starts at the edge of the merry-go-round, is he rotating on his own axis, he starts walking towards the center, at what point is he rotating on his own axis, etc etc. Heard it all before. It won’t change the fact about that chalk circle on the floor at the edge. The moon is about 240,000 miles away from the Earth. Get a grip.
All analogies tend to break down at some point. If you want to confuse yourself about rotation you can go into all sorts of contorted logic and lose yourself in it indefinitely, if you like. Regarding the guy walking towards the center of the merry-go-round, I’ll go with the horse running the equatorial track, instead. It’s a more apt analogy for the moon situation, in this respect.
So you have an imaginary track running around the Earth’s equator. A horse is running along the track. You are viewing this from above the North Pole, looking down. You reduce the diameter of the Earth, steadily. You get the diameter down to about twenty feet. The horse is still not rotating on its own axis. Reduce the diameter to zero. The horse is still not rotating about an axis through its center of mass.
So now you can stop going on about clowns and clownettes with their feet glued to the floor, etc.
Child-Gone-Stupid, does your school bus travel upside-down?
Well, it does if viewed “from the stars”.
https://postimg.cc/gxLLNpb2
But does it REALLY travel upside-down? Of course not.
It’s just that simple, yet you still can’t figure it out.
Maybe when you grow up….
But does it REALLY travel upside-down? Of course not.
Yes, it does. You said it yourself:
Well, it does if viewed from the stars.
It is not enough to ask if something is “upside-down”. One must specify a reference frame relative to which it is upside-down or not upside-down. By specifying the reference frame as “the stars”, the description of “upside-down” becomes coherent and consistent.
Bart believes his school bus travels updide-down.
You can’t help stupid….
I suppose one cannot (sigh).
Dr Em T gets frustrated because he cannot answer the simple clown merry-go-round problem.
Now to Dr. Em T’s silly horse on the equator problem. For entertainment purposes, lets substitute the stooge Curly instead of the horse. When the track diameter is reduced to zero, Curly is on his side doing his infamous floor spinning routine, rotating on his own axis about his center of mass, because he was rotating on his own axis prior to that, one rotation per orbit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2iZPRif2i4
Back to the merry-go-round. This particular merry-go-round has a wooden horse located at the center of rotation for the merry-go-round. His hooves are attached to the merry-go-round. A pole also goes through the horse’s center of gravity, firmly attached to the horse and merry-go-round, so the horse cannot rotate wrt the pole. The pole also extends into the ground, but has a frictionless connection with the ground so the pole can rotate wrt the ground. Now according to clown physics, when the merry-go-round spins, the horse is NOT rotating on its own axis because his hooves are firmly attached to the floor of the merry-go-round. Now let say this spinning merry-go-round suddenly disappears, but the horse is still attached to the pole. Per Newtons laws of motion, the horse will continue to rotate at the same angular velocity as the merry-go-round, but per Clown physics, the horse is not rotating on its own axis! No. Clown physics says the horse needs to stand still on the ground, then he’ll be rotating on its own axis. Clown physics in action.
“Curly is on his side doing his infamous floor spinning routine, rotating on his own axis about his center of mass”.
Wrong. You seem to lack the ability to visualize what is being explained to you. As the diameter of the Earth is reduced to zero, The axis “Curly” would be rotating around would be based at the underside of his feet, which he would be rotating around as though he were the single blade of a turbine, with his feet at the hub. “Curly” would not be rotating about an axis through his center of mass.
This does away with all your continued dribblings with regard to the merry-go-round.
I’m sorry for your argument loss.
P.S: stop declaring what you think are our arguments. If the person’s own axis aligned with the axis at the center of the merry-go-round, then yes, they would be rotating on their own axis.
So Curly is rotating on the axis about his feet? Big deal. It was a bad analogy you created, because race horses and cars do not drive on their sides.
But you still cannot answer the correct analogies regarding the clown and horse, because your clown physics is insane, based on two reference frames. But its entertaining to say the least.
Maybe Gordon will give it a real try, as soon as he finishes his baby seal clubbing activities.
“It was a bad analogy you created, because race horses and cars do not drive on their sides.”
Nobody is saying they do, and it’s not a “bad analogy”. It is actually a more apt analogy for the situation with the moon as in all our discussions, and in all our gifs and diagrams, we are invariably looking down at the Earth as though we were above the North Pole, when considering the moon’s orbit.
“But you still cannot answer the correct analogies regarding the clown and horse, because your clown physics is insane, based on two reference frames. But its entertaining to say the least.”
This “based on two reference frames” is just another straw man you have concocted.
‘Wrong. You seem to lack the ability to visualize what is being explained to you. As the diameter of the Earth is reduced to zero, The axis Curly would be rotating around would be based at the underside of his feet, which he would be rotating around as though he were the single blade of a turbine, with his feet at the hub. Curly would not be rotating about an axis through his center of mass.’
Hilarious. Curly orbits with his CM at some radius. You guys lack the imagination to continue reducing his radius to 0. His legs stop you.
Convenient for deluding oneself. But this analogy is still considered ‘apt’.
Meanwhile Curly walking upright to the center of a disk, nothing stops his radius from reaching 0. Yet this analogy is considered not ‘apt’.
Why?
As usual, such assumptions are made for the sole purpose of confirming one’s beliefs, and have no other justification.
P.S: just to finish explaining my analogy, HGS, if you were to go beyond the point of having the axis at the underside of “Curly’s” feet and kept trying to take it further, you might end up for instance removing his legs and having it so that he is just a torso rotating around that central point, in which case his center of mass is now somewhere in the middle of that torso, so he would still not be rotating about his own axis. So you could continue further, until he was just a head rotating about that central point, in which case his center of mass is now somewhere in the middle of his head, so he would still not be rotating about his own axis.
Ultimately, if you really want to push the analogy, you could end up with one single atom rotating about a central point, and still it would not be rotating on its own axis.
So, it makes the most sense just to stop at the underside of the feet.
Somehow Curly’s legs cannot cross over the Earth’s center, just cuz.
But the solid crust of the Earth doesnt stop Curly from being at the center.
Maybe, because its a thought experiment, dumbass!
P.P.S: try not to forget that the diameter of the Earth has been reduced to zero.
Carbon500
Do we really mean the same ‘CET’ ?
https://tinyurl.com/y5zrydyo
I would understand your comments above by far better if the red running mean in
https://tinyurl.com/y4swnjhu
looked like a flat line…
binny…”This, Robertson
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
is the most ridiculous head post I ever read concerning temperature series in general, and those of GHCN in particular”.
*********
Nothing ridiculous about chiefio’s analysis the problem is with your personal bias and your appeal to the authority figure NOAA. You just don’t get it that they are biased in favour of AGW hence they are now a political faction not a scientific organization.
From the link:
“Early on, I noticed that the history of the thermometer record had The Thermometers March South. Initially I assumed this was just an artifact of the spread of technology, and time, spreading from the north to the south. And perhaps some spread of wealth and thermometers in the Jet Age as airports spread to tropical vacation lands. Yet there was an odd discontinuity at the end. In the 1990s, the thermometer count plunged overall, and the percentage in the Northern Cold band was cut dramatically. This was the early investigation that lead to all the other links here:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/thermometer-years-by-latitude-warm-globe/
….”
“One early cut looked at the Northern Hemisphere in total. In retrospect, you can see the Day the Thermometer Music Died in the charts of winter months. Thermometers at the beach in Los Angeles dont get very cold in winter, those at Squaw Valley Ski Area do. In California, all our thermometers have left the mountains and are now on the beach with 3/4 of them near L.A. and San Diego. I didnt know that when this posting was made, but you can clearly see the effect of these changes in the Northern Hemisphere graphs:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/the-northern-hemisphere-what-warming/
I initially thought that the stability in the record seen in long lived thermometers must have been an artifact of modification flag changes with the changes of equipment (as many placed moved to automated temperature recording). Since then, Ive determined that there really were a bunch of thermometers deleted. 90+% in many major countries around the world. There is still a discontinuity at the end, and that lead to more detailed investigations”.
There you have it, 90% of thermometers deleted by GHCN in major countries.
You don’t understand GHCN at the depth of chiefio because he is a computer programmer with experience in data analysis and he can delve into the chicanery of NOAA. You are an Excel number cruncher with no idea what you are doing.
binny…”You of course did not understand that with thermometers, your chiefio idol referred to GHCN stations. To what else?”
You are now a blithering idiot.
For the second time, chiefio made it clear that he was referring to Gistemp data. Giss gets its data from NOAA via GHCN then they create their own data set with the stations they want.
Chiefio said there is no record in the “GISTEMP” data for Bolivia after 1990. The only person raving about the GHCN record is you.
binny…”I know: you will discredit and denigrate this comment as all others I wrote until now. I dont bother, Robertson”.
***********
You make it so easy.
Go down the page to Bolivian data and chiefio shows the Bolivian data on hand from Gistemp:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
“This report shows the percentage of thermometers in any given altitude band (in meters). So we see that Bolivia began with 25% of its thermometers above 2000 meters (in the snow zone) and with 75% between 500 and 1000 meters in the decade ending in 1919. It ended with 100% of them at that 2000 meter+ altitude in the last reported year of 1990”.
Except he never was a skeptic and UHI is easy to prove almost everyday by watching daily weather forecasts and reported temps, seeing the difference between rural and urban locations.
Scott Mc
“UHI is easy to prove almost everyday by watching daily weather forecasts and reported temps, seeing the difference between rural and urban locations.”
At a first glance, your assumption might look correct.
But… it isn’t.
1. Your forecasts show absolute temperatures. So in a town you mostly have a higher temperature than outside, nothing strange.
But UHI is something more complex. A site is affected by UHI if and only if it warms faster than those around it, and not simply if it is warmer.
I recently could show a nice example of that in a discussion at WUWT, about the pretended difference between pristine, rural CRN stations in the US when compared with stations located in a town.
The discussion was centred around Anthony Watts’ claim about a station in Anchorage (Alaska)
USW00026451 61.1689 -150.0278 36.6 AK ANCHORAGE INTL AP 70273
having shown – in his opinion – exceeding warmth.
But comparing the station’s anomalies with those of the rural CRN station in Kenai near Anchorage
USW00026563 60.7236 -150.4483 86.0 AK KENAI 29 ENE CRN 70342
during their common activity period, gave this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14aS2UEkD0_Uw2rC05ywbQNdIURBVW-GW/view
Kenai (left) is all the time at least 2 C cooler than Anchorage Intl AP, see their monthly absolute temperature averages e.g. for 2011:
2011 01 -10.11 | 2011 01 -7.35
2011 02 -10.67 | 2011 02 -8.25
2011 03 -6.69 | 2011 03 -3.87
2011 04 1.89 | 2011 04 3.10
2011 05 6.43 | 2011 05 8.93
2011 06 9.76 | 2011 06 12.37
2011 07 12.24 | 2011 07 14.43
2011 08 11.25 | 2011 08 13.05
2011 09 7.84 | 2011 09 9.81
2011 10 1.63 | 2011 10 3.16
2011 11 -13.04 | 2011 11 -9.54
2011 12 -6.76 | 2011 12 -4.61
but the departures from the mean are for both stations, as you can see on the graph above, amazingly similar.
Thus, looking at forecasts won’t help you in finding out where UHI really exists.
To detect UHI, you have to look at stations which are not only warmer than their immediate rural environment, but kin addition show more warming, by comparing their anomalies and these anomalies’ trends over a common observation period.
GHCN daily sources (links tinyURLd due to the ‘d c’ syndrome)
Anchorage Intl AP: https://tinyurl.com/yymaoge2
https://tinyurl.com/yymaoge2
Kenai 29 ENE:
https://tinyurl.com/y27y68u3
The issue is that, if through continued development, the UHI in a particular location is increasing with time, it will produce a spurious trend in anomaly. How do we know how many of the stations are thus affected? Unless you have time to delve into every record yourself, you have to take it on faith.
The fact that the anomalies we are looking at are so tiny to begin with means the calculation is potentially very sensitive to spurious inputs. Honestly, I do not see how you can take it for granted that the surface records are unaffected by this. I personally consider the surface records to be unreliable.
Bart
A typical Bart answer: guessing and doubting about the unknown instead of contradicting what I wrote with FACTS.
Why don’t you, like I do, download several surface temperature data sets and analyse them?
Moreover, I suspect you to be quite a bit dishonest when you write:
“I personally consider the surface records to be unreliable.”
Because I have good reasons to think that in fact, you consider only UAH‘s satellite measurement interpretations to be reliable.
Correct?
I consider it passing strange that you seem to think I should never doubt anything until I can prove my suspicions to a level that would convince you. This is like a religious person insisting I accept the existence of God unless I can prove to him that He doesn’t exist.
Look, there’s lots of reasons to suspect the surface data of being sub-par. That’s the whole reason 100’s of millions of dollars were invested in satellite systems to measure the Earth’s temperature. If the surface measurements were widely considered infallible, the conversation on spending those monies would have been very short. Why go to the effort and expense when we already have perfectly good ground measurements?
The surface measurements cover a small portion of the globe violating both spatial and temporal sampling theorems for exact reconstruction, they only measure daily max and min values, and they are subject to myriad influences from changes in local land use and measurement instrumentation. It is absurd of you to argue that they are beyond reproach.
binny…”A typical Bart answer: guessing and doubting about the unknown instead of contradicting what I wrote with FACTS”.
1)You did not write any facts.
2)I have found that Bart’s answers are normally well thought out, and based on fact.
Bart
I prefer to skip your philosophy, it is completely useless here.
Please allow for a little bit of sarcasm: while stations measurements by evidence can’t cope with satellites’ uniform and complete scans (at least in theory), your knowledge of temperature data sets is quite sup-par as well.
You write
“The surface measurements cover a small portion of the globe violating both spatial and temporal sampling theorems for exact reconstruction, they only measure daily max and min values, and they are subject to myriad influences from changes in local land use and measurement instrumentation.”
Let me say that you aren’t wrong – at least one again in theory. But in practice, things look a bit different.
Here is for example a comparison of three anomaly plots:
– GHCN daily stations (raw data with grid averaging to avoid spatial supremacy of station groups, especially in CONUS)
– GISS land (homogenised)
– UAH6.0 LT land
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gT1bWIH2JhpqMgisImxsQfyqMfx_-53P/view
Never and never did I argue anywhere that station data would be beyond reproach: you are the one who pretends that right here.
I hope you will agree with me that if the averages of GHCN daily raw station data, of homogenised station data based on GHCN V3, and of lower troposphere’s microwave emissions are so near to each other, station data can’t be so terribly wrong.
As you can see here, you are correct whan writing that Earth’s land surfaces are under-represented by GHCN daily, no doubt: only about 2200 cells of the 3000 in a 2.5 degree grid actually contain at least one station:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SJQKvqhfYseVOz1aJL0g0Unecmmo4vFf/view
But I’m sorry: like many people, you are idealising the accuracy of satellite readings.
If they were so accurate: why is their processing by different groups so different?
Only stubborn people lacking any real knowledge pretend that UAH’s satellite measurement processing are by definition better than those performed by RSS or by the NOAA STAR group.
Their goal is to propagate their own ideology solely based on the fact that currently, UAH6.0’s averaging is by far cooler than that provided by UAH5.6 until 2015.
Bart
I forgot to add this in the comment above:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17ZgjmYUL43320EoLQ5bL0Hs3aYwas-gt/view
“Only stubborn people lacking any real knowledge pretend that UAHs satellite measurement processing are by definition better than those performed by RSS or by the NOAA STAR group.”
I do not pretend. I observe.
I’ve been watching this controversy for nearly two decades now. I saw that ALL the major data sets were pretty much in agreement in the first decade of the new century. Then, people began noticing that the rise in temperature anomaly had stalled. Subsequently and conveniently, the land-based sets began to be “adjusted”. Not horrifically or comically, but just enough to give the impression that there was no stall. One by one, they adopted a series of dubious modifications to erase the “pause”.
As a for-profit center, RSS was under tremendous pressure to buckle under and get with the program. Everyone knew it was just a matter of time. And then, rather anti-climactically, they “adjusted” their’s, too.
UAH is the only one which preserves the series upon which they all once agreed. Do not bother trying to tell me otherwise. I watched it happen. I know what I saw. It’s bullsh–.
Bindidon says: “But UHI is something more complex. A site is affected by UHI if and only if it warms faster than those around it, and not simply if it is warmer.”
You got that one mostly wrong. Yes there is a belief that a small part of the warming could be existing urban sites warming faster than rural. However, there are several questions:
1) how much has the extent of urban growth over the past century attributed to the approximate one degree warming seen in the past century.
All those things have massively expanded in the last 100 years with a far larger percentage of the population living in cities than ever before.
One simply cannot sit in a windowless office and answer that question. Its actually insulting to suggest someone could.
bill hunter
You seem to be confused. I got it nowhere wrong.
Here is a graph showing a separation of all GHCN V3 stations into
– rural with lowest nightlight (2269 of 7280 stations)
– all others.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uVUJ_zQWW1UTNGCsHJQaANLa-iHND8sM/view
As you can see, the urban station anomalies wrt 1981-2010 keep since the 1930’s over long periods below the rural context.
Since around 2000, the situation has been inverted:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gA6IPBR0ZAGgJCofiqDVARps2RFk2WJz/view
Thus to say “Yes! It’s UHI!” is a bit too simple.
That is the reason why Pseudoskeptics have moved their claims from UHI to “UHI is everywhere!”.
Bindidon says: – Here is a graph showing a separation of all GHCN V3 stations into rural with lowest nightlight (2269 of 7280 stations) all others.
I understand what you are trying to show. Namely that urban stations warmed only about .2 degrees faster over the last 34 years.
But what your chart is not showing is how many previous rural areas that may or may not have had a temperature station that became urbanized over the last 34 years and currently does have a temperature station. That effect is an absolute temperature effect that would be falsely included in the anomaly figures.
So if the absolute temperature difference between urban and rural is say 4 degrees C, each station in the rural category at the end of the measurement would incorporate any warming in it from its degree of urbanization it obtained over the time analyzed. Thus the anomaly for rural would show too much rise and would minimize the differences between the two. On the urban side there could be a similar effect increasing the urban classification by becoming more urbanized over time as well.
One cannot measure this from a windowless office. One needs to understand fully how urbanization changes the absolute temperature of a station. As I understand it there are measurements of absolute temperature differences between rural and urban, but thats even not enough information. One needs to fully understand how urbanization around temperature changes have changed and to what degree as for a temperature difference to exist between urban and rural it has to be incrementally linked to a degree of urbanization as it doesn’t happen the day you flick the switch on ten street lights and you cross the arbitrary line like one more straw breaking the camels back.
binny…”1. Your forecasts show absolute temperatures. So in a town you mostly have a higher temperature than outside, nothing strange”.
“But comparing the stations anomalies with those of the rural CRN station in Kenai near Anchorage…”
Why would you compare anomalies unless the anomalies are relative to the same absolute temperature average over a range?
And what’s this nonsense about UHI not being related to absolute temperatures?
Robertson
“Why would you compare anomalies unless the anomalies are relative to the same absolute temperature average over a range?”
*
Your lack of understanding, knowledge and experience perfectly fits to your permanent excess of agressivity.
*
Anomalies were introduced EXACTLY BECAUSE they relieve us of the need to solely compare values that are in the same range!
1. Here is a chart with the plots of two data series with thoroughly different absolute values:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SktSBLtlG5ayePmCXTTdAPEsaXihTJN5/view
2. The same data in absolute form, but each relative to its mean of all months within Jan 1981 – Dec 2010:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zyuow0CAQDLBfJyxXK5hDKcW40ASrtOW/view
(This is what we would obtain when using NOAA’s description of anomalies in the strict, trivial sense.)
3. The same data, now in useful anomaly form, with all monthly values relative to their monthly mean within 1981-2010, thus removing the annual cycle:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10keTcFSsIMK3rON7mOsqeSm0H2mBsasu/view
*
“And whats this nonsense about UHI not being related to absolute temperatures?”
If you really would understand how UHI works, and how anomalies are exactly computed, then you would not have to ask such a simple question.
*
The best is imho to leave you alone with all your clueless certitudes.
binny…”Anomalies were introduced EXACTLY BECAUSE they relieve us of the need to solely compare values that are in the same range!
1. Here is a chart with the plots of two data series with thoroughly different absolute values:”
***********
Once again, what does it mean when you compare anomalies relative to two different baselines?
If I have an anomaly of +0.5C relative to a baseline from 1950 – 1990 and another anomaly of +5C relative to a baseline from 1981 – 2010, the anomalies have nothing in common.
You might argue that 0.5C is 0.5C but the effect those anomalies have on the different baselines is different. That 0.5C is one of many bits of data that forms the baseline average.
Anomalies are deviations from an average and they are related only to that average. Unless you normalize the average values between different baselines, you cannot compare deviations from them.
The question arises as to how you normalize the NOAA surface record with a baseline from 1950 – 1990 and the UAH baseline from 1981 – 2010? A determination also has to be made as to the accuracy of each set and to how much each has been fudged, as in the case of NOAA.
If you think you can simply transfer an anomaly from one set to another you are even worse off than I thought.
NOAA shows a trend line starting at the 1950 – 1990 baseline and increasing +vely from then on. UAH shows a trend line mainly below the baseline from 1980 – 1997 then mostly above the baseline from 1998 onward. A good 15 years of the latter trend is flat whereas the NOAA trend line is not.
You are claiming you can select corresponding anomalies from a common year and compare them directly. You can’t because adding the 0.5C anomaly to baselines derived from different data will give you different absolute temperatures. That’s because the baselines are based on different absolute temperatures.
The fudged NOAA data set and the UAH satellite-derived data set have nothing in common, except that the UAH data set has far more comprehensive coverage and is based on instrumentation that has bazillions more data points than two-a-day thermometer readings.
Robertson
“Once again, what does it mean when you compare anomalies relative to two different baselines?”
Once again, Robertson: I compared in the comment above
– two absolute data time series
and
– their anomalies wrt 1981-2010!
Are you really that dumb?
The anomaly data sets compared are here (in the column 3):
– https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo (UAH6.0 LT)
– https://tinyurl.com/y4ln5u9t (UAH6.0 LS)
The absolute data was generated using Roy Spencer’s climatologies
– https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
and
– https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/tlsmonacg_6.0
No one compares here any anomalies computed out of different reference periods! That nonsense exists in YOUR head only.
Jesus are you a boring person. You don’t understand anything.
I would say that if you do not use satellite data with the ocean covering 2/3 of the planet and even today you have 1 thermometer for an area larger than California its impossible to say. Look at Russia had record lows while Paris was hot. curremtly in the UK its pretty cool, but Im told it was hot a couple of weeks ago.. weather?
scott…”weather?”
Of course. Nothing to do with a trace gas.
norman…”Here is proof you are a phony fraud: YOU: Any vibration in molecules is due to changes in the energy levels of the electrons.”
Norman, you are a twit. What else is there in a molecule but electrons and the protons in the nucleii? The electron is the only particle free to move and any time gas molecules collide, the electron orbitals are the first to contact.
Where are the secret devices in molecules to which you refer?
Gordon Robertson
The atoms within the molecule are free to move not just the electron.
You have lots of atoms and molecules moving as a whole bodies in the air. Do you know what an ion is? Do you know what a Mass Spectrometer is and what it does?
In a mass spectrometer an atoms and molecules of a substance are ionized and the whole ion bends in the magnetic field to be detected based upon its mass and charge. Not just the electron moves. The whole thing moves. In the molecule the oxygen and carbon nuclei are still distinct and separate entities. Only a few of the electrons are involved in bonding. The rest move as whole units.
I will attempt rational science with you and hope for the best.
Here will be some links for you to follow.
One is the kinetic energy of molecules at room temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases
“At standard temperature (273.15 K), we get:
per mole: 3406 J
per molecule: 5.65 zJ = 35.2 meV.”
The unit mev is milli-electron volts.
Now for the energy of electronic transitions. Moving an electron against the positive gradient of the positive charged nucleus requires much more energy to achieve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt
This link has electron volts of different EMR bands. If you look at the graph (scroll down a bit, it is on the right side of the page) you will see the energy of molecules at standard temperature is only in the mid and far IR bands. Not even close to the energy needed for electronic transitions. I do not think you understand the energy it requires to move electrons against the positive gradient. I am hoping the supply of good information can help you understand the energy needed for electronic transitions. I hope you can also understand that atoms and molecules with all their components can move as a complete unit. You seem to be unable to understand this.
I am not sure this attempt will aid you.
norman…”The atoms within the molecule are free to move not just the electron”.
There are no atoms within a molecule, the atoms ARE the molecule. There is no box marked ‘molecule’ in which you find atoms.
Get it out of your mind that a molecule is a separate entity from atoms, a molecule is nothing more than a name for an aggregations of electrons and their associated nucleii.
The word molecule is used to distinguish one set of electron/nucleii arrangements from another. All molecules are arrangements of electrons and their associated nucleii.
If your molecule is a solid body in a lattice, the nucleii are not free to move. Electrons can move in conductors and semiconductors.
Nucleii are bonded together by electrons. They can vibrate in place but to do so requires a stretching and contraction of the bonds, which are electrons.
There is nothing in the nucleii that can change energy levels. Maybe at a sub-atomic level that might be possible but that energy change would not be related to the molecule.
The electron is the only particle that can change energy levels by moving to a higher or lower state of energy.
That is the basis of quantum theory. QM is based on the properties of electrons as they orbit and interact with the charges on the protons in the nucleus.
Do you know what an ion is???? An ion is an atom with an electrical charge. Neutral atoms have an equal number of electrons and proton. If the atom acquires an electron, it has a negative charge and if it loses an electron it has a positive charge.
Therefore a moving ion is nothing more than an atom or molecule with a specific ratio of electrons to protons. If the ion is bent in a magnetic field it is due to the charge level of electrons.
There’s that electron again.
“Only a few of the electrons are involved in bonding. The rest move as whole units”.
Yes but those electrons are neutral wrt to ions, only valence electrons in the outer shell can create a charge. Even though most of the electrons are neutral, some of them can jump between energy levels and as they do, they produce different radiation lines. You can see the various energy levels for the lone electron in hydrogen here:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Book%3A_Introductory_Chemistry_(CK-12)/05%3A_Electrons_in_Atoms/5.07%3A_Spectral_Lines_of_Hydrogen
Gordon Robertson
I did attempt to be logical and rational with you. You are fixated on your own stupid ideas regardless of the overwhelming evidence you are wrong.
Yes there are still atoms in a molecule. The primary nature of an atom is the composition of the nucleus. The electrons can be part of it or not. The protons and neutrons take considerable energy to change. The carbon nuclei and oxygen nuclei make up the those atoms in the carbon dioxide molecule. They are what vibrate and rotate with respect to each other. You have been shown this many times. Bart attempted reason with you. I guess nothing will change your incorrect views. Evidence, logic, science are not an effective tool to get you out of your delusional thought process.
I know the dumb and dumber posters won’t attempt a simple thing to show their lunacy but you can try. Walk in a circle (not shuffle) without rotating your feet. Your feet rotate and then your body rotates on its axis once the feet are planted on the ground. Yes your body rotates on its axis while you walk in a circle. Try to do it without rotating your feet. If you do the shuffle around the circle without rotating your feet you will find that the person standing in the middle of the circle will then see all sides of you. When you rotate as you walk they will see only one side of you. Really easy to do and you will see that you are on the wrong side of intelligence on that one to. Don’t worry about complicating it with frames of reference, just look at your own feet while you walk in a circle and see what they are doing. If you do not rotate your feet you will just keep walking straight ahead.
Norman, you are still confusing “turning” with “rotating on an axis”. They are TWO entirely different motions.
You are uneducable.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
You need to open a dictionary. Turning and rotating are synonyms of each other. Why do you think they are different motions.
You say a racehorse does not rotate as it runs in a circular path. Why do you believe this to be a true statement? What is your evidence that it is not rotating on its axis as it advances forward.
Only you are uneducable. I can learn and understand things quite well. It seems you are the unscientific one that claims your unsupportable opinions are at all valid in any way.
If you actually did the three plate experiment you proposed you would find (in a vacuum) the outer plates would roughly reach the same temperature but heated middle plate would get hotter by abor-bing the IR from the outer plates. You are just wrong and will not even attempt to do any testing. I asked you to walk in a circle without rotating your feet. You rotate on your axis as you turn. It is exactly the same motion as you would achieve if you did not move forward but stood and circled around. I can’t help you any more. You are truly Dumb and your partner is Dumber.
Why not do a three plate test like E. Swanson did with two plates? What is stopping you?
JDHuffman
Here for you to see.
https://wikidiff.com/rotate/turn
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/rotating
Norman, basically, you regard any change in orientation wrt to the fixed stars as axial rotation. That’s where you are going wrong.
Orbital motion necessarily involves a change in orientation wrt to the fixed stars, but that change in orientation is not axial rotation.
Think of a ball on a rope swinging around. The rope prevents the ball from rotating on its own axis. For the ball to rotate on its own axis, the rope would have to be wrapping around the ball. This doesn’t happen as the ball swings around (orbits). But as the ball orbits, it is changing orientation. So the ball is changing orientation as it orbits, but not rotating on its own axis.
Still wrong, Norman. The issue is not about what is the definition of “turning” or “rotating”. You keep ignoring “on its axis”. There is a difference between “rotating” and “rotating on its axis”. There is a difference between “turning” and “turning on an axis”. You STILL can’t understand. You can’t learn.
A racehorse “turns”, or “rotates”, or “orbits”, or “revolves” around the track, but it does NOT rotate on its axis. You STILL can’t understand. You can’t learn.
It’s the same with everything anyone has tried to teach you. You can’t learn.
With the “plates”, you STILL don’t understand the violations of laws of thermodynamics. You can’t understand that there can NOT be an increase in enthalpy and a decrease in entropy with no accompanying increase in energy. You don’t understand thermodynamics. You’re stuck on stupid. You can’t learn.
Nothing new.
norman…”Yes there are still atoms in a molecule. The primary nature of an atom is the composition of the nucleus. The electrons can be part of it or not”.
**********
Rather than wasting your energy with such futility why don’t you get into more interesting questions like, why doesn’t the nucleus of lead with 82 protons, blow apart due to the repulsion of like positive charges? Hint: neutrons.
There are no atoms in a physical entity called a molecule. Molecules don’t exist as a physical entity, they are nothing more than names for different aggregations of electrons and protons.
Atoms are DEFINED basically by the number of protons, neutrons and electrons they have. The neutrons have nothing to do with bonding or the electrostatic charges possessed by the protons and electrons.
Hydrogen has 1 proton and 1 electron. In it’s stable state it has no neutrons.
Carbon has 6 protons and 6 electrons in its neutral state.
Hydrogen has an atomic number of 1 and carbon is 6.
Lead has an atomic number of 82 with 82 protons and 82 electrons.
Btw gold has an atomic number of 79 hence the interest in turning lead into gold. Get out your tweezers and remove 3 protons from the nucleus of lead and some flypaper to rip off 3 electrons and presto…gold.
That is the only difference between all the elements…the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
an example using the water molecule. The molecule has 1 oxygen atom and 2 hydrogen atoms bonded together by their respective valence shell electrons.
That’s it!!! 3 atoms bonded together by electrons
The ammonia molecule has 4 atoms: one nitrogen and 4 hydrogen atoms in the shape of a pyramid. The nitrogen atom is bonded to the 4 hydrogen atoms on the pyramid base by valence shell electrons.
The only reason the word molecule is used is to differentiate between the different arrangements of electrons and nucleii.
If vibration is taking place, or rotation, or internal electron transitions, they are all related to to the electrons and nucleii mentioned. There is no other mysterious unit in a molecule that can vibrate or rotate.
There is no other compartment that emits and absorbs EM. That is done by the valence shell electrons, no matter what bonding arrangement they represent.
Electrons don’t stop transitioning between energy levels just because they are in a bond.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
YOU: “Norman, basically, you regard any change in orientation wrt to the fixed stars as axial rotation. Thats where you are going wrong.”
No that is not correct. If you were on a merry-go-round standing at the edge you would revolve around the center but you would not rotate on your own axis. Which is your ball on the string example.
If you walk around the merry-go-round you are rotating on your axis as you walk around it. Check out your feet as you walk.
I quite well know the difference. It seems you and Huffman are the confused ones.
Nothing will convince Huffman. Are you this dense as well? If you do not rotate on your axis as you walk your path is a straight line ahead. If you rotate your feet as you walk your path will be a circle. It is really easy and factual.
Rotating on an axis is independent of a reference. You may not be able to determine the rate of rotation without a fixed reference but the object will still be rotating on its axis if there is a fixed reference or not.
If you removed all objects in the Universe but the Earth would it quit rotating on its axis because there is not reference to compare the rotation to? Does it just stop?
Gordon Robertson
Reset and try again.
YOU: “Electrons dont stop transitioning between energy levels just because they are in a bond.”
Correct but they will not transition if they do not have enough energy to do so. I have already linked you to actual science that shows how much energy is required to accomplish an electron transition. Why don’t you look at it.
Now a futile attempt. Not sure why it has to be that way.
YOU: “If vibration is taking place, or rotation, or internal electron transitions, they are all related to to the electrons and nucleii mentioned. There is no other mysterious unit in a molecule that can vibrate or rotate.”
It is the nuclei that vibrate. When an Carbon Dioxide molecule absorbs the proper wavelength of IR EMR this energy will give the two oxygen nuclei enough energy to start moving away from the carbon nuclei (the nuclei of the atomic components of the molecule are what vibrate or rotate). As the oxygen nuclei start moving away the bond is stretched. The force of the bond increases tension as it stretches pulling back on the oxygen nuclei as they move outward (the common analogy for this is balls connected by springs…the bond is represented by springs the balls are the mass bearing nuclei). Now you get your vibration. The oxygen nuclei slow and stop as the bond stretches (if the EMR is of high enough energy like UV or X-Ray the bond can break and the oxygen atoms break away and are once again individual atoms) now the tension on the bond pulls the oxygen molecules back toward the carbon nuclei they accelerate toward the carbon and keep moving closer until the repelling force of the remaining electron shells push them away, they move closer and build tension that moves them back out again. A vibration within a molecule. The electrons are not transitioning at all. There is a slight charge differential that is rapidly changing in this vibration and this is what produces the emission of the IR energy.
Education for you Gordon. Linus Pauling was involved in the production. Maybe watch it if you have time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RqEIr8NtMI
Norm says:
“If you were on a merry-go-round standing at the edge you would revolve around the center but you would not rotate on your own axis. Which is your ball on the string example.
If you walk around the merry-go-round you are rotating on your axis as you walk around it. Check out your feet as you walk.”
I would disagree. Let’s say the merry-go-round is turning at 1 radian per second, and the guy is standing on the outside edge of the merry-go-round at some distance R from the center of orbit. So he is moving at some tangential velocity V wrt the ground. Now take a guy running in a circle at the same tangential velocity V at the same radius. It’s all the same motion. Same thing with a toy race car at the same V, at the same raduis R. Same movement. They all rotate once on their own axis per 1 orbit.
Now if the guy starts walking around the edge of the merry-go-round, his tangential velocity is merely increasing wrt the ground.
It does not matter if the guy is riding in a race car or being transported by the merry-go-round. Same motion.
HuffmanGoneStupid
You might be right. That is a tough one for me to logically figure out. I have not studied circular motion enough to know if the person on the merry-go-round is considered to be rotating on his own axis or just revolving around the center.
I am not going to disagree with you point. I am not sure I want to spend lots of time studying this physics.
The clear thing is the Moon is rotating on its axis. 3 people do not accept this. You have used some very good examples to demonstrate their errors. You have linked them to actual physics texts showing their error. Nothing seems to be working.
I understand you are skeptical of Climate Change and want to keep it a rational skepticism.
I like reading many of the skeptical debates. I like the ones that are using valid science. Some good points are made.
Phil J had a really good point about how our destruction of the ozone layer was allowing in more UV light. It was a lot more than I had thought and it would be enough to cause a significant amount of warming indicated by all the measured global temperature data sets.
“The clear thing is the Moon is rotating on its axis. 3 people do not accept this.”
In a previous discussion, we identified, I think, 8 commenters from this blog who have argued for the “Non-Spinner” perspective at one time or another. Plus at least 1 astronomer, Aleksandr Tomic, who has degrees in physics and astronomy, and a masters in astrophysics. Plus, of course, Nikola Tesla. And I think Bindidon identified at least one other astronomer, and another mathematician/physicist, plus he linked to a book somebody had written on the subject. So…you’re wrong about it being 3 people.
“No that is not correct. If you were on a merry-go-round standing at the edge you would revolve around the center but you would not rotate on your own axis. Which is your ball on the string example.”
Thank you for your concession. I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
Too good to waste…
Elliott…the IPCC are a load of political twits. They are a corrupt organization who has 2500 reviewers review papers then overrules them with the Summary for Policymakers, written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors.
Examples:
1)the iconic IPCC statement that it is 90% likely humans are causing global warming did not come from the 2500 reviewers. The consensus was to wait and see. The IPCC, through the 50 lead authors who write the Summary for Policymakers, overruled the consensus and published the 90% figure.
2)the IPCC knew the Mann et al hockey stick was flawed, that it had been fudged, yet they published it anyway. In doing so, they backed the hockey stick claim that the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period had not happened, even though the IPCC acknowledged them both in 1990.
3)the IPCC declared the pre Industrial CO2 concentration at 280 ppmv based on nothing more than ice cores samples. They completely ignored that the period was in the middle of phase 2 of the Little Ice Age where global temps were 1C to 2C below normal. There is no mention whatsoever in the IPCC annals of rewarming from the LIA.
4)a former leader of the IPCC, Pachauri, was accused of sexual harassment by an employee. He has a degree in railway engineering yet he was portrayed as the world’s leading climate scientist.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11441697/Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri-the-clown-of-climate-change-has-gone.html
5)The Climategate email scandal revealed two Coordinating Lead Authors involved in shady dealings. Phil Jones, of Had-crut, from whom the IPCC got their temperature data sets, threatened to block skeptic’s papers from the IPCC. He offered to recruit his partner, Kevin Trenberth, in the act.
Jones also admitted to using Mann’s trick to hide declining temperatures and he refused to release Had-crut data for independent audit.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data
I could go on and on.
Gordon Robertson says: “I could go on and on.”
And you do.
svante…”And you do [go on and on].
Only because you and your alarmists friends at the IPCC make it so easy and required. I did not see you rebutting anything I said therefore you must agree.
It’s one of your points refuted a thousand times.
Actually, I think your last link is a fair criticism of Phil Jones.
svante…”Actually, I think your last link is a fair criticism of Phil Jones”.
Especially coming from The Guardian.
DA,
Up thread at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-373113 you wrote ,, But you cant just ADD water vapor to the atmosphere it will soon rain or snow out. You can only get more water vapor in the atmosphere if you *first* increase the atmos temperature.,, I suppose you continue to make this statement because that is what the EPA used as a bogus excuse for not considering WV. It is profoundly wrong and could only be true if relative humidity was 100% all the time. Neither sweating or swamp coolers produce any cooling at 100% relative humidity.
If you had looked at my blog/analysis (click my name) you could have discovered that NASA/RSS have been measuring water vapor by satellite and reporting it since 1988 at http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product. Fig 3 in my b/a is a graph of the NASA/RSS numerical data. When normalized by dividing by the mean, the NASA/RSS data are corroborated by NCEP R1 and NCEP R2.
Calculated in Section 8 of my b/a, water vapor increased about twice as much as calculated from average global temperature trend increase 1988-2003. What part of this do you refuse to believe?
WV increase correlates with crop irrigation increase, with both WV and irrigation trends increasing substantially around 1960. WV increase is self-limiting and might have already stopped. It is self-limiting primarily because irrigable area is limited.
Bottom line, humanities contribution to natural warming has resulted from increased irrigation. CO2 does not, never has and never will have a significant effect on climate.
Dan, there is a link between atmospheric water vapor and temperature. But, you seem to be confusing cause and effect. Try this thought experiment:
There is a closed box. The box is perfectly insulated and sealed. The box contains a sample of the atmosphere, at a pressure of 1 ATM, and temperature of “T”. The water vapor in the box amounts to 5%, by volume.
Now, add water vapor to the box that is also at a temperature “T”, so that there is no condensation. At the same time, allow some pressure release from the box so that the pressure remains at 1 ATM. Add the water vapor until its percentage doubles.
You have doubled the WV, yet the temperature remains at “T”, unless you want to deny the laws of thermodynamics. The added WV did not raise the temperature inside the box.
Water vapor can NOT raise the temperature of a system, neither can CO2.
svante…”So with incoming heat of 400 W/m^2:”
Don’t you ever pay attention?
Heat is not measured in w/m^2, it is measured in calories and not over an area. Radiation is measured in W/m^2 and it has nothing to do with heat.
Radiation can be converted to heat by electrons in atoms but radiation is not heat. If you are still on about that stupid Eli Rabbett debacle, the solution is simple. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body by its own means. Therefore no heat can be transferred from the green plate to the blue plate.
You caught me out, I was being sloppy.
Heat is measured in one of these units:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Energy
Power or heat flow rate is measured in one of these units:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units#Power_or_heat_flow_rate
Heat flux is measured in W/m^2, or any other units of power per area.
Yes.
Except you just said it can be converted to heat.
Yes it can, and that will influence temperature.
But radiation can, and when it does it will influence temperature.
Yes, but the green plate can influence the blue plate temperature, up/down with more/less radiation.
Svante understands heat transfer analysis.
Too bad he fails to understand how CO2, in spite of being a ghg, does not, never has and never will have a significant effect on climate because:
1. The huge population gradient for water vapor molecules from average about 10,000 ppmv at surface to 32 ppmv at and above the tropopause.
2. Significant radiation below ~wavenumber 600 can only be absorbed/emitted by WV molecules and at higher altitudes much of the outward directed emission goes directly to space. This is demonstrated by the hash in TOA flux vs wavenumber graphs.
3. Thermalization allows much of the energy absorbed by CO2 below the tropopause to be redirected to WV.
4. CO2 is ~410 ppmv all the way up and dominates absorb/emit above the tropopause, partially refilling the notch in TOA flux vs wavenumber.
5. The increase in water vapor, which is about twice that calculated from temperature increase of the liquid water, accounts for the part of the increase in warming attributable to humanity.
I think all your points are good, except 5).
They are just words though.
Get the numbers with the battle proved MODTRAN program:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Battle proved?????
Proved by what battle? Only thing proven in modtran are some of the calculations and how much CO2 is absorbed in the atmosphere. Everything else is post normal science (a science hypothesis that wins the favor and money of the elite ruling class) So the only battle it has won is the battle for science funding.
Our missiles and sensors would not work without it.
MODTRAN was developed and continues to be maintained through a longstanding collaboration between Spectral Sciences, Inc. (SSI) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The code is embedded in many operational and research sensor and data processing systems, particularly those involving the removal of atmospheric effects, commonly referred to as atmospheric correction, in remotely sensed multi- and hyperspectral imaging (MSI and HSI).
Radiative transfer theory took a great leap in a place called Los Alamos. The theory worked.
In the west, the ruling class that we voted for have been trying to protect us.
And try this search:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=MODTRAN+missile&btnG=
You may be correct Svante.
My view of Modtran was from the modtran calculator offered up by the University of Chicago that extrapolated all the light being absorbed by CO2 as a warming of the surface.
It used to be located here for years here: .http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.orig.html
But maybe they took it down because the adding of CO2 wasn’t keeping up with their extrapolations. . . .ya think? Maybe somebody should send the IPCC a memo. . . .ya think? The IPCC is hiding away from shortterm failure to perform perferring to hand their hat on some miracle comeback Hail Mary! LMAO!
The UofC guys must have ignored the memo they got from Trenberth notifying them they had found out what was wrong with the temperature records.
I see the new one they have up only calculates the upward heat flux and does not appear to project any change in ground temperature. I wasn’t aware they had recently reworked the model.
How long do you think the nonsense will go on? Bernie Madoff kept robbing Peter to pay Paul for a long time.
But this Modtran appears pretty irrelevant to your objection to Dan’s statement of affects on ground temperature. Maybe you missed the change in the model too.
It’s not a climate model, it gives you spectral energy.
Dan mentions many things that are true, for example the little known point 4).
It doesn’t mean much until you calculate the numbers.
The calculation must be repeated in layer after layer for each frequency, with all the correct physics.
You should spend some time on MODTRAN.
The energy is the integral of the spectrum.
It is best understood if you view the spectrum from space.
If CO2 makes a dent it means less energy out, earth gets an energy surplus and must warm until the output is what is was.
Svante says: —– Its not a climate model, it gives you spectral energy. Dan mentions many things that are true, for example the little known point 4). It doesnt mean much until you calculate the numbers. The calculation must be repeated in layer after layer for each frequency, with all the correct physics.
You should spend some time on MODTRAN.
The energy is the integral of the spectrum.
It is best understood if you view the spectrum from space.
If CO2 makes a dent it means less energy out, earth gets an energy surplus and must warm until the output is what is was. ———
You are avoiding talking about your complaint on #5 and how Modtran refutes it Svante. Have you conceded that argument?
I spent a lot of time on modtran years ago. Like I said it used to provide a resulting surface temperature thinking it was a simplified climate model. What I was saying about Modtran was that those results were not battle tested. So I take that back now that the Modtran version now on the net no longer does that. However, I am left wondering how “battle tested” modtran supports your attack on Dan’s #5. Care to explain?
svante…” GR… Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body by its own means.
Svante…But radiation can, and when it does it will influence temperature”.
Heat cannot be transferred by radiation from a cooler body to a hotter body. That would contravene the 2nd law. Clausius said that about radiative heat transfer.
You need to understand the mechanism of heat transfer via radiation. When electrons in the atoms of a hotter body drop to a lower energy level they radiate EM as
Ehigh – Elow = hf. The intensity of the emitted radiation depends on difference in potential between energy levels through which the electron falls.
When the electron emits the EM, it loses kinetic energy and the atom cools. It’s ridiculous to talk about one atom cooling but as a mass, the overall lost of KE causes a loss of heat and a drop in temperature.
The thing to note is that HEAT IS LOST in proportion to the EM emitted.
As that EM radiates through space, it might encounter a cooler body. In that case, the EM is absorbed by the electrons in the cooler body’s atoms and the electrons jump to a higher energy level. Over the entire mass, that increases the KE of the mass and the temperature rises, meaning heat has been added to the cooler body.
That process is not reversible. If electrons in the atoms of a cooler body radiate EM, the intensity and frequency of the EM is from electrons at a lower energy level than those in a hotter body. When that EM encounters a hotter body it cannot be absorbed because the criterion for absorp-tion is critical.
Please note that heat does not flow through space via radiation therefore there is no such thing as heat flux. Electromagnetic energy is not heat flux, it is a flux made up of an electrical field perpendicular to a magnetic field. There is no heat in EM.
To put it another way, the EM from a cooler body lacks the intensity and the frequency to excite an electron in a hotter body to jump to a higher energy level.
To put it another way still, energy cannot be transferred from a lower energy state to a higher energy state. It’s akin to expecting water to flow uphill or for a boulder to raise itself up onto a cliff.
The expectation seems to be that two bodies of different temperature are trying to exchange energy. They are not, they are only radiating energy isotropically with no requirement that said energy be absorbed.
In fact, most of the EM from a hotter body misses the cooler body. The same is true in reverse, so only a fraction of the lower energy EM from the cooler body reaches the hotter body. It cannot be absorbed if the 2nd law is to be upheld.
Gordon Robertson,
“Heat cannot be transferred by radiation from a cooler body to a hotter body. That would contravene the 2nd law. Clausius said that about radiative heat transfer.”
Why do you keep saying that when no sensible person disagrees?
I think Nate and Norman disagree. They still think it does.
I assure you they do not, but if they do then I’m wrong.
They both know a lot more than me about this.
Ask Kristian if you want the answer from the other side of this issue, he is the only one there with decent physics.
The “2LOT violation” a’ la Gordon, JDHuffman and DREMT is completely bonkers.
See 2) in Roy’s list of arguments that make skeptics look bad:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Svante says: —– I assure you they do not, but if they do then Im wrong. They both know a lot more than me about this.———-
Your probably wrong about that. I had you pegged as better informed. And some of their posts are very clearly complaining about Gordon and JD saying that backradiation doesn’t warm surfaces.
We will have to see if they post more on this topic or have skedaddled.
I might be better at Economics, but not much else.
You should pay attention to Norman, he started off like you, ask him about it.
Back radiation does not heat the surface in the thermodynamic sense, but it makes it warmer by reducing heat loss.
Heat loss is driven by (T^4) temperature difference.
If you look up (in IR) and see more GHGs and less of space, then you have reduced heat loss.
Conversely, if you look down from space and see less warm surface, and more cold atmosphere, then you have reduced heat loss to space.
Reduced heat loss means energy surplus and higher temperature for any object that was in equilibrium.
Gordon: “Heat cannot be transferred by radiation from a cooler body to a hotter body. That would contravene the 2nd law. Clausius said that about radiative heat transfer.”
Svante: “Why do you keep saying that when no sensible person disagrees”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-375422
bobdroege: “Nope, heat goes both ways”
That’s right, I knew Svante’s great-great-granddad B-Li wasn’t a sensible person.
‘I think Nate and Norman disagree. They still think it does.’
Bill proves again that he is not good at coming to correct conclusions from the available evidence.
Heres a quote from Nate:
“I think we can all agree that energy can flow both ways, as per the SB law.
But Net energy flow, universally defined as HEAT, is only flowing one way as per the RHTE and as REQUIRED by 2LOT.”
Svante says: ——— I might be better at Economics, but not much else.You should pay attention to Norman, he started off like you, ask him about it.———-
The theory is seductive. I started out like him and went the other way as I learned more.
==============
Svante says: ——— Back radiation does not heat the surface in the thermodynamic sense, but it makes it warmer by reducing heat loss.
Heat loss is driven by (T^4) temperature difference.
If you look up (in IR) and see more GHGs and less of space, then you have reduced heat loss.
Conversely, if you look down from space and see less warm surface, and more cold atmosphere, then you have reduced heat loss to space.
Reduced heat loss means energy surplus and higher temperature for any object that was in equilibrium.————-
I agree that ghg reduce heat loss, but that isn’t the only condition necessary. To reduce heat loss you have to both absorb heat in the atmosphere and raise the atmosphere temperature which entails a retention of heat.
Its an interesting statement of yours that when you look into this atmosphere from different perspectives its both getting warmer and getting colder depending upon your perspective.
You have conveniently drawn up speculative looks into the atmosphere that come out with different results like you are unsure if the atmosphere is warming. Oh its both warming and cooling!
Magic barriers exist to prevent the heat from just progressing up into the atmosphere and getting disposed of to space. Nice tight little theory except for the contradiction of your observations. . . .where it turns more into a soup sandwich.
I agree that closing the IR window would probably warm the atmosphere, but there is not much room for CO2 to close the window and almost daily locally that window is getting flung open and closed by drifting clouds. Clouds are the most likely culprit for climate change. Both what clouds are doing naturally and what clouds would do with any increased warming in the atmosphere are essentially completely unknown. Even Andy Dessler acknowledges that the works of Lindzen and Spencer are interesting, but he reminds us to keep in mind that these are short term observed local type responses, there is no observation to expand it globally and that of course becomes the basis of Dessler pooh poohing them. But one must acknowledge that Dessler’s theory lacks any observation. But since its the theory being paid for by the world’s elitists, its the favored theory.
==========================
Nate says: ——–I think Nate and Norman disagree. They still think it does.
Bill proves again that he is not good at coming to correct conclusions from the available evidence. Heres a quote from Nate:
I think we can all agree that energy can flow both ways, as per the SB law. But Net energy flow, universally defined as HEAT, is only flowing one way as per the RHTE and as REQUIRED by 2LOT.————–
Fine but then you argue with Gordon and JD that the backradiation is not rejected by surface. This backradiation isn’t warming the surface. You sometimes say stuff that agrees with that then you go back to arguing with Gordon and JD reversing what you just said.
Indeed, if an only if you can establish that increased CO2 increases the radiant temperature of the atmosphere can you argue that this backradiation is warming the surface. Climate science has established greenhouse gases as a substance that first warms the surface then warms the atmosphere. Thats wrong. GHG must first warm the atmosphere before anything can happen to the surface. And climate science at least from a public compilation of literature and propaganda has completely ignored that.
You would agree would you not that a 3k atmosphere of CO2 would not warm the surface right? Well if true then the presence of ghg in the atmosphere must first be established as the cause of the temperature of the atmosphere before it can warm anything.
Svante tells me the atmosphere is both warming and cooling depending upon which angle he is looking from. But he said nothing about how that’s happening. Near as I can tell its something he read in the the Holy Book of Global Warming.
If you don’t fully inspect the logic of an argument you are susceptible to believing the argument without any proof whatsoever.
‘Fine but then you argue with Gordon and JD that the backradiation is not rejected by surface’
OMG, of course I do.
Wait, you think back radiation cannot be absorbed?!!
‘Climate science has established greenhouse gases as a substance that first warms the surface then warms the atmosphere.’
Huh? Where do you get such an idea?
‘You would agree would you not that a 3k atmosphere of CO2 would not warm the surface right? Well if true then the presence of ghg in the atmosphere must first be established as the cause of the temperature of the atmosphere before it can warm anything.’
Why would you think the atmosphere is at 3K?
The atmosphere is warmed by multiple processes, including radiation from the surface.
Nate says: —————-‘Fine but then you argue with Gordon and JD that the backradiation is not rejected by surface’
OMG, of course I do.
Wait, you think back radiation cannot be absorbed?!!———–
I don’t even have good reason to believe it exists much less going around ascribing characteristics to it never seen by human eyes.
Your problem is you cannot distinguish between the effect and the conceptual cartoon others drew for you to describe the effect. . . .thus you ascribe characteristics to the conceptual object that are completely unknown and never detected to even verify its existence.
Nate says: ——–Climate science has established greenhouse gases as a substance that first warms the surface then warms the atmosphere.
Huh? Where do you get such an idea?————
Are you having some difficulty adding 1/2 and 1/2? Whats left over to warm the atmosphere? Answer: Zero.
Nate says: ——–You would agree would you not that a 3k atmosphere of CO2 would not warm the surface right? Well if true then the presence of ghg in the atmosphere must first be established as the cause of the temperature of the atmosphere before it can warm anything.
Why would you think the atmosphere is at 3K?———–
It would be 3k, or less, if nothing was warming it.
Nate says: ——–The atmosphere is warmed by multiple processes, including radiation from the surface.———
Please provide the numbers and contribution from each process. I don’t know how many times I have heard it say that because the atmosphere does not absorb solar radiation the atmosphere is warmed by the surface. So this obviously is the key factor in the greenhouse theory. I am interested in hearing your take on how and how much CO2 warms the atmosphere. Obviously just waving your hand in the air doesn’t cause any warming nor explain any, nor make any kind of argument for it.
‘I dont even have good reason to believe it exists much less going around ascribing characteristics to it never seen by human eyes.’
But you think it is ‘rejected’ by a surface?
‘then you argue with Gordon and JD that the backradiation is not rejected by surface.’
Not making much sense, Bill.
No, I admit I have never seen IR radiation with my eyes. But I have detected it with my IR temperature sensor.
Good enough for me.
JD thinks that a BB acts like a mirror to what we call ‘back radiation’, and therefore a surface emits according to SB law, Q = sigma*T^4, and the surrounding temperature, Tc, doesnt matter.
Most of us disagree with that, and think that the heat loss from a surface is given by the RHTE, Q ~ sigma (T^4 – Tc^4).
You?
Nate says: ——–
I dont even have good reason to believe it exists much less going around ascribing characteristics to it never seen by human eyes.
But you think it is rejected by a surface?
then you argue with Gordon and JD that the backradiation is not rejected by surface.
Not making much sense, Bill.
No, I admit I have never seen IR radiation with my eyes. But I have detected it with my IR temperature sensor.
Good enough for me.
JD thinks that a BB acts like a mirror to what we call back radiation, and therefore a surface emits according to SB law, Q = sigma*T^4, and the surrounding temperature, Tc, doesnt matter.
Most of us disagree with that, and think that the heat loss from a surface is given by the RHTE, Q ~ sigma (T^4 Tc^4).
You?————-
I believe the equation you mention has scientific merit in the conditions outlined by Stefan-Boltzmann.
But its not clear to me those conditions are met in the atmosphere.
I would say it is true in the case to two perfectly insulated solid surfaces in a vacuum facing each other with a full field of view as is the relationship of the atmosphere and surface. But SB equations in heat loss situations don’t just look at the facing surfaces, it a chain of equations ending at the last surface of concern where it then goes off into an unchangeable environment (for all practical purposes unchangeable).
However, the SB equations do not envision either surface having any other losses and we know that the virtual atmosphere surface proposed by climate science as fitting that equation is losing heat on the backside of the virtual surface as fast as it is allegedly gaining in on the facing side.
Also its not staying put like a solid surface. So far limited experiments to demonstrate the effect like the RW Woods experiment fell flat on its face even using a solid surface.
Further there is extensive engineering heat loss calculations of skylights and windows that do not support your equation due to the presence of convection. In fact, for decades window and skylight heat loss calculations didn’t even bother putting in any radiation equations at all until they started adding coatings to reduce the emissivity of glass.
Now there may be some low emissivity existing in the atmosphere but danged if you can get a single answer on what it is and it might only matter at TOA because of convection.
Here is a question for you. We know the atmosphere is emitting 200 watts/m2 to space from satellite measurements. How many watts/m2 must be delivered to that surface to emit that much?
‘Please provide the numbers and contribution from each process. I dont know how many times I have heard it say that because the atmosphere does not absorb solar radiation the atmosphere is warmed by the surface.’
You are just not making much sense, Bill.
It is not true that the atmosphere is 3K, nor is true that CO2 must warm the surface first then the atmosphere.
The sun warms the surface. THEN heat from the surface warms the atmosphere, as I said by various processes.
That is just an empirical fact that should not be controversial. You can look up the numbers yourself, which vary from place to place, but I don’t see how having those numbers is going to help you with your problem.
A warm atmosphere reduces radiation from the surface to space @ 3 k.
Its unclear what your issue is, because you are all over the place.
‘Now there may be some low emissivity existing in the atmosphere but danged if you can get a single answer on what it is and it might only matter at TOA because of convection.
Here is a question for you. We know the atmosphere is emitting 200 watts/m2 to space from satellite measurements. How many watts/m2 must be delivered to that surface to emit that much?’
200 W/m^2
But the real GHE models include convection and latent heat as well as radiation. All are needed to explain the lapse rate that we observe.
You need to criticize the real models and tell us what’s wrong with them.
Nate says: ————-I think Ill stick with regular optics and causality.——————
Thats fine everybody is entitled to their own opinions.
Nate says: ———Its unclear what your issue is, because you are all over the place. The sun warms the surface. THEN heat from the surface warms the atmosphere, as I said by various processes.—————
Its only unclear to you because how the atmosphere gets warm and what the cause of the atmosphere getting warmer is something you haven’t thought much about.
You say “various processes” OK, if the atmosphere is warmed by various processes are they all caused by adding CO2? Because if they are not then CO2 is not the control knob. And if CO2 is not the control knob then what you have been told about what to expect from adding CO2 is wrong.
Which means you don’t really have a clue about what you have been talking about. . . .instead you are just a puppet of the elite establishment.
Nate says: ———-
How many watts/m2 must be delivered to that surface to emit that much?
200 W/m^2—————-
So there is no backradiation by the top layer???
======================
Nate says: ———-
But the real GHE models include convection and latent heat as well as radiation. All are needed to explain the lapse rate that we observe.
You need to criticize the real models and tell us whats wrong with them.————–
Oh really? When do you think they will make all their codes available to the public and which one should I look at? Have you looked or do you just accept as an article of religious faith?
“You say ‘various processes’ OK, if the atmosphere is warmed by various processes are they all caused by adding CO2? Because if they are not then CO2 is not the control knob. And if CO2 is not the control knob then what you have been told about what to expect from adding CO2 is wrong.”
You guys are predictable in that you all come up with similar straw men of this type.
The all or none fallacy. Didnt you learn logic in college?
CO2 must cause all warming of the atmosphere. Or else the whole theory is wrong!
CO2 does what it does, convection does what it does. latent heat does what it does, and water vapor does what it does.
Now simulations do show that if CO2 were all removed, then the Earth would cool a lot. Because water vapor would also be reduced a lot, and growth of ice would reflect a lot of sunlight. Feed-backs.
‘How many watts/m2 must be delivered to that surface to emit that much?
200 W/m^2-‘
Ok, 200 W/m^2 is the NET delivered from the lower layer to the top layer.
But actually some part of the 200 W to space has come all the way from the surface, so only part of the 200 W comes from the top layer.
But what are you getting at?
Nate says:———CO2 must cause all warming of the atmosphere. Or else the whole theory is wrong!
CO2 does what it does, convection does what it does. latent heat does what it does, and water vapor does what it does.———-
I never said the whole theory was wrong Nate. What I am saying is not only you can’t answer the question I asked but neither can I and neither can anybody else. So we are all entitled to believe what we believe as nobody really knows the answer.
An important example on the causation is the work by Lord Monckton who pointed out that sun would have to be responsible for its share of the water feedbacks. Since that share sits somewhere around 338watts/m2 and a doubling of CO2 is estimated by modtran to produce a bit more than 3 watts/m2. That suggests that maybe CO2 will be responsible for about .3 watts when it doubles(you might check Monckton’s math as I might be off a little bit).
Nate says:———
Now simulations do show that if CO2 were all removed, then the Earth would cool a lot. Because water vapor would also be reduced a lot, and growth of ice would reflect a lot of sunlight. Feed-backs.———
It would only cool a lot if CO2 is responsible for a lot of the greenhouse effect. Nobody knows how much. You don’t, I don’t, and nobody else does for sure either.
bill hunter says:
“Please provide the numbers and contribution from each process.”
Trenberth’s numbers expressed as heat using W/m^2:
Radiation: 17.8 W/m^2.
Thermals (net): 18.4 W/m^2.
Latent Heat (net): 86.4 W/m^2.
Surface straight to space 40.1 W/m^2.
Now you’re ready for a couple more clues.
It doesn’t matter how you get the heat to TOA (the point where radiation leaves for space, which depends on wavelength).
What matters is the TOA temperature. Because of the lapse rate (created mainly by convection), this temperature decreases with height.
Put plainly, everything radiates according to its temperature. To reduce heat loss, you just need to make the atmosphere more opaque (in IR), i.e. show the universe a higher/colder layer. For the universe, what you see is what you get.
CO2 just needs to reduce the IR optical depth (in its absorp*tion bands).
There’s one more piece of the puzzle when you got that.
‘ Nobody knows how much. You dont, I dont, and nobody else does for sure either.’
You clearly don’t know very much about it, but that doesnt mean knowledgeable people dont either.
And they can model it using physics based models that have correctly reproduced the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere, the general warming trend, and the general spatial pattern of warming, among other features.
Is there still some uncertainty about how much warming. Yes.
Svante says: ———–Trenberth’s numbers expressed as heat using W/m^2:
Radiation: 17.8 W/m^2.
Thermals (net): 18.4 W/m^2.
Latent Heat (net): 86.4 W/m^2.
Surface straight to space 40.1 W/m^2
Now you’re ready for a couple more clues.
It doesn’t matter how you get the heat to TOA (the point where radiation leaves for space, which depends on wavelength).
What matters is the TOA temperature. Because of the lapse rate (created mainly by convection), this temperature decreases with height.——–
Yeah well on the surface what you have in the budget you are looking at (not Trenberth’s but NASAs), is it shows is 340.3w/m2 backradiation to generate 398.2-239.9 = 158.3w/m2 greenhouse effect.
right off the back that says feedback sensitivity factor must be .46 not 3.0 per the IPCC. That would suggest around a 1/2 degree warming from doubling of CO2. Further it seems to me that it gets worse the deeper you dig. Why am I wrong?
Nate says: ———You clearly dont know very much about it, but that doesnt mean knowledgeable people dont either.——–
Knowledgeable people don’t agree Nate. And clearly you don’t know either. But you sure act like you do.
Nate says: ———
Is there still some uncertainty about how much warming. Yes.——–
Thats all I am saying Nate. Try the question why I am wrong above in my reply to Svante.
“NASAs), is it shows is 340.3w/m2 backradiation to generate 398.2-239.9 = 158.3w/m2 greenhouse effect.
right off the back that says feedback sensitivity factor must be .46 not 3.0 per the IPCC. ”
Not sure what youvare doing there. The 3 is a temperature rise per TOA forcing of 3.7 W/m2.
Nate says: ——–Not sure what youvare doing there. The 3 is a temperature rise per TOA forcing of 3.7 W/m2.———–
the reasonableness test has nothing directly to do with the 3.7w/m2, its only testing feedback sensitivity. You have many ways of looking at sensitivity. Feedback sensitivity is a multiplier of the initial effect. Pre-feedback sensitivity is the initial effect. And total sensitivity is the initial effect multiplied by the feedback sensitivity.
The 3.7w/m2 is pre-feedback sensitivity for doubling of CO2. Thats before feedback. A number larger than 1 for feedback sensitivity is positive feedback.
Thus the IPCC estimate I believe is approximately 3, though I may be confusing that with 3 degrees (its been years since I read that part). So 3.7 is supposed to be something like one degree. The three degrees comes from tripling it by the feedback sensitivity factor. (The actual numbers I think (memory blurry) is a feedback sensitivity of 2.7C and the prefeedback 1.1C)
However the reasonableness test comes up with .46 feedback factor which is negative feedback, suggesting the warming from doubling CO2 would be about .5C degrees.
bill hunter says:
That is what we call the direct effect, you can calculate it with MODTRAN.
No, a feed back of 1 will give you an explosion.
The formula is: Ga = A/(1-AB)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback#Basic
A negative feed back is the same with the sign reversed.
That would be the ECS, Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, it is the temperature response from increased forcing and it is measured in K/(W/m^2).
0.46 looks like a bogus attempt to calculate GHG feed back from increased absorbed solar radiation (ASR), and it is not a negative feed back.
Bill,
You need more rigor in your posts.
Where does this idea of dividing GHE 158 W/m^2 by back radiation , 340 W/m^2, to find climate sensitivity come from?
First of all 340 W/m^2 is not the top of the atmosphere Forcing.
What we have is a 33K increase in surface temperature relative to TOA emission temperature, 288 K is ave surface temp, and 255 K is effective temp of Earth as viewed from space.
That 33 K must arise from GHG forcing and any feedbacks.
From MODTRAN, changing ONLY CO2 from 0 ppm to 400 ppm results in a decrease of TOA emission by ~ 31 W/m^2
So this could be an estimate for the total CO2 FORCING.
In contrast if we ONLY change the temperature of the surface from 255 K to 288 K, the estimated rise due to GHE, the surface emission increases by 150 W/m^2.
This is ~ 5 x the effect of JUST CO2. So ~ 120 W comes from other effects
This suggests strong positive feedbacks from WV, methane, and ice albedo etc are needed to get the additional needed reduction in TOA emission.
Svante says: ————No, a feed back of 1 will give you an explosion.
I swear to God schools are turning out robots!
Svante, sensitivity numbers are expressed in many different ways.
The number I am using is the multiplier derived from the IPCC equilibrium climate sensitivity (longterm).
The IPCC states equilibrium climate sensitivity is in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C.
Since 3.7w/m2 is commonly expressed as 1C for the pre-feedback surface forcing effect of CO2 (not sure how that is calculated)
then, the climate sensitivity factors for the IPCC and their positive feedback estimates is in a range of 1.5 to 4.5. They indicated the most likely number was 3.
Since you have a big problem with this I will remind you its a simple factor that may have been derived from a feedback loop equation but is expressed by the IPCC as an end result not a feedback loop equation.
The feedback loop equation is only meaningful in the IPCC arriving at ECS. It is only useful for separating short term effects from long term effects. I am not concerning myself here with short term effects because about 70% of them occurred over a million years ago, the rest over the past 160 years of the industrial age. So it might be appropriate to appreciate that some of those effects have not yet appeared in the NASA budget numbers. But all is not lost. NASA is being very helpful here by showing us the estimated imbalance in the system of .6 watts which will eventually be modified by the ECS factor. I judge that as unimportant because its less than 1/2 of one percent of outgoing radiation.
My reasonable test is a test of the IPCC end result and as I point out it isn’t even close and it is based upon NASA’s own numbers or how many watts of greenhouse effect is generated by each watt of forcing.
Further I am doing the test in the most generous fashion allowing them to bury negative feedbacks into cloud and snow reflections by hiding it in albedo. If I reverse that out, sensitivity will be cut roughly in half. I come up with .27 rather than .46.
Current surface emissions 398.2
Surface emissions without ghe 239.9
Increase in surface radiation: 158.3
Watts forcing: (backradiation) 340.3
ECS surface emissions/watt forcing 0.465
All this is is a typical auditor reasonableness test to test if the clients results meet a sniff test.
Since it didn’t and it seems like it should have, next step is for the client to start explaining exactly why the reasonableness test does not display a longterm linear type result inline with what the client is now estimating for future results.
but I have no need, nor the information to calculate out the gain factor.
to know that to see what the end results have been over the entire history of global warming from the date the first CO2 molecule went into the sky.
What I am calculating is a backwards calculation from the end result and expressing it as a factor in relationship to each watt of direct IR cooling. I don’t need a feedback loop equation to do that.
Sensitivity expressed prior to the feedback loop is a completely different concept it implies you know every thermal feedback factor in the system from changes in ice, changes in clouds, changes in precipitation, changes in water vapor, changes apparently in methane release, it goes on and on. Feed all that junk into a feedback loop calculator and the output comes out with the number I am using which is how much you multiply initial gain by to get the final result.
You should be able to easily see that from the methodology I am calculating sensitivity from results not guesses. The only guesses involved in my methodology are the guesses in the radiation budget and the guess that greenhouse gas effects have not reached or nearing some kind of trigger point or limits or saturation due to some unforeseen limit or special sensitivity in the effects of CO2.
The
Opps, left some unerased notes at end of last post. Ignore any confusion that creates this is the complete final version below: (hate not having an edit function)
Svante, sensitivity numbers are expressed in many different ways.
The number I am using is the multiplier derived from the IPCC equilibrium climate sensitivity (longterm).
The IPCC states equilibrium climate sensitivity is in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C.
Since 3.7w/m2 is commonly expressed as 1C for the pre-feedback surface forcing effect of CO2 (not sure how that is calculated)
then, the climate sensitivity factors for the IPCC and their positive feedback estimates is in a range of 1.5 to 4.5. They indicated the most likely number was 3.
Since you have a big problem with this I will remind you its a simple factor that may have been derived from a feedback loop equation but is expressed by the IPCC as an end result not a feedback loop equation.
The feedback loop equation is only meaningful in the IPCC arriving at ECS. It is only useful for separating short term effects from long term effects. I am not concerning myself here with short term effects because about 70% of them occurred over a million years ago, the rest over the past 160 years of the industrial age. So it might be appropriate to appreciate that some of those effects have not yet appeared in the NASA budget numbers. But all is not lost. NASA is being very helpful here by showing us the estimated imbalance in the system of .6 watts which will eventually be modified by the ECS factor. I judge that as unimportant because its less than 1/2 of one percent of outgoing radiation.
My reasonable test is a test of the IPCC end result and as I point out it isnt even close and it is based upon NASAs own numbers or how many watts of greenhouse effect is generated by each watt of forcing.
Further I am doing the test in the most generous fashion allowing them to bury negative feedbacks into cloud and snow reflections by hiding it in albedo. If I reverse that out, sensitivity will be cut roughly in half. I come up with .27 rather than .46.
Current surface emissions 398.2
Surface emissions without ghe 239.9
Increase in surface radiation: 158.3
Watts forcing: (backradiation) 340.3
ECS surface emissions/watt forcing 0.465
All this is is a typical auditor reasonableness test to test if the clients results meet a sniff test.
Since it didnt and it seems like it should have, next step is for the client to start explaining exactly why the reasonableness test does not display a longterm linear type result inline with what the client is now estimating for future results.
Bill, a resonableness test sounds reasonable, if the assumptions made in it are correct.
‘Current surface emissions 398.2
Surface emissions without ghe 239.9
Increase in surface radiation: 158.3
Watts forcing: (backradiation) 340.3″
We agree on the increase in surface emissions.
Your backradiation of 340 W is consistent with Svantes NET upward radiation of 40 + 18 = 58, because that = 398- 340.
But the back radiation, 340 W, is NOT THE FORCING.
False assumption.
First of all the Forcing is defined to be at TOA, not at the surface.
As I explained above, The CO2 Forcing at the TOA is only about 31 W/m^2.
Feedbacks and other effects account for the other 120 W/m^2 to achieve the total GHE we see.
The 0.6 W imbalance is just a measure of the lag, it is not the forcing. Earth has been trying to close the gap for two hundred years but we keep moving the goal post.
Use MODTRAN to try some examples. To see the effect of a doubling, put in 280 ppm and “Save this run to background”. Then put in 560 ppm and tab out.
‘All this is is a typical auditor reasonableness test to test if the clients results meet a sniff test.
Since it didnt and it seems like it should have, next step is for the client to start explaining exactly why the reasonableness test does not display a longterm linear type result inline with what the client is now estimating for future results.”
Pretty funny.
This discussion illustrates that auditor expertise is not sufficient to audit science!
What is a reasonanble reasonableness test requires a good understanding of the science.
Nate says:———-Bill, You need more rigor in your posts. Where does this idea of dividing GHE 158 W/m^2 by back radiation , 340 W/m^2, to find climate sensitivity come from?
First of all 340 W/m^2 is not the top of the atmosphere Forcing.————
Rigor? You have no clue whats going on here Nate. I produce a rock solid estimate of climate sensitivity to surface forcing pulled straight from NASA numbers. There is no question its correct, if NASA numbers are correct. Its an easy error free computation.
Every reas test should start with the claimed effect and produce a rock solid result. From there its question time.
Now you are going on about 3.7 watts being uh TOA forcing. The sensitivity test said absolutely nothing about TOA forcing so why do you think it did? The entire exercise is centered around surface effects. Its the job of the folks worried about TOA temperatures to explain their worries for us ground bound folks. If you don’t want to do that well you can always start talking about effects on the birds, planes, and missiles.
Ultimately all I did with it was state what amount of pre-feedback surface warming that doubling of CO2 was claimed to be responsible for in degreesC. Thats been widely bandied about everywhere of 1 to 1.2 degreesC pre-feedback. But that adds nothing either as that hasn’t been explained in terms of surface forcing and how that is derived from TOA forcing.
All you need to do is provide enough watts to make that happen. So since you are so convinced why not answer your own questions?
I have said repeatedly the step after a reasonableness test built upon a solid foundation is to go out and find out all the rest of the processes that explain a claimed effect.
Your blabbering about TOA forcing doesn’t explain anything important. The only thing important is surface forcing. So not only is my reas test rock solid its rock solid on the most important numbers!!!
As it stands your 31w/m2 TOA forcing needs to justify 340.3 w/m2 of surface forcing meaning you need 11 watts of surface forcing for every watt of TOA CO2 forcing. So have at it!
I can give you another model that assumes NASA made a mistake in not recognizing albedo as negative feedback from water vapor creating, ice, snow and clouds.
In this other one you only need to justify 7.7watts of surface forcing for every watt of TOA CO2 forcing to fully explain the model. Should be a much easier job. And actually the number correspond much more closely to CO2 absorbing approximately 1/8th up upwelling IR of the .9 of all IR is absorbed (~360 of ~400). Seems more likely than 1/11th.
So I do want to thank you for that 31w/m2 TOA number it allowed me to fill in a few blanks in the overall model. Modtran seems to be a reliable source so I will insert it. If you can continue to help flesh this puppy out maybe we can get somewhere.
Svante says: —————-The 0.6 W imbalance is just a measure of the lag, it is not the forcing. Earth has been trying to close the gap for two hundred years but we keep moving the goal post. Use MODTRAN to try some examples. To see the effect of a doubling, put in 280 ppm and Save this run to background. Then put in 560 ppm and tab out.————–
You are as bad as Nate, not having a clue on what an audit does. I have no interest in “auditing” the top of the atmosphere. I am fine with Modtran providing the numbers. I incorporated all of Nate’s modtran number in my model. So really unless something is going up there besides modtran absor*ption of outgoing LWR, there is nothing more to do.
However, its important to note forcing at TOA only forces the surface if you have a logical way of translating numbers from TOA to the surface. I can suggest a way that could be a subject of another reas test, like 400w/m2 emitted from the ground and 200w/m2 emitted from TOA to outer space. (can’t believe I actually have to help you guys along), haven’t you thought at all about forcing gets the surface where it counts?
Nate says:—————-This discussion illustrates that auditor expertise is not sufficient to audit science!What is a reasonanble reasonableness test requires a good understanding of the science.————–
You are one naive SOB Nate. No auditors are not the experts in what they audit. They need a basic understanding of the things they audit thats all. What they do is document all the methods, obtain evidence of the results of tests of the methods, and document everything so one can explain A to Z how stuff works.
The experts provide the information in these audits Nate. The reas test recognizes that the most important element is the downwelling IR in forcing the surface to warm. NASA puts that number at 340.3 w/m2 to explain today’s temperature which is the sum of solar forcing plus IR forcing, those are the only two forces listed by NASA and other budgets. I have no bone to pick with the solar forcing. I am unconvinced if the downwelling IR is 340.3 watts per NASA or if its actually 239.8 watts per the result of properly recognizing albedo as negative feedback or if its some number in between those two numbers.
I figure the best way to determine that is to pursue either reas test and fill in the blanks. I noted that in the original reas test I presented that agrees with NASA 100% requires every watt of TOA forcing to equate to 11watts forcing at the surface. The other reas test that I have not posted would move that down to every watt of CO2 TOA forcing must provide 7.7watts of forcing at the surface. Real simple stuff the objective is to get the experts to fill in the science that transmits the forcing at TOA to the surface.
If you can’t provide those answers then please just step aside and stop obfuscating the exercise and allow somebody that has a clue about what they are talking about respond.
Look Bill,
A feed back is an enhancement of the initial effect.
When you start with solar input you are going for the solar feedback, not CO2.
The CO2 radiative forcing at the surface is
dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
where Co is the reference concentration. It is usually calculated for a doubling (since pre-industrial):
dF = 5.35 ln(560/280) = 3.7 W/m^-2.
You get a similar result in MODTRAN for altitude 0 km, ‘Looking up’ and the ‘1976 US Standard Atmosphere’.
Now you can multiply with the equilibrium climate sensitivity in K/(W/m^2).
IPCC says the result is likely to be 1.5-4.5 C for a doubling.
This paper says it’s likely 2.23.4 C based on historical data:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450
Bill,
There is nothing reasonable about using the wrong equation to calculate something, and then declare: Look it gives the wrong answer!
Thats’s just plain ignorant and dishonest.
Climate sensitivity calculated one way, is predicted to be 3.
Observed climate sensitivity calculated your made-up wrong way gives an observed value of 0.46.
To claim you’ve done something reasonable with this straw man test of the prediction is straight-up BS.
And I have explained why the back-radiation is not the Forcing.
There are many parameters in climate science. You can’t just swap them out as you please.
You have to understand what you are doing.
‘ The reas test recognizes that the most important element is the downwelling IR in forcing the surface to warm. NASA puts that number at 340.3 w/m2 to explain today’s temperature which is the sum of solar forcing plus IR forcing, those are the only two forces listed by NASA and other budgets. I have no bone to pick with the solar forcing. I am unconvinced if the downwelling IR is 340.3 watts per NASA or if its actually 239.8 watts per the result of properly recognizing albedo as negative feedback or if its some number in between those two numbers.’
The point you are missing, I think, is that adding GHG to the atmosphere causes many complicated changes. You should not over simplify it.
Prior to GHG, we have 240 W input to surface, all solar, and 240 W output from surface all IR direct to space.
After GHG, the atmosphere now becomes a layover for heat, and changes of heat transfer vehicles occur:
1.80 W of input solar is absorbed in atmosphere and cloud tops, leaving 160 W going to surface.
2.Roughly 100 W are now transferred from surface to atmosphere by convection and latent heat.
3. Out of now 398 W emitted from the surface, 358W are now absorbed by the atmosphere, and 40 W still goes to space.
4. The lower atmosphere, now warm and glowing sends 340 W IR to surface.
5. The upper atmosphere now glowing but cooler than the lower, sends 200 W IR to space.
As you can see all the fluxes have changed, but the result is because of the now insulating effect of the atmosphere, the surface is warmer.
A reasonableness test would be:
Are all these flows consistent with the laws of physics, and what we know about the atmosphere and meteorology? Yes.
Do all these changes add to 0 change in TOA output? Ie is 1LOT satisfied? Yes.
Svante, please stop trolling.
True trolling yes, or did you see any falsehood at all?
Svante, please stop trolling.
bart…”Gordon
What do you see in the CO2 molecule that can vibrate, rotate, or transition?”
Bart…you missed my point. I am arguing that a molecule is nothing more than a name for an aggregation of electrons and their associated nucleii. There is nothing in a molecule but the aforementioned and there is no other mechanism in a molecule that can vibrate, rotate, or transition.
Atomic nucleii in a solid lattice can vibrate but they act as springs with the electron bond as the spring. The vibration is increased or decreased by adding/subtracting heat with the heat affecting the electron bond.
In a gas, linear molecules like CO2 can rotate but what is doing the rotating? It is again, the electron/nucleii aggregation.
Though it is described as “linear”, the bonds are not infinitely stiff, and modes of vibration arise, as depicted in the graphs Norman has shared with you.
bart…”But does it REALLY travel upside-down? Of course not.
Yes, it does. You said it yourself:
Well, it does if viewed from the stars”.
As JD’s plane orbits the Earth, down is in the direction of gravity and has nothing to do with the perspective of the stars. The plane is in a powered orbit due to the effect of local gravity. Whereas the Moon stays in orbit due to its linear momentum the plane requires wings and motors.
If you viewed the plane from the perspective of the stars it would not appear to be upside down.
The problem with the Moon rotating about it’s axis cannot be defined from a different reference frame. It’s either rotating on its axis or not. If it’s not it won’t appear to be rotating ABOUT ITS AXIS in any reference frame.
Bart, and the other Spinners, get trapped in their own illogic. They want to claim that the racehorse is ACTUALLY rotating on its axis because it APPEARS to be, if viewed from outside the track. Yet they want to claim the school bus, or jet plane, is only APPEARING to be upside-down, because of how it is viewed.
In one case “reference frame” matters, in the other case “reference frame” doesn’t matter!
They can’t process facts and logic. That’s why they can’t learn.
Nothing new.
No, it is ACTUALLY upside down in relation to the reference frame of the stars. You said so yourself.
“Its either rotating on its axis or not.”
No, Gordon. Rotation is always relative. You always have to provide a reference frame with respect to which the rotation is occurring.
Right now, I am not rotating with respect to my local North-West-Vertical reference frame, but I am rotating with respect to a reference frame fixed to the distant stars.
“Nothing new”.
Dr Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team disagrees with “The Simplest Green Plate Effect” here:
https://tinyurl.com/y3lyq3v4
He argues that plates pressed together should be similar to plates with a minimal vacuum gap.
This is wrong since conduction and radiation have different physical formulas. Radiation gives 18 K, and conduction 0.001 K for 1 mm of aluminum (the original example had perfect conduction so that’s 0 K):
https://tinyurl.com/y2sevccm
Dr Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team responded:
That’s right, the symmetry is lost if you don’t have conduction all around (and if you don’t have perfect conduction inside the plates). So, put 1 mm aluminum plates all around, and electrical heating in the first plate. The surrounding temperature can be 0 K like in the original.
One plate surrounded by 1mm aluminum plates:
Conduction: dt=sQ/k
s=0.001 m (plate thickness).
k=237 W/K/m
Q=heat (W/m^2)
a=400 W/m^2
b=200 W/m^2
a-b=200 W/m^2
dt=0.001*200/237=0.00084388185654
Single plate temperature: 0.0008 K.
Two plates, with three 1mm aluminum plates:
b’=2a/3=266 W/m^2
c=b’/2=133.3 W/m^2
b’-c=133.3 W/m^2 (heat heading rightward).
For the plate on the right:
dt=0.001*133.3/237=0.000562447257384 K
The same is true between the plates, since c=b’-c.
Does that send 266 W/m^2 to the left?
dt=0.001*266.6/237=0.001124894514768 K
The colder plate on the right warms left plate by 33%.
400 W/m^2 is conducted away and everything adds up.
“He argues that plates pressed together should be similar to plates with a minimal vacuum gap.”
No, my argument was that this is what Eli’s article implies.
“That’s right, the symmetry is lost if you don’t have conduction all around (and if you don’t have perfect conduction inside the plates)”
That’s you conceding the point. You can’t change the basic setup of his Green Plate Effect, which is essentially plates surrounded by vacuum. Since they are surrounded by vacuum, whether the plates are pressed together or separated, part of their output is always going to be via radiation.
In which case, the “b’=2/3a and c=1/3a’ does not apply when the plates are pressed together.
You have two options:
1) Eli wrote an article which was essentially worthless, as it adds nothing to his original Green Plate Effect article.
2) Eli wrote an article which tried to imply his Green Plate Effect principle was universal (applies to conduction/convection also), but your own calculations show it does not.
Neither way is a good outcome for the GHEDT. Take your pick.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
If you stipulate conduction you can’t have vacuum.
Conduction does not work through vacuum.
The symmetry is gone if you have conduction in the middle and vacuum around, but you still have b’ > b, so your misconstrued 2LOT violation is still busted.
“Conduction does not work through vacuum.”
Not saying it does.
“The symmetry is gone if you have conduction in the middle and vacuum around.”
Oh, the fabled “symmetry”. Well, “vacuum around” is part of the GPE, so you just have to accept it.
“Single plate temperature: 0.0008 K.”
Can I just check…are you saying that a plate, receiving 400 W via an electrical supply, and surrounded by two touching 1mm aluminium plates…would have a temperature of 0.0008 K?
Yes you can, if they are in contact with a 0 K medium on the outside. Skip the symmetry if you like, use your own numbers and show me that b = b’.
“Yes you can”
Yes I can what?
Can I just check…are you saying that a plate, receiving 400 W via an electrical supply, and surrounded by two touching 1mm aluminium plates…would have a temperature of 0.0008 K?
Svante, continues with his “bait and switch” trickery. He has changed the plates from black bodies to aluminum. Now he is trying to change the surrounding vacuum to “if they are in contact with a 0 K medium on the outside.”
Svante is soooooo desperate.
Yes, if their outside is cooled to 0 K.
Is it time for your endless semantic loop now, or will you show me the math that gives you b=b’?
Oh, I’ll stop responding to you soon, and you can declare victory if you want.
In the meantime, I’m just trying to understand what you’re actually saying.
“Yes, if their outside is cooled to 0 K.”
Presumably you mean the outside of the two surrounding aluminium plates. So what are the temperatures of the two surrounding aluminium plates then?
When you said “two plates, with three 1mm aluminium plates”, presumably you mean you basically have five 1mm aluminium plates next to each other. It’s just the second from the left you are calling the “blue plate” (this has the electrical supply), and the second from the right is the “green plate”. Right?
What are the temperatures of all five plates?
I used aluminum because you seemed to have a have problem with perfect conduction, and with Swanson’s experiment.
They are still black bodies. Use any emissivity or conductivity you like and show us that b=b’.
Last response to you, in the hope of actually getting some answers. If you don’t provide them, feel free to have the last word.
In the case of your “one plate surrounded by 1mm aluminium plates”, what are the temperatures of the two surrounding plates?
In the case of your “two plates, with three 1mm aluminium plates”, what are the temperatures of all five plates?
Svante, are you still not able to understand the simple diagram?
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
DREMT, my previous answer was for your granddad.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Their average temperature is half the gradient.
No, just three. I said the symmetry is lost if you dont have perfect conduction inside the original plates.
The blue plate is 0.001124894514768 K.
The green plate is 0.000562447257384 K
The three aluminum plates average temperature is half their gradient, because conduction is linear.
Good one JD, 200 W heat flow between plates of the same temperature : – )
I’d love to see the physical formulas, math and numbers that gives you b=b’.
Wrong again, Svante.
The diagram does NOT indicate “200 W heat flow between plates of the same temperature”
And Svante, the only applicable equation would be from the S/B Law.
S = σT^4
T = (200/σ)^0.25
T = 244 K
Learn some physics.
JD, your green plates send a 200 W heat flow to space.
They must have 200 W heat flow in for steady temperature.
“JD, your green plates send a 200 W heat flow to space.”
Wrong Svante.
Both green plates emit 200 Watts/m^2 to space. Both green plates absorb 200 Watts/m^2 from the blue plate. That’s why they have a steady temperature.
Forget using the term “heat flow”. That may be one of the many things confusing you.
The simple truth is JDHuffman is wrong and does not know the first thing about science or physics.
Svante is correct. He took the time to learn the truth. Something JDHuffman will not do.
Also JDHuffman will not attempt an experiment on the topic because it would expose his ignorance. As long as he does no science and pretends he can convince himself he is correct. The first time he did an actual experiment with 3 identical plates (in a vacuum), with the middle one heated by some external power supply. He would find what all science people already know to be true. When together all the plates will reach the same temperature. When the two outer plates are separated the middle plate will reach a higher temperature. This is physics. This is the reality JDHuffman, Gordon Robertson, and DREMT will never find out as they will never test their goofy ideas by actual scientific methods. Science is not wrong opinions. It is testing to see what is the truth.
E. Swanson proved that two plates will follow Eli Rabbet’s understanding. If the clowns would do actual physics their bogus made up ideas would evaporate like gasoline on hot pavement.
They will refuse to do any science but will pretend they understand it. This has been going on a long time. It seems it will go on considerably longer.
Norman returns with another session of keyboard abuse. (There ought to be a law!)
As usual, he can’t understand the physics, and can’t learn. So all he has are his baseless opinions, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
Sorry Norman, you’re still wrong: “If you walk around the merry-go-round you are rotating on your axis as you walk around it.”
No, you are “changing direction”, not “rotating on your axis”.
JDHuffman
Incorrect.
YOU: “No, you are changing direction, not rotating on your axis.
No you are rotating on your axis as you walk forward. I doubt you know what rotating on axis means.
Look at your feet as you walk in a circle.
Because you can’t understand this mode I use a square table. Now you do not walk and rotate at the same time but it is the same thing as if you walked in a circle.
If you walk along a square table, no rotation. When you reach one edge, YOU HAVE to ROTATE on your AXIS to continue walking around the table. If you do not rotate you keep walking straight ahead.
You have to ROTATE on your axis to change direction.
JDHuffman
You are out in the woods with your good bud DREMT. He stops and you walk ahead. Now you want to get back to him. You have to rotate on your axis to get back to him.
There is one who correctly understands you. You call him childish but he is trying to help you no look like a moron. He is a skeptic of Climate Change and your lunatic ideas reflect poorly on legitimate skeptical thoughts. He goes by HuffingtonGoneStupid.
He is trying to help you but you reject his aid and continue on your lunatic path getting a couple dimwits to follow you along.
That is why I call you Moe of group.
Norman, you are STILL unable to separate the two motions. In your perverted head, it would be impossible to change direction without also rotating on an axis. “Changing direction” is NOT rotating on an axis. There are TWO different motions.
You are uneducable.
Nothing new.
Whoops it would be “HuffmanGoneStupid” and not “HuffingtonGoneStupid”
My error. Anyway this poster is trying to help you. Maybe listen to what the man says. He is right and you are not.
Norman, you are as clueless and immature as the child that keeps stealing my name.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
No not at all. We both are trying to educate you so you don’t make a fool of yourself. You keep posting nonsense and we keep pointing out why its wrong. We hope that eventually the light in your head will go on and you will see the error that is blinding you.
We are here to help. I know you need to lash out, that is okay. It is just a sign of progress. First you are angry, then you start to see.
DREMT, did I answer your questions to your satisfaction?
Yes, thank you, I understand what you are talking about now. Since you are maintaining the outside temperatures of the external plates at 0 K, you have a case of “steady state conduction”, where the spatial distribution of temperatures (temperature field) in the conducting object does not change any further after equilibrating.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction
“For example, a bar may be cold at one end and hot at the other, but after a state of steady state conduction is reached, the spatial gradient of temperatures along the bar does not change any further, as time proceeds. Instead, the temperature remains constant at any given cross-section of the rod normal to the direction of heat transfer…”
This is why your aluminium plates have a fixed temperature gradient across them. Your blue and green plates would further extend this fixed gradient, if they were not “perfect conductors”. In other words, if you had five 1mm aluminium plates pressed together, there would be a temperature gradient from the middle of the blue plate, through the plate to the left of it, to 0 K, and from the middle of the blue plate, through the three plates to the right of it, to 0 K.
This is an important difference to the Green Plate Effect, where the plate temperatures are not fixed, and all that is fixed is that the input to the blue plate is 400 W.
So for the normal “3-plate” problem:
With emissivity and view factors equal to one, the heat flow equation is simply:
Q = σ (Tb^4 – Tg^4)
We know at equilibrium, Q should be zero (as temperatures are not fixed) so rearrange the equation:
0 = Tb^4 – Tg^4
Tb = Tg
and this applies between each of the two green plates and the blue.
The 400 W input means we know the blue plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 (assuming its 1m^2 per side).
S = σT^4
T = (200/σ)^0.25
T = 244 K
So with Tb = Tg, at 244 K244 K244 K, you have 400 W coming in to the system via the electrical supply to the blue plate, and 400 W going out 200 W from each of the two green plates, so the system is in balance.
Let me just clean up the end of that:
So with Tb = Tg, at 244 K…244 K…244 K, you have 400 W coming in to the system via the electrical supply to the blue plate, and 400 W going out (200 W from each of the two green plates); so the system is in balance.
Now calculate the radiation balance for each plate individually.
No need, as the correct use of the heat flow equation reveals the plates must be of equal temperature. At 244 K…244 K…244 K you have 400 W in, and 400 W out. Problem solved.
I will take your question, in the absence of any other complaints, as you admitting that there is no fault in the math, in which case you must be trying to arguing that the math is correct, but the physics isn’t. Something that you have described before, when others raise that same point, as “going into a loop on some semantic issue”.
So I guess you are now going into a loop on a semantic issue, as you usually do, after your pseudoscience is busted.
With σ (Th^4 – Tc^4):
1) Your green plate output to space is 200W, that’s fine:
5.670374419E-08 * (244^4 – 0^4) = 201
2) Your green plate input from blue is 0W,
5.670374419E-08 * (244^4 – 244^4) = 0
3) The green plate is losing 200W and must cool.
Svante goes into a loop on some semantic issue.
At 244 K…244 K…244 K:
1) 400 W is entering the system.
2) 400 W is leaving the system.
3) 400 W must be moving through the system.
What’s wrong with 1, 2, or 3?
HUMPTY DREMPTY
0 = Tb^4 Tg^4
No heat or energy transfer between the green and blue plates as the equation you posted shows.
So 3 is wrong, there is no heat or energy flow through the system.
So your solution is wrong, been wrong for months.
Svante’s granddad to the rescue.
3) follows logically from accepting 1) and 2).
What do you dispute about 1) or 2)?
2) Green plate temperature drops immediately because it has 200W out and zero input.
Basically, you claim that you need a temperature difference between the plates to “drive” energy through the system.
So, e.g. you claim that you need the temperatures to be 244 K…290 K…244 K in order for there to be the difference necessary for 400 W energy to be “driven” through the system, so that there is 400 W entering, 400 W leaving, and 400 W passing through.
But you already know that at 244 K…244 K…244 K, 400 W is entering the system, and 400 W is leaving. So you must already accept then that 400 W is passing through the system, without needing to be “driven” by a temperature difference. Else how does the 400 W leave?
You try to wriggle out of it by claiming the 400 W output won’t last, since you claim the green plates will cool.
That doesn’t help you though, because if the green plates cooled after one second, say, such that only 390 W were leaving the system, there is still then 390 W passing through the system, with only a minuscule temperature difference to “drive” it. Which is what you are arguing cannot happen.
Yes, I claim you need this much of a temperature difference:
400W = σ (Th^4 – Tc^4)
The initial output is taken from the internal energy of the green plate, because it has no input. That is why its temperature falls initially.
The blue plate has a surplus because it has no output but 400W input. It will warm up.
Now try some numbers in that formula and see where you have the same input and output in all plates.
Use math, the language of physics.
200W per side in your three plate example:
200W = σ (Th^4 – Tc^4)
I’m happy that I’ve already made my point perfectly clear, and have nothing further to add. You may have the last word, if you wish.
Ditto.
Not for JDHuffman only DREMT or Gordon Robertson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j91XTV_p9pc
Some more facts for Norman to deny:
Early afternoon, high haze, bright sun:
Directly overhead –> 28.2 F
Ground –> 89.1 F
A few minutes after sunset, clear sky:
Directly overhead –> 9.1 F
Ground –> 89.4 F
The surface warms the atmosphere, as usual.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Again the air temperature around you is considerably warmer than 28.2 F. So the actual IR reaching the ground is considerably more than what you believe.
Regardless even if you took the atmosphere with a emissivity of around 0.9 and used you colder temperature of 28.2 F
That is 271 K. This would still emit 275 Watts back to the surface.
Space at 3 Kelvin will send back 0.000004 Watts.
Indeed even as you attempt to disprove the GHE you most certainly are proving it with your examples.
The Earth surface receives much more energy with Sun and GHG than without. Good job, continue educating those who do accept the GHE.
norman…”The Earth surface receives much more energy with Sun and GHG than without”.
Still contravening the 2nd law to advance your pseudo-science.
You are suggesting that solar energy is absorbed by the surface then recirculated via GHGs to increase the temperature of the surface.
Neat trick, Norman, why don’t you patent it? In the patent search, look under perpetual motion.
Norman starts making stuff up, again: “So the actual IR reaching the ground is considerably more than what you believe.”
Wrong, Norman. I can hold the device near the ground and get the same reading.
And the fact that space is colder than the atmosphere is NOT the GHE. That is the “atmospheric effect”. The bogus GHE claims the atmosphere can raise the temperature of the surface. The “atmospheric effect” moderates and regulates the energy escaping to space.
Learn some physics.
Norm,
Nice video.
But it is too technical for JD. JD needs cartoon figures that don’t move, otherwise he gets confused with the motion.
This will confuse Gordon as well. But Gordon should look at the segment starting at 0:38 thru 0:50, which is an example of curvilinear translation, which he claims is impossible, since according to him, an object cannot translate along a curve and maintain the same orientation
Dr. Em T will just say your eyes are deceiving you and then bore us with a long senseless diatribe where he comes to the startling conclusion that an object does not rotate wrt a reference frame that rotates at the same angular velocity as the object itself. The clowns all have to use the inertial reference and a rotating reference frame to come up with their clown physics.
stupid…”Gordon should look at the segment starting at 0:38 thru 0:50, which is an example of curvilinear translation”
Do you see any parts in the segment moving parallel to their initial direction? That segment reveals a Ferris wheel chair mounted on a bearing to keep the body always horizontal.
In curvilinear motion, all parts must move parallel to each other and that means in concentric circles in a circular orbit.
Gordon mumbles:
“Do you see any parts in the segment moving parallel to their initial direction?”
As usual, Gordon messes up the definition of translation, which in reality states:
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times”
Gordon, are you blind? Do you see the horizontal line through the moon that stays parallel to the starting point in the segment of the video I referenced? This is also exactly similar to Tesla’s Figure 5, which he correctly stated that it is undergoing curvilinear translation.
Gordon blubbers further:
“In curvilinear motion, all parts must move parallel to each other and that means in concentric circles in a circular orbit.”
Gordon NEVER gets the definition of curvilinear translation right. Here is a more complete definition:
‘It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body. Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.”
Gordon’s made-up definition is completely in error. First of all he incorrectly mentions curvilinear ‘motion’. Curvilinear translation and curvilinear motion are not the same thing. An object can experience curvilinear motion, but will not be undergoing curvilinear translation. Did you notice that the correct definition states that all point move on congruent curves?? I suppose Gordon will now claim that concentric circles are the same as congruent circles?
HGS, you’ve been roaming around confused ever since the discussion of Figure 5 from this paper:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
…and Tesla’s statement that:
“If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible…”
Let me try to clear up your confusion, as briefly as possible:
1) If the balls on the pivots are free to rotate on their own axes, motion as in the right hand side of the diagram, below, is possible:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
2) If the balls on the pivots are not free to rotate on their own axes, the only motion possible is as per the left hand side of the diagram.
3) If something is free to rotate on its own axis, then it can be rotating on its own axis.
4) If something is not free to rotate on its own axis, then it can not be rotating on its own axis. 5) So the left hand side of the diagram must show movement with no axial rotation, and the right hand side of the diagram must show movement with axial rotation.
6) The above must be true from any reference frame.
P.S: an obvious exception to the rule in number 4) is if that something that is not free to rotate on its own axis happens to be at the exact center of some rotating platform or apparatus (I think this is what has led to most of your confusion since this was first brought up).
Norman…can’t you tell by the patronizing way this guy talks that he’s a complete idiot?? And so are you for falling for his schtick.
That nonsense about Earth’s gravity acting differently on the near side as the far side, causing the Moon to rotate, is the height of ignorance.
There is no other force acting than gravity and its acting toward the Earth. It acts equally across the face. It cannot under any circumstances, with a rigid body like the Moon cause a rotation.
I have already explained it to you clearly, you are just too stupid and too ingrained in your ways to check it out for yourself. Just like your ignorant belief that heat can be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.
The idiot on the yahoo flick shows a horizontal line through the Moon. What he failed to show was the infinite number of horizontal lines stacked on top of each other from the near side to the dark side. INCLUDING THE AXIS, and that all the horizontal lines are turning in concentric circles.
Come on, Norman, this is in your face. Just LOOK!!!!!!! You are suffering an illusion, just like the idiot in the yahoo flick, that the near face is turning about the axis.
All points on the Moon ARE MOVING in PARALLEL/CONCENTRIC CIRCLES TO EACH OTHER !!!!!!!!!!1
I’d better expand on this or the spinners will use it differently.
“What he failed to show was the infinite number of horizontal lines stacked on top of each other from the near side to the dark side. INCLUDING THE AXIS, and that all the horizontal lines are turning in concentric circles”.
I need to add that the concentric circles are in the orbit. I am presuming a circular orbit but the same would apply to elliptical, concentric paths.
“It cannot under any circumstances, with a rigid body like the Moon cause a rotation.”
Yes it can, because the Moon is not perfectly spherical. This is the well-known phenomenon of gravity gradient torque.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm:978-3-642-25749-0%2F1.pdf
You guys have no idea how foolish you look, and how much it detracts from valid points you make from time to time on the relevant topic of climate. I did my best to help, but you don’t pay any attentiion.
bart…”Yes it can, because the Moon is not perfectly spherical. This is the well-known phenomenon of gravity gradient torque”.
Cut the crap, Bart, your link is in reference to a satellite not a body with the mass and momentum of the Moon. If there was any such effect on the Moon it would TURN about its axis and it does not.
You offer clever posts at times but this one is just plain dumb.
Wow.
Tidal locking, if anything, makes more sense from the “Non-Spinner” perspective. The only difference is that what the “Spinners” consider to be an end result of a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance is seen by the “Non-Spinners” as orbital motion without axial rotation.
Thank you for your concern.
Gordon shrieks:
“All points on the Moon ARE MOVING in PARALLEL/CONCENTRIC CIRCLES TO EACH OTHER !!!!!!!!!!1”
LMAO. Which prove JD was wrong when he said:
“All parts of the Noon are moving at the same linear velocity.”
The outer points of the moon are traveling at a greater radius from the center of orbit, which means they are traveling a longer distance in the same amount of time as the points of the moon on the near side. Thanks, Gordon, for making JD look like a fool.
stupid…”The outer points of the moon are traveling at a greater radius from the center of orbit, which means they are traveling a longer distance in the same amount of time as the points of the moon on the near side”.
********
Once again, the Moon is a rigid body, not a collection of particles moving independently. It’s velocity is taken at its centre of gravity.
Your comment has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. I am claiming that all points on the Moon are moving in concentric circles.
If you had half a brain that would be obvious to you since the near side always faces us and orbits in a circular orbit (or close enough to it). That means the far side MUST BE ORBITING IN AN OUTER CIRCULAR ORBIT. All points between are doing the same.
I am not claiming those points are moving independently of the rigid body but if you traced their paths they’d form concentric circles….including the axis.
You are so dense you can’t begin to understand that points moving in concentric circles cannot cross over as would be required for local rotation about an axis.
Gordon shrieks:
“Once again, the Moon is a rigid body, not a collection of particles moving independently. It’s velocity is taken at its centre of gravity.”
Gordon. The velocity of the moon’s center of gravity can be calculated by the formula V=rω. Do you notice the term “r”. The moons center of gravity is at a certain distance “r” from the center of orbit. The far side of the moon is at a greater radius from its center of orbit than the center of gravity for the moon. Get it? So the velocity of the far side of the moon is greater than the velocity of its center of gravity. Do I REALLY need to explain this too you?!!! Apparently I do. Therefore JD statement about all points on the moon have the same linear velocity is FALSE.
Gordon mumbles:
“Your comment has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. I am claiming that all points on the Moon are moving in concentric circles.”
My comment has EVERYTHING to do with what you are talking about. Yes. Yes, all points of the moon are moving in concentric circles. The outer point of the moon (on the far side) is on a concentric circle with a radius greater than the center of gravity of the moon. Get it? The outside concentric circle of the far side of the moon has a greater radius. Therefore a point on the far side of the moon travels a longer distance than at the center of gravity. Therefore the velocities are different, and JD is WRONG. You are WRONG.
“You are so dense you can’t begin to understand that points moving in concentric circles cannot cross over as would be required for local rotation about an axis.”
That’s because they’re so busy ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth about that one thing they disagree with, that they miss the important stuff.
‘ that they miss the important stuff.’
Hilarious.
Only you guys have ‘important’ things to say.
As to whether it is erroneous, well, thats less important.
And then they make up their own terms like “local rotation”
That are easy enough to understand, from context.
The moon rotates on an axis local or otherwise.
OK, B-Li.
Yeah moon-rock mooncalf
just look at the diagram
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.tif
It has the moon’s axis of rotation clearly marked
OK, B-Li.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-375826
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-375851
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-375826
dremt…”1) Eli wrote an article which was essentially worthless…”
That would be typical. There are people out there with degrees, like Eli and Pierrehumbert, who manage to mess up basic physics due to a misguided interpretation of the basics. Or extending the basics incorrectly.
Eli headed a rebuttal of the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper that falsified the GHE (Halpern et al). G&T had claimed heat can only be transferred from a hotter body to a cooler body a la the 2nd law. In their rebuttal, Halpern et all claimed if that was true, only one body in a hotter/colder set of bodies would not be radiating.
This reasoning is so amateurish that Eli should be required to hand in his degree in physics. Same for a co-author, Arthur Smith, who also has a degree in physics.
They have completely screwed up the physics of heat and electromagnetic energy. They have placed conditions on the 2nd law written by Clausius, that heat can be transferred from cold to hot, by its own means, as long as a net balance of energy is positive.
That amendment to the 2nd law is complete and utter crap.
The logic offered by G&T is absolutely clear: THE 2ND LAW APPLIES ONLY TO HEAT!!!! It has nothing to do with generic energy and whether a net balance of energy is positive. The 2nd law does NOT apply to electromagnetic energy, mechanical energy, chemical energy, or any other energy but thermal energy.
When people refer to a net balance of energy they are including EM as heat and that the two energies can be summed. They further infer that in a two body system with bodies of different temperatures, that heat is transferred from the cooler body to the warmer body at the same time heat is transferred from the hotter body to the cooler body.
That nonsense is what Eli’s BP/GP thought rubbish is based upon.
The 2nd law is totally clear about this situation: heat can NEVER….NEVER….NEVER…be transferred, by its own means, from a cooler body to a hotter body.
That’s it…full stop. There is no amendment or corollary dealing with a mysterious net balance of energy.
In the BP/GP nonsense. heat cannot be transferred from the GP to the BP. If anyone wants to understand why, go to quantum theory where it is made abundantly clear.
The electrons involved absorbing/emitting EM cannot do so at the same time when one body is hotter than the other. The electrons in the hotter body are at a higher energy level than those in the cooler body and energy cannot flow uphill.
It’s as simple as that. Eli claimed to G&T that one body would not be radiating. Both bodies are radiating, one is not absorbing.
Gordon,
There are physical formulas to calculate those GP/BP temperatures, right?
Please calculate those temperatures.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-374964
Um, you have a contradiction in there champ
“We know at equilibrium, Q should be zero (as temperatures are not fixed) so rearrange the equation:”
and
“you have 400 W coming in to the system via the electrical supply to the blue plate, and 400 W going out”
What’s the heat flow through the system?
Zero or 400?
Heat flow has gone to zero, however 400 W of energy is flowing through the system, since there is 400 W going in, and 400 W coming out.
Once you understand the difference between “heat” and “energy”, your confusion will be resolved.
Regardless of whether it’s called heat or energy, with the blue and green plates at the same temperature, you can’t have flow of either heat or energy between them.
Because you have the same amount of energy by the stephan-boltzmann equation from the green to the blue as from the blue to the green, so no flow.
bob continues to demonstrate his ignorance of physics.
Did I mention he cannot live up to his agreement?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-370476
The agreement was conditional on you using math to show angular velocity and linear velocity are the same for all parts of the moon.
You made a math error.
Wrong bob. You are misrepresenting the truth. The deal was NOT conditional:
“So, just so you can’t weasel out, if you accept this deal you are not commenting for 90 days, regardless of your inability to understand the relative physics, or accept reality.”
You made the deal. You can’t abide by your agreement, so you try to weasel out.
Nothing new.
JD,
If you recall correctly, I made the deal conditional, go back and check for yourself.
Still you phucked up the math.
Drempty,
You have heat on one side of the equation and energy on the other, so I can only assume you think they are the same thing.
Q = σ (Tb^4 Tg^4)
B-Li, I didn’t create the radiative heat transfer equation.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
Of course you didn’t create it, you are not a Nobel class physicist.
But you used it, and it has heat on one side and energy on the other so you must think heat and energy are the same.
Or you are terribly confused.
OK, B-Li.
So:
1) Do you use that equation? Yes/No
2) If “yes”, do you believe “heat” and “energy” are the same thing? Yes/No.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
It is a valid equation for determining the amount of heat that is transferred between the plates in the green plate effect problem.
If you apply that equation to the green plate problem it shows that your answer is wrong because there is no heat transfer between plates that are at the same temperature.
Heat is a form of energy, a subset if you will.
Not exactly the same thing.
That’s right, no heat flow between the plates, but with 400 W in and 400 W out at 244 K…244 K…244 K, you have energy flow through the system.
Once you understand the difference between “heat” and “energy”, your confusion will be resolved.
DREMPTY,
Nope,
The energy flow from green to blue equals the energy flow from blue to green, because they are all at the same temperature, so no energy flow through the system.
Yup, there’s 400 W in and 400 W out, so there’s energy flow through the system.
And the two green plates start cooling because they are not receiving as much as they are emitting.
And the blue plate starts heating because it is receiving more than it is emitting.
so it doesn’t stay at 244, 244, 244 for long.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-375178
That shit wasn’t right them and it isn’t right now.
‘Yup, theres 400 W in and 400 W out, so theres energy flow through the system.’
Sure, and the middle temperature can be anything! 0, infinity, because it doesnt seem to matter.
I dialed 941, but no cops came and I was gang-raped, says DREMT.
Dumbass.
“That shit wasn’t right them and it isn’t right now.”
Powerful stuff.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
But the only way to have 400 watts flowing through the system is to have the blue plate at 290.
Ah, so at 244 K…244 K…244 K, you’re saying 400 W doesn’t leave the system.
Only for the instant the plates are separated, then after that the green plates stop emitting 200 watts each to space because they are cooling because they are emitting 400 watts and receiving only 200 watts from the blue plate.
B-Li has started looping:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-375178
Guess that’s the end of this discussion.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
Better looping than stuck on stupid.
I’m sure you’re right.
Gordon,
You have it simple but wrong
“Its as simple as that. Eli claimed to G&T that one body would not be radiating. Both bodies are radiating, one is not absorbing.”
the one is not absorbing part is wrong,
Probably due to your misquoting the second law.
“The 2nd law is totally clear about this situation: heat can NEVER.NEVER.NEVERbe transferred, by its own means, from a cooler body to a hotter body.”
This is not an example of heat transfer by its own means.
bob, you haven’t lived up to your agreement to not comment for 90 days. You have clearly reneged on your own words. How can anyone trust anything you say?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-370476
JD,
You didn’t live up to your end of the bargain, so who is the cheater?
You are:
“So, just so you can’t weasel out, if you accept this deal you are not commenting for 90 days, regardless of your inability to understand the relative physics, or accept reality.”
JD,
You are just a low-down yankee liar.
You agreed to it, bob.
Or do you prefer “Weasel bob”?
Yes and I quote
JD says
“bob and DA, if I show you the math, will you both agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days?”
And I respond
“Yes, If and only if there are no errors in the math.
If there are errors in the math, I can guarantee that I will find them, and I will continue to post.
I have had a decent math education and have decent math skills, so bring it.”
I see you don’t understand what if and only if means.
I’ll tell you what it means, it means you don’t know logic.
JD,
here is your error, you basically hand-waved and called angular velocity and linear velocity the same thing.
“1) Moon has an instantaneous angular momentum, relative to Earth, = rmv.
2) That corresponds to a linear momentum = mv.”
That’s dumber than Huffmangonestupid thinks you are.
Hmmm…is that a dispute over the math, B-Li, or is that a disagreement over the physics? Seems like you agreed not to leave only on the basis that you could find fault with the math.
So if it’s not a math dispute, but rather one about the physics, then I guess you should honor the agreement and not comment for 90 days.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
If you had any understanding of the physics or the math, you would see it’s both a physics mistake and a math mistake.
JD claims through his calculation that angular velocity is the same as linear velocity, that’s a physics error.
Then the v in step one has units of angular velocity, but the v in step 2 has units of linear velocity.
They are not the same, so you can’t divide them both by r and get a correct answer, math error.
If you can’t tell that, then you shouldn’t be posting on a science blog, at all.
I thought Gordon had explained how the units could be the same…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-373474
…thus leaving this as a physics dispute.
See you in 90 days?
weasel bob, I’m going to explain this to you, again.
Moon’s angular momentum, in reference to Earth, is “mrv”. That corresponds to Moon’s linear momentum of “mv”. I am NOT equating angular momentum to linear momentum. An angular momentum corresponds to a linear momentum just as angular velocity corresponds to linear velocity. You just don’t understand the relavant physics, can’t learn, and can’t keep your agreements.
Nothing new.
bob d…”JD claims through his calculation that angular velocity is the same as linear velocity, thats a physics error.
Then the v in step one has units of angular velocity, but the v in step 2 has units of linear velocity”.
************
If you read the Feynman lectures posted by binny he claims both are an analogy of each other. However, he did not go far enough.
If you are talking about angular velocity along the circumference of a circle, angular velocity can easily be converted to linear velocity along the circumference.
Instantaneous angular velocity is measured in degrees per second of a radial line as in d(theta)/dt. Linear motion, or should I say curvilinear motion, which is linear motion along a curve, can be measured on the circumference in radians/second which has an equivalence in metres per second.
A radial line of length r, when bent around a circumference is one radian. The angle it subtends is 57.295 degrees when laid out along the curve from the x axis.
If we have a radial line turning with a velocity of 57.295 degrees per second, then a particle on that line moving along the circumference is moving at 1 radian/second.
There are 6.28 radians in a circumference and I’ll leave it to you to work out the rest. That is, converting radians per second to metres per second.
So JD,
You are stepping in it again.
Linear momentum has units of kg-m/sec
Angular momentum has units of kg-m^2/sec
By the way, your original claim was
“If I explain that all parts of Moon have the same linear velocity, you agree to not comment here for 90 days. ”
Care to run that by me again.
I already have shown that the far side of the moon is moving faster than the near side, because it is farther away. And stays farther away, never moves closer than the near side, so it moves faster.
I’ll have some fries now please.
🍟
See you in 90 days?
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
Oh, don’t go away.
Get me my fries, since you don’t understand the linear velocity of the far side of the moon is faster than the linear velocity of the near side of the moon, you might as well get me some fries.
Everyone loves a “since you don’t understand”-er.
I already got you your fries. So greedy.
See you when you return, after 90 days.
HUMPTY DREMPTY
“Everyone loves a “since you don’t understand”-er.”
That’s you and JD’s favorite argument technique.
Beats out “learn some physics” by a hair.
I guess that means you think all parts of the moon move with the same linear velocity.
Which means you are a whole load of stupid.
Best get a job serving french fries.
Everyone loves an ”I guess that means”-er.
See you when you return, after 90 days.
“Moons angular momentum, in reference to Earth, is ‘mrv’. That corresponds to Moons linear momentum of ‘mv’. I am NOT equating angular momentum to linear momentum. An angular momentum corresponds to a linear momentum just as angular velocity corresponds to linear velocity.”
You mean like V = R omega?
Like the near and far sides of the Moon Vn = Rn omega and Vf = Rf omega?
Right, JD?
Norman…” When you reach one edge, YOU HAVE to ROTATE on your AXIS to continue walking around the table. If you do not rotate you keep walking straight ahead.
You have to ROTATE on your axis to change direction”.
*****
That’s technically not rotation. Of course, you can call it rotation if you’re desperate.
Rotation requires movement along a CONTINUOUS curve. All you are performing is rectilinear translation in one direction, ending your translation, changing direction, then performing more rectilinear translation.
In physics, especially in mechanics, you would never call that rotation.
Rotation requires angular velocity/momentum about an axis. Turning at the corner of square does not qualify unless you have a turntable there, on which you can stand at the end of the straight line, which will turn you 90 degrees.
The question is, why would anyone resort to such a reference as rotation? How would you measure the angular velocity…from which axis? The moment you define an axis you define a circle or a curve and there goes your square corner.
Gordon Robertson
You don’t have to go around completely to rotate. Rotation is clearly defined.
http://oer2go.org/mods/en-boundless/www.boundless.com/physics/definition/rotation/index.html
You are rotating on your axis when you make the quarter turn. Then you stop rotating. It is still a rotation when you are engaged in that motion. You are rotating on your axis.
Use your logic. If a ball starts to rotate then you stop it after it goes a half-turn are you saying it did no rotation?
I think most would call the partial turn a rotation on an axis. Find a source that claims this would not be considered a rotation.
Once again, for the uneducable Norman, a racehorse is NOT rotating on its axis. If it were, you could see all sides of the horse from inside the track. The racehorse is “changing direction”, not “rotating on its axis”.
Upthread, Norman has already conceded:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-374698
“If you were on a merry-go-round standing at the edge you would revolve around the center but you would not rotate on your own axis. Which is your ball on the string example.”
He already gets it, but continues to argue anyway, just for fun.
They’re always the funniest when they get tangled up in their own pseudoscience.
Poor Norman just keeps pounding on his keyboard, hoping something will emerge to make him look smart. So far, his gameplan has backfired on him.
Nothing new.
IF you are on a merry-go-round, do you get dizzy?
But, you guys are already dizzy, so how could you tell?
Yes, you get dizzy. I’ll let Norman explain to you why:
“If you were on a merry-go-round standing at the edge you would revolve around the center but you would not rotate on your own axis”.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Once again, for the uneducable Norman, a racehorse is NOT rotating on its axis. If it were, you could see all sides of the horse from inside the track.”
Wrong again. If the racehorse rotates at the same rate it moves around the track you will only see one side inside the track.
YOU: “The racehorse is “changing direction”, not “rotating on its axis”.”
Exactly how does this racehorse change direction without a rotation? Verify your point with some valid physics.
Your opinion is that a racehorse can turn without rotation. I disagree as do many. You have not supplied any evidence of any kind to support your notion. You declare it over and over as if it were some established fact. I disagree and request you prove this statement of yours. I think it is wrong. I think the racehorse is rotating on its axis at the same time as it is moving ahead.
I already asked you to try this using yourself. Go in an empty parking lot. Walk straight ahead. Look at your feet. Now start to walk in a circle. Your feet ROTATE first then as you set them down, the rest or your body rotates on its axis around your feet. I can prove you wrong all day any day and yet you have zero evidence to support your point except to repeat it over and over.
That is not science…that is cult behavior. PROVE YOUR POINT!
norman…”You are rotating on your axis when you make the quarter turn”.
Speaking of logic, why would anyone walk like that? And what is the point of your tabletop thought experiment?
There is something fishy here, as in red herring.
Gordon shrieks:
“Rotation requires movement along a CONTINUOUS curve.”
As usual, Gordon lies and make up his own definitions. Please cite your source for your definition.
Gordon shrieks:
“All you are performing is rectilinear translation in one direction, ending your translation, changing direction, then performing more rectilinear translation.”
OMG, Gordon. When the person stops and makes a 90 degree turn, that is rotating about your own axis. You were obviously sleeping in ALL of your alleged engineering classes.
It looks like Norman has thrown you under the bus, HGS.
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
stupid…”Please cite your source for your definition”.
I don’t need to cite a source I gave you the information to work it out for yourself. I conceded that you could claim such a change of direction as rotation but that such a claim would be a very loose interpretation of rotation.
My reference to a continuous curve comes from calculus. Any rotation is related to a curve of some sort and the curve has to be continuous.
In Norman’s table top thought experiment he is trying to replicate rotation about an axis using a square. It’s ridiculous, to put it mildly, because moving around the square requires 4 different translations along the 4 sides.
He has to TURN at each corner to face in the new direction, and although I conceded that could be taken as a 90 degree rotation, it’s hardly what I’d call it.
If I am walking down a city street and I come to an intersection, and I want to go left at the intersection, is that a rotation? I don’t walk straight, stop, abruptly turn left, then carry on straight. And who the heck would do that on a table top?
Why a square table top. Why not straight sides with curves at each corner so a turn is not required?
Gordon sputters:
“I dont need to cite a source”
Surprise, surprise, surprise. You don’t need to because you WON’T FIND ONE.
Gordon moans:
“My reference to a continuous curve comes from calculus. Any rotation is related to a curve of some sort and the curve has to be continuous.”
Once again, Gordon makes declarations without support. Please supply a reference source for your above insane statement.
Gordon. Anyone with half a brain can see you are a complete fake.
HuffmanGoneStupid
You will find the 3 stooges on this blog
Moe goes by JDHuffman
Larry goes by Gordon Robertson
Curly goes by Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team
never support their opinions or declarations. They think if they repeat themselves enough their nonsense becomes true.
None of these posters has ever supported any of their absurd opinions and all reject established science. They also reject any experimental evidence or facts that they don’t like. They are truly the 3 stooges of this blog. Someday someone can take their many posts and use the material to make actual physics PhD’s laugh hilariously. You could get 3 actors to play the roles and just use what they have written. Episode when the stooges actually go to a real University and not just the ones they imagined they went to where no one actually graded the material.
I took an engineering course at UNO a few years back. The math in statistics in considerable. None of the stooges can do any more math than the simplest. Yet they pretend to have taken advanced physics courses. With what Gordon Robertson posts he would have failed any and all physics classes and he is certainly not smart enough to pass any engineering courses (lots and lots of math). It seems more obvious that Gordon Robertson went to a tech school and learned how to repair radios and other electronic equipment.
Gordon’s hilarious pronouncement:
“Rotation requires movement along a CONTINUOUS curve.”
Wikipedia has a nice long article on rotation. Not ONE mention about movement along a curve.
“You will find the 3 stooges on this blog…”
Norman, you’ve already agreed that a ball on a rope, which moves similarly to the moon, is revolving and not rotating on its own axis.
But for some unknown reason, you favor a person walking around a table as an analogy for orbital motion. Even though the ball on a rope (since the rope can only act through the ball’s center of mass), is a reasonable model of the actual force and vectors involved in the real motion.
Very strange.
‘(since the rope can only act through the balls center of mass),’
Well, not quite. If the ball’s CM is not in-line with the rope, then no.
This is what happens when a tether ball is served.
The rope is a bit slack. The ball is hit and given linear momentum and flies off in a line – until the rope gets taught.
Then the rope applies a force tangential to the balls surface, which means a TORQUE on the ball.
As a result, the ball starts rotating on its axis. And aligns itself with the rope.
The rope now applies a force radially on the ball, making it go into orbit.
Finally the ball is rotating and orbiting synchronously.
I thought the debate about Moon’s rotating about its axis would have been shifted to Roy Spencer’s Moon head post.
I was wrong.
For those who can’t contradict things other than by naming them ‘{Institutionalised} Pseudoscience’:
http://www.openculture.com/2018/12/full-rotation-moon-beautiful-high-resolution-time-lapse-film.html
It is so easy to discredit other people’s work without being able to provide for a really scientific contradiction.
It is so easy to discredit other people’s work, when it is just repeated pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
(Bindidon, I noticed that website wanted donations. Did you send them some money? If not, why not?)
Why are you all endlessly discussing about things like rotation?
Why not simply reading what the great Richard Feynman tell us about it?
1. Rotation in Two Dimensions
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_18.html
2. Rotation in space
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_20.html
Bindidon, if you were able to understand Feynman’s clear explanations, you would be able to figure out the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis.
But, keep finding links you can’t understand. Who knows, maybe osmosis might eventually work….
Huffman
1. It seems that you did not notice that Feynman carefully avoided taking sides in the matter. Neither did he write ‘The Moon rotates about its axis’, nor did he write the inverse.
2. But I noticed how much Feynman appreciated Newton’s analysis:
“Being a man of considerable feeling for generalities, Newton supposed, of course, that this relationship applied more generally than just to the sun holding the planets. It was already known, for example, that the planet Jupiter had moons going around it as the moon of the earth goes around the earth, and Newton felt certain that each planet held its moons with a force. He already knew of the force holding us on the earth, so he proposed that this was a universal force—that everything pulls everything else.”
*
3. You are not a physicist, Huffman. Physicists are scientists, and for the past 40 years I have had the opportunity to meet a lot of scientists.
Not one behaved like you: not one would have ever insulted people as ‘clowns’, let alone would they ever have used the word ‘pseudoscience’ to discredit and denigrate the work of others.
Bindidon, if you had the ability to think for yourself, you would realize that the
“high horse” you ride on does not rotate on its axis.
I guess that’s why you’re a clown….
binny…”Neither did he write The Moon rotates about its axis, nor did he write the inverse”.
He did explain that with the Earth orbiting the Sun, that there is no torque on the Earth, which moves with a constant angular momentum.
The Earth does turn on its axis 365 times per orbit, and viewed from the Sun, the observer would see every face of the Earth 365 times per orbit. Even if it rotated only once per orbit, the observer would see every face.
That’s not the case with the Moon, where the same side is seen all of the time. It’s amazing that you spinners have no insight into that whatsoever even though I have supplied you with the coin experiment to verify it is not possible for the Moon to rotate once locally per orbit while keeping the same face toward the Earth.
One coin has to be SLID around the other, which is translation, not rotation.
binny…”Why not simply reading what the great Richard Feynman tell us about it?”
I just did and what Feynman taught is EXACTLY what I was taught in my engineering physics classes.
What you should have grasped from reading Feynman is that a rigid body like the Moon, rotating about the Earth in orbit, has no force on it to apply a torque. It has only a constant angular momentum.
That means the only way the Moon could rotate about a local axis is having it’s own angular momentum about its axis. That is not possible, since the same face of the Moon is always facing the Earth.
I know you spinners see the Moon turn through 360 degrees in an orbit and claim that is proof of local rotation. A closer examination reveals clearly that all particles on the Moon are turning in parallel/concentric circles in the orbit, excluding any possibility of local rotation.
The Moon ***APPEARS*** to be rotating about a local axis but it is not. It is moving with curvilinear translation as defined. In both rectilinear and curvilinear translation all particles must move parallel to their initial position and at the same velocity. Both of those conditions are met in the Moon’s orbit, explaining why the same face is always toward the Earth.
Stupid has added his own take to the definition of curvilinear translation. He claims a body must maintain its orientation, like a chair on an axle on a Ferris wheel.
That is wrong.
Robertson
Stop your egocentric coin and concentric circle nonsense, and manage to understand what Newton wrote in his Prinicpia:
https://tinyurl.com/yytuurr9
I know: you don’t understand Latin, and while Google’s translator works well for German/French->English and vice-versa, it utterly fails for Latin and Ancient Greek.
Go to somebody having obtained a deep classic education (6 years of Latin at least, plus 3 years of Ancient Greek if possible.
And let her/him help you in getting the stuff into your head.
Avoid furthermore simple blind-alleys like
– “Oh! Wrt fixed stars?! Then sure the Moon can’t rotate about its axis!”
– “Oh! The Moon shows always to the exterior focus when orbiting Earth! Then sure it can’t rotate about its axis!”
– “Oh! If the Moon rotates about the Earth-Moon barycentre, then sure it can’t rotate about its axis!”
Try to understand that EITHER the great Sir Isaac was right, OR the little inventer Tesla!
But BOTH can’t.
C’est soit l’un, soit l’autre, mais pas les deux!
As usual, all Bindidon wants to do is to play “Appeal to Authority” Top Trumps.
And Bindidon cannot even understand Newton. Bindidon just wants to pretend he knows Latin, I guess.
Newton is the reason we know how gravity changes the direction of the orbiting body. If the body is not rotating on its axis, it will always face the center of the orbit. Just as our moon does. Forget “tidal locking”. Moon is “gravity locked”!
Thank you, Isaac.
@Bindidon, learn some physics.
Bindidon, BOTH Newton and Tesla were right. You are the one that is wrong.
Maybe if you had another 6 years of that dead language….
binny…”Stop your egocentric coin and concentric circle nonsense, and manage to understand what Newton wrote in his Prinicpia:”
Try not to be so effing ignorant and try the experiment. Or are you afraid of what you will find?
Gordon moans:
“Stupid has added his own take to the definition of curvilinear translation. He claims a body must maintain its orientation, like a chair on an axle on a Ferris wheel.
That is wrong.”
LMAO. If you look at Tesla’s Figure 5, The balls DO NOT change orientation. And Tesla confirmed this motion along the curve as translation.
The following university upper division physics lecture notes indicate an object translating along a curve, requires the object to not change orientation:
[http://www.physics.wisc.edu/undergrads/courses/fall2017/201/phy201_lect17_handout.pdf]
One of the requirements for curvilinear translation is that, “every line in the body remains parallel to its original position.”. For that to be true, the object cannot change its orientation, Einstein.
Gordon obviously does not comprehend the idea of “orientation”. Here is a definition:
“we can define its orientation at any moment by an angle, θ”
So if the rigid body does not change orientation, the angle θ remains constant. Do you see the line from the origin to P? That line does not rotate with translation, which is consistent with the requirement for translation that “In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body.”
[http://ww2.odu.edu/~jdudek/Phys111N_materials/7_rotational_motion.pdf]
“Stupid has added his own take to the definition of curvilinear translation. He claims a body must maintain its orientation, like a chair on an axle on a Ferris wheel.”
Poor Gordon. Always on the losing end. The following physics lecture notes show a ferris wheel and specifically state:
“Each gondola is subjected to curvilinear translation.”
[http://madisoncollegephysics.net/233/week09-1.pdf]
This is like shooting fish in a barrel, only Gordon has supplied the gun, does the shooting, misses the fish, and shoots himself in the foot.
stupid…”Each gondola is subjected to curvilinear translation.”
The article has it wrong. The gondolas are on an axle to keep them horizontal, therefore all points on the gondolas are not moving parallel to each other.
Tesla’s orbs do have all points moving in the same direction as the tangent line.
“The article has it wrong. The gondolas are on an axle to keep them horizontal [keeping the motion horizontal is the exact requirement for curvilinear translation], therefore all points on the gondolas are not moving parallel to each other.[When will you get this through your THICK head?? That is NOT the requirement for translation. The requirement is that a LINE through the object remains parallel to its original position, which is what the gondola is doing.]
Teslas orbs do have all points moving in the same direction as the tangent line.[No, you are WRONG. The balls shown on Tesla’s Figure 5 are the same motion as the gondola of a ferris wheel. The dark shaded half of the balls keeps the same orientation throughout the orbit, which is a requirement for curvilinear translation. Please STOP droning on an on regarding the points moving in the same direction as the tangent line. That is NOT a requirement for curvilinear translation. What is wrong with you??!!!!]“
“And Tesla confirmed this motion along the curve as translation.”
And Tesla argued the moon does not rotate on its own axis. So what are you missing?
stupid…”One of the requirements for curvilinear translation is that, every line in the body remains parallel to its original position.. For that to be true, the object cannot change its orientation”
I just submitted an essay for you explaining the difference between a curve and a straight line. Every line parallel to the tangent line in a body like the Moon, in a circular orbit, is moving parallel to the tangent line….at all times
The instantaneous direction of a curve is given by the tangent to the curve at that point.
Gordon drones:
“I just submitted an essay for you explaining the difference between a curve and a straight line. Every line parallel to the tangent line in a body like the Moon, in a circular orbit, is moving parallel to the tangent line.at all times”
Hello!? Anyone home? McFly!!
Gordon. What you say above is true. But that is NOT the definition of curvilnear translation. Every line in the object must REMAIN parallel to the ORIGINAL POSITION. If the object following a curve starts out at, for example, the noon position, and all the lines are oriented east-west, then as the object moves around the curve, they must always remain orieented east-west. If the lines are moving parallel to the tangent line, then that motion is NOT translation. Get it? Probably not. You will never understand it, because you don’t have an engineering type mind.
With translation, the velocities of every point in the object must be the same. With your description above, they are not.
‘And Tesla confirmed this motion along the curve as translation.’
“And Tesla argued the moon does not rotate on its own axis. So what are you missing?”
We are missing the evidence. All the examples he provides, such as this one, support the opposite conclusion.
Just as you guys now, he offers mainly his feelings that the Moon does not rotate.
“The dark shaded half of the balls keeps the same orientation throughout the orbit, which is a requirement for curvilinear translation.”
…and when tightened, so as to be physically unable to rotate on their own axes, they move as per the arrows on the left:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
Maybe that’s what you’re missing?
“and when tightened, so as to be physically unable to rotate”
Does that describe how the Moon’s motion is constrained?
Nope, the Moon is not part of a rigid body, as libration clearly shows.
not sure if this got posted above. I was interrupted with a phone call and lost my place…
svante…” GR… Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body by its own means.
Svante…But radiation can, and when it does it will influence temperature”.
Heat cannot be transferred by radiation from a cooler body to a hotter body. That would contravene the 2nd law. Clausius said that about radiative heat transfer.
You need to understand the mechanism of heat transfer via radiation. When electrons in the atoms of a hotter body drop to a lower energy level they radiate EM as
Ehigh – Elow = hf. The intensity of the emitted radiation depends on difference in potential between energy levels through which the electron falls.
When the electron emits the EM, it loses kinetic energy and the atom cools. It’s ridiculous to talk about one atom cooling but as a mass, the overall lost of KE causes a loss of heat and a drop in temperature.
The thing to note is that HEAT IS LOST in proportion to the EM emitted.
As that EM radiates through space, it might encounter a cooler body. In that case, the EM is absorbed by the electrons in the cooler body’s atoms and the electrons jump to a higher energy level. Over the entire mass, that increases the KE of the mass and the temperature rises, meaning heat has been added to the cooler body.
That process is not reversible. If electrons in the atoms of a cooler body radiate EM, the intensity and frequency of the EM is from electrons at a lower energy level than those in a hotter body. When that EM encounters a hotter body it cannot be absorbed because the criterion for absorp-tion is critical.
Please note that heat does not flow through space via radiation therefore there is no such thing as heat flux. Electromagnetic energy is not heat flux, it is a flux made up of an electrical field perpendicular to a magnetic field. There is no heat in EM.
To put it another way, the EM from a cooler body lacks the intensity and the frequency to excite an electron in a hotter body to jump to a higher energy level.
To put it another way still, energy cannot be transferred from a lower energy state to a higher energy state. It’s akin to expecting water to flow uphill or for a boulder to raise itself up onto a cliff.
The expectation seems to be that two bodies of different temperature are trying to exchange energy. They are not, they are only radiating energy isotropically with no requirement that said energy be absorbed.
In fact, most of the EM from a hotter body misses the cooler body. The same is true in reverse, so only a fraction of the lower energy EM from the cooler body reaches the hotter body. It cannot be absorbed if the 2nd law is to be upheld.
To put the above in context, AGW claims that radiation from cooler CO2 in the atmosphere can be absorbed by the hotter surface, that warmed the GHGs, hence raising the temperature of the surface.
Not going to happen, at least, in this reality.
As I said in the post above, heat is lost at the warmer surface en masse when it radiates IR to space. The surface, including the oceans, is a much larger, more dense mass, than the atmosphere and ALL CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Therefore, that pithy 0.04% of CO2 must first make up the massive heat loss at the surface, then raise the temperature. That is, if the back-IR from cooler CO2 can be absorbed at it. The 2nd law says it cannot.
Moving over to Eli’s lame and silly thought experiment involving a blue plate and a green plate, it means radiation from the cooler green plate has absolutely no effect on the warmer blue plate that warmed it.
Eli’s claim is an exercise in perpetual motion. As a physicist he should be required to return his degree.
It’s all 2nd law folks, you can make up pseudo-science in an attempt to get around it but in the end, the 2nd law must prevail.
Just do the calculation, physical formulas and math.
Already been done. Then it got silly because you wanted me to put numbers into an equation that tells you the heat flow between objects, in order to somehow determine inputs and outputs from individual objects!
Yes, each individual plate needs Q=0 for steady temperature.
You don’t have that when all three are at 244 K.
Your green plates have no input and the blue has no output.
Svante can’t understand the simple diagram:
“You don’t have that when all three are at 244 K.
Your green plates have no input and the blue has no output.”
Wrong again, Svante. The green plates absorb 200 Watts/m^2 each, and the blue plate emits a total of 400 Watts/m^2.
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
Damn, JD, you stepped in it again and got the right answer.
The blue plate emits 400 watts per meter from each side for a total of 800 watts.
svante…”Yes, each individual plate needs Q=0 for steady temperature.”
The objects are not in thermal equilibrium.
Well it was the whole premise, stable temperatures.
DREMT’s solution doesn’t have it if that’s what you mean.
Good thinking, a three days late response will ensure Gordon has moved on, and will not reply.
So you realize that your solution does not have stable temperatures?
Yes, it got silly because you wanted me to put numbers into an equation that tells you the heat flow between objects, in order to somehow determine inputs and outputs from individual objects! Then you repeat that silliness with pride.
Well, that’s how you solve the problem.
Then you repeat that silliness with pride.
Yep with pride, that’s how you do it.
400 watts in, you have to calculate what effect that has on the blue plate,
Then you have to calculate what happens to the blue plate with respect to the green plate using the heat transfer equations.
And what effect the green plate’s emissions have on the blue plate.
Each object in the chain has to obey the laws of thermodynamics.
Otherwise you are proving you don’t understand heat transfer.
…and still, there are things you can use the heat flow equation for, and things you cannot…
weasel says: “Then you have to calculate what happens to the blue plate with respect to the green plate using the heat transfer equations.”
The plates are not a situation where the bogus equation can be used. If used, the temperatures violate the laws of thermodynamics. The bogus equation has enthalpy increasing and entropy decreasing with no accompanying increase in energy.
Weasels don’t know physics.
Nope, entropy is going up, as it should.
There is no work on the system so entropy can’t go down.
That’s one of the laws of physics.
bob d…”And what effect the green plates emissions have on the blue plate”.
They don’t have any effect on the BP…2nd law.
Gordon,
Experiments have shown otherwise.
…to those who already wish to interpret them that way…
bob d…”Probably due to your misquoting the second law.
The 2nd law is totally clear about this situation: heat can NEVER.NEVER.NEVERbe transferred, by its own means, from a cooler body to a hotter body.
This is not an example of heat transfer by its own means”.
*********
Ironic…if you remove the repeat NEVERS and reduce them to one NEVER, my quote is the exact quote from Clausius in his book in which he defines the 2nd law.
So, who is correct, you or the scientist who wrote the 2nd law?
Gordon Robertson
I have exposed your fabrications in the past. You keep making them regardless of how many times we correct your phony posts.
Here is what Clausius actually said.
“The principle assumed by the author as the ground of
the second main principle, viz. that heat cannot of itself, or
without compensation, pass from a colder to a hotter body,
corresponds to everyday experience in certain very simple
cases of the exchange of heat. To this class belongs the
conduction of heat, which always takes place in such a way
that heat passes from hotter bodies or parts of bodies to
colder bodies or parts of bodies. Again as regards the ordi-
nary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only
do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely
to hot ; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous
double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by
experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body
at the expense of the hotter.”
READ what he said!!
Radiant energy is a “double exchange of heat”. The cold body adds energy to the hotter body. The hotter body adds energy to the colder body. The hotter body loses more energy to the colder body then it receives from the cold body hence the heat flows from hot to cold. The hotter the cold body gets the more energy it sends to the hotter body. This is what Clausius said. You are totally wrong and misleading people intentionally and without shame on your part.
Sorry Norman, but your lack of understanding of the relevant physics trips you up again.
What Clausius was clearly stating was that a “cold” radiating to a “hot” could NOT raise the temperature of the “hot”.
Objects emit based on their surface temperature. They do not “know” what they are emitting to. The decision as to whether photons will be absorbed is made at the target. The decision is based on wavelengths. A “hot” will not absorb photons from a “cold”.
You are uneducable.
Nothing new.
No dumbass, things emit a spectrum of radiation, a bunch of different wavelengths.
A hot object can emit low energy photons and a cold object can emit high energy photons.
So nothing prevents a hotter object from absorbing photons from a colder object.
You can’t make up your own physics.
weasel, if you want to believe ice cubes can cook your frozen pizza, go for it.
I’ve already explained how the spectrum works. But, you can’t understand. “Cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
I don’t think you can get any stupider, but keep trying. You may be able to prove me wrong….
bob d…”A hot object can emit low energy photons and a cold object can emit high energy photons”.
The governing equation is E = hf where E is the difference in potential in Ev between energy orbitals. Electrons cannot jump from any old orbit to any old orbit.
Besides, high energy photons such as x-rays come from extremely hot objects or from high energy electric fields in which electrons are accelerated to very high speeds. That would not take place in a body at terrestrial temperatures.
Furthermore, we are not talking of broad spectrum radiation at the same temperature. A radiation spectrum is related to a body at a certain temperature. A hotter body would have its spectrum and a colder body its own spectrum. That rules out your claim that colder bodies can radiate energy likely to be found only in hotter bodies.
There’s no reason why ice should radiate photons found in boiling water emissions.
I think you’re making the same mistake of trying to apply blackbody radiation at thermal equilibrium to bodies of different temperatures.
Gordon,
You are neglecting to consider that electrons can absorb and emit due to rotational and vibrational energy levels as well as the electronic ones.
There were discoveries past the Bohr model.
And I have said it before, water and ice and CO2 emit only at certain wavelengths, they do not act as blackbodies.
It’s like the spectrum of the sun and the spectrum of the earth, they overlap.
bob d…”You are neglecting to consider that electrons can absorb and emit due to rotational and vibrational energy levels as well as the electronic ones”.
Vibration or rotation has nothing to do with how electrons absorb/emit EM. Vibration/rotation is related to the bond formed between the valence electrons and their associated nucleii.
Gordon,
The vibrational, rotational and streching modes of molecules and how they absorb and emit radiation is the basis of a whole branch of Chemistry that is used to determine the structure of molecules.
Try this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy
JD, you are a whole load of stupid
“Ive already explained how the spectrum works. But, you cant understand. Cold can NOT warm hot.
I dont think you can get any stupider, but keep trying. You may be able to prove me wrong.”
That’s why we don’t put cold things around hot things, like insulation around hot steam pipes in a coal burning power plant, because doing that can’t make the inlet temperature of the steam hotter.
You could be more wrong, but I doubt it.
B-Li, please stop trolling.
HUMPTY DREMPTY
You say “B-Li, please stop trolling.”
So you give up the argument.
What are you?
A pussy?
Meow?
#2
B-Li, please stop trolling.
MEOW Pussy
#3
B-Li, please stop trolling.
JDHuffman
I guess you will just continue to make up your bizarre physics based upon nothing but your own limited imagination.
Here is some of your garbage made up junk. It is sad you keep doing it and no one will be able to stop you.
“The decision as to whether photons will be absorbed is made at the target. The decision is based on wavelengths. A “hot” will not absorb photons from a “cold”.”
Made up unsupported nonsense. Why do you think making up facts is scientific?
Prove your statement.
Norman, where have you ever understood any relevant physics?
You are uneducable. This is another perfect example.
Nothing new.
norman…from JD…”The decision as to whether photons will be absorbed is made at the target. The decision is based on wavelengths…”.
JD is perfectly correct. The determining equation is E = hf where f = frequency which is equivalent to wavelength. Unless E is precise, the electrons that absorb EM will reject it.
The electron is a resonant particle with a frequency when orbiting a nucleus. If the incoming EM’s f does not match, it is rejected, as in a bandpass filter.
JDHuffman
Prove your idiot statement. I see Larry agrees with you. He is also unable to prove his idiot belief. He distorts atomic physics in tortured way to try and prove what he does not grasp.
Roy Spencer proves both of your are idiots that can’t learn even when the evidence is against both of you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
JDHuffman you are the bozo that can’t learn or be educated.
Also you can’t prove anything you say, ever. You don’t even attempt to prove your nonsense.
Norman can’t understand the relevant physics, so he resorts to insults, false accusations, misrepresentations, and mentioning Dr. Spencer.
Norman can’t learn.
Nothing new.
Gordon,
You need to stop giving chemistry lectures, because you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
This
“The electron is a resonant particle with a frequency when orbiting a nucleus. If the incoming EMs f does not match, it is rejected, as in a bandpass filter.”
Is bollocks, electrons do not orbit the nucleus.
Pairs of electrons can and do absorb lower energy photons due to bending, stretching, and vibrational modes of the molecules.
norman…”Roy Spencer proves both of your are idiots that cant learn even when the evidence is against both of you”.
Norman runs squealing to Roy, after taking side with those trying to discredit Roy’s work at UAH.
I have already indicated that I respect Roy and his status as a scientist and that I am not going to get dragged into disagreeing with his views, on his site. There are things Roy claims with which I respectfully agree to disagree. And I am sure there are a lot of things I say with which he respectfully, or otherwise, disagrees.
That’s science. As John Christy of UAH claims, skepticism is a hallmark of science. I am sure John has no issue with anyone disagreeing with his views on science. It would be nice if that respect was extended to him (and Roy) from those alarmists out to discredit them.
If you have a disagreement with what I say, I would prefer that you prove it. You seem content with throwing insults.
bob d…”Is bollocks, electrons do not orbit the nucleus”.
That’s odd, Bohr based his theory on that and Schrodinger, the father of quantum theory, did as well.
I have worked in the field of electronics for decades and studied the theory as part of my electrical engineering studies. I am dubious about whether electrons are tiny particles orbiting a nucleus but no one knows the truth.
The Bohr model has stood for over a century with minor amendments to account for the extra electrons in elements higher than hydrogen. The Bohr model shows a nucleus with an electron spinning around it.
If you have a better model, I’d like to hear it.
Gordon,
Try the Schrodinger model
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/quantum-physics/quantum-numbers-and-orbitals/a/the-quantum-mechanical-model-of-the-atom
B-Li, please stop trolling.
norman…”Again as regards the ordi-
nary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only
do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely
to hot ; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous
double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by
experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body
at the expense of the hotter.”
*********
Norman you have little experience with Clausius or the related history. I have explained to you several times that in the era of Clausius, Boltzman, Stefan, Maxwell, and Planck, that heat was thought to be radiated physically as heat. They often referred to such radiation as heat rays.
They thought heat could flow through some kind of aether, just as it flows through a metal, as a form of radiation, and they were wrong. By quoting Clausius to back your ignorance of the 2nd law, you are repeating their error.
At the time that theory was en vogue, the electron had not yet been discovered. Even after it was discovered, it was not till 1913 that Bohr put things together and got it that heat is converted to electromagnetic radiation by electrons, with the heat being lost, and the EM radiated.
Go back and read what Clausius said. He referred to the ‘ordinary radiation of heat’. Then…”… the general result of this simultaneous double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter …”
Clausius was not privy to the information we have today that made him wrong. But you are privy to that information and your ignorance of it makes you a serious dumbass.
It was discovered by Bohr that heat cannot be exchanged both ways because the electrons that do the absorbing and emitting cannot do so at the same time. Bohr, then Schrodinger spelled it out, demonstrating how electrons reside at certain energy levels and radiate EM as they drop to lower levels.
In order to move the electron to a higher energy level, thus raising the kinetic energy and heat, the electron requires a specific EM intensity and frequency that is not available from colder objects.
Being the highly intelligent man that he was, Clausius would have been elated with such information. You are doing him a serious disservice by quoting words from him that he obviously did not clearly understand at the time.
Having said that, it is miraculous how Clausius was able to figure out the operation of atoms well enough to derive the definition of internal energy that is part of the 1st law.
Gordon Robertson
You have actually explained nothing except making up nonsense ideas. You are totally clueless about Clausius and misrepresent him and his ideas and I am objecting to your BS.
You are a complete idiot with atomic physics and make up your “F” graded notions. You never took higher level physics, that is a complete fabrication on your part. You could not pass any physics course with the ideas you think are correct. They do not let people make up their own ideas and give them passing grades.
Two people on this blog have already proven your ideas are idiotic.
You come up with a stupid conjecture about heat dissipation. IR does not accumulate so there is no restricting dissipation. That is a term used in electronics with air. Air is warmed by electronic equipment and must be dissipated with a fan to prevent the equipment from burning up.
Both Roy Spencer and E. Swanson have done actual science to prove the temperature of a colder body directly affects the temperature of a hotter heated body. You reject both valid tests with silly opinions you just make up.
Sorry I reject all your stupid nonsense. I can learn nothing of value from your mindless screeds on topics you can’t grasp.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Evidence you are a clueless buffoon.
Norman, an easy experiment for you: Try boiling a cup of water using only ice cubes.
For safety, get an adult to help you.
norman…”You have actually explained nothing except making up nonsense ideas”.
And you respond with nothing but insults. It’s plain that what I am talking about is way over your head.
Gordon Robertson
What I totally understand is your posts are junk science. Talking a few ideas you have read and beating mixing them up into a bowl of swill that is just a horrible example of a poor education system where people like you and JDHuffman think science is like religion. You are free to declare any idiot idea that pops in your head and if you think it is correct you post it over an over and over.
Neither of you phony frauds will do any science yet you ridicule the people who do some actual tests that prove both of you are frauds.
Nothing you say is over my head. It is just junk science unworthy of consideration. You are not revealing anything of value.
I will stick to the established science that is based upon sound reason, solid math, years of observation and the sweat and toil of difficult experimentation. Your stuff is crap but you won’t accept that you are a pretender. You still peddle the idea you took higher level physics but you can’t understand the Inverse square law, vibration nuclei within molecules (I linked you to a very good video on it that you ignored).
Sorry to be blunt. You peddle junk science both you and JDHuffman are pseudoscience masters. JDHuffman posts stupid cartoons you post garbled nonsense.
Norman gets so frustrated when his pseudoscience fails him. He can’t understand why reality won’t cooperate with him! That’s why he wouldn’t even do the simplest experiment with the toy Ferris wheel. He can’t stand reality.
JD,
I took a glass of water put it in a vacuum tight flask and attached a vacuum pump, I put the flack in a bucket of ice, turned the vacuum pump on and watched the water boil.
It was fun.
Norman says: – I will stick to the established science that is based upon sound reason, solid math, years of observation and the sweat and toil of difficult experimentation.
Gee just like the Pope’s scientists did for 1,500 years huh?
Nowadays he has a great science team, here are two splendid examples: http://www.pas.va/content/accademia/en/academicians/ordinary/ramanathan.html
http://www.pas.va/content/accademia/en/academicians/ordinary/chu.html
bill hunter
Yes I will stick with the science that is based upon things other then opinion and speculation. New ideas are great for science. I am not opposed to them. I do not like the approach of JDHuffman or Gordon Robertson who spout untested opinions as facts.
There is a super long debate about plates. E. Swanson actually did a valid test in a vacuum to show that a heated plate will increase in temperature when another plate is moved into its FOV. That is factual information. Roy Spencer also performed a test on a heated item.
The two do not understand the 2nd Law of thermodynamics at all and will never do any experiment to prove their opinions correct. JDHuffman shows us a stupid cartoon he drew and Gordon Robertson has a junk science understanding of quantum physics and he does not grasp what molecular vibrations are. Nor will he ever try to learn it.
I am sure Clausius would not disagree at all. If you had a heated object and wrapped it in insulation its temperature would go up. How does this colder insulation increase the temperature of the hotter object? It does.
I am not sure where you stand on issues but if you want to oppose the established science, you need evidence to support your ideas.
Einstein’s theories were not accepted until evidence (Gordon Robertson soundly rejects all the evidence so it is not possible to reach him) was found to support them.
“…when another plate is moved into its FOV.”
What else is in the FOV, though, Norman? Zoe Phin had her own interpretation of the results of that experiment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359038
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359146
OMG, if you feel a need to quote Zoe Phin, then you are demonstrating severely impaired judgement, and total inability to separate fact from delusion…
Norman says: – Yes I will stick with the science that is based upon things other then opinion and speculation. New ideas are great for science. I am not opposed to them. I do not like the approach of JDHuffman or Gordon Robertson who spout untested opinions as facts.
———–
I would suggest perhaps a little more modesty on your part as opposed to making sweeping generalizations.
=================
Norman says: – There is a super long debate about plates. E. Swanson actually did a valid test in a vacuum to show that a heated plate will increase in temperature when another plate is moved into its FOV. That is factual information. Roy Spencer also performed a test on a heated item.
—————
I would not disagree with that, in a vacuum, with rigid plates. With two sources of energy.
In the world environment there is but one energy source. In most experiments I see conducted the experimenter introduces a 2nd energy source. An example would be an experiment inside a steady enclosed environment externally heated resulting in an enclosure emitting say 341watts/m2. Then you bring in a light and/or cooled heat sinks to power your experiment.
The question with heating with backradiation is how do you heat something twice with the same source of heat. So fundamentally its a different experiment.
In this case its only the heat that is being used to heat the plate in the first place allegedly heating it a second time around by entering the plate, leaving the plate, then reentering the plate.
And climate science would like you to believe that backradiation provides 400watts/m2 with a 341watts/m2 input. And you believe it without question?
Ah yes! Of course! I have it figured out! Every wall, ceiling and floor in the room is emitting 341watts/m2! Thats 6 sources of heat!!!! We should be able to heat this bugger up to at least 2000watts/m2!!!! if only if we can get it first to float in the middle of the room like a molecule of gas!!!!
If you actually draw up a blueprint of this process it becomes even more improbable. Folks doing home experiments of it inevitably use either a powered heat sink like an open freezer or an independently frozen tub or ice or a separately powered light bulb or flame to demonstrate the effect. Then really its nothing different than a magician’s trick.
But blueprinting and testing science is not the nature of post-normal science. Post-normal science is basically the mechanism by which science requests money. Ask a lawyer a question and he will say . . . .yes you have a great case.
Thus post-normal science is seized by the elites to use it to shape the world they want.
Evidence of that is degreed scientists have been involved in just about every hare-brained scheme known to man from polar bears to the sun revolving around the earth.
Science? don’t worry little boy, the guy in the white hat is coming to rescue you.
And you think Gordon and JD are stupid?
As I pointed out you can only stem cooling in this manner by slightly delaying the delivery of heat to space.
The two do not understand the 2nd Law of thermodynamics at all and will never do any experiment to prove their opinions correct. JDHuffman shows us a stupid cartoon he drew and Gordon Robertson has a junk science understanding of quantum physics and he does not grasp what molecular vibrations are. Nor will he ever try to learn it.
I am sure Clausius would not disagree at all. If you had a heated object and wrapped it in insulation its temperature would go up. How does this colder insulation increase the temperature of the hotter object? It does.
I am not sure where you stand on issues but if you want to oppose the established science, you need evidence to support your ideas.
Einsteins theories were not accepted until evidence (Gordon Robertson soundly rejects all the evidence so it is not possible to reach him) was found to support them.
oops left some unerased post below my post: Last part should read:
I would not disagree with that, in a vacuum, with rigid plates. With two sources of energy.
In the world environment there is but one energy source. In most experiments I see conducted the experimenter introduces a 2nd energy source. An example would be an experiment inside a steady enclosed environment externally heated resulting in an enclosure emitting say 341watts/m2. Then you bring in a light and/or cooled heat sinks to power your experiment.
The question with heating with backradiation is how do you heat something twice with the same source of heat. So fundamentally its a different experiment.
In this case its only the heat that is being used to heat the plate in the first place allegedly heating it a second time around by entering the plate, leaving the plate, then reentering the plate.
And climate science would like you to believe that backradiation provides 400watts/m2 with a 341watts/m2 input. And you believe it without question?
Ah yes! Of course! I have it figured out! Every wall, ceiling and floor in the room is emitting 341watts/m2! Thats 6 sources of heat!!!! We should be able to heat this bugger up to at least 2000watts/m2!!!! if only if we can get it first to float in the middle of the room like a molecule of gas!!!!
If you actually draw up a blueprint of this process it becomes even more improbable. Folks doing home experiments of it inevitably use either a powered heat sink like an open freezer or an independently frozen tub or ice or a separately powered light bulb or flame to demonstrate the effect. Then really its nothing different than a magicians trick.
But blueprinting and testing science is not the nature of post-normal science. Post-normal science is basically the mechanism by which science requests money. Ask a lawyer a question and he will say . . . .yes you have a great case.
Thus post-normal science is seized by the elites to use it to shape the world they want.
Evidence of that is degreed scientists have been involved in just about every hare-brained scheme known to man from polar bears to the sun revolving around the earth.
Science? dont worry little boy, the guy in the white hat is coming to rescue you.
Svante says: – Nowadays he has a great science team, here are two splendid examples:
The world is full of geniuses that come up with and believe in really stupid ideas.
Yes, but it’s more common among fools.
By the way, have you ever wondered if your views on climate change were wrong?
Svante says: ——– Yes, but its more common among fools.———–
Indeed, especially those who believe they are geniuses. And also more common among evil geniuses who are licking the hand of power while gazing it its eyes to see a sign of its desire.
=================
Svante says: ——–
By the way, have you ever wondered if your views on climate change were wrong?———-
The only view of climate change I hold strongly to is the climate is always changing. And no I don’t believe that’s wrong.
========
Climate has always changed for a reason, and it has lead to many mass extinctions.
You don’t think that is wrong, but is it beneficial to us now?
I think it is unacceptable even if it is natural.
Svante says: ——— Climate has always changed for a reason, and it has lead to many mass extinctions. You dont think that is wrong, but is it beneficial to us now? I think it is unacceptable even if it is natural.———–
Its a bit hard to see what you are advocating there. Mankind controlling the climate? If they do I can only hope they will try to manage it for the benefit of mankind. When it comes to the idea of saving the world, the question always is “from what”. The only concept we are reasonably capable of knowing is to each and every individual knowing what is good for them personally. We have no concept of what is good for others. Extinctions are a product of natural selection which is not going to stop no matter what we do.
We can’t even predict if we maximize the world for the benefit of mankind if that will in the longrun make for more or less extinctions. I am a conservationist and see the great benefit for mankind in preserving biodiversity and well adapted species in a well managed environment are pretty robust. Less well adapted species are not. My area of expertise is in preserving biodiversity and abundance of life, been concentrating on that area alone for over 20 years. We are doing a credible job with megafauna and large plant species. Most of what you read about extinctions is total garbage pumped up to inspire special interest legislation. Like estimates derived from how many species of bacteria are going extinct its absolutely impossible to estimate or know how many went extinct before man’s influence.
The reason thats true is there isn’t even a good uniform standard by which we classify different species in the first place. If you try to do it by DNA then every living thing is a different specie and they all go extinct in a relatively short period of time. Obviously we don’t do that but instead it becomes much more subjective. For instance, folks are constantly arguing over species of salmon. Is a salmon that tends to go back to the river of its birth a separate specie from a very similar one that goes up another river? Check the endangered species list and you will see salmon with specific DNA springing from the same river listed as endangered. Yet we know that something like 6% of salmon go up the wrong river and ever so slightly change the gene pool over time. The DNA remains unique enough to separate it still from other groups. What this is is a demonstration of how robust species are. They adapt to their environment then by virtue of a small number of original members they maintain evidence of DNA matches that can be traced back many generations. In fact there is robust business doing that for people right now.
but the further back it goes the blurrier it gets.
Yes, natural does not mean acceptable.
The problem now is the speed of change.
Natural selection is too slow.
We have sea level rise and risk, risk, risk.
What is worse is when you inflict it on others without paying any price.
That’s bloody impolite.
Svante says: ———Yes, natural does not mean acceptable.
The problem now is the speed of change.
Natural selection is too slow.
We have sea level rise and risk, risk, risk.
What is worse is when you inflict it on others without paying any price.
Thats bloody impolite.————-
good lord Svante! You mean its wrong to inflict sealevel rise on to the beach owned by the elitists after they built highrises to block your ocean access and view?
There is no end to that argument, its the biggest circle jerk argument of all time!!!!
I have pointed out out ancestors have survived much more climate change than we are looking at, for example sea level rose far faster than any reasonable projection of global warming can bring in the future if for no other reason than a lot less glacial ice to yet melt, but also for temperature change as well. To bring that home I have seen just in the time of following this topic how paid science has reduced the glacial minimums to 5 degrees down from 9 degrees when I started in attempt to stoke fear.
And then always the argument comes around to how this is going to endanger what people have. The world still has a lot of have nots and we are not going to fix that by creating more power in the elite class to decide who should have and who should have not. That isn’t brought home any clearer than Leonardo DiCaprio and Sean Penn, two Google campers cruising the med in a 453foot private yacht that per mile burns the fuel equivalent of 116 747 jet liners.
I am also aware that all you do by giving stuff to the poor is make them dependent on handouts. Increasing opportunity is how you help the havenots. Yet everyday of every year I go to work I see more intrusive elitist run governments of all stripes and creeds and political philosophies making it most difficult for the little guy.
So yeah I am a skeptic in every sense of the word.
bill hunter says:
Presumably they earned their money fair and square.
If they didn’t then sea level rise is not the most precise way to take the stolen money back.
Sea level rise at the end of the last ice age was one meter peter century, so that’s about the same as future projections.
People were nomads in those days, now we have valuable fixed assets near the shore line.
It’s human tragedy to be forced to leave historic sites where your ancestors have lived for centuries or millennia.
Sea level rise is not the best way to fix all that.
Svante says: Presumably they earned their money fair and square.
If they didn’t then sea level rise is not the most precise way to take the stolen money back.
Sea level rise at the end of the last ice age was one meter peter century, so that’s about the same as future projections.
People were nomads in those days, now we have valuable fixed assets near the shore line.
It’s human tragedy to be forced to leave historic sites where your ancestors have lived for centuries or millennia.
Sea level rise is not the best way to fix all that.
Glad to hear you sympathize for me. But I am not worried. Lived on the shoreline all my life and a near century hasn’t created any visible rise in sea level.
At the current rate of acceleration, assuming it continues, only about a foot will result in the next century and it will take about 250 years to reach a meter.
A meter of ocean water is a piece of cake to hold back, 2 meters and the only real cost is some ocean view, which wouldn’t deter anybody from building on the beach for the next 300 years perhaps much longer.
Everybody is going jeez a hundred years is just around the corner! and fail to look at the progress over the past 100 years. Keeping fossil fuels cheap will return any losses many times over.
If we become a society dedicated to stopping every single inequity we will stop progressing as its a tail chasing never ending job, likely to cause more inequity than it solves.
Bottom line is take some F_kking personal responsibility and stop whining about every little thing and the world will progress even faster.
Its absolutely hilarious to think you think nomads had it tougher. I am rolling on the floor!
bill hunter says:
You can not judge from one place, you may have land uplift.
The acceleration is +0.08 mm*year^-2 since the 1960’s,
which means 10 mm*y^-1 by 2100. Do the math, we have 3.5 mm*y^-1 now. It doesn’t stop there, who knows what the 2nd derivative will be?
https://tinyurl.com/y3eyxb5n
It doesn’t work in places like Florida where the ground is porous.
I think it will be cheaper to build walls in Greenland and Antarctica. It will have to be done because stopping emissions now will not stop the rise. Glaciers can only add one meter.
Estimates show they will not return losses. They have some important use, in other cases they are only marginally better. The first priority is to stop building new coal power plants. Natural gas is much better, and wind power is already cheaper in many parts of the world, even without subsidies.
It has to be done and the sooner the cheaper, as you say we need economic progress too.
You misunderstand again, I meant it was less painful for a nomad to move.
Svante says: ——You can not judge from one place, you may have land uplift.
Just another factor to get creative with.
Svante says: The acceleration is +0.08 mm*year^-2 since the 1960s,
Svante, you are like a parrot without a thought of your own. First all these predictions of gloom and doom are not measurably happening anywhere on the planet after a 160 years of the industrial revolution.
Lets sort of decide if CO2 amounts to anything first. Take on my reasonableness test and get outside your parrot zone.
Svante says:
You misunderstand again, I meant it was less painful for a nomad to move.
I would think a typical parrot like you would have bought into the concept that people living like nomads need help.
All you are buying into here is protecting people that don’t need help at the real cost of increasing the nomad (homeless) population at a far more rapid rate than people having assets swallowed up on centennial scales are going to ever even feel. You are hopeless.
Gordon,
Clausius is correct and I am correct and you are wrong.
Try this more better Clausius statement
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”
A two way exchange of heat or energy or simoleans or whatever is allowed.
bob d…”Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”
He called that compensation ans he explained it well in his book.
Translated to modern terms, in an air conditioner, you need power to drive a compressor, to compress a gas to a high pressure liquid, a condenser to radiate heat from the HP gas, an expansion valve, and an evapourator, to allow the gas to expand back to a low pressure gas. As it expands, it absorbs heat from a cooler area.
You might as well stop at “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body…”. Under normal (uncompensated) conditions on our planet heat can never be transferred from cold to hot.
Nope, heat goes both ways.
You gotta do more that read, experimentation time.
Also there is the Planck statement of the second law.
“It is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a complete cycle, and produce no effect except the raising of a weight and cooling of a heat reservoir”
bob d…”Nope, heat goes both ways”.
Once again, straight from Clausius, heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. That is his official statement of the 2nd law.
If you persist in being an alarmist at least learn the science.
Right Gordon,
Heat has been observed going in both directions, so experiment trumps your misinterpretation of what Clausius actually said.
There are a bunch of different statements of the second law and they are all equivalent, if your interpretation of the second law Clausius statement were true, by the Planck statement you could build a perpetual motion machine.
It’s not by its own means when there is a two way transfer.
“Heat has been observed going in both directions”, says B-Li.
“Energy can flow both ways, heat only one way, only because it is defined that way”, said B-Li.
“Regardless of whether it’s called heat or energy, with the blue and green plates at the same temperature, you can’t have flow of either heat or energy between them”, said B-Li.
“…there is no claim that energy can not flow without a temperature difference”, said B-Li.
HUMPTY DREMPTY
Heat has been observed going in both directions, says B-Li.”
YEP
Energy can flow both ways, heat only one way, only because it is defined that way, said B-Li.”
Yep, it’s defined that way
Regardless of whether its called heat or energy, with the blue and green plates at the same temperature, you cant have flow of either heat or energy between them, said B-Li.”
The energy flow cancel each other. You can’t heat a plate with a plate of the same temperature, that should be obvious, but apparently you think you can.
there is no claim that energy can not flow without a temperature difference, said B-Li.”
Energy can flow without a temperature difference in the case where there is a phase change.
If 400 W is flowing thru, I think we can all agree that must be NET flow.
‘Energy can flow both ways, heat only one way, only because it is defined that way, said B-Li.’
I think we can all agree that energy can flow both ways, as per the SB law.
But Net energy flow, universally defined as HEAT, is only flowing one way as per the RHTE and as REQUIRED by 2LOT.
There is nothing else available from the laws of physics that will give NET energy flow.
If you can offer another genuine mechanism for NET energy to flow, please tell us what that is now.
Other wise it will be thoroughly obvious that it is simply your fantasy.
B-Li says “YEP” and “yep…” to two statements that contradict each other, and expects to be taken seriously.
HUMPTY DREMPTY
maybe this will help clarify what Clausius said
“The statement by Clausius uses the concept of ‘passage of heat’. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.”
B-Li, you’ll just say anything.
‘If you can offer another genuine mechanism for NET energy to flow, please tell us what that is now.’
And just as expected, nothing. Nada. Crickets.
DREMT proves that his posts are fact-free.
Who cares about reality, when the only goal is to troll, and keep the argument going, and going, way past its expiration date.
Nate says:
Energy can flow both ways, heat only one way, only because it is defined that way, said B-Li.
I think we can all agree that energy can flow both ways, as per the SB law.
—————-
Nobody has ever verified energy flowing both ways and the SB equation is simply a method of figuring out how fast the warm surface is cooling and how fast the cool surface is warming.
Nate says:
Other wise it will be thoroughly obvious that it is simply your fantasy.
Sounds like you now agree with Gordon. As all along he has been saying heat can only flow in one direction.
HUMMPTY
Maybe if you tried to understand the science more than you try to catch me up in a contradiction made from statements taken out of context you might learn something.
Gordon explained what was meant by compensation.
Despite that, you simply declared that heat has been observed going in both directions, regardless. Yet on another occasion you were clear that heat was defined as only going in one direction.
The context is there, since I supplied the links.
So you were caught out; but as usual, you try to make that my fault somehow. Have your last word, bore.
‘Nate says:
Other wise it will be thoroughly obvious that it is simply your fantasy.
Sounds like you now agree with Gordon. As all along he has been saying heat can only flow in one direction.’
Bill, you are jumping into the middle of a too long discussion.
The ‘fantasy’ i was referring was DREMTs idea that there can be a NET flow of energy, that is NOT HEAT, between plates with no T difference.
He is claiming that, to support his feeling that black-body plates in vacuum must be at the same temperature, while 400 W is somehow flowing between them.
But he refuses to identify what the magical mystery energy is, and basically doesnt understand how ordinary heat transfer works.
Yeah you caught me out
“Energy can flow both ways, heat only one way”
I meant heat can only FLOW one way because heat flow is defined that way
Still you are missing the point that your solution is incorrect because
“Heat is energy that is transferred from one object or substance to another because of a difference in temperature between them”
So no temperature difference no heat flow from blue to green, no heat flow through the blue and green plate problem.
Nate says:
If you can offer another genuine mechanism for NET energy to flow, please tell us what that is now.
And just as expected, nothing. Nada. Crickets.
———————
How about like a charged magnet attracting a nail, thats electromagnetic.
Or how about a potential difference between two poles that creates lightning bolts a highly charged much more dramatic fashion than radiation? Thats another form of electromagnetism.
Radiation is a 3rd electromagnetic process.
‘How about like a charged magnet attracting a nail, thats electromagnetic.
Or how about a potential difference between two poles that creates lightning bolts a highly charged much more dramatic fashion than radiation? Thats another form of electromagnetism.
”
None of those are relevant. It is simply a heat transfer problem with no work being done.
“So no temperature difference no heat flow from blue to green, no heat flow through the blue and green plate problem.”
Heat flow between blue and green would necessitate at least one of the two to be warming or cooling. Once the temperatures are steady, there is no longer heat flow between the plates.
Doesn’t mean there won’t still be 400 W of energy going in, and 400 W of energy coming out, of the system overall. Like there is at 244 K…244 K…244 K.
Maybe if you tried to understand the science more than you try to put words in my mouth, you might learn something.
‘Heat flow between blue and green would necessitate at least one of the two to be warming or cooling. Once the temperatures are steady, there is no longer heat flow between the plates.’
Another new rule that nobody ever heard of! What a shocker.
We’ve asked DREMT many times where do these weird notions come from? He has no answers. Certainly not ordinary physics.
Can’t win on the facts. Just make up new ones!
“Heat flow between blue and green would necessitate at least one of the two to be warming or cooling.”
…because the plates are identical, you see. All properties the same. Same heat capacity. Same dimensions. Same emissivity. View factors between them are treated as 1, to eliminate “edge effects”, as Eli put it. Only way that you could have continuous heat flow between them is of the temperatures of the plates were maintained at different temperatures.
It’s not like a radiator vs the room surrounding it, where the room’s temperature will never reach the temperature of the radiator itself. You’re talking about three identical objects in a vacuum.
‘because the plates are identical, you see. All properties the same. ‘
Yep but you oddly forgot that one is heated, while the others are not. Two are exposed to space, one is not.
That means things end up at different temperatures.
Good thing, it makes all sorts of things work.
Well that wasn’t written very well.
“The only way that you could have continuous heat flow between them is if the plates were maintained at different temperatures.”
That’s better.
“The only way that you could have continuous heat flow between them is if the plates were maintained at different temperatures.
Thats better”
Not better.
Why is better if you are still making up an arbitrary rule that cannot be found anywhere in heat transfer physics?
Consider just the Blue plate in space with 400 W input. It reaches a steady temp with continuous heat emission of 400 W to space.
Its temp is not ‘maintained’, it simply reaches a steady-state.
‘Consider just the Blue plate in space with 400 W input. It reaches a steady temp with continuous heat emission of 400 W to space.’
And with 3 plates, each plate reaches a steady temperature when heat flow in = heat flow out and are steady.
For the Green plates facing the extreme cold space, they reach a lower steady-state temperature than the BLUE plate which is shielded from the cold of space.
Just as facing a warm camp fire the front of your body will be warm and the back of it cold.
For most people that would be intuitively obvious.
…and answer came there none.
IT’s like an electric circuit, the plug is in the wall socket and voltage is applied there is a load on the other end and the vacuum cleaner is turned on, but there is a break in the cable such that no electricity is delivered to the vacuum cleaner.
Erm…OK, B-Li.
stupid…”Do you see the horizontal line through the moon that stays parallel to the starting point in the segment of the video I referenced?”
That horizontal line is parallel to a tangential line to the orbit. The instantaneous direction of a curve or a circle is defined by the tangent lines.
You are so dense you cannot figure out the difference between a straight line and a curve. With a curve, you must introduce an axis about which a radial line defines the radius of a curve with a line tangential to the curve defining the instantaneous direction.
If you start your horizontal line at 6 o’clock, so it would overlap a straight line at that point, then at 6 o’clock, bodies moving on the curve and the straight line coincide. The moment you move past 6 o’clock on the curve, the curve is defined by the tangent line to the curve.
With a rigid body like the Moon at 6 o’clock, the radial line from the axis of the circular orbit through the Moon goes through the near face, through the centre, and out the dark side. So you have a series of points on the radial line moving parallel to each other as in rectilinear translation.
Your horizontal line would be parallel to the rectilinear path as would the curved motion at that point.
Now move the Moon on the circle slightly past 6 0’clock. Your standard of parallel is now the tangent line at that point. All your horizontal lines will be parallel to the tangent line and that will be the case at all points around the orbit.
At each point around the orbit, your horizontal line will be parallel to the tangent line at that point. All points on the Moon along the radial line will also be parallel to the tangent line, therefore they are still parallel to their initial position at 6 o’clock.
You cannot apply the same meaning of parallel in rectilinear motion to curvilinear motion. In rectilinear translation all points must move along a straight line whereas in curvilinear motion all points must move along a curved line.
With rectilinear translation the definition of parallel is parallel to the straight line. With curvilinear translation, the definition of parallel must be related to the tangent line.
At each instant on a curved line, the tangent line is in the direction of linear motion.
tip of the day…
In engineering drawing classes we did a lot of sketching. We learned techniques for drawing complex objects freehand and one was the circle.
With a circle, you draw a square box with an x-y axis system dividing the box horizontally and vertically. Then you draw diagonal lines corner to corner. On each line you mark off the radius of the circles you want to draw and draw a tangent line perpendicular to each mark.
Then you use each tangent line as the direction of the circles arc at that point. You can do a pretty mean circle freehand using that technique, if you are careful and take your time.
If you want to make it more accurate, you can visually bisect the pie-shaped sections created between the x-y coordinates and the diagonal lines, inserting more tangent lines at radius r.
The same technique works for ellipses, parabolas, and hyperbolas. If you lay out the equation x-y parameters in a table and give them values, you can figure out where to place them on an x-y coordinate system, then draw tangent lines at each point.
Gordon shrieks
“That horizontal line is parallel to a tangential line to the orbit”
OMG Ggordon. In the Norm’s youtube video reference, from t=0:38 to t=0:49, the yellow line drawn through the moon remains parallel to its original position the WHOLE way. It does NOT follow a line tangent to the orbit. What drugs are you on?!! That movement is curvilinear translation per the definition, and also per Tesla in his explanation of his Figure 5.
The rest of your spiel is pure garbage. You STILL do not comprehend curvilinear translation. You confuse curvilinear motion with curvilinear translation.
Give me a valid physics reference source that supports your delusional definition of curvilinear translation. I have supplied COUNTLESS University lecture note references which correctly define curvilinear translation and you STILL don’t get it.
Gordon moans:
“With curvilinear translation, the definition of parallel must be related to the tangent line.”
WRONG! The definition of curvilinear translation does NOT mention tangent lines at all. The line through the object must REMAIN parallel to the original position of the object. Just like in Norm’s video. Just like in Tesla’s Figure 5, where the line between the shaded portion and light portion of the balls remain parallel to the ball at the noon position. Tesla even disagrees with you!!
You are so messed up, it’s unbelievable! Surely you are joking?
“Child-Gone-Stupid” is still trying to apply kinematics to orbital motion. Even after all the training from Gordon, the child keeps making the same mistakes.
He just can’t learn.
Nothing new.
stupid…” In the Norms youtube video reference, from t=0:38 to t=0:49, the yellow line drawn through the moon remains parallel to its original position the WHOLE way. It does NOT follow a line tangent to the orbit”.
And it’s wrong. I was referring to the horizontal line through the Moon at 12 o’clock. From that point onward, based on the orbital motion of the Moon, that line is always parallel to the tangential line at that point on the orbital curve.
The vid where he shows the line horizontal around the orbit is wrong.
Gordon shrieks:
“The vid where he shows the line horizontal around the orbit is wrong!”
LMAO!!!!!!!! How can the video be wrong??? That video segment is just an example of curvilinear translation, you fake. It’s the same thing as Tesla’s Figure 5, which Tesla describes as curvilinear translation. So Tesla was wrong too??? LOL. The object keeps the the same orientation as it moves through the circular orbit, a motion you say is not possible.
You only say it’s wrong because you STILL do not comprehend curvilinear translation.
“The vid where he shows the line horizontal around the orbit is wrong.”
No, Gordon. What is WRONG is your personal definition of curvilinear translation. You’ve spouted the wrong definition for over a year now.
““Child-Gone-Stupid” is still trying to apply kinematics to orbital motion…”
Huffman’s typical stubborn and pretentious blah blah:
“Bindidon, BOTH Newton and Tesla were right. You are the one that is wrong.”
How is that possible, Huffman?
Newton clearly wrote that the Moon rotates about its axis, and Tesla pretended the contrary.
I don’t bother about your simple-minded answers, and continue on my way.
*
Today, I present to all interested (!) readers a chapter about the Moon, within the book
“A New Treatise on the Use of the Globes, and Practical Astronomy;
or a comprehensive view of the System of the World
written by J. Wallace
published in New York in 1812
digitsed by Google
*
Moon’s chapter is here, on page 320:
https://tinyurl.com/y2xw8utk
The incremental gain in precison for the calculation of Moon’s sidereal revolution time, shown on pp. 321/322, is amazing.
Even more amazing is how ancient the Moon’s observations in Babylon have been (around 1700 BC), and how accurate Ptolemy computed the equation of Moon’s orbit on the basis of eclipse observations by the Chaldeans around 700 BC (p. 324).
A little brick concerning the libration in longitude (p.339):
“3. The third cause, is the unequal angular motion of the moon about the earth, and her uniform motion about her axis, which makes a little of the eastern and western parts alternately appear and disappear, the period of which is a month; this is called the libration in longitude.*”
and
“* The libration in longitude would not take place, if the moon’s angular motion about the earth were equal to her angular motion about her axis.
See there for the detailed explanation at page bottom.
*
How can a commenter be so incredibly brazen and unfair to discredit and denigrate all the people who performed these observations and computations as ‘astrologists’ ???
In my native tongue one uses to say: “L’ignorance et l’arrogance vont très bien ensemble”.
Wrong again, Bindidon. Newton was clearly speaking in relation to the stars, as “the moon rotates, relative to the stars“.
How many times do people have to point this out to you?
Newton provided the calculus to show how gravity holds an orbiting body. His work proves Moon is NOT actually rotating on its axis. It is just changing direction due to gravity.
Tesla clearly indicated the moon was NOT rotating on its axis.
BOTH Newton and Tesla were right. You are the one that is wrong.
You keep doing the same thing, over and over, without making any progress. In your native language, what is the word for “insanity”?
Huffman
I am sad of your permanent dishomesty.
1. A ‘commenter’ like you, who discredits and denigrates as ‘astrologists’ persons like Cassini, whose careful, patient and accurate observations were acknowledged by even Newton, is the best example not only for insanity, but also for cowardice: you write your insults behind a fake name, and on a blog lacking any TRUE moderation by the blog’s management staff.
2. You have been shown over and over that Newton did by no means restrict his observations and calculations wrt the fixed stars to the Moon.
Newton’s PROPOSITIO XVII THEOREMA XV unambiguously begins with
“Patet per motus legem 1. & Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Lib. I. Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56′, mars horis 24. 39′, venus horis 23 circiter, terra horis 23. 56′, sol diebus 25 & luna diebus 27. 7 hor. 43′. ”
{ Nota bene: I use Newton’s original Latin source, because when I use an English translation, you soon accuse me to ‘misrepresent’ Newton. }
It is clear to see that Newton means ‘wrt the fixed stars’ for
– Jupiter
– Mars
– Venus
– Earth
– the Sun
and
– the Moon.
The revolution times indicated in the paragraph clearly all mean rotations.
Thus, if you pretend that Newton’s restriction ‘wrt the fixed stars’ indicated ‘no rotation about the axis’, then this must be valid for all other celestial bodies above, and not only for the Moon.
Moreover, Newton pretty good explains in the following sentence
“Maculae in corpore solis ad eundem situm in disco solis redeunt diebus 27 circiter, respectu terrae ; ideoque respectu fixarum sol revolvitur diebus 25 circiter. ”
the difference of Sun’s rotation time about its axis
– when considered wrt Earth: 27 days;
– when considered wrt the fixed stars: 25 days.
As opposed to you uneducated pseudoscientist, Newton had perfectly understood the necessity to observe and calculate everything wrt a fixpoint.
*
At the end of Proposition XVII Theorem XV, Newton writes:
“Simili motu extimus saturni satelles circa axem suum revolvi videtur, eadem sui facie saturnum perpetuo respiciens. Nam circum saturnum revolvendo, quoties ad orbis sui partem orientalem accedit, aegerrime videtur, & plerumque videri cessat: id quod evenire potest per maculas quasdam in ea corporis parte quae terrae tunc obvertitur, ut Cassinus notavit.
Simili etiam motu satelles extimus jovialis circa axem suum revolvi videtur, propterea quod in parte corporis jovi aversa maculam habeat quae tanquam in corpore jovis cernitur ubicunque satelles inter jovem & oculos nostros transit. ”
Look yourself for the translation somewhere upthread, I wrote it in another comment already.
Newton began here to suppose (‘videtur’ !!!) a further generalisation, based on observations of Saturn’s and Jupiter’s outermost moons: that all these moons, including ours, have a rotation time equal to their orbiting time, what explains why they all invariably show the same face to the planet they orbit.
This was later confirmed by Herschel through long-time observations.
*
Think and write what you want, Huffman. I’m sure you will invent something new.
Your only goal is to show you are right, even against all odds. That seems like a Pavlovian reflex to you.
Wrong again, Bindidon. Newton was clearly speaking in relation to the stars, as “the moon rotates, relative to the stars“.
How many times do people have to point this out to you?
Newton provided the calculus to show how gravity holds an orbiting body. His work proves Moon is NOT actually rotating on its axis. It is just changing direction due to gravity.
Tesla clearly indicated the moon was NOT rotating on its axis.
BOTH Newton and Tesla were right. You are the one that is wrong.
You keep doing the same thing, over and over, without making any progress. In your native tongue, what is the word for “insanity”?
Furthermore, binny, who have difficulty distinguishing rotation from libration, even when the author claims it is libration.
Robertson
“… difficulty distinguishing rotation from libration, even when the author claims it is libration.”
I can imagine!
How could you understand the text at the bottom of the pages 339 and 340, if you aren’t even able to REALLY understand how anomalies with annual cycle removal are effectively computed…
Print the text, Robertson, and read it and read it and read it again.
Huffman
You see! You reacted as I predicted.
Best greetings from Mr Pavlov.
Thus, according to Huffman, neither Jupiter nor Mars nor Venus nor Earth, let alone the Sun can rotate about their own axis, as it was calculated by Newton wrt the fixed stars.
Welcome in Huffan’s world of total denial!
Bindidon, in your fervent desire to protect your pseudoscience, you have now resorted to false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
Grow up, and learn some physics.
“you have now resorted to false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults…”
That’s all these people have left.
‘false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
Grow up, and learn some physics.’
JDs boiler plate, so overused that its just background noise now.
Obviously you’re still affected by it.
That’s good.
Bindidon says: – Thus, according to Huffman, neither Jupiter nor Mars nor Venus nor Earth, let alone the Sun can rotate about their own axis, as it was calculated by Newton wrt the fixed stars.
Welcome in Huffans world of total denial!
For the love of Pete! The moon does not rotate on its axis but the Earth, Venus, Jupiter, and Mars do. The moon is tidal locked to the earth and doesn’t rotate around its axis but does rotate around the earth. EVJM are not tidal locked to the sun and thus rotate around their axis and rotate around the Sun.
You may as well be claiming the earth rotates around a moon rotating on its axis and thus the sun rotates around them both! Talk about being confused!!!!!
You bought that one too! There’s something seriously wrong with your BS filter.
Oh good, that’s nine of us, then. Soon be up to double figures. Of course, that’s only out of the people who actually comment here, so just a small sample.
‘For the love of Pete! The moon does not rotate on its axis but the Earth, Venus, Jupiter, and Mars do.’
Wow, how did I not see that one coming from Bill?
My philosophy-trained wife called BS on that one a long time ago with no assistance from me, by moving a coffee mug around her fist.
To make it orbit around her left fist she simply moved it in a circle with the handle always pointing to her.
To make it orbit as the Moon does, with the cup handle always pointing to her fist, required the handle to rotate around the cup, an entirely awkward and un-natural way to move a cup.
Thus she concluded, the motion of the Moon requires it to be orbiting and rotating.
You do understand that if the moon rotates around its axis, the earth does too?
to clarify – the earth also rotates around the moons axis, if you believe the moon rotates around its axis.
If the Earth rotates around its own axis, then the Sun rotates around the Earth, by that logic.
So no, not really.
‘Oh good, that’s nine of us, then. Soon be up to double figures.’
Not that it matters, science is not done by a poll, but I can’t think of nine.
Many more than nine here who don’t agree.
Just among the climate skeptics there’s
Roy, Kristian, Stephen P Anderson, Eben, SGW, Bart, Joe Postma, and couple more I cant think of..
Nate says: ————-
If the Earth rotates around its own axis, then the Sun rotates around the Earth, by that logic. So no, not really.———–
Egads! you didn’t follow the logic.
Its only true that if the moon rotates on its axis that the earth would have to also orbit that axis; because from earth we only see one side of the moon. Thus if the moon rotates on its axis to maintain that fact the earth would have to follow the surface of the moon around its axis.
That condition does not exist between the earth and the sun because the sun shines on all sides of the earth with each rotation of the earth thus the sun is not required to follow one side around the earth.
I think I am beginning to see some of the problem that Galileo had convincing the Roman Catholic Church.
bottom line is always need to evaluate the consequences of what you are claiming.
Nate, be sure to point that out to your wife since you believe what she says.
Bill,
“because from earth we only see one side of the moon. Thus if the moon rotates on its axis to maintain that fact the earth would have to follow the surface of the moon around its axis.”
No Bill, you’re no logician.
1. The Moon is orbiting the Earth, we can know that by measuring its position wrt to all other objects in the solar system.
For example the Moon is getting closer to the sun and farther from the sun as it orbits, the Earth is not.
Whether the Moon is rotating or not doesnt change its position, or that of Earth, in the solar system.
2. As my wife rotated the coffee mug around her fist, regardless of whether the handle always faced the fist or not, her fist was always stationary.
Try it yourself.
No Nate.
The moon does not rotate on its own axis as does the earth.
The moon rotates around the earth tidal locked to the earth so it does not rotate on its own axis. If it also rotated on its own axis then a viewers from earth would be able to see all sides of the moon as it rotated on its axis while rotating around the earth.
As Bob pointed out the moon does not maintain a posture in the heavens such that the stars do not change their position, but this is an argument for the moon not rotating on its own axis because if it were to maintain a single view of the stars it would need to rotate on its own axis at exactly the same rate of rotation as its rotation around the earth.
So the moon rotates by virtue of rotating around the earth, not by virtue of rotating on its own axis. Further the moon rotates around the Sun which marginally shifts the location of stars and allegedly the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way which dramatically shifts the location of stars by minimally in relationship to units of time.
And the earth does rotate as do the other planets because they are not tidal locked in their rotation around the sun. Thus they can rotate without requiring the sun to rotate around them.
bottom line and logically only because of the tidal locked relationship of the moon to the earth, it is illogical to say the moon rotates on its axis because to do so would require the earth to rotate around the moon. And by the laws of gravity (and a bunch of other calculations in addition such as the earth’s and moon’s distance from the sun) we know that is not the case.
‘bottom line and logically only because of the tidal locked relationship of the moon to the earth, it is illogical to say the moon rotates on its axis because to do so would require the earth to rotate around the moon.’
No, Bill, just a weird assertion without evidence or logic.
Whether the Moon is orbiting and spinning, or just orbiting, either way, the Earth is not required to rotate around the Moon.
As to the tidal locking, the rate of the Moon’s spin is not zero, but it has synchronized with its orbital rate as a result.
‘the moon does not maintain a posture in the heavens such that the stars do not change their position”
Exactly. Someone standing on the Moon’s North pole will see the stars circling around their position, and just as on Earth, that is how they would know the Moon is rotating, wrt the stars and the rest of the universe, which is how astronomy defines rotation.
And oh BTW, the axis of rotation is tilted 6 degreees to its orbital plane. Without the Moon rotating, no such axis could be defined!
And as a result the Moon does not keep quite the same face to Earth but does a little dance of libration.
And thus no one here has explained the libration without having the Moon rotating on its own axis.
Nate says: No, Bill, just a weird assertion without evidence or logic.
—————
Here is evidence of what I am saying:
What I would suggest would be to lay out the pieces on a map.
When you do you may not want to map the solar system orbiting the galaxy because its so slow so maybe you might want to just label some constellations instead on the map.
But in the well mapped world we will see the sun rotating so we mark a circle on its face and indicate the speed of rotation.
Then we map the orbits of the planets and on each orbit circle we indicate an orbit period,
then we map the rotation of the planets and mark on their faces the rate of rotation.
Then we will draw the orbits of the moons around their planets and mark their rates of rotation,
then we will determine the rotation of the moons and mark how long it takes for them to fully rotate.
Of course we aren’t done yet because all this is out of balance so we have to go back and make adjustments for gravitational balance which is going to put a wobble in the whole system, turn orbits elliptical and get the sun wobbling.
Now the system is all mapped. But if we goofed and put what most people are saying as a rotation speed on the moon on top of its circle we will have an error in our system and it will mimic reality.
The reason is the rotation of the moon was already provided by its orbit. And marking it a second time would either keep it looking at the same constellations or double its rotation rate depending upon which way you put the spin on.
Either error and the folks on earth would enjoy watching both sides of the moon.
All the orbits are a result of gravity induced by another body however the rotation of planets on their axis was allegedly induced by the violent creation of the solar system.
At one time it is hypothesized the moon had such a rotation but it gradually slowed because of a tidal pull on its bulge and eventually stopped.
Bill, I don’t see any evidence or logic in all of that.
Just argument by assertion, like here:
“The reason is the rotation of the moon was already provided by its orbit. And marking it a second time would either keep it looking at the same constellations or double its rotation rate depending upon which way you put the spin on.”
And we seem to have lost the argument for why the Earth is orbiting the Moon.
And we seem to have lost the fact that the Moon has an axis and poles, not aligned with its orbit.
Can an orb even have an axis and poles if its not rotating?
Nate says: Bill, I dont see any evidence or logic in all of that.
You just haven’t turned on your thinking cap Nate.
I gave you the two pieces of information you need. The map immediately above provides an overall frame of reference.
The kid on a merry-go-round locked in place by gravity like the moon is gravitational locked in place in relationship to the earth, does not have an independent rotation. If he wants to see the brass ring or the fairground in a fixed viewpoint his head has to start rotating. Thus the fixed viewpoint of the stars is a very poor frame of reference.
By adopting the maps frame of reference then you can start actually putting numbers to effects, effects of orbits and effects of planets independently rotating while orbiting.
I am relatively certain when you do that you can start explaining the effects of barycenters, wobbling of the sun, elliptical orbits, and even libration of the moon as it follows an elliptical orbit.
Your frame of reference is fine if you want it. But I would like to see how you lay it out on a map considering all aspects including objects locked by gravity.
Nate says: And we seem to have lost the argument for why the Earth is orbiting the Moon.
thats just a measurement of your brain density.
Lets take the kid on the merry-go-round planted by gravity and clasped knees on a horse. Now we put an independent spin on him. He is going fly off the horse unless he can clamp his knees tight enough and gravity is strong enough to hold him in place while spinning independently in which case the kid will be spinning the merry-go-round. Of course no kid can do that so having an independent spin would unhorse him. Well the moon and the kid are not becoming unhorsed because gravity and all the other forcings are sufficient to keep them from spinning independently.
Now if you don’t understand that and think its unsupported assertions, I suggest strongly you get an application in immediately for a AMA-approved brain transplant so you can be near the top of the waiting list.
‘Your frame of reference is fine if you want it. But I would like to see how you lay it out on a map considering all aspects including objects locked by gravity.’
Take an astronomy course. Or get an astronomy book and read. The basic layout has been understood for 300 y.
‘Thus the fixed viewpoint of the stars is a very poor frame of reference.’
AFAIK it is the same as your map.
‘Lets take the kid on the merry-go-round planted by gravity and clasped knees on a horse. Now we put an independent spin on him. He is going fly off the horse unless he can clamp his knees tight enough and gravity is strong enough to hold him in place while spinning independently in which case the kid will be spinning the merry-go-round. Of course no kid can do that so having an independent spin would unhorse him. Well the moon and the kid are not becoming unhorsed because gravity and all the other forcings are sufficient to keep them from spinning independently.’
Boy you guys are all so fond of analogies, which is fine to a point, but then you all push them too far.
I suggest you read some of the discussion already had in the Moon article and here.
A non-spinning object in space has fixed orientation to the stars. It will remain fixed unless acted on by a torque.
Gravity applies a force on an objects center of mass, thus can make a moving object orbit.
But gravity does not apply a torque on a sphere, thus does not force objects to reorient to align with the orbit path.#
IOW things in orbit don’t behave like cars, horses, tether balls, which have wheels, legs, and ropes to apply torque on them and make them align (reorient) with the direction of motion.
Gravity doesn’t hold onto objects and keep them from independently spinning while orbiting. See eg Earth and all the planets spinning independently while orbiting.
Cars, horses or tether-balls clearly cannot spin independently while they orbit a track or a pole.
# because the Moon is not a perfect sphere gravity applies a tiny torque that leads to tidal locking after millions of years.
The very best is that these friends-in-denial never would be able to exactly, scientifically formulate why, when calculated wrt the fixed stars, only the Moon cannot rotate about its axis.
All other celestial bodies can. I will never get tired to remember them Newton’s words in Proposition XVII, theorem XV:
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I.
Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.
Yes indeed: Newton is right, and I don’t misrepresent anything. They perfectly know I don’t.
*
It’s the same joke as when they pretend that
– when the Moon rotates about Earth’s and Moon’s barycentre
or
– when the Moon looks on its orbit’s upper (i.e. exterior) focus,
it then by definition cannot rotate about its axis.
No scientific explanation of all that. Instead, the usual, completely disingeuous blah blah:
“… false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
Grow up, and learn some physics.”
*
If the friends-in-denial were courageous, they would write right here, right now: “Newton was wrong, and Tesla is right.”
But… no balls to do the job till end! Nada.
Instead, they cowardly write: “Newton and Tesla are right, and Bindidon is wrong”, though he exactly reproduces in Latin and in English what Newton originally wrote, respectively was translated.
That’s pure denialism.
Does it really merit a new, separate post every single time?
As long as people like you and Huffman stay in denial of the evidence:
YES!
Newton was referring to sidereal time. Nobody is denying the lunar sidereal orbital period is as he suggests.
DREMT
“Nobody is denying the lunar sidereal orbital period is as he suggests.”
Wrong!
Newton clearly means revolution time about the axis, and NOT orbiting.
“Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.”
1. Where do you see above that Newton means here orbiting for the Moon in a sentence where all times means revolution times?
2. Why would Newton have written in Proposition XVII’s next paragraph:
“In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most equable in respect of the fixed stars, viz., in 27d.7h.43′, that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that this diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit.”
Again, DREMT: you and Huffman try to deny the evidence.
Bindidon wants to repeat the same conversation indefinitely. Another one stuck on a loop.
‘repeat the same conversation indefinitely.’
Really? Who would do such a ridiculous thing?
In another post I said to maintain the fixed view of the stars the moon would have to rotate like a kid on a merry-go-round keeping his eye on the brass ring.
Another example is take a steel ball and weld it to the end of a long steel I-beam so that it cannot spin on its axis. Then mount this steel I-beam with the welded ball on the end to the machinery of a merry-go-round and turn on the merry-go-round. Clearly the steel ball is not spinning on the end of the steel i-beam but from the perspective of a fly sitting on the steel ball its view of the fair grounds surrounding the merry-go-round is changing.
Wrong again, Bindidon. Newton was clearly speaking in relation to the stars, as “the moon rotates, relative to the stars“.
How many times do people have to point this out to you?
Newton provided the calculus to show how gravity holds an orbiting body. His work proves Moon is NOT actually rotating on its axis. It is just changing direction due to gravity.
Tesla clearly indicated the moon was NOT rotating on its axis.
BOTH Newton and Tesla were right. You are the one that is wrong.
You keep doing the same thing, over and over and over, but always getting the same results. In your native tongue, what is the word for “insanity”?
The moon rotates on an axis and revolves around the earth on an axis, and those two axes are not parallel.
You need to consider both to predict the libration of the moon as viewed from earth.
So the only viable solution is that the moon rotates on its own axis.
bob d…”You need to consider both to predict the libration of the moon as viewed from earth”.
I hate to break this to you but libration is an illusion due to an observer on Earth viewing the relative motion of the Moon’s edge at certain points of the lunar orbit. The Moon does not really move back and forth.
In a circular orbit, gravity acts straight toward the Earth. In the more eccentric parts of an elliptical orbit it acts slightly off centre. That makes the Moon change its view angle slightly. It’s still trying to move in a straight line but since gravity acts slightly off centre the resultant orbital path is more elliptical.
Where Tim, he’d love this stuff.
Gordon,
Libration is not an illusion, here I will explain it to you.
As the moon rotates at a constant angular velocity in an elliptical orbit where is revolves faster when closer to the earth and slower when farther from the earth, parts of the moon rotate in and out of view.
Another libration is due to the axis the moon rotates around being tilted with respect to the moons orbital plane that is tilted with respect to the earth’s orbital plane around the sun, thus the moon is sometimes above the earth and sometimes below the earth causing the poles to move in and out of view.
Already explained it:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-372464
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-370983
That you weren’t bright enough to understand doesn’t mean others won’t.
If you were as dumb as a box of rocks, you would understand that that doesn’t explain the motion of the moon.
Unfortunately you are dumber than a box of rocks.
It explains why your problem with the “lunar obliquity” isn’t actually a problem.
No, it’s a fact.
But it is a problem if you claim the moon isn’t rotating on its axis.
Because, and follow this if you can, the obliquity describe the axis about which the moon rotates.
I know you can’t get it because you don’t have the science education of an eighth grader.
weasel says: <i."…the obliquity describe the axis about which the moon rotates."
weasel still confuses “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”, after all this time.
It’s best just to ignore weasels. They can’t learn.
Nothing new.
I do get it, B-Li, as the comments clearly detail.
JD,
You obviously don’t understand that orbital motion and rotating on an axis are two different things, something an average eighth grader can pick up with ease.
“weasel still confuses orbiting with rotating on an axis, after all this time.
Its best just to ignore weasels. They cant learn.
Nothing new.”
Two different things, something you guys seem to have a difficulty grasping.
I know, you have already explained it to me by sending me to a long gbaikie rant.
Didn’t work.
“I know, you have already explained it to me by sending me to a long gbaikie rant.”
B-Li can’t even be honest about what the links go to. His game-plan is: hope nobody clicks on them.
So you didn’t link to a gbaikie rank
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367949
Not in the comments I linked to at 10:49 am, no.
In the link posted at 10:49
Goes to a link posted at 9:19 August 3
which goes to a link with the following
blob, I think gbaikies point was made pretty well.
…and yet that is not the point of the comment, as you know.
HUMPTY DREMPTY
The point I am addressing and you are doing your best to avoid discussing is the fact that the axis the moon revolves around the earth and the axis the moon rotates around are not parallel.
And you know that is my point
And you refuse the address it
The best you do is link to a post that doesn’t address it but you claim it does.
Sorry
I mean You are sorry
It’s addressed in the linked comments, bore.
Nope you avoided addressing it and you confuse rotating with orbiting, no wonder you can’t tell them apart.
The moon rotates around one axis.
The moon revolves around another axis.
The two axes are not parallel.
#2
It’s addressed in the linked comments, bore.
HUMPTY DREMPTY
Reread your links and post the part where you addressed the moon obliquity.
Hell I might be wrong, but I don’t think you addressed it adequately.
#3
It’s addressed in the linked comments, bore.
bob d…”The point I am addressing and you are doing your best to avoid discussing is the fact that the axis the moon revolves around the earth and the axis the moon rotates around are not parallel”.
So what? The Moon does not rotate about it’s axis anyway. It doesn’t have an axis of rotation, you have to determine one by creating an axis perpendicular to the lunar orbit plane.
The lunar orbital plane is tilted only a few degrees from the Earth’s orbital plane. If you obrserve the Moon’s path across the stars, it coincides pretty well with the orbital plane of Jupiter and Earth is pretty well in the same plane as Jupiter.
What the big deal with axes?
The Earth’s axis is tilted to its orbital plane and we know it rotates 365 times during its orbit. Anyone in the universe would see different faces no matter where they viewed from.
The Moon shows only one face to the Earth but other observers see different faces due to the Moon’s motion in its orbit.
This stuff is too complicated for you Bob, maybe your sheep could understand it.
“So what? The Moon does not rotate about it’s axis anyway. It doesn’t have an axis of rotation, you have to determine one by creating an axis perpendicular to the lunar orbit plane.”
The moon’s “axis” is tilted a little from one perpendicular to its orbital plane. It remains tilted towards the same fixed star throughout its orbit. This is determined by the way it presents its face to us over the month, the libration of latitude, seem from Earth as a kind of “nodding” motion.
‘The moons ‘axis’ is tilted a little from one perpendicular to its orbital plane.”
I see why you use quotes on axis, because it’s existence contradicts your erroneous ideas.
But thats ok, facts are irrelevant!
“…due to the Moon’s motion in its orbit.”
…but yes, Gordon, it basically comes down to the moon’s motion in its orbit. I’ve already given the links to where I’ve explained the lunar obliquity “problem” in depth, and why it isn’t an issue:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-375826
I guess people just need something to cling to, rather than face reality.
Where is the non-rotation explanation for libration?
You guys cannot just explain it?
DREMT, please hide this and don’t let Bindidon see it.
“Newton’s development of calculus may have grown out of his need to explain the acceleration of falling bodies. He knew that the speed of a falling object increases by a tiny amount every split second that it falls. Average acceleration was easy to calculate, but there was no mathematical process available for describing the position or velocity of the object at any given point in time. Calculus gave him a way of describing not only derivative functions like the rate of change over time but also the curved motion caused by the force of gravity, which allowed him to explain the elliptical motion of planets as conic sections.”
Ah, he wouldn’t understand it even if he saw it….
I dread to think how much Latin he will need to quote, in his response…
somebody said
“With the moon turning during the month”
One of the non spinners is spinning
B-Li, you’re still saying stuff like:
“You obviously don’t understand that orbital motion and rotating on an axis are two different things”
When you know full well that our argument is that orbital motion and rotating on an axis are two different things, and that we disagree with you on what is “orbital motion”.
You know that.
I know you know that.
So are you saying what you’re saying:
1) To try to irritate?
2) To try to confuse the issue?
3) To attack a straw man?
4) Just because you’re bored?
5) You’re looking for attention?
What?
What about Ganymede?
Is that one spinning on its axis?
You ask
“1) To try to irritate?
2) To try to confuse the issue?
3) To attack a straw man?
4) Just because you’re bored?
5) You’re looking for attention?”
No, it’s my job to show assholes that they are assholes on the internet.
It’s what I do.
So you show people that by saying something about their arguments that you know isn’t correct?
No, it’s because I know your arguments are incorrect.
Your defining orbital motion as the sum of revolving around and axis and rotation on an axis is incorrect.
Defining what the moon is doing that way is incorrect.
Calling synchronous rotation orbiting with no rotation is just dumb.
I know your arguments are incorrect.
If you cannot honestly represent our arguments, there is no point talking to you.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
Maybe you can explain how I am misrepresenting your arguments.
Show your little pictures again, and then say that the one on the left shows the moon not rotating and the one the right showing the moon rotating clockwise.
Which is wrong.
“You obviously don’t understand that orbital motion and rotating on an axis are two different things”
HUMPTY DREMPTY
Your argument is that the moon is only doing orbital motion.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
You are perhaps unaware that I have been arguing that the moon is revolving around one axis and rotating around another?
So how can this be true
You obviously dont understand that orbital motion and rotating on an axis are two different things
So why say what you did before? You still haven’t explained…and yet you expect to be taken seriously.
B-Li asked:
“Maybe you can explain how I am misrepresenting your arguments.”
So I repeated his previous comment:
“You obviously don’t understand that orbital motion and rotating on an axis are two different things”
by way of explanation.
B-Li has now taken it as though I was saying that to him, as an independent comment. Oh dear.
He has also said:
“You are perhaps unaware that I have been arguing that the moon is revolving around one axis and rotating around another?”
By “revolving” he must mean something other than rotation, because if the moon were rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, whilst also rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. This is why the term “synchronous rotation” is a misnomer.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
It would help if you were familiar with the terms of astronomy when discussing whether the moon rotates or not.
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
You say
By “revolving” he must mean something other than rotation, because if the moon were rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, whilst also rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. This is why the term “synchronous rotation” is a misnomer.
As used by astronomers revolving means orbiting around the earth/moon barycenter.
The moon does not rotate around the earth/moon barycenter.
You need to start using the terms astronomers use and stop making up your own definitions.
And synchronous is perfectly valid as it means the period of the orbit is the same as the period of rotation.
“As used by astronomers revolving means orbiting around the earth/moon barycenter.”
Understood. In fact I had to teach that to David Appell the other day, and that looks like it was the link I showed him.
“And synchronous is perfectly valid as it means the period of the orbit is the same as the period of rotation.”
I understand the use of the word “synchronous” from the “Spinner” perspective. The problem is the full term “synchronous rotation”, because it implies two rotations are happening, synchronously.
But, as I said, if the moon were rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, whilst also rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. This is why the term “synchronous rotation” is a misnomer.
weasel was able to find a suitable description of “rotating on an axis”. Now, if only he can understand it.
Then, if he can find, and understand, “orbital motion”, he might someday understand Moon is “orbiting”, but not “rotating on its axis”.
Nah, that requires both knowledge and logic on his part.
Not going to happen….
Here’s a link to David learning about “revolution”:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-367670
That thoughtco link also says:
“Revolution
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.”
However, a ball on a string moves as per the moon. As Norman put it:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-374698
“If you were on a merry-go-round standing at the edge you would revolve around the center but you would not rotate on your own axis. Which is your ball on the string example.”
Ball on string video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=103&v=xxrM5tv_RNI
You can see the stripe on the ball rotate immediately after the string is cut (1:41). According to clown physics, the ball would have not shown any type of rotation at all.
You obviously didn’t read the third Tesla paper.
Humpty Drempty
This is stupid
“But, as I said, if the moon were rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, whilst also rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. This is why the term “synchronous rotation” is a misnomer.”
I thought you taught David about revolution and rotation, yet you still speak of the moon rotating about the earth/moon barycenter when it revolves around the earth/moon barycenter.
The moon revolves around the earth/moon barycenter at the same rate it rotates around its axis thus keeping the same face towards the earth at all times.
You think
“The problem is the full term “synchronous rotation”, because it implies two rotations are happening, synchronously.”
No, it implies that revolving and rotation have the same period, not two rotations at the same time. Now that I have cleared that misconception up you can stop being ignorant, or not.
JD, you are just a boat load full of stupid.
“weasel was able to find a suitable description of rotating on an axis. Now, if only he can understand it.
Then, if he can find, and understand, orbital motion, he might someday understand Moon is orbiting, but not rotating on its axis.
Nah, that requires both knowledge and logic on his part.
Not going to happen.”
One day you will get it that the Moon rotates and revolves.
Two different axes that are not parallel, how can you explain that.
Oh, you can’t. I see, flunked eighth grade general science huh?
Not holding my breath.
Hey how are you doing showing all parts of the moon have the same linear velocity.
Not so good I see.
So your only take away from all that is that you don’t think the term “synchronous rotation” implies rotations happening synchronously.
OK, B-Li.
I’m bored now.
weasel proves me right again:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-376296
BORED,
The period is synchronous
ASTRONOMY
(of a satellite or its orbit) making or denoting an orbit around the earth or another celestial body in which one revolution is completed in the period taken for the body to rotate about its axis.
Sometimes I look up a word if I am not sure what it means.
And then there are other reasons I would look up a word.
So this time I looked it up to show you that it doesn’t mean two rotations at the same time.
I know what “synchronous rotation” means, B-Li.
Another point has gone over your head. Don’t worry about it. Carry on being boring.
BORED,
So you are too bored to address the issue at hand and meander aimlessly through diversions such as this
“So your only take away from all that is that you dont think the term synchronous rotation implies rotations happening synchronously.
OK, B-Li.”
Like you think synchronous rotation means rotations happening at the same time or you don’t
“I know what synchronous rotation means, B-Li.
Another point has gone over your head. Dont worry about it. Carry on being boring.”
But you won’t address the issue at hand, that the obliquity of the moon proves that the moon is revolving around the earth and rotating on its axis.
If you can disprove that I’ll give you the 90 days vacation you crave.
So take you best shot and prove the moon doesn’t rotate.
stupid…”You can see the stripe on the ball rotate immediately after the string is cut ….”
You are incredibly dense. A ball rotating on a string comes in contact with a knife edge and you marvel at the fact the ball is rotating when the string is cut.
Ever heard of torque? Do you know what happens when the knife blade contacts the string? The ball wants to wrap around the knife blade as the string is cut. A torque is applied to the ball as the string is cut.
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 the secret trick that is not found in any hammer throw instructions?
What does JDHuffman and DREMT think?
I know what Tesla thinks. As I already remarked to HGS…you obviously didn’t read the third paper:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-372993
OK DREMT, you say it rotates about its own axis and it is not due to Gordon’s hammer throw trick.
Gordon, what is your opinion?
DREMT, while we are waiting for Gordon’s expert opinion…
If you run this is reverse, the ball comes in rotating about its own axis, and can be caught by the string without adding any spin/torque.
So if it comes in without rotation, you have to add spin to it to give it the same motion.
That contradicts your orbital canon ball where it starts straight and then behaves like the moon.
No Svante, I’m just telling you what Tesla’s paper explains. Read it for yourself. Your last comment shows you’ve missed the point, so have a read. I’m getting bored of repeating myself.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
Funny thing,
Tesla only discusses the longitudinal libration of the moon, not the latitudinal.
Which is key to determining the location of the axis on which the moon is actually rotating on.
So Tesla missed the boat.
I’ll give you a hand, Svante.
According to Tesla:
“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.”
Whilst being swung around, the object can not be rotating on its own axis. The string prevents that from being physically possible. However, the object is “orbiting”, or “revolving” about the central point. This means that when it is thrown off, the tangential velocities of parts of the body will be different. This generates a torque about the axis of the object at the moment of release, now that it is moving in a straight line.
You can’t run this process in reverse, and expect it to resemble anything real. An object doesn’t leave orbit by virtue of gravity suddenly just disappearing. It has to escape gravity. So you can’t expect the reverse of the process to bear any similarity to what would happen to an object that was entering an orbit, either rotating on its own axis, or not. It won’t just suddenly “re-attach” with gravity at one specific moment, instead the influence of gravity will assert itself gradually, as the object gets closer.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says,
I’m glad we agree that the ball rotates about its own axis when you release it.
Gordon said it would not.
As for the cause, you have many words. Your “difference in tangential velocity” is what I call rotation. Let’s skip that semantic discussion, the effect is the same.
The argument started years ago with the theoretical question what would happen to the moon if gravity was switched off.
Your gravity talk is like arguing the finer points of a real greenhouse when you discuss the atmosphere (like Gerlich and Tscheuschner).
Of course it’s less clear cut but Earth can indeed catch a (non-) rotating object, and that (non-) motion will continue after it is caught.
And in the real world, that ball release can indeed be reversed by latching on to the ball at the right moment.
So your canon ball will not move like you say, which is obvious for anyone who has some feel for physics, and you can’t calculate it because physics has no such formula.
Now let’s see how Gordon explains it.
OK, Svante.
‘Whilst being swung around, the object can not be rotating on its own axis. The string prevents that from being physically possible.’
No I don’t see why, since both string and ball are rotating.
“However, the object is ‘orbiting’, or ‘revolving’ about the central point. This means that when it is thrown off, the tangential velocities of parts of the body will be different.”
Yes indeed. And that, by itself, meets the requirements of something rotating about its own axis.
“This generates a torque about the axis of the object at the moment of release, now that it is moving in a straight line.”
No torque is there, and none is needed, since there is ALREADY a difference in tangential velocities, hence rotation.
Quoting Tesla is not working. He has already proven fallible on this subject.
“According to Tesla:
‘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.’
Here he is saying rotation is not due to angular motion but due different parts of a body having different velocities.
Which defines rotation!
Sorry Tesla fans, but this is utter nonsense.
“As for the cause, you have many words. Your “difference in tangential velocity” is what I call rotation. Let’s skip that semantic discussion, the effect is the same.”
It’s not semantics, Svante, and it’s not my “difference in tangential velocity”, I’m simply trying to explain to you what Tesla said. Which is not to say that whatever he says is correct, it’s just an attempt to clarify. He is saying that parts of the object thrown off have different tangential velocities, and this is a result of rotation, yes, but of rotation about the central point and not rotation about the object’s own axis.
So you can’t just brush it off by saying “…is what I call rotation”, because the specific type of rotation is relevant, and he is not meaning “axial rotation”.
“And in the real world, that ball release can indeed be reversed by latching on to the ball at the right moment.
So your canon ball will not move like you say, which is obvious for anyone who has some feel for physics, ”
Yep, Svante. Good point.
And glad to see DREMT analyzing Tesla and not simply quoting it.
Laws of physics for motion are all reversible. The movie running backwards is motion that can happen.
‘He is saying that parts of the object thrown off have different tangential velocities, and this is a result of rotation, yes, but of rotation about the central point and not rotation about the object’s own axis.’
He is not really saying that. He is saying the velocity difference is “not due to angular motion” (ie rotation).
Which it clearly IS—we all agree that there is rotation before string is cut, and as a result of that rotation the outer parts are moving faster than inner parts.
After string is cut, the ball simply retains the SAME velocities, and therefore rotates about its own axis, while simultaneously its CM moves with constant velocity.
The ONLY difference from the orbiting ball is the lack of centripetal acceleration, as expected with no string force.
Tesla then goes completely off the rails later when he claims, without evidence or logic, that the Moon would not behave the same way as the ball after gravity is cut, and would have no rotation afterwards.
Which makes no sense at all.
P.S: don’t forget that the ball on the string cannot be rotating about the central point and rotating on its own axis. It would have to be wrapping itself around the string in order to do so. Rotation about a central point is not the same as axial rotation, and there’s no way around that.
‘dont forget that the ball on the string cannot be rotating about the central point and rotating on its own axis.’
Ok. So none of the facts, arguments, logic, that weve been discussing all this time MATTER.
And if you have no answers for these arguments, its OK.
Cuz you got a FEELING and ‘theres just no way around it’
P.P.S: don’t forget that the reverse action of the “string” being severed, or disappearing, has nothing in common with an object going into orbit, via “Newton’s Cannon” or any other way, as already explained.
‘It would have to be wrapping itself around the string in order to do so. ‘
Old dead-end argument.
Anchor the other end of the string to a star, and it will wrap.
A string held by someone in the grandstands will wrap the race car, will wrap the horse.
‘has nothing in common with an object going into orbit, via ‘Newtons Cannon’ or any other way, as already explained.’
If the fired cannonball goes into orbit without any initial rotation, then later gravity is turned off, does it fly off with rotation, like the ball on the string?
If YES, then gravity has somehow given it spin, without applying torque. NOT possible.
If NO then you are saying it haS no rotation at the start or at the end but in the middle it does have rotation.
Neither one makes any sense.
Since there is no torque supplied by gravity, it simply experiences a force thru its CM, which simply causes its CM to move in a circle, with NO change in its orientation.
This can be easily simulated by solving Newtons laws.
P.P.P.S: this might help you clear up any other confusion you may have, over Newton’s Cannonball, Svante:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-372177
I think that’s everything. You shouldn’t really need to respond, but we’ll wait and see.
‘I didn’t mean to imply it was only the force of the Earth’s gravity acting through its center. I get that you mean it’s a combination of the moon’s linear momentum, and Earth’s gravity, that leads to the moon ‘swinging’ about the Earth like a ball on a string.’
Hand waving does not allow you to get angular momentum and spin for free without applying a torque.
As I said the equations speak for themselves. The force of gravity is only acting through the center, thus it can apply no torque.
The fact that an object has linear momentum, does not change that fact.
Galileo showed how cannon balls fly by discovering that the downward acceleration does not affect the horizontal velocity of the projectile.
They are independent motions.
Nor does the motion of the CM of the cannon ball affect the cannonballs spin.
They are independent motions. the cannon ball either has spin from the start or not, and if not it wont get spin by going into orbit, and it wont have spin if it leaves orbit.
And as the simulation clearly shows, but you guys dismiss, turn off gravity and the Moon has SPIN on its axis.
Thus it has spin while in orbit (it didnt obtain SPIN just upon leaving orbit.
I guess the couple of comments from here onwards might help, too, if really necessary:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-370984
Though it’s starting to look like I’m not going to get a response.
‘Though its starting to look like Im not going to get a response.’
Funny how DREMT keeps reposting the same flawed argument, while pretending there have been no rebuttals of it.
This is how he thinks he ‘wins’.
Still nothing. I guess it would be hard for the honest to read the linked comments and not understand, so that probably explains Svante’s lack of response. It’s pretty straightforward stuff.
If DREMT wants to continue this game of pretending not to respond to me, while responding to me….whatever floats his boat.
Meanwhile, ‘ it would be hard for the honest to read the linked comments and not understand, so that probably explains Svantes lack of response. Its pretty straightforward stuff.’
Given that he has not even attempted to understand, much less try to answer, our rebuttals of his ‘straightforward’ but still highly flawed posts, this rings rather hollow.
Looks like that’s that, then. No point waiting around forever. Downthread I go.
Just in case DREMT is concerned I havent read his post, I have re read it.
And Yep its still not explaining at all what he seems to think it is explaining.
‘The simulator shows the relationship between the vectors, and how they create orbital motion even more clearly than the animations here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball‘
Yep, the animation clearly shows how an object gets into orbit, but it says NOTHING about the objects orientation or spin.
The simulation shows the force and velocity vectors, and they account for an object orbiting, like the arrows on the right.
But again, they provide no torque on the object, and therefore cannot explain how an object gets spin just by going into orbit.
And clearly, as we saw with the ball and cut string, these objects do have spin.
‘This should have corrected all the people who claim that the cannonball could be moving like the arrows on the right, in the below:”
Nope, the opposite is true. The forces and vectors ONLY explain how an object can achieve an orbit like the one on the right.
Again, since neither a cannonball nor a Moon have a front or a back, nor do they have wheels, legs or a rope to provide TORQUE and change their orientation–they do not need to POINT in the direction of motion, as cars, horses, and tether balls do.
bob d…”The vibrational, rotational and streching modes of molecules and how they absorb and emit radiation is the basis of a whole branch of Chemistry that is used to determine the structure of molecules.
Try this”
Don’t need to try it, I understand it well. Try reading Pauling on the subject, the scientist who largely developed the study of molecular properties and shapes. Pauling was the first to apply quantum theory in the field.
Once again, the molecule is a name only, it emits nothing. The emission is done by bonding electrons and other electrons in the constituents atoms as they move between energy levels.
Vibration is an interaction between electrons and their nucleii and is due to the electrostatic interaction of the +vely charge protons in the nucleii and the -vely charged electrons. The protons try to repel other protons in other nucleii and the electrons hold them together with their moving and opposite charges.
Such an arrangement is akin to a mass-spring arrangement with vibration. However, the electron is the only moving particle that can change its energy state.
The shapes of molecules are due to the same electrostatic repulsion and attraction. Certain atoms are more electronegative than others due to a difference in the number of electrons and the difference creates a dipole action. If one end of a body is more negative than another, the other is regarded as positive wrt to the more negative end.
Everything that goes on in a molecule is due to electrons and proton charges. There is no separate unit in a molecule that can do anything.
Rotation is nothing more than electron bond rotating in a linear molecule while emitting/absorbing EM.
Gordon,
That’s my point, it’s the electrons and protons that are doing the vibrating, stretching, bending and rotating and absorbing and emitting photons as they change those energy states, which are lower than the electronic ones you seem more familiar with.
In molecules the distance between the nuclei can change, this is what is called stretching, so it’s more than just the electrons that are moving.
Try this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration
I’m a working chemist, chromatography mostly, so I am familiar with Pauling.
bob d…”In molecules the distance between the nuclei can change, this is what is called stretching, so its more than just the electrons that are moving”.
Bob…what do you think is being stretched? It’s the bond formed by electrons. The protons in the nucleus want to repel each other but the attraction of the electrons to the protons in the nucleii pulls the atoms together. The electron does not collapse into the nucleus for some reason as predicted by electrodynamics but it seems to me that’s due to it’s momentum and high orbital velocity. The same momentum prevents the Moon spiraling into the Earth.
I understand that such bonds can get hairy in long chain organic molecules but any stretching is due to the electron-nucleii bonds.
For example: O and C are the nucleii and the valence electrons are the ==== bonds.
O====C====O
O==C======O
O======C==O
The oxygen molecules can also bend at angles. Those double bonds as in ==== are electron paired bonds.
What would cause the stretching? Natural vibration of the spring-like electron-nucleii bond? Or electrons acquiring more energy from absorp-tion or heat transfer?
As you know, when the molecule acquires heat, those bonds will stretch more. If heat is removed, they will stretch less.
It is the electrons that are affected by heat. In a conductor, the electrons transfer the heat just as they transfer charge.
Gordon,
Most of the heat in molecules is due to their motion, not the excited states of the electrons in their various rotational, vibrational, bending, stretching and electronic states.
The bond distance is the distance between the nuclei. That distance is what is being stretched.
So what are the energy levels of the electrons, now that you have learned that they can bend and stretch, specifically for the CO2 molecule?
And what wavelength photon can excite them.
Now we seem to be getting somewhere.
Not far but somewhere.
There is a useful equation for predicting the population of excited states, maybe you could find it?
bob d…”The bond distance is the distance between the nuclei. That distance is what is being stretched”.
What holds the nucleii together. They are positively charged and want to repel each other. It’s the electron bonds that hold them together.
“And what wavelength photon can excite them”
That depends on the kinetic energy of the electron, which is determined by it’s orbital energy level and the temperature of the body.
Bob…it all comes down to transition between energy levels, whether the electron bond is vibrating or rotating. There is no other way for energy to be absorbed or emitted from atoms, other than via electron transitions.
A lot of people are confused about the difference between the inner atomic workings re nucleii and electrons and the molecular bonds formed by the same electrons.
Vibration and rotation are related to electron bonds in multi-atom arrangements but the electron bond is the basis of all this stuff.
Bonds are due to valence electrons but while the valence electrons are involved in a bond, other electrons in the atoms can be involved with transitions.
Gordon,
Most of the electrons are in the ground state even at very high temperatures, so where you got this idea is beyond me. It’s totally wrong.
“That depends on the kinetic energy of the electron, which is determined by its orbital energy level and the temperature of the body.”
It is not correct to discuss the kinetic energy of electrons bound in a molecule or atom, it’s in not even wrong territory.
Gordon Robertson
You missed this one that I linked you to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RqEIr8NtMI
Linus Pauling wrote the text for it.
The nuclei of atoms that make up the molecule change their distances. This is a vibrational energy. The amount of energy it takes to produce the vibration of nuclei is what is absorbed. It IR energy, when absorbed, does not have enough energy to move electrons to higher energy levels (with mid-IR…near IR will cause electron transitions).
You have been told many times that Mid-IR does not contain enough energy to move electrons to higher energy levels. You refuse to listen for some reason. No one knows why. I think Linus Pauling would have kicked you out of his class if you proposed your junk science in his class.
You get it wrong every time (primarily because you can’t understand the concept of molecular vibrations) and it seems like you will never attempt to correct your bad thought process.
norman…”The nuclei of atoms that make up the molecule change their distances. This is a vibrational energy. The amount of energy it takes to produce the vibration of nuclei is what is absorbed. It IR energy, when absorbed, does not have enough energy to move electrons to higher energy levels”
The movie at your link has been seriously dumbed down for people like you. It you took a first year course in organic chemistry they would never present such a mickey mouse presentation.
You claim the nucleii change their distance. That’s natural, they have a positive charge and positive charges repel. So why don’t they just keep going? Why do they remain as a molecule?
I have told you over and over that they stay together because they are bonded by electron bonds. With the electrons there is nothing to keep the nucleii in the molecules together.
It is the electrons that control the vibration. In the video they did not mention electrons or protons, it’s dumbed down to a level for total beginners.
IR energy is absorbed by electrons, nothing else. Protons or neutrons can’t absorb it. The IR would have to travel through the electron field and it would be absorbed if the conditions were right.
And this notion you have about electrons being unable to absorb mid-IR is a fantasy. If electrons don’t absorb mid-IR, nothing will. There is nothing else in the molecule that can absorb it.
Mid-IR may not be able to affect electrons in the ground state near the nucleus, it requires high-energy EM to affect those electrons, But electrons neared the valence band sure can absorb it.
bob d…”Hey how are you doing showing all parts of the moon have the same linear velocity”.
Say, Bob, are you sure you’re not a sheep rancher who gets his physics from conversations with his sheep?
It has been laid out for you in detail how all parts of the Moon have the same linear velocity but you are too obtuse to take it in. Or are your sheep distracting you?
No Gordon,
I thought you were arguing that all the points of the moon move in concentric circles.
The far side of the moon makes bigger ellipses than the near side, so the far side has to move faster in order to make an orbit in the same amount of time.
Really simple.
bob d…”I thought you were arguing that all the points of the moon move in concentric circles.
The far side of the moon makes bigger ellipses than the near side, so the far side has to move faster in order to make an orbit in the same amount of time”.
********
Yes, Bob, all parts of the Moon along a radial line through the Moon move in concentric circles around the Earth. The Moon is a rigid body and the speed of individual parts is irrelevant since a rigid body’s velocity is the velocity of its centre of gravity.
Consider the rotation of the Earth. It rotates in 24 hours. You don’t claim the front face of the Earth crossed the finish line in 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 45 second whereas the rear part crossed in 25:00:15. The Entire rigid body crosses the 24 hour mark when its COG crosses, despite when the front and rear end cross.
Same with the outer and inner face of the Moon. They MUST cross a certain radial line at exactly the same time even though one is going considerably faster than the other.
The different rates of velocity of individual parts is a result of the motion of a rigid body.
The rings of Saturn on the other hand are made up of bazillions of parts of rocks and ice. What is the velocity of the rings? In that case you’d have to ask, which part? Which rock? Which piece of ice?
Gordon shrieks:
“The Moon is a rigid body and the speed of individual parts is irrelevant since a rigid bodys velocity is the velocity of its centre of gravity.”
With a rotating rigid body, all parts do not have the same linear velocity:
http://ww2.odu.edu/~jdudek/Phys111N_materials/7_rotational_motion.pdf
The above states:
“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”
A point on the far side edge of the moon is at a larger radius from the center of orbit, compared to the center of gravity of the moon, which is at a smaller radius. Therefor they have different linear velocities, and JD’s pronouncement that all parts of the moon have the same linear velocity is INCORRECT. JD is confusing linear velocity with angular velocity, which is not surprising.
It’s just that simple, clown. None of your convoluted reasoning will change the facts.
HuffmanGoneStupid says: ———-A point on the far side edge of the moon is at a larger radius from the center of orbit, compared to the center of gravity of the moon, which is at a smaller radius.
————
You might want to study Galileo’s work. He sort of paraphrased your argument as the argument of Simplicio’s. JDH’s is from the point of view of Salviati.
Or at least thats what appears to me as I play the role of Sagredo.
“The different rates of velocity of individual parts is a result of the motion of a rigid body.”
HGS shrieks, judders and jerks with passionate fury that Gordon is arguing something that he plainly is not.
HGS gibbers, drools, pulsates, erupts, and ejaculates with a frenetic intensity of hatred equivalent in magnitude to a billion atomic bombs of sheer rage-energy. Every single molecule of his being is now devoted, 24/7, to single issues of this one debate, every ounce of his life force is given to be spent on arguing about this “linear velocity” or “curvilinear translation” issue, only. He will never debate even one other sub-topic about this one issue, or any other issue, ever again, so long as he lives.
HGS convulses, screams, spasms, dribbles, somersaults, expands, contracts, rotates, and squirts out a never-ending stream of bile from the depths of his soul, like a grotesque Catherine Wheel of relentless, unstoppable fury, every single bad event in his life getting wrapped up into this one issue, scrunched up into a ball deep inside until he explodes into a supernova of limitless ire with the force to wipe out the entire Earth’s population in one fell swoop.
The child can’t learn. He is still trying to fit orbital motion into kinematics. That’s why he can’t understand linear velocity of an orbiting object.
Things just aren’t working for him.
You can’t do all of people’s thinking for them, that’s the thing. It’s like this non-issue with the whole “libration of latitude”/“lunar obliquity” thing. You can go to great lengths to try to explain…but ultimately, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. If people don’t want to understand, they won’t.
In Tesla’s day, though it was of course well known about, it wasn’t even brought up. Maybe back then people had better logic skills! Who knows.
Oh well.
JD moans:
“All parts of the moon are moving at the same linear velocity.”
Gordon and Dr Em T, please respond. Is the above a true statement, yes or no?
Don’t respond with a lot of yelps, shrieks, drooling, and boring diatribes. Just yes or no. An easy question.
FINALLY! Finally the child is asking people that know, instead of resorting to his failed understanding of orbital motion.
Now, if he can just learn….
stupid…”“All parts of the moon are moving at the same linear velocity.””
Yes!!! For the umpteenth time. The Moon has only instantaneous linear momentum and wants to move in a straight line. It is dragged into an orbit where it follows a resultant path, the orbit, between its linear momentum and gravitational force.
If the Moon moved in a straight line, all parts would be moving parallel to each other with linear velocity. In it’s orbit, all parts are still moving parallel to each other but in a curved path.
Still, all parts have an INSTANTANEOUS linear velocity, even in orbit. As an orbiting rigid body, it has angular velocity as well due to its resultant path about the Earth. And as a rigid body, it’s angular velocity is calculated from its centre of gravity.
You still don’t get it that a body can have an angular velocity that can be measured in degrees/sec, rad/sec. or m/s. It all depends on where the measurements are taken.
linear velocity = ds/dt…s = distance
angular velocity = dw/dt
However, w = v/r where v is the tangential linear velocity of a particle or rigid body at its COG.
w = v/r relates angular velocity to linear velocity. In other words, with an angular velocity of d(theta)/dt, any point on a circle defined by radius r, which is one radian measured anywhere on the circle, has an instantaneous linear velocity = rw = r.d(theta)/dt
“All parts of the moon are moving at the same linear velocity?”
‘Yes!!!’
But Gordon, then you quote correct equations that prove this wrong!
‘has an instantaneous linear velocity = rw = r.d(theta)/dt’
This equation shows linear velocity increasing with radius!
The radius of the outer points of the Moon in orbit are clearly LARGER than the radius of the inner points.
This is pretty simple math!
What are you smoking?
Gordon moans:
“You still don’t get it that a body can have an angular velocity that can be measured in degrees/sec, rad/sec. or m/s. It all depends on where the measurements are taken.”
Angular velocity is an ANGULAR measurement. It is never presented as a linear measurement, you fool. Give me a textbook or lecture notes that show angular velocity measured in m/s, or just shut up!
““We always use radians as the unit of measure when working with angular velocity”.[http://people.wku.edu/david.neal/117/Unit2/AngVel.pdf]
Velocity is dependent on the radius, EINSTEIN, as the equation you posted indicates. So the center of gravity of the moon is moving at a smaller velocity than the far side edge, for umpteenth time.
Man you are messed up.
Gordon says, earlier:
“Same with the outer and inner face of the Moon. They MUST cross a certain radial line at exactly the same time even though one is going considerably faster than the other.
The different rates of velocity of individual parts is a result of the motion of a rigid body.”
HGS volcanoes:
“Velocity is dependent on the radius, EINSTEIN, as the equation you posted indicates. So the center of gravity of the moon is moving at a smaller velocity than the far side edge, for umpteenth time.”
I’ve never known someone to be so angrily in agreement with another person. Instead of arguing against something Gordon is clearly not saying, how about looking a little closer into what he is actually saying.
G: ‘The different rates of velocity of individual parts is a result of the motion of a rigid body.’
‘All parts of the moon are moving at the same linear velocity.?
G: ‘Yes!!!’
DREMT thinks its totally fine that his comrade Gordon disagrees with himself and simple math, as he apparently is smoking crack.
Gordon,
This is actually relevant only because that was the claim JD made.
“the speed of individual parts is irrelevant”
JD made the claim that all parts of the moon move at the same linear velocity.
And we had a bet about it.
So that’s the only relevance.
Well unless you follow where that logically leads.
To the crash landing of the moon doesn’t spin chariot.
weasel contends: “And we had a bet about it.”
Wrong weasel. We had an AGREEMENT. But, you weaseled out. The agreement was only that I had to show why the moon has linear velocity. I did not have to convince you, just show you. You have refused to honor your agreement.
Nothing new.
JD, now you are plain lying about the deal.
I agreed that if you showed that all parts of the moon have the same linear velocity I would not post for 90 days.
But you didn’t do that, and in fact I showed that all parts of the moon do not have the same linear velocity.
So you lost the bet.
Loser.
In fact you are a sore loser.
weasel, you can’t weasel out of what you agreed to:
“If I explain that all parts of Moon have the same linear velocity, you agree to not comment here for 90 days. You may not understand my explanation, but you still must not comment. I can show you, but I cannot force you to accept reality.”
The agreement was NOT conditional on you understanding the relevant physics.
Insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse all you want. But, you can’t change reality.
Clowns don’t upset me, they entertain me.
Failure boy,
I am still waiting for you to explain how all parts of the moon have the same linear velocity.
I have shown that they don’t.
So I am not a weasel on the bet.
You didn’t live up to your end.
But it was conditional on you not making up your own physics.
Derivations based on JDHuffman loser physics from the institutionalized don’t count.
bob d…”JD made the claim that all parts of the moon move at the same linear velocity”.
They do. The instantaneous linear velocity of all points on the Moon are at the same velocity.
Please don’t confuse particle velocity with the rigid body velocity, which is a measure of the velocity at its centre of gravity. Also, please don’t confuse the Moon’s natural linear velocity, due to its linear momentum, with its orbital angular velocity. The latter is a resultant caused by gravity.
Angular velocity requires a rotating radial line. If you extend that line out through the Moon with its axis at the Earth’s centre, all points along that radial line must turn, about the axis, at the same ‘angular velocity’.
The line through the Moon is turning at a constant angular velocity of 360 degrees/28 days. All points on the Moon must turn at the same angular rate. The fact that outer points are moving faster than inner points is due to the nature of the rigid body IN ORBIT.
Where we all differ is in the question of whether or not the Moon rotates about a local axis. We claim it does not, therefore, if gravity was turned off, the Moon would continue on a linear path with all points moving at the same velocity. Therefore, we claim its instantaneous linear velocity is the same for all parts.
The linear velocity at which it would move, if gravity were turned off, is the same instantaneous linear velocity of the COG tangential velocity vector.
I know this is difficult to visualize but you have to regard the Moon, with no local rotation, as an aggregation of particle trying to move in a straight line. Along that straight line, none of the particles are turning, about a local axis.
However, when gravity pulls the Moon into a circular orbit, the orbital path causes outer particles to move faster than inner particles WITH RESPECT TO THE ORBITAL AXIS. WRT to the Moon itself, trying to move in a straight line with linear velocity, none of the particles are in orbit AT ANY ONE INSTANT. They are all moving at the same linear velocity.
This was what I was saying
“The fact that outer points are moving faster than inner points is due to the nature of the rigid body IN ORBIT.”
You say
“Where we all differ is in the question of whether or not the Moon rotates about a local axis. We claim it does not”
Yes you claim it does not rotate, but you don’t provide any support for that claim.
The moon has a local axis of rotation that has been observed and measured and found to be different and not parallel to the axis the moon revolves around.
As shown by the different types of libration.
‘The agreement was only that I had to show why the moon has linear velocity. I did not have to convince you, just show you. You have refused to honor your agreement.’
In the same way he could ‘show you’ how 7 > 11.
Here’s how:
7 > 11.
There he showed you!
You may not be convinced, but…Hey, that’s just how JD rolls.
Gordon spews:
“Please don’t confuse particle velocity with the rigid body velocity, which is a measure of the velocity at its centre of gravity.”
WRONG!! While the velocity of the rigid body’s center of gravity can be used to describe the general plane motion of a rigid body (translation + rotation), however, that velocity is NEVER considered to be equal at all points of the rigid body. The only time the velocity of all points of a rigid body are equal is when the object is translating. That is CLEAR from all the kinematic lecture notes I have posted.
Even Tesla stated in reference to a ball on a string:
“The rotation is, however, due to….the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.” He knew all parts of a rigid body do not have the same linear velocity.
I also posted a kinematic reference source which explains how to calculate the velocity of various points of a rigid body:
“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”.
http://ww2.odu.edu/~jdudek/Phys111N_materials/7_rotational_motion.pdf
If all parts of a rigid body move at the same linear velocity, why does this show how to calculate the velocity of different parts of a rigid body??
Educated people will see right through your subterfuge.
“Yawn”.
Spinners win!
OK, B-Li.
Gordon,
Is a person standing on the equator moving at the same linear velocity as someone standing at the north pole?
bob d…”Is a person standing on the equator moving at the same linear velocity as someone standing at the north pole?”
No. But the Moon ‘as a body’ has it’s own linear momentum/velocity and it presents a different problem.
A person on the Equator and one near a Pole both turn with the same angular velocity. No matter how fast each rotates about Earth’s axis, it takes them both 24 hours to complete one rotation.
Suppose now you compare the velocity of each person to the velocity they have about the Sun? At any instant, they are both turning at the same velocity about the Sun, even though they are turning at dramatically different linear velocities about the Earth’s axis.
Nah,
The one on the equator varies his speed with respect to the sun, while the one at the pole is more constant.
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.
DR EMPTY,
Really, here is the original bet that I agreed to.
“If I explain that all parts of Moon have the same linear velocity, you agree to not comment here for 90 days.”
And here is his explanation
“1) Moon has an instantaneous angular momentum, relative to Earth, = rmv.
2) That corresponds to a linear momentum = mv.
3) Since linear momentum acts on all parts of the mass, the instantaneous velocity of any part of the moon is v.”
“v” is a variable dependent on the value of r
So epic monster fail on the part of JD.
“…the instantaneous velocity of any part of the moon…”
That is not what any of you have been saying. You have all been talking about a straightforward linear velocity, i.e. the fact that the far side of the moon travels in a larger circle, or ellipse, than the nearer side, in the same amount of time.
You have been attacking a straw man, seems to me.
DR EMPTY,
Doesn’t matter to me, the linear velocity or the instantaneous velocity of the near side of the moon is different from the linear velocity or the instantaneous velocity of the far side of the moon.
Simplicio continues to argue for the earth orbiting the moon’s axis.
Bill Hunter,
At least you say the moon has an axis.
bob, actually I didn’t. It was a conditional statement. If the moon rotates around its axis, then the earth must follow the face of the moon around also.
Non-existent objects like the Present King of France have a meaning in inductive logic. . . .I was using it in such a manner. I would refer you to an article by Analytical Philosopher Peter Strawson “On Referring” (1950) he used to criticize Bertrand Russell’s theory of descriptions. He had laid the basis of the criticisms out in his work “On Denoting” (1905).
But since its philosophy you can believe what you want.
Since the moon does not rotate it has no axis.
bill…”Simplicio continues to argue for the earth orbiting the moons axis”.
And the Sun orbits the Earth’s axis.
Bill Hunter,
If you think this
“If the moon rotates around its axis, then the earth must follow the face of the moon around also.”
is a correct and logical argument, perhaps you should review
Since the moon does not face in the same direction with respect to the distant stars, it is therefore rotating.
Is a better and more logical statement because it can be tested by observation as the background stars you see in the same area as you see the moon change over the month.
This is just a bold assertion and what do your philosophy books say about that?
“Since the moon does not rotate it has no axis.”
Also and again, observations proves it false
bobdroege says: If you think this
If the moon rotates around its axis, then the earth must follow the face of the moon around also.
is a correct and logical argument, perhaps you should review
Since the moon does not face in the same direction with respect to the distant stars, it is therefore rotating.
Is a better and more logical statement because it can be tested by observation as the background stars you see in the same area as you see the moon change over the month.
This is just a bold assertion and what do your philosophy books say about that?
Since the moon does not rotate it has no axis.
Also and again, observations proves it false————
Actually you have spotted an error in my logic and an error in semantics.
Semantics provides the most common sort of error because of the use of words in many meanings. But here I used the wrong definition for an axis.
Common definition wise, the moon’s axis of rotation goes through the earth (somewhat close to the center of the earth) and not through the center of the moon.
The logic error was in saying the moon does not rotate. The moon rotates around the earth. Though “orbits” is probably a better word.
It does not rotate around the center of the earth because instead it orbits a barycenter rather vaguely defined as a center of gravity. Center of gravity is rather poorly defined because of there being an uncountable number of celestial bodies.
But a barycenter is much better defined existing between two bodies where one is orbiting the other a condition that exists when one body has a greater mass than the other. When the mass of the two bodies are the same then one does not orbit the other they sort of both orbit each other. When the mass of the two objects is close its difficult to call out one has orbiting the other. In the case of the moon and earth its an easy call because the barycenter is inside the earth.
A barycenter could also be defined as an axis. The earth orbits that same axis as well as rotating on an axis going through the center of the earth.
The moon does not have this second axis going through the center of the moon.
To arrive at that here you apply Reductio ad absurdum.
The moon does not rotate on this second axis because if it did the earth would also have to rotate around the moon to maintain its view of one side of the moon and,
if the moon were to maintain the same view of the stars it would actually need to be rotating on an axis near its center at the exact same rate of rotation it rotates around the earth. If that were the case then the earth would not maintain a view of only one side of the moon unless the earth were rotating around the moon at the same rate the moon rotated.
As Galileo had to explain to the Pope that other interpretations were stupid! And since Simplicio’s argument was the argument the Pope requested/ordered Galileo to include in his paper, the Pope became angry at Galileo implied he was a simpleton.
Thus Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest only being spared the usual remedy by virtue of having at one time being a friend of the Pope. Giordano Bruno who preceded Galileo with a Copernican Theory wasn’t so lucky and is recognized as the First Martyr of the New Science.
Galileo properly processed the logic forever giving a place in science to logic.
Now of course if you decided to follow the philosophy of George Berkeley, none of this is real its only an illusion created by God.
So one also has to pick between newfangled science or religion as a choice established by the Pope. But those rebellious Protestants and others were not deterred and even today despite easing the penalties and partially rehabilitating Galileo late in the 20th century, the controversy still goes on.
Will it go on here? Sounds like the climate debate everybody arguing over the mathematics ignoring the obvious.
Oxygen worshippers despairing that the majority of devil carbons were long condemned to hell deep in the ground has been rising out of the ground like zombies with the aid of demons. Worse the devil zombies are running around and snatching up oxygen twins. Who knows what terrible catastrophe that is going to cause!!
Bill Hunter
Orbit is to move around another celestial body and the common term used by Astronomers is revolve rather than rotate to remove the ambiguity of similar terms.
“if the moon were to maintain the same view of the stars it would actually need to be rotating on an axis near its center at the exact same rate of rotation it rotates around the earth. If that were the case then the earth would not maintain a view of only one side of the moon unless the earth were rotating around the moon at the same rate the moon rotated.”
If the moon maintained the same view of the stars it would not be rotating, it’s not doing that, the stars it faces change over the month as it rotates.
“…the common term used by Astronomers is revolve rather than rotate to remove the ambiguity of similar terms.”
…and also because an object rotating around another object moves as per the moon already, so if it was rotating about the Earth and rotating on its own axis, then you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Gordon Robertson says: ———–billSimplicio continues to argue for the earth orbiting the moons axis.
And the Sun orbits the Earths axis.———–
No the logical requirement for the sun to orbit the earth’s axis is not fulfilled. To fulfill that logical requirement the earth would have to be tidal locked to the sun and it is not.
The tidal locking feature simply forces a decision whether one object is orbiting another object.
Two objects of the same mass will be orbiting each other with the barycenter of that rotation being half way between the two objects.
When objects of vastly different masses are orbiting its easy to say one is orbiting the other because it clearly is. So one object orbiting another is a matter of degrees and objects logically can never orbit the exact middle of mass of another object unless those objects have zero mass.
Really when it comes down to it to call it the other way is essentially saying the sun orbits the earth, defending the faith! If you can actually do that you will probably ended up being ordained a Saint.
‘if the moon were to maintain the same view of the stars it would actually need to be rotating on an axis near its center at the exact same rate of rotation it rotates around the earth.’
Very good, logical, works for me and astronomy.
‘If that were the case then the earth would not maintain a view of only one side of the moon unless the earth were rotating around the moon at the same rate the moon rotated.’
Nope, that is a non-sequitur. Not logical, and just plain weird!
The Earth can just stay put (actually it moves bit) and we will see one side of the Moon, as it orbits and spins synchronously.
‘Very good, logical, works for me and astronomy.’
Sorry misread it!
Actually for the moon to see the stars fixed it would simply need to orbit without rotating.
Not rotating wrt the stars means not rotating.
Further in my opinion (note the qualifier) sorting out what goes on in the heavens (and probably climate too) isn’t something that can be completely sorted out by mathematics as our understanding isn’t there yet. Galileo had to rely on the logic of looking at all the heavenly objects to refute the idea that the sun revolved around the earth, something that one standing on the surface of the moon would have no problem saying the earth does not rotate around the moon.
But when tidal locking isn’t present it becomes a more difficult argument and you have to resort to all the heavens to find the best answer.
I see an article in Space.com that claims the moon rotates at the near the exact same speed it rotates around the earth with that speed varying based upon its eliptical orbit. But I think the article misses the logical connection of such a rotation requiring the earth to orbit the moon because of the tidal locking feature.
This may require a good deal more math to resolve but I would claim the libration seen is an effect caused by the fact that barycenters are involved in all this and thus librations can be boiled down to the forces that create ellipitical orbits.
DR EMPTY,
You say
“so if it was rotating about the Earth and rotating on its own axis, then you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.”
Let’s say you mean revolving about the Earth.
But you would see all sides of the moon from Earth, if and only if, the rate of the moon revolving around the earth and the rate of the moons rotation were different.
They are not, so you only see one side of the moon from the Earth.
If the moon were rotating about the Earth, and rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
I’m just stating a fact about rotation, B-Li. If an object is rotating about a central point (e.g. the Earth) it presents the same face to that central point as it rotates around it.
This is why the point I was making to you earlier sailed straight over your head.
Nate says: ——–Actually for the moon to see the stars fixed it would simply need to orbit without rotating.
Not rotating wrt the stars means not rotating.———–
Only if the earth was also fixed in space. But because thats not the case, the moon would have to spin on its axis to hold that fixed view, like a kid on a merry-go-round keeping his eye on the brass ring.
We are getting into a mixing of terms where rotation is also orbiting and spinning on an axis. So I am going to drop all the words and use just spinning to represent rotating on its axis and orbiting for a rotation around another object.
the moon does not spin because it is tidal locked to the earth. It orbits the earth without spinning and that orbit gives the middle of the face of the moon a relatively constant view of the earth and a varying view of the stars as it orbits.
To have a fixed view of the stars from the the same place on the moon the earth would be seen as orbiting the moon (a fact known to be false on the basis of known facts about gravity and the fact we know that the earth never sees the backside of the moon)
Thus the moon’s alleged spinning is merely an optical illusion inconsistent with the laws of science and what gives the impression of spinning is orbiting the earth without spinning.
Indeed when you look at the entire system and the laws of gravity what is actually going on is clear. If you look only at one or two relationships its not clear. The truth emerges out of the full picture.
The philosophy of perception clearly demonstrates that our vision can be easily fooled. A dime held at an angle looks like an ellipse rather than a circle. Galileo had to cut through all this with his argument of considering everything at one time, making his argument both difficult to understand and contrary to conventional wisdom.
Still today the Catholic Church has not fully embraced Heliocentricity. . . .undoubtedly based on something similar to George Berkeley’s argument that everything is an illusion put before us by God. At least the Church has stopped punishing heliocentrists, though its not clear if they still quietly hold a bias that such folks are being seduced by the devil.
the moon is an easier case than the earth sun relationship as a spinning earth doesn’t provide as solid of ground as the lack of spinning in the case of the moon. Here the scientists doing the bidding of the Pope were able to forestall Galileo’s and his predecessors for 15 centuries by building fancy machines complete with nicely geared up machinery moving stars in retrograde motion. Obvious fertile ground for the leaders of the Church to assert their opinion on, not unlike Climate Science.
This illusion of mathematics and limited world view works nicely in tandem. Schrodinger’s cat comes to mind. Eventually science will find an answer to why the cat sometimes comes up dead and other times not. In the meantime its probably a good idea to not get married completely to one idea.
DR EMPTY,
Take up a book on Astronomy lest you continue to make a fool of yourself.
“Im just stating a fact about rotation, B-Li. If an object is rotating about a central point (e.g. the Earth) it presents the same face to that central point as it rotates around it.”
Let’s say you mean “If an object is revolving about a central point…”
The truth is whether or not the object is presenting the same face to the central object depends on the rate of rotation of the object that is revolving around the center object.
You are not “stating facts” you are demonstrating you don’t understand the first thing about orbital mechanics.
Check out Hyperion, one of the moons of Saturn, as an example of a moon that rotates with a different period than it revolves.
If the moon were rotating about the Earth, and rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
I’m just stating a fact about rotation, B-Li. If an object is rotating about a central point (e.g. the Earth) it presents the same face to that central point as it rotates around it.
This is why the point I was making to you earlier sailed straight over your head.
I’m not talking about “revolution”, as astronomy currently has it. I am stating a fact about rotation around a central point.
‘This may require a good deal more math to resolve but I would claim the libration seen is an effect caused by the fact that barycenters are involved in all this and thus librations can be boiled down to the forces that create ellipitical orbits.’
‘Further in my opinion (note the qualifier) sorting out what goes on in the heavens (and probably climate too) isnt something that can be completely sorted out by mathematics as our understanding isnt there yet.’
Yep and the math and physics was figured out 300 y ago. Maybe you havent been keeping up!
DREMPTY,
This is not a fact
“Im just stating a fact about rotation, B-Li. If an object is rotating about a central point (e.g. the Earth) it presents the same face to that central point as it rotates around it.”
Like the earth is rotating about a central point (the sun) it does not present the same face to that central point as it rotates.
I am assuming you mean revolve in the above quote and I used it the same way although it would be better to use revolve.
Good idea, be vague use terms like the Red Queen uses and you will never be wrong. But you will never be right either.
bobdroege says: ———-If the moon maintained the same view of the stars it would not be rotating, its not doing that, the stars it faces change over the month as it rotates.——–
Frame of reference is important. A kid on a merry-go-round keeping an eye on the brass ring is required to rotate his head.
I would suggest that the moon is on a merry-go-round promulgated by the earth’s gravity.
Hopefully folks still know what the brass ring is. I think its been extinct on account of liability for a long time.
If you don’t know what a brass ring is. Its a ring dangled off the side of the merry-go-round. If you can reach it and grab it while zooming around on the merry-go-round you win a prize or get a free ride. But it probably entailed too much liability for its promoters enticing kids to throw caution to the wind while riding the bouncing ponies leaning and stretching off the horses to grab the ring.
Nate says: ————–This may require a good deal more math to resolve but I would claim the libration seen is an effect caused by the fact that barycenters are involved in all this and thus librations can be boiled down to the forces that create ellipitical orbits.
Further in my opinion (note the qualifier) sorting out what goes on in the heavens (and probably climate too) isnt something that can be completely sorted out by mathematics as our understanding isnt there yet.
Yep and the math and physics was figured out 300 y ago. Maybe you havent been keeping up!—————–
Oh gee Nate I didn’t know that. I guess we can then lay off all the astronomers since all those issues have been solved right?
B-Li, you play the same game every time.
An object rotating about a central point, but not on its own axis, moves as per the arrows on the left, in the below:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
That is a fact, about rotation.
So if the moon were rotating about the Earth, and on its own axis, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
An object “revolving”, as astronomy currently has it, but not rotating on its own axis, moves as per the arrows on the right.
bill hunter…”No the logical requirement for the sun to orbit the earths axis is not fulfilled”.
I am on your side Bill and enjoying your logic/humour. I was merely throwing in an illusion, much like the illusion that the Moon is rotating around a local sxis because it ‘appears’ to do so relative to the stars.
The Moon rotates about the Earth, as you claim, only because gravity keeps diverting it from its desired linear (tangential) path. Those not privy to the mechanics of orbital motion re momentum and gravity are convinced the Moon must be rotating once per orbit. They have fallen for the illusion just as those who see the Sun rise and set have fallen for that illusion.
I have challenged the spinners to try it with two coins. Mark one coin then try rotating the marked coin about another while keeping the mark always on the perimeter of the other coin. The mark never leaves the perimeter therefore it cannot rotate about its own axis.
Since the outer side of the coin is moving in a circle concentric to the mark, which is moving along the circle of the other coin, and the axis is on an inner concentric circle, it is impossible to perform local rotation with such restrictions.
Gordon Robertson says: “I am on your side Bill and enjoying your logic/humour. I was merely throwing in an illusion, much like the illusion that the Moon is rotating around a local sxis because it appears to do so relative to the stars.”
I about died of laughter when I found this:
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
I figure a basketball, like a person, circling a whirlpool isn’t going to be rotating either or maintain a consistent directional view of any potential rescue ship. The only thing the person will have a consistent directional view of will be the hole in the middle of the whirlpool so all he is going to do is lift his hand high in the air and scream his ass off.
Gordon,
you say
“I have challenged the spinners to try it with two coins. Mark one coin then try rotating the marked coin about another while keeping the mark always on the perimeter of the other coin. The mark never leaves the perimeter therefore it cannot rotate about its own axis.”
You don’t realize that you have to twist the coin as you move it keeping the mark on the perimeter of the other coin.
Which means the coin is actually rotating.
HUMPTY DREMPTY
“B-Li, you play the same game every time.”
Yes I am consistently explaining the correct fact to you.
“An object rotating about a central point, but not on its own axis, moves as per the arrows on the left, in the below:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
That is a fact, about rotation.”
Nope, that is not correct, that is both revolving and rotating.
Note the arrows point in different directions as the arrows revolve around the green circle.
“So if the moon were rotating about the Earth, and on its own axis, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.”
Depending on the speed of rotation of course. If the speed of rotation is the same as the speed of revolving we would only see the one side of the moon, all other speeds of rotation would allow all sides of the moon to be seen from earth.
“An object revolving, as astronomy currently has it, but not rotating on its own axis, moves as per the arrows on the right.”
Yes and in that case we would see all sides of the moon from earth.
Just do a google search of “does the moon rotate” and see how many different explanations you get.
Incorrect, B-Li, it is as I explained.
An object rotating about a central point, but not on its own axis, moves as per the arrows on the left, in the below:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
That is a fact, about rotation.
So if the moon were rotating about the Earth, and rotating on its own axis, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
An object “revolving”, as astronomy currently has it, but not rotating on its own axis, moves as per the arrows on the right. We would also see all sides of that object from the central point.
This message will be repeated until understood, or not responded to.
“So if the moon were rotating about the Earth, and rotating on its own axis, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.”
Well, not if synchronous..but at least consistent with what you have been saying.
“An object ‘revolving’, as astronomy currently has it, but not rotating on its own axis, moves as per the arrows on the right. We would also see all sides of that object from the central point.’
Oops DREMT accidentally discovered that he agrees with astronomy?!
But then this kinda undermines the first statement.
DREMPTY,
“This message will be repeated until understood, or not responded to.”
It’s understood.
You got that, it’s understood.
It’s also wrong.
So quit trolling.
It’s not wrong.
An object rotating about a central point, but not on its own axis, moves as per the arrows on the left, in the below:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
That is a fact, about rotation.
So if the moon were rotating about the Earth, and rotating on its own axis (rotating on its own axis at any speed, and in either direction), we would see all sides of the moon from Earth. You are able to mentally add two motions together, right?
An object “revolving”, as astronomy currently has it, but not rotating on its own axis, moves as per the arrows on the right. We would also see all sides of that object from the central point.
Astronomy currently defines “revolving, but not rotating on its own axis” as a different motion to “rotating about a central point, but not rotating on its own axis”.
This message will be repeated until understood, or not responded to.
So for an object to move like the arrows on the left, like the moon, or like a ball on a string, changing orientation wrt to the “fixed stars”, it only requires angular momentum about the central point. An object rotating about a central point, and not on its own axis, moving like the arrows on the left, or like the ball on a string, or like the moon, only requires angular momentum about the central point, and not about its own axis.
It only requires angular momentum about the central point, and not about its own axis.
Only about the central point, not about its own axis.
Only about the central point, and not about its own axis.
It does not require angular momentum about its own axis.
It only requires angular momentum about the central point.
This can be explained as the result of a combination of Earth’s gravity, and the moon’s linear momentum. That’s where the angular momentum about the central point comes from. The central point only, remember, there is no angular momentum about the moon’s own axis.
It’s the result of a combination of Earth’s gravity, and the moon’s linear momentum.
It’s not one thing alone, or the other thing alone. It’s both, acting together.
It’s not just the Earth’s gravity.
It’s not just the moon’s linear momentum.
It’s both the Earth’s gravity, and the moon’s linear momentum, acting together.
To produce the angular momentum about the central point only.
Which is the motion of the arrows on the left, or like the moon, or like a ball on a string. Changing orientation wrt to the “fixed stars”. With only angular momentum about the central point required. None about its own axis.
‘Yep and the math and physics was figured out 300 y ago. Maybe you havent been keeping up!—————–
Oh gee Nate I didn’t know that. I guess we can then lay off all the astronomers since all those issues have been solved right?’
Astronomy has plenty to figure out about dark matter, black holes at the center of galaxies.
The BASICS of planetary orbits and rotational motion may be advanced for you guys, but not for science.
So sorry that it HAS been understood for 300 y. And it gets tested again and again in telescope observations, and deep space missions.
Either that or too much of pounding drugs and listening to the Dark Side of the Moon for 14 consecutive days out of every 28 in his parents basement believing the moon’s darkside actually came into view.
With an actual map of the dark side of the moon I got from a National Geographic magazine.
LMAO! Been there done that!
And I prefer Meddle
Yep when my son was in junior high school he fell in love with PF over The Wall. Thinking of it as his generation’s anthem I took him aside and played PF for him out of my own collection to show him PF was a multi-generational phenomena. He couldn’t believe his ears. He had no idea of their history. Today my favorite PF tune is off The Wall – Comfortably Numb.
bill hunter
From somewhere above:
YOU: “Nobody has ever verified energy flowing both ways and the SB equation is simply a method of figuring out how fast the warm surface is cooling and how fast the cool surface is warming.”
Actually I have done this and you can do it as well. Not a difficult test to perform.
Get a FLIR
https://www.flir.com/products/e8-wifi/?creative=341970001144&keyword=&matchtype=&network=g&device=c&gclid=Cj0KCQjwhdTqBRDNARIsABsOl98Z356OCod8Q59THm_QriKxQ1wwrhGn09Iqo5KZBu2ii3-A230k0MMaApXwEALw_wcB
You point it as a hotter surface and you can see an image of that object. Only the energy from the object will enter the FLIR lens to be converted to an image. Now turn in the opposite direction with an object with a different temperature. You will also see this image in your camera. The first thing to show that each object gives off its own radiant energy is that the camera can make an image of each object. Remember bill hunter, one primary tool of science is logical. It is assumed the Universal Laws are based upon logical and not magical concepts.
The second on is that you point it at one object and only that object’s energy can enter your FLIR the other one cannot get energy into the camera. So each object is emitting its own energy.
I hope you do not sink in the world of fantasy physics where any idea you make up is true and correct.
I would advise maybe borrowing one of these cameras and doing your own tests. You will quickly discover that your statement is not a correct one at all. Please do not become another Gordon Robertson or JDHuffman. Two of those are enough for a blog. At this time I respect your intelligence. I hope this feeling will remain.
Norman says: – Get a FLIR
Well see there you go. You get yourself a FLIR and believe its doing something its not doing. Electronics are really cool, with the right materials and electronic switching you can detect both an positive and negative signal, differentiate between the two, and send the right signal to the screen. with ultrasensitive materials this can occur very quickly.
bill…”Electronics are really cool, with the right materials and electronic switching you can detect both an positive and negative signal, differentiate between the two, and send the right signal to the screen. with ultrasensitive materials this can occur very quickly”.
For example, the computer on which you are typing is switching between app code at a blinding speed, so fast it gives the illusion that half a dozen apps are working at the same time.
Besides, a FLIR detects energy frequency and it is calibrated in a lab to read a certain temperature for each frequency it receives.
I daresay you could fool a FLIR into thinking there was a large mass at temperature T by sending it the right frequency at the right intensity, when in fact there was no mass there.
bill hunter
Exactly what do I believe the FLIR is doing that you think it is not doing? It is taking in IR energy. Has many small pixel detectors and will convert that to an image of an object. The very fact it can form an image of an object in the IR band of EMR is logical proof that the object is emitting its own IR toward the detector.
I would like you to provide your explanation of what is taking place that would disprove this logical conclusion.
The net flow of energy out of and into an IR detector is frequency modified by the frequencies of the target. e.g. as the detector sensor sends out a signal due to its own temperature the frequencies sent are diminished (netted if you will) by the frequency emissions of the target, the electronics in the detector detects this processes the information and sends the correct result to the output. If you think about it how could it be any other way? as the detector surface must radiate itself.
This technology resulted in the first detector that did not have to be cyrogenically cooled to detect cooler temperatures. If you substitute the “attractor” theory you would have the same result show up as the “netting” would be replaced by the frequencies attracted. I am not selling the attractor theory I am merely using it as a cautionary concept to not overly extrapolate what is actually going on. I have no problem with physics using the photon model as heretosofar with the exception of less disciplined thinkers the photon model is pretty consistent with observations in physics except maybe Schrodingers cat which seemingly may lean more toward the attractor theory of the observer affecting the experiment.
For Nate, just a touch of philosophy training their to fuel a bit of skepticism. Perhaps now you can teach your wife something about philosophy and logic.
‘ just a touch of philosophy training ‘
Where is that? Not this:
‘The net flow of energy out of and into an IR detector is frequency modified by the frequencies of the target. e.g. as the detector sensor sends out a signal due to its own temperature the frequencies sent are diminished (netted if you will) by the frequency emissions of the target’
Honestly, none of this makes much sense.
And what does this mean?
‘If you substitute the ‘attractor’ theory you would have the same result show up as the ‘netting’ would be replaced by the frequencies attracted.”
Please cite a reference to ‘attractor theory’.
Frequencies are not ‘attracted’ in any real world physics.
Nate says: ———-Honestly, none of this makes much sense.
What I would suggest Nate is to study how IR detectors work.
There are some sources on the internet that explain the technology. I read about 4 different ones in all. they will do much better job in explaining how the sensor technology works than I could possibly do reexplaining it.
If you find one that you think refutes anything I said, thats great, I would like to read it myself.
Nate says: Please cite a reference to attractor theory.
Frequencies are not attracted in any real world physics.
Its pretty mysterious. Electromagnetism always involves 2 opposing charges whether its radiation, electricity, or magnetism.
Its not know if gravity is related as it supposedly only needs 1 charge.
But both gravity and magnetism work in space supposedly without a medium.
But both magnetism and gravity diminish with distance. The theory of light allows that also via the inverse square law.
Here is an article about the search for a medium upon which electromagnetism could theoretically work.
http://energywavetheory.com/explanations/aether/
Its all interesting stuff, but the issues are irrelevant to any technology I am aware of, including climate change. I only bring it up to caution people to not attribute effects to backradiation that aren’t known to exist and that would include backradiation it self if you substituted an attractor theory e.g. can’t warm anything an attractor theory couldn’t. Its just a reminder to keep disciplined in your thinking and avoid any thoughts of backradiation directly heating anything. The attractor theory has no backradiation and produces the same result.
And in the article when they talk about experiments failing to detect aether, keep in mind negative declarations can’t be proven, the only thing you can disprove is a declaration of a blueprinted theory by showing the blueprint doesn’t work. A negative declaration cannot be blueprinted as there are infinite possibilities.
I was asking me all the time why, when I wrote Newton’s words:
“In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most equable in respect of the fixed stars…”
Huffman invariably replied with:
“Wrong again, Bindidon. Newton was clearly speaking in relation to the stars, as ‘the moon rotates, relative to the stars’.”
*
Because I remember that a little over fifty years ago, we had a few lectures on physics for engineers at the university. One day, the professor pointed out to us the necessity to always choose a fixed, external benchmark when examining several objects with differing motions; the calculations of their respective motions would be falsified whenever performed wrt one of the objects.
As an example he explained us the difference bewtween Earth’s solar day and Earth’s sidereal day, the former being the time measured between two identical apperances of the Sun e.g. at 1 pm, the latter between the time between two identical appearances of the same star star e.g. at 1 am.
Fifty years later, we all enjoy the possibility to obtain such information from the Internet, by simply asking Google for a search. We obtain immediately stuff like:
“The sidereal day is the time it takes for the Earth to complete one rotation about its axis with respect to the ‘fixed’ stars. By fixed, we mean that we treat the stars as if they were attached to an imaginary celestial sphere at a very large distance from the Earth.
A measurement of the sidereal day is made by noting the time at which a particular star passes the celestial meridian (i.e. directly overhead) on two sucessive nights. On Earth, a sidereal day lasts for 23 hours 56 minutes 4.091 seconds, which is slightly shorter than the solar day measured from noon to noon.”
This is the reason why Newton so clearly explained in his Principia:
“The spots in the sun’s body return to the same situation on the sun’s disk, with respect to the earth, in 27 days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25 days.”
Imagine you would try to measure Venus’ or Mars’ revolution time by observing how long it takes, viewed from Earth, to see a chosen anomaly on these planets passing some imaginary line again.
That would mean that the revolution time would depend on Venus’, Mars’ and Earth’s positions on their respective orbits! What a nonsense.
This of course was understood since a few millenaries by all these people Huffman so nicely discredits as ‘astrologists’.
*
Now I understand why Huffman wrote all the time:
“Newton was clearly speaking in relation to the stars, as ‘the moon rotates, relative to the stars’.”
Huffman either honestly thought or dishonestly insinuated (both alternatives being equally ridiculous), that when Newton used the expression ‘relative to the stars’, he would mean a motion different from that relative e.g. to Earth or to the Sun, even when having clearly written:
“In like manner is the moon revolved about its [own*] axis…”
[* ‘circa axem suum’ in the original Latiin text]
This is simply wrong. The expression ‘in respect of the fixed stars’ is about measurement time, and not about motion.
But we all know that Huffman, DREMT and Robertson never will give up, and soon will invent something new, similar to racehorses, coins, cannonballs, concentric circles, or try to misinterpret things like barycentres, upper foci, fixed stars, or to pretend that Newton explained everything with gravity, etc etc etc.
I don’t care. Newton is right, and again: I did not misrepresent him.
Wrong again, Bindidon. Newton was clearly speaking in relation to the stars, as “the moon rotates, relative to the stars”.
How many times do people have to point this out to you?
Newton provided the calculus to show how gravity holds an orbiting body. His work proves Moon is NOT actually rotating on its axis. It is just changing direction due to gravity. “Calculus gave him a way of describing not only derivative functions like the rate of change over time but also the curved motion caused by the force of gravity, which allowed him to explain the elliptical motion of planets as conic sections.”
Tesla clearly indicated the moon was NOT rotating on its axis.
BOTH Newton and Tesla were right. You are the one that is wrong.
You keep doing the same thing, over and over and over, but always getting the same results. In your native tongue, what is the word for “insanity”?
Practicing
How you doing on your proof that all points of the moon move at the same linear velocity.
The serfs want to serf-review your paper.
B-Li, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY,
Care to answer the question or are you enrolled in a remedial physics class?
B-Li, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
So you are ditching your remedial physics class.
You are not going to learn anything that way.
#2
B-Li, please stop trolling.
One of the interesting things about the moon debate is the lack of understanding revealed by the Spinners. The issue is that Institutionalized Pseudoscience (IP) is wrong, based on the established laws of physics. So, what do the Spinners consistently run to? IP!
They’re trying to prove a “given”. They can’t show the moon is actually rotating on its axis with established physics, or examples from reality. They only have IP. A perfect example is from weasel: “But you won’t address the issue at hand, that the obliquity of the moon proves that the moon is revolving around the earth and rotating on its axis.”
weasel is accepting the “obliquity” given by IP, and using it as “proof” that the moon is rotating on its axis! That’s funny enough, but then they get tangled up in their IP.
Here’s the reality: Moon’s obliquity is defined by IP. It is a meaningless value. They define it based on Moon’s orbit around Earth, which is tilted. But, the obliquity value, 6.68° is an irrelevant kluge. To illustrate, Earth’s obliquity does not change during one orbit. It is always about 23.5°. But the IP defined obliquity of the moon changes during one orbit. At its peak value, it is 6.68°, but at 180° in orbit, the value would go negative, since Moon’s orbit moves under Earth’s orbit. Clearly the IP defintion for Moon obliquity is wrong.
Institutionalized Pseudoscience’s interpretation of Moon’s orbital characteristics are as messed up as is the physics of clowns.
Nothing new.
Nope,
“But the IP defined obliquity of the moon changes during one orbit. At its peak value, it is 6.68, but at 180 in orbit, the value would go negative, since Moons orbit moves under Earths orbit.”
Obliquity doesn’t change during the orbit.
IP defined “lunar obliquity” at high side of orbit = 6.68°
IP defined “lunar obliquity” at low side of orbit = -3.6°
weasel doesn’t see any change.
No surprise.
JD,
You need to figure out what those numbers you quoted are in reference to.
I am not helping you.
But to tell you that you are mucking up the math again.
The poor weasel doesn’t know what the numbers are in reference to.
Obviously he doesn’t comprehend “lunar obliquity”.
But, at least he’s not going to “help” me. That’s a relief….
Hey, JD,
Maybe you have a cite for this
“Moons obliquity is defined by IP.”
Maybe you would open your brain and realize that the IP whoever that is actually measured the obliquity.
Also, I can’t seem to find a cite that says the moons obliquity changes from 6.68 to -3.6.
It seems to me you are making that up.
“Maybe you have a cite for this”
Here you go, weasel:
Here’s the reality: Moon’s obliquity is defined by IP. It is a meaningless value. They define it based on Moon’s orbit around Earth, which is tilted. But, the obliquity value, 6.68° is an irrelevant kluge. To illustrate, Earth’s obliquity does not change during one orbit. It is always about 23.5°. But the IP defined obliquity of the moon changes during one orbit. At its peak value, it is 6.68°, but at 180° in orbit, the value would go negative, since Moon’s orbit moves under Earth’s orbit. Clearly the IP defintion for Moon obliquity is wrong.
JD, you could of typed that.
That’s not a cite, do you have a link for that?
Failure boy, to produce what you said you would produce.
weasel, the bolded text is reality. You cannot accept reality.
A simple racehorse debunks your moon rotation. So, you want to argue about the color of the horse, or how old he is, or who made his saddle. You will resort to any tactics to pervert and corrupt reality.
Nothing new.
So it’s a self cite failure boy?
You can reasonably estimate a racehorse’s age by its teeth.
That is why we know the moon does NOT rotate on its axis.
(I thought it would be fun to use the kind of logic clowns use.)
A racehorse doesn’t have an obliquity, therefore it’s a pretty shitty model for the orbit of the moon.
Something institutionalized psycho-babbling non-minors in physics wouldn’t understand.
The racehorse’s obliquity is 0°, the same as Moon’s.
That’s why we know Moon is NOT rotating on its axis, and the racehorse is a good model for orbital motion.
Stick with your illogic, insults, misrepresentations and false accusations, weasel. Your pseudoscience fails every time you try it.
Nope JD,
Psuedo-scientific babbler, if the moon’s obliquity was 0 degrees we wouldn’t see the latitudinal librations of the face of the moon that we do indeed observe.
Observations trump your tin foil hattery.
But you won’t accept reality, will you?
Sorry weasel, but the observed librations are due to orbital motion.
And weasel, earlier you stated that a racehorse doesn’t have an obliquity. But, as usual, you were wrong. Any orbiting body has an obliquity.
Now you want to move on to being wrong again. All the time, believing that you got it right.
Nothing new, but nevertheless entertaining.
JD,
You say
“Sorry weasel, but the observed librations are due to orbital motion”
Sorry babbler, but librations are due to rotation, orbital motion is just the satellite revolving around the parent object. No rotation, no libration.
Then you say
“And weasel, earlier you stated that a racehorse doesn’t have an obliquity. But, as usual, you were wrong. Any orbiting body has an obliquity.”
But a racehorse isn’t orbiting, it’s just running around a track, and it’s a crappy model for orbiting objects. Obliquity applies to astronomical objects.
I’ll await more psycho-babble, it is as you say, entertaining.
weasel, you keep spouting nonsense like that and pretty soon everyone will know you haven’t a clue about orbital motion.
JD,
That’s right because what you call “Orbital Motion” is pseudoscience.
Plain and simple.
weasel, a racehorse is a suitable model of “orbital motion”. So is a racecar on a circular track. The front wheels supply the force necessary to change the car’s direction, and the rear wheels supply the force necessary to push the car.
With the Moon, the force to change direction is supplied by gravity, and the force propelling is due to linear velocity.
Study physics, and especially Newton’s work.
JD,
You need to study Newton’s Laws.
An object in motion will stay in motion until a force is acted on it.
That’s one that you don’t understand as you said
“and the force propelling is due to linear velocity.”
Linear velocity does not provide a force.
Crack open your physics texts, maybe one or two behind your Quantum Physics one.
The linear momentum of the moon, p=mv, corresponds to its linear velocity, v.
The force is then, F = dp/dt.
(This is just another example of the weasel trying to distract. He’s wrong about the moon, but rather than admit it, and learn, he resorts to any number of distractions. It’s the same with other clowns like the child, DA, and Norman. Nothing new.)
JD,
You said velocity was a force not momentum, and something other than the moons velocity is causing the change in momentum.
Momentum not a force either, a force needs to have the units kg*m/sec^2.
Now you are mucking up the physics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-372177
weasel, horse has hooves, not hoops.
Sheeeesh, learn something about other animals.
You two toads got a point?
Yes, thanks. It has been made.
Yes the point has been made.
JD and DREMPTY don’t understand physics.
No rebuttal to the linked comment. Understood.
weasel can never face reality, so he has to misrepresent and falsely accuse. Here is another example:
“You said velocity was a force…”
FALSE. The weasel is trying to twist my words. Here’s what I stated: “the force propelling is due to linear velocity”
He is either incompetent, dishonest, or both, as usual.
Nothing new.
‘Moons obliquity is defined by IP. It is a meaningless value. ‘
It seems JD never met a scientific fact he couldn’t reject, just cuz he feels like it.
No wonder he has zero credibility.
Nate, you’re quick to swallow pseudoscience, but you can’t explain the physics. You’ve never met any pseudoscience you weren’t willing to swallow. You just swallow and regurgitate. You can’t answer basic questions like:
What is the lunar obliquity at the lunar orbit peak distance above Earth’s orbit?
What is the lunar obliquity 90° later in Moon orbit?
No wonder you have zero credibility.
JD,
Though you said
“the force propelling is due to linear velocity”
That means you consider linear velocity a force.
You mucked up the physics again and now you are trying to weasel out of it.
So admit you made a mistake.
Wrong again, weasel.
Something can contribute to creating a force, but that does not make it a force. You just reveal, again, your ignorance of physics.
Even you would probably agree that a hammer is not a force. But, if someone bashed your skull with the hammer, you would probably then agree a force had been created.
When you grow up, try to learn some physics.
JD,
Force is mass times acceleration.
The force on the Moon is due to the acceleration of gravity and has nothing to do with the Moons velocity.
That’s obvious if you had studied physics.
With every post you make it obvious you haven’t studied physics.
bobdrogege
Yes what you say is quite correct. JDHuffman does not know any physics. I don’t think he even knows what the word means.
In his own make fantasy world, physics means any stupid unsupported idea he can make up.
He is totally wrong about the Moon’s rotation on its own axis and he is not smart enough to know why he is wrong. He is wrong that a racehorse is not rotating on its own axis while it is turning (in this case the two simultaneous motions confuse him so he can’t grasp what is going on, even if he looks at his own feet as he walks in his circle he can’t grasp his feet rotate and then when planted, the rest of his body rotates)
He makes up idiot ideas and is proud of them like a hotter surface cannot absorb any radiant energy from a colder one. Both E. Swanson and Roy Spencer have proved is delusions false but he insists he is right. The funny thing about him is he will never perform the experiment he described (three plates touching with the middle plate heated by external power…move the two outer plates away and the middle plate will warm up…best performed in a vacuum to eliminate conduction or convection and isolate only radiant heat transfer).
Most of what he posts is total garbage but he continues to post. Only a couple idiots think he knows science. Gordon Robertson is one of the dumbest of posters and then the JDHuffman sycophant who blindly believes all the nonsense Moe posts.
He will never learn or consider that most his posts are pseudoscience nonsense. JDHuffman is so lame he does not know what the word “pseudoscience” means but he uses it all the time.
He refers to people that know science as “clowns” I guess that is because it rivals his gang of stooges.
Norman, you said upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-374698
“If you were on a merry-go-round standing at the edge you would revolve around the center but you would not rotate on your own axis. Which is your ball on the string example.”
You agree that a ball on a string orbits the central point and does not rotate on its own axis. You are aware that the ball moves as per the moon, with the same face always towards the center.
So I don’t know what your problem is.
The only thing to continue wondering about regards moon rotation is when this argument is going to start circling the drain.
DREMT
Yes I am aware of that. The difference is with the ball on a string and the Moon is that with the string the axis of the ball is rotating along with the position of the ball so it does not rotate on its axis in this case. With the Moon it does.
It is the same as standing on a merry-go-round, You do not rotate on your own axis (the line that goes through your center) because the axis is fixed to the platform and rotates with your changing position. When you walk around the merry-go-round (with no axis fixed to the platform) you must rotate on this axis as you walk around (the axis moves with you but you rotate around it to accomplish the motion). In the second case the axis itself is not rotating so you must rotate on this axis and you keep the same side of you to the center in both cases. The difference is what is going on with the axis. In one case the axis rotates with you and in the other it does not.
The two are not the same case.
Complete nonsense.
Poor Norman does not understand physics. That’s why he has to resort to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. He has to make up things, such as:
“He makes up idiot ideas and is proud of them like a hotter surface cannot absorb any radiant energy from a colder one.”
What I have said is that a “cold” object can not raise the temperature of a “hot” object. Norman tries to completely misrepresent my meaning.
Nothing new.
Yes DREMT, Norman’s “complete nonsense” is just another example of why he’s a pseudoscience clown. The motiions of a tennis ball on a string and the moon are different because Norman defines them different!
That’s his pseudoscience–he gets to pervert and corrupt reality.
Nothing new.
The weasel displays more evidence of his skull fracture, due to the impact of the hammer, which is not a “force”.
weasel: “Force is mass times acceleration.”
Force is also dp/dt.
weasel: “The force on the Moon is due to the acceleration of gravity and has nothing to do with the Moons velocity.”
Wrong again, weasel. The force on the moon is the resultant of BOTH Moon’s linear velocity and gravity.
Its obvious weasel does not understand physics.
JD,
Don’t get your panties all twisted in a bunch.
Just go read some physics textbooks and see where you are going wrong.
There is no force propelling the moon due to its velocity.
As you say
“Wrong again, weasel. The force on the moon is the resultant of BOTH Moon’s linear velocity and gravity.”
Nope, no force due to velocity.
And you still don’t get the second law as this comment shows
“What I have said is that a “cold” object can not raise the temperature of a “hot” object.”
Still wrong after all these years.
Yes weasel, you’re still wrong, after all these years.
And, you weasel out of your agreements. Only Norman can compete with you in dishonesty and incompetence.
bobdroege
It seems the more JDHuffman says the dumber he seems.
Proverbs (Chapter 17 vs 28): “Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.”
The velocity of the Moon is not a force acting on the Moon. You know your physics he seems to know less than nothing. If he attempts real physics he gets it wrong. He seems comfortable in making up his own.
His equation of Force equals (change in)Momentum/(change in)Time.
Yes if the velocity of a mass were changing in time there is a force acting on that mass. A constant speed will give you a change in momentum of zero. No force acting on the mass. The Moon has a nearly circular orbit so even then the change in velocity is not as much as with a big elliptical orbit. The change in velocity in this case is caused by gravity.
JDHuffman
False statement by you (anti-science and example of your craft of pseudoscience): “What I have said is that a cold object can not raise the temperature of a hot object. Norman tries to completely misrepresent my meaning.”
A cold object can certainly raise the temperature of a heated object.
Both Roy Spencer and E. Swanson clearly demonstrated this science for you.
A cold object will not raise the temperature of a NON-heated hot object.
You can’t understand the difference but pretend that you know physics. Why do you have to do this? What motivates a person like you to be so much a dishonest liar?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
You did not understand my merry-go-round explanation. I will attempt again.
You have two cases. One a tire that is physically connected to an axle (so when the axle turns the tire also turns).
You have another tire that is connected to the axle only by a bearing so the tire is free to spin around this axle.
Do you understand both these cases?
Now you can look at both from above. Let us say the axle is hidden by a cover in both cased so you don’t see it.
There is a painted dot on both tires. Now you observe both of them spinning. You can see the painted dot go around. It appears both are the same.
In the first case the tire is not rotating around its axis. The axis (which is the axle) and the tire are rotating together.
In the second case the tire is rotating around the fixed axle (axis).
You have two cases with the same rotation. In one case the tire does not rotate around its own axis. In the second case it does.
Does that clear it up?
Don’t take advice from JDHuffman. He will not be able to follow the logic. Use your own intelligence.
Norman, if I make a statement that is true, you cannot add a qualifier and then say my statement was false. You are limited by my statement
Trying to twist my words just makes you appear dishonest. Getting caught just makes you appear dishonest and incompetent.
Nothing new.
Norman, you have the physics confused, again.
Both tires are rotating about their centers of mass. It doesn’t matter if the axle is rotating or not.
Learn some physics.
Yes, Norman, you are utterly confused,
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
Not confused. The issue would be how you define an axis. Can an axis rotate? Depends upon how you define it. If you define it in such a way that it cannot rotate then you would not consider the possibility of an axis rotating and an object not rotating on such an axis. It does not indicate confusion on my part, it would be more a semantic thing.
In one case the axle does not rotate and the tire rotates around this axle.
If you taped an arrow on top of both axles, in one case the arrow would not move as the tire rotated. In the other both the tire and the axle that is spinning the tire are rotating.
It still does not change the reality that the Moon is rotating on its axis or a racehorse rotates on its own axis as it moves around the track.
You may not accept a rotating axis but certainly you can accept an axis moves along with the object in consideration.
Norman, JD was correct about the tires. You are making the old mistake of confusing an axle for an axis. You’re wrong, but there’s nothing I can say which will change your mind, so think what you like.
Norman is trying the “definition” scam now. His pseudoscience has blown up in his face, so in desperation he’s trying to re-define everything to fit his perversion and corruption. He’s soooooo desperate.
DA attempted the same schtick here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-377999
Next, they will want to re-define “definition”….
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
You will agree that an axis can move with the object. If it cannot rotate than HuffmanGoneStupid is correct about a person on a merry-go-round that is spinning. They are still rotating on their axis since it is a rigid non-rotating frame and the person’s position is rotating around this fixed imaginary line. All the points on your face are rotating around this line as you stand on the merry-go-round.
I think you need to establish rigorous definitions of what you consider to be rotation on an axis. A horse running a track IS rotating on its axis. Its body completes a circle around this imaginary axis. The head and tail rotate completely around a rigid no-rotating line that goes through the horse’s body.
Not sure why you think it does not. You have not come up with any valid logic of why you believe a horse does not rotate on its axis as it runs a circular track.
Norman still can’t understand the racehorse. It’s such a simple model of orbiting, but he cannot think for himself. In his confused head he believes the horse is rotating on its axis, because it of “appearance”. He just can’t understand basic orbtial motion.
That’s why he continues to be a source of entertainment, as he struggles to write endless nonsense about tires and axels.
Nothing new.
Incorrect, Norman. All the points in your body would be rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. You were right the first time, but you chose to throw it away because you simply cannot accept that the “Non-Spinners” are right. That’s all it is. There was another time you were close to understanding, when discussing the Ferris wheel, but you also chose, at the time, to throw it away. You find a way to confuse yourself, then project that onto us. Then, you start to get angry.
‘Norman still cant understand the racehorse. Its such a simple model of orbiting, but he cannot think for himself.’
Simple models work well for simple minds, but not for reality.
Ive never seen a horse run around a racetrack while spinning 365 times on its axis.
Nor have I seen a race car, nor a tether ball do that. I don’t think they CAN do that.
Hmmm, maybe a horse, car, or tether ball are not such good models for planetary orbits…
I wonder why? You guys got any ideas?
Maybe cause planets dont have legs, wheels, or ropes, that constrain their freedom to rotate…
Nate unwittingly agrees that a racehorse is a suitable model for orbital motion:
“I’ve never seen a horse run around a racetrack while spinning 365 times on its axis.”
Right Nate, racehorses don’t spin.
‘Right Nate, racehorses dont spin.’
Yep, and planets obviously CAN spin, like the Earth does 365 (or 366?) times as it makes an orbit.
So astronomers think the moon is spinning.
I would like to see an astronomer build a simple solar system machine. Lets see they would probably pay a few million dollars getting a precision gear train install so that the moon spinned just right in precise time. Then they mounted it on an orbit transit arm and scratched their heads over the results. This is the biggest problem with academic science, they seldom get their hands covered with grease and dirt.
One has to wonder what percentage of these guys really are clueless climate scientists.
Look at poor Nate grasping at straws. Now, his only evidence that the moon is rotating on its axis is because Earth is rotating on its axis.
Soooooo desperate.
bill hunter says:
Done around the 2nd century BC:
http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/11/
Troll Svante found another link he can’t understand.
He obviously believes the link answers Bill (“Done…”) as well as “proving” the moon rotates on its axis.
Of course, Svante flees since he is unable to responsibly discuss the physics.
Nothing new.
Bill Hunter,
You don’t need an Astronomer to do that
“I would like to see an astronomer build a simple solar system machine. Lets see they would probably pay a few million dollars getting a precision gear train install so that the moon spinned just right in precise time. Then they mounted it on an orbit transit arm and scratched their heads over the results. This is the biggest problem with academic science, they seldom get their hands covered with grease and dirt.”
Try Babies “R” Us
They sell mobiles with the exact synchronous rotation necessary to model the moon’s orbit and spin.
We had one in our daughter’s room, probably cost less than 20 bucks.
‘One has to wonder what percentage of these guys really are clueless climate scientists.’
Yeah. All those PhD scientists who fail to align their so-called science with my blog-proven gut-instincts about how stuff really works must be idiots!
And lets mix all the idiots together with anyone else we don’t like and our conspiracy theories into one big stew!
Throw in George Soros, the Clinton’s, AOC, the deep-state, evolution, brown people, vaccines, the Illuminati, and, oh what the hell, the Jews.
Svante says:
————-Done around the 2nd century BC:
The general way that the moon phase mechanism works is clear and was first correctly described by Michael Wright (2006: 327-329). As we already mentioned, the contrate gear must rotate with the lunar synodic period. The gear is attached to the arbor through a pin and so the arbor also rotates at the same rate. The arbor is held by pipe and transmits its rotation to the moon ball.———–
LMAO! You can’t make this stuff up!!!
Lets see that was back when they thought the sun also circled around the earth right? Did you notice they essentially painted the moon half black and half white? LMAO!!!!! Did the paint slide around in time with the rotation? LMAO!!!!!
Or was it they hadn’t yet noticed that the physical features on the moon did change their orientation to the view of the sailors???
Like I said you just can’t make this stuff up!!!!
bobdroege says:
——-Try Babies R Us
They sell mobiles with the exact synchronous rotation necessary to model the moons orbit and spin.
We had one in our daughters room, probably cost less than 20 bucks.
————
________________
I’ll bet Babies “R” Us saved a million dollars on that one by recognizing you didn’t need a second set of gears for the moon, like they would need for the earth to move it around the sun and have it be authentic.
All you have to do is hang the moon from a string from the arm that moves the moon around the earth and you are done. . . .but I bet they got at least an extra $5 from you when you gazed at the thing in the store and thought what a bargain packing all that technology in for just $20. LMAO!!!!
Were they sharp enough to not paint the moon half black and half white too? I suppose the Greeks were observant enough to notice the moon didn’t rotate but perhaps all the sailors wanted to know was how much light they would have at night.
Apparently Svante hasn’t noticed that its the moon’s shadow that moves not the moon, how about you?
Like I said you can’t make this up!!
Nate says: ——-One has to wonder what percentage of these guys really are clueless climate scientists.————
Yeah. All those PhD scientists who fail to align their so-called science with my blog-proven gut-instincts about how stuff really works must be idiots!
And lets mix all the idiots together with anyone else we dont like and our conspiracy theories into one big stew!
Throw in George Soros, the Clintons, AOC, the deep-state, evolution, brown people, vaccines, the Illuminati, and, oh what the hell, the Jews.————
——————–
Strawman Alert! When did the astronomers who think the moon rotates independent of its orbital movement suddenly become all PhD scientists with visions of catastrophic warming, George Soros, the Clintons, AOC, the deep-state, evolution, brown people, vaccines, the Illuminati, and, oh what the hell, the Jews.?
You are merely erecting a strawman. I only know of one nutcase astronomer who became a nutcase climate scientist. I was just speculating on the possibility of others.
But its an entirely different process by which nutty ideas become politically popular. That only occurs when the implications of the nutty idea aligns with popular political agendas. . . .like socialist central planning, like environmentalist hatred of the oil companies, like a prime minister angry with striking coal miners, like the nuclear power industry patiently waiting on the sidelines, like manna for those who already think there are too many in the world, like Al Gore with his sandpile theory, like the aristocrats/illuminati with visions of exceptions for themselves by being able to easily afford as much fossil fuel as they think they could possibly need under a cap n’trade approach while still keeping their popularity by virtue signalling. I could go on and on.
Indeed everybody has agendas, anybody who doesn’t believe that is truly naive. Conspiracy? No you don’t need a conspiracy when agendas align, folks just follow their own agenda and it can look like a conspiracy without a single conspiratorial word crossing anybody’s lips.
Everything going on today in climate alarmism is devoid of science. Its all about agendas. The IPCC is not a science process its a political process. The words and opinions of scientists is not science. Science is a very specific specie of worldly knowledge gained via experimentation and observation. Its empirical, its quantified, its tested, its retested many times. The scientific method defines science. Hypothesis is just the first step in attempting to gain scientific knowledge. While an important part of science its no more science than a severed hand is a man.
bill hunter
YOU: “So astronomers think the moon is spinning.
I would like to see an astronomer build a simple solar system machine. Lets see they would probably pay a few million dollars getting a precision gear train install so that the moon spinned just right in precise time. Then they mounted it on an orbit transit arm and scratched their heads over the results. This is the biggest problem with academic science, they seldom get their hands covered with grease and dirt.”
You don’t even need such an instrument. A simple computer program clearly shows a rotating Moon as it orbits in order to keep the same face to the Earth observer. When not rotating you see all sides.
This video should end the nonsense but it does not seem to.
I hope it ends it for you.
Yes the Moon rotates on its axis. At the same rate it orbits the Earth. Logical and easy to demonstrate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ExFAU2los
Norman, we all know that you can pound on a keyboard. But, that does not mean you know anything about computers, or programming. If you had even the slightest knowledge of programming, you would know you can program anything you can make up. You can program a moon spinning as fast as you want, in either direction, or even changing directions. A visual produced by a computer program is NOT reality. You are mesmerized by things you don’t understand.
Stick with youtube videos you understand, like the 3 Stooges. Leave real science to people that don’t have to make up stuff.
(Now it’s time for your insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.)
bill hunter,
The mechanism has that offset wheel because of the moon’s elliptical orbit. From Earth it seems to rush ahead, then fall behind.
As pointed out by Tim Folkerts:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-337331
Norman says: ———This video should end the nonsense but it does not seem to.
I hope it ends it for you.
Yes the Moon rotates on its axis. At the same rate it orbits the Earth. Logical and easy to demonstrate.—————
Well sometimes language and concepts get mixed up. We have been distinguishing between orbital motion/rotation, and independent spinning on an axis running through the poles of the orbiting object.
So if you install a large pole through the poles of the earth. Then you weld on a giant propeller on top of that pole with a radius on the propeller blades that reaches all the way to the moons orbit. Then you install a motor on the shaft that goes through the earth that can turn the propeller one full turn every 29 days. Then you suspend the moon from the tip of one of the propeller blades so that the moon is back down to the earth’s level, being sure its not spinning. Then you turn on the motor and the moon will go around the earth still not spinning and look exactly like your youtube video.
It doesn’t matter what you suspend the moon with, a string, a swizzle stick, or a sold bar that the moon is welded to ensure it doesn’t pick up a spin. You could also forget about suspending it altogether and just weld it or glue it to the tip of one of the propeller blades using professional welders and gluers that know how to bond something together so it doesn’t go spinning off. None of these differences would change what the moon was doing or what it appears it was doing.
The moon would not spin any more than a kid would be spinning sitting on a wooden horse on a merry-go-round.
The kid isn’t spinning the merry-go-round is spinning and it just appears that the kid is spinning. So there is no synchronization there is but one rotation going on. That’s the nature of a gravity tidal lock.
If you were to release the tidal lock and give the kid a spin that turned him around one time at the same rate the merry-go-round went around one of two things would happen. If the spin was in the opposite direction of the spin of the merry go round and you started the spin exactly at the moment the merry-go-round started and the kid was looking straight out into the fairgrounds say looking at the Ferris Wheel the only change in view the kid would have would be the merry-go-round coming and going through his view with each turn but he would be spinning independently and his view would not be changing of the Ferris wheel.
If you started the spin in the same direction as the merry-go-round his change in view looking out into the fairgrounds would be changing twice as fast as it would if he were not spinning.
the inability of the human mind to actually see such motions for what they are creates tremendously fertile ground for magicians, carny con men and others.
So don’t let your eyes trick you. If the video had a nice bold line drawn from the center of the earth to the center of the moon it would quell that illusion of the moon rotating by giving your eye a steady reference point.
Svante says: ———The mechanism has that offset wheel because of the moons elliptical orbit. From Earth it seems to rush ahead, then fall behind.
As pointed out by Tim Folkerts:
People with this perspective [one single motion] cannot explain elliptical orbits. For an elliptical orbit, the rotation about the axis through the earth-moon barycenter occurs with dramatically varying angular speed — fastest when closest to the earth and slowest when farthest from the earth (noticed by Kepler and confirmed by Newton). The moon moves with varying speeds relative to the fixed stars as viewed from the earth. (and this effect would be dramatically more noticeable for a highly eccentric orbit).
Barycenters are the cause of elliptical orbits. Yes there is more than one motion. There are two irregular motions if one wants to focus on one object rotating around the other. The irregularity of the motion is caused by the other gravitational bodies in the solar system. But the primary effect of barycenters is on the orbiter and the orbitee. Both are rotating around the center of gravity. And especially Jupiter imparts the most irregularity as it orbits the sun but to varying degrees all the planets, chip in. I suppose you could say all the stars as well. (gee how does that reach through space?)
But I will leave discussing the effects of barycenters to the mathematicians around here, for me its just a big headache.
bill hunter says:
“Barycenters are the cause of elliptical orbits.”
No, this one is not circular around the barycenter, the distance is 363,104 kilometers at perigee and 405,696 km at apogee.
“Yes there is more than one motion.”
You are at odds with DREMT et al.
“The irregularity of the motion is caused by the other gravitational bodies in the solar system.”
No.
“But I will leave discussing the effects of barycenters to the mathematicians around here, for me its just a big headache.”
I can see that.
“You are at odds with DREMT et al.”
Hang on, Svante…try not to put words into two different people’s mouths. Clearly bill does not think the moon rotates on its own axis, so his additional motion is not going to be “axial rotation”. Why not wait to see what it is? Who knows…I might agree.
TIm F: ‘People with this perspective [one single motion] cannot explain elliptical orbits. For an elliptical orbit, the rotation about the axis through the earth-moon barycenter occurs with dramatically varying angular speed — fastest when closest to the earth and slowest when farthest from the earth (noticed by Kepler and confirmed by Newton). The moon moves with varying speeds relative to the fixed stars as viewed from the earth. (and this effect would be dramatically more noticeable for a highly eccentric orbit).’
Exactly, contrary to what the single-motion crew says, the Moon-Earth system is not behaving like a rigid body at all.
And, while the orbital motion ‘about the axis through the earth-moon barycenter occurs with dramatically varying angular speed’, the axial motion of the Moon has FIXED angular speed.
It is just this difference in the two rotations that produces longitudinal libration.
These just adds to the facts that the one-motion crew cannot explain, and must dismiss as unimportant.
‘You are merely erecting a strawman. I only know of one nutcase astronomer who became a nutcase climate scientist. I was just speculating on the possibility of others.’
Exactly, you brought it up, so its your strawman.
And I exaggerated it further to pick on you guy’s weird extremist-colored glasses that you view events, even science discoveries, through.
And right on que, you make my point for me:
“But its an entirely different process by which nutty ideas become politically popular. That only occurs when the implications of the nutty idea aligns with popular political agendas. . . .like socialist central planning, like environmentalist hatred of the oil companies, like a prime minister angry with striking coal miners, like the nuclear power industry patiently waiting on the sidelines, like manna for those who already think there are too many in the world, like Al Gore with his sandpile theory, like the aristocrats/illuminati with visions of exceptions for themselves by being able to easily afford as much fossil fuel as they think they could possibly need under a cap ntrade approach while still keeping their popularity by virtue signalling. I could go on and on.”
And BTW, I really don’t see how the spinning Moon aligns with anyone’s political agenda?
You’ll have to look back 300 y to see what you can come up with.
Svante says: ———No, this one is not circular around the barycenter, the distance is 363,104 kilometers at perigee and 405,696 km at apogee.——————-
No such thing as a circular orbit around a Barycenter because Barycenters are constantly moving as a result of gravitation pulls from all the bodies in the solar system.
The tides are affected by the relative position of the sun and the moon, no doubt Jupiter and the other planets are in there too, just as a much smaller influence. But the primary barycentric movement of the sun is caused by Jupiter. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjO2-HHvprkAhULsJ4KHdZyDd4QjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=%2Furl%3Fsa%3Di%26source%3Dimages%26cd%3D%26ved%3D%26url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FHeliocentric_orbit%26psig%3DAOvVaw1KF_KPeX-U8DRPvKPtyVat%26ust%3D1566701015685431&psig=AOvVaw1KF_KPeX-U8DRPvKPtyVat&ust=1566701015685431
If the barycenter moves it means that Moon and Earth move together, so it has no bearing on this discussion.
Nate says:
“And BTW, I really don’t see how the spinning Moon aligns with anyone’s political agenda?”
JDHuffman says: NASA and all University Astronomy Departments are pseudo-scientific.
RAND Corporation says:
“this campaign included social mediabased disinformation spread by both automated bots and paid trolls. Russia’s strategy was to push several conflicting narratives simultaneously, deepening existing divisions within American society and degrading trust in Western institutions and the democratic process.”
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2740.html
Svante, please stop trolling.
JD…”Clearly the IP defintion for Moon obliquity is wrong”.
**********
It’s explained here in a footnote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt
see the table under ‘Axis and rotation of selected Solar System bodies’.
Footnote C….’with respect to the ecliptic; the Moon’s orbit is inclined 5.16 to the ecliptic’.
Actual tilt claimed as 1.54 degrees to the lunar orbit.
The ecliptic is one of those weird definitions but its actually the same plane as the orbital plane of the Earth around the Sun.
When we look at the Sun’s apparent path across the sky, the path moves north in summer and south in winter. However. if you imagine a plane through the Sun at noon, passing through the Earth, you can pretty well get the plane of the entire solar system, and the Moon’s orbital plane, which is 5+ degrees off that plane.
That means half the time the Moon’s orbit is about 5 degrees above the ecliptic plane and the other half it’s about 5 degrees below.
I have been watching Jupiter in the night sky due south at an angle from the horizon of about 18 degrees. When the Moon crosses in the vicinity of Jupiter it crosses Jupiter at almost the same angle + or -.
That means the Moon’s orbit is very close to the plane of the solar system where most of the planets can be found, including the Earth.
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Secliptc.htm
neat picture of three planets on the ecliptic plane from the Moon.
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960921.html
They can’t even be consistent with their own pseudoscience. Their figures don’t add up. 5.16 + 1.54 = 6.7, but they show 6.68.
The “1.54” figure is clearly bogus, as they are still claiming axial rotation.
Another blatant mistake is in violating the description of obliquity: “Over the course of an orbital period, the obliquity usually does not change considerably, and the orientation of the axis remains the same relative to the background of stars.”
Their bogus “1.54” violates their own requirements.
Clearly the IP definition for Moon obliquity is wrong.
Gordon,
Not true that ‘Actual tilt claimed as 1.54 degrees’.
The axial tilt of the Moon is stated to be ‘6.68 degrees’ in the article, and axial tilt defined to be the angle between rotational and orbital axes.
I still don’t know how you guys make sense of an axial tilt of 6.68 degrees, if there is NO ROTATION to define a rotational axis?
That is a real puzzle.
Nate has tried this before…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-377598
Missed more of JDs weird questions.
‘What is the lunar obliquity 90 later in Moon orbit?’
The same, 6.68 degrees.
You have evidence that it is different? Lets see it.
Nate, would you agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days if I showed you why that is wrong?
As usual, if you had any sensible evidence to support your bizarre claims, you would show it. And in that way YOU could benefit by getting back from negative credibility to zero.
But just as you showed in your bets with Bob, and me, you only make such bets when you are bluffing and have absolutely nothing of value to show.
There is absolutely no value to me to see what is guaranteed to be bogus evidence.
You don’t understand physics, or it seems, human nature.
The fact that you think obliquity could have a different value on the other side of an orbit, shows that you have no idea what obliquity even is!
No surprise there.
Nate, in my experience, JD will just post some blah, blah, blah which doesn’t show any evidence obliquity of the moon changes and then accuse you of all sorts of crimes.
Nate avoids learning some physics, as usual.
And he joins with the weasel to spew insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
Bob,
You proved that one by calling his bluff!
Well, we don’t want to go to JD’s school of physics or Dr Empty’s school of Astronomy.
They are run by mooncalf clowns.
Nate avoids learning some physics, again.
And he joins with the weasel to spew insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
Oh, and I forgot,
He will call you a weasel.
JD, where did you get that almost minor in physics?
Too late to get your money back?
And calling them mooncalves is a compliment, they are not quite up to that level.
Weasel, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY
Why don’t you and JD get a room?
#2
Weasel, please stop trolling.
Back to the original topic : did you notice the latest news on July’s temperature, from GISSTEMP, it’s a bit on the high side.
François, some people here call it “GISSTAMP”.
Maybe because there is so much tampering….
francois…since 2014, when GISS claimed 2014 as the warmest year ever, based on a 38% confidence level, we have known they cannot be trusted.
At one point they quietly tried to replace 1934 as the hottest year in the US with 1998. They were caught by Steve McIntyre at climateaudit and forced to re-institute 1934. Then they tried to pass off 2014 as the hottest year ever and its peak was not even half of the 1998 peak.
NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut are now political activists.
François
GISSTEMP a bit on the high side… indeed, 0.93 C wrt 1951-1980 is a lot.
And it is the new version of GISS, based on GHCN V4 adjusted, which has been shown by Nick Stokes and Clive Best to be higher than GHCN V3 adjusted, while the unadjusted V4 variant stays at the same level as that of V3.
Look e.g. at
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9046
*
Here is a top ten sort of GISS-LOTI (land+ocean) anomalies wrt 1981-2010 (displacement: 0.42 C), based on GHCN V3:
2019 7: 0.48
2017 7: 0.40
2016 7: 0.40
2018 7: 0.36
2015 7: 0.29
2011 7: 0.29
2009 7: 0.27
1998 7: 0.26
2005 7: 0.21
2002 7: 0.19
In comparison, here is a mix of HaddSST3 (sea surface) together with what I generated out of GHCN V3 unadjusted (land surface):
2016 7: 0.55
2017 7: 0.54
2019 7: 0.53
1998 7: 0.45
2018 7: 0.38
2015 7: 0.37
2014 7: 0.37
2006 7: 0.35
2013 7: 0.31
2010 7: 0.31
HadSST3 is provided wrt 1961-1990 and was displaced by 0.21 C to match GHCN V3 anaomalies generated wrt 1981-2010.
Yes: the GISS anomaly for July 2019 is quite high. But even when based on V4, it stays well below data processed without any homogenisation / interpolation.
Sources
– GISS-LOTI:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
– HadSST3:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt
– GHCN V3 unadjusted:
https://tinyurl.com/y9clbqyj
*
I anticipate here the endless claim about baseline shifts of anomalies being illegal.
A look at the comparison of
– GHCN V3 anomalies generated wrt 1981-2010
with
– GHCN V3 anomalies generated wrt 1961-1990 and subsequently shifted wrt 1981-2010
might be helpful:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WU808d890NaGCf-1BSsyyrnvEXdIIwh5/view
The average difference between original and shift is 0.003 C.
We should not forget that we are here all lay(wo)men, and hence do not have to do hair splitting, as Germans love to say. Frenchies name that “couper les cheveux en quatre dans le sens de la longueur”.
dremt…”Whilst being swung around, the object can not be rotating on its own axis. The string prevents that from being physically possible. However, the object is orbiting, or revolving about the central point. This means that when it is thrown off, the tangential velocities of parts of the body will be different”.
I agree with you, the ball on the string cannot rotate otherwise the ball would roll itself up on the string.
The guy in the video suggest you don’t set the knife too close to the ball or it will slice off part of the ball. That means the string securing the ball must come in contact with the knife in order to cut it. At the moment of contact, the ball end of the string must rotate a bit about the knife blade, hence producing a torque on the attached ball.
“I agree with you, the ball on the string cannot rotate otherwise the ball would roll itself up on the string.”
That’s one of the most important points to understand. I was just trying to explain parts of Tesla’s third paper to Svante, but he couldn’t get it.
He’s another one that you eventually just have to say “OK, x” too. Others don’t even deserve a response at all.
But yes, once you get it that a ball on a string is revolving about the central point, and not rotating on its own axis, and that this motion is similar to the moon, then most rational people should be most of the way there. Whatever happens when the ball is released, or the string cut, or however it ends up flying off, can’t change that.
Dr Em T drools:
“This means that when it is thrown off, the tangential velocities of parts of the body will be different.
Hello!! McFly!!
Dr Em T throws Gordon under the bus, and Gordon doesn’t even realize it!! LMAO.
Its entertaining to sit back and watch clown physics in action.
The entire issue has been settled in the “Non-Spinners” favor for some time. “Discussions” get recycled for the benefit of other readers. Nobody expects any learning from the few die-hard “Spinners” that remain commenting for some weird reason.
Right, except none of the “spinners” arguments have been countered by the Mooncalf Brigade.
Mooncalf Brigade sounds better but it is more like a Mooncalf Squad.
Incorrect.
They contradict themselves and simply state the matter is settled.
That’s clown physics for ya.
Incorrect, the “linear velocity” side-topic is completely irrelevant and does not resolve the issue either way. However, it does appear that you are attacking a straw man, as has been explained.
The simple racehorse shows the spinners are wrong.
But they continue to argue over the color of the horse’s eyes.
Probably, they just like to bicker….
…a little bit of that, I think, mixed in with a bit of their tendency to get obsessed with personalities, and start stalking. HGS stalks Gordon, Norman stalks you, B-Li seems to be obsessed with both of us, and…well, the others know who they are.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
Have to correct your error. You think I stalk JDHuffman. Wrong!
That asshole stalks me. I respond to him after ignoring him (most pleasant not to post anything to him) and his idiot insulting posts when he will jump in on my posts to other posters.
If this troll from under the bridge would leave me alone I would be more than glad never to respond to any of his stupid posts.
Watch and see. I will attempt to ignore the troll again. Now be honest and watch what happens. I will comment to someone and your troll will jump in with his stupid comment. He can’t stop doing it.
No the only stalker is this troll. Again be honest and watch. I will ignore his many stupid posts. Then he will jump in on mine unwanted. When he does I will point out how bad his science is to help others who may not know science but come here interested in the topic of climate change.
DREMPTY,
Then why do you keep responding to me, and asking me to stop trolling.
Remember someone on the internets is wrong and I can’t help myself.
Norman, if you would only try to learn some physics, then you would not have to make things up.
Getting caught making things up is then what makes you so frustrated.
DREMPTY,
you say
“Incorrect, the “linear velocity” side-topic is completely irrelevant”
Well no, not really
It’s the Mooncalf Brigades last stand.
Unfortunately if the brigade agrees that all parts of the moon are not moving at the same velocity, then either the moon is spinning or it’s coming apart.
Of course not, B-Li. All parts of the moon are moving in concentric circles, or ellipses, so of course the outer ellipses are larger than the nearer. It’s just a result of the orbital motion.
I love how every dumb red herring is at some point labelled the “last stand”…
You don’t ignore JD though, Norman. Even when you say you are ignoring him…you are saying you are ignoring him…so still talking about him (and always in a derogatory way)…and you do still jump in on his comments.
It’s not like a situation where, for example, there was always this somebody who seemed desperate to talk to you, so they would jump in on your comments wherever you posted…and if you wouldn’t engage, they would keep baiting you until you did…and then, once talking, they would simply never stop until they got the last word…and this would happen constantly, like they were completely obsessed with you…and each time they got what they wanted, all they would really do is put you down, making you wonder why they wanted to talk to you so much in the first place…and then it got to the point where you would never choose to engage with them yourself, but they would still constantly jump in on your comments wherever you posted…and in the end, when their comments got so desperate and pathetic that you chose to stop responding to them altogether, they continued jumping in on your posts as if you were still responding to them, and even tried dishonestly using the fact you weren’t responding to their comments to their own advantage…
…now that’s stalking.
DR EMPTY
“All parts of the moon are moving in concentric circles, or ellipses, so of course”
Of course, that can only happen if the Moon is rotating.
Not orbiting, rotating.
Not going to the school of DR EMPTY Astronomy, it’s not accredited.
Yes, rotating about a central point, and not on its own axis, aka “orbiting”.
DR EMPTY
No, it’s revolving around a central point and rotating on its own axis.
Two different motions.
The only way the moon is moving with two different motions is if you define “revolving” as something other than “rotation about a central point”. Like the motion of the moon on the right, here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File%3ATidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
And then you would not be defining “revolving” the correct way. You would be going with astronomy’s obviously erroneous definition.
On the other hand, the Earth does rotate about a central point, and it rotates in its own axis.
Two different motions.
dremt…”The only way the moon is moving with two different motions is if you define revolving as something other than rotation about a central point”
**********
Anyone engaging in such semantics is presenting a red-herring argument. The original problem was stated clearly as the Moon DOES NOT rotate about its own axis.
Why I wait the fact is overall oceanic sea surface temperatures have failed to rise and that is where it is at.
AGW – is BS garbage!
Welcome back, Salvatore!
As I can see, you’re still in best form.
Yes, the climate is always changing, but not Salvatore.
svante…”People with this perspective [one single motion] cannot explain elliptical orbits. For an elliptical orbit, the rotation about the axis through the earth-moon barycenter occurs with dramatically varying angular speed …”
I have already replied to Tim on this. He is referring to an elliptical orbit with extreme eccentricity not the lunar orbit which is nearly circular.
Tim missed the point that in the nearly circular lunar orbit, the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth. At the more eccentric parts of the circular orbit, the Moon can librate slightly so we can see more around the edge of the Moon from certain locations on Earth.
None of that proves the Moon is rotating about a local axis. It’s a red-herring argument that is interesting but has nothing to do with the problem.
Extreme eccentricity changes the gravity vector from a radial line, between Earth and Moon, to a vector on a slight angle. If a ball rolls down a ramp, most of it’s weight is directed vertically through the ramp but some is pointed down the ramp. The degree of the component force down the ramp involves the sine or cosine of the angle of the ramp. It’s the same with gravitational force as the Moon moves into the more eccentric parts of its orbit.
The Earth does the same around the Sun. In the more eccentric parts of its orbit, the Earth changes angular velocity slightly. The big difference is that the Earth shows all of its surfaces to the Sun 365 times per year. The Moon shows the same face all of the time.
This is a no brainer for anyone willing to look closely at the problem. Obviously you alarmists regard the problem with your heads firmly stuck in the ground just as you view the oddities of the AGW theory.
Gordon Robertson says:
That’s just a quantitative argument, the quality is the same.
And it’s quite a bit, 363,104 kilometers at perigee and 405,696 km at apogee. The barycenter is 4,671 km from the center of the Earth.
That’s just it, cleanly explained by a steady rotation and a steady elliptical orbit. What force do you think creates the libration? And the precession and nutation which are artifacts of rotation.
“Eccentric parts of the circular orbit”, you must be kidding?
Svante usually avoids physics because, like Norman, he doesn’t know any. So, he is getting really desperate here to fully expose his ignorance. He’s found some terms he doesn’t understand, hoping to convince himself that he understands the issues: libration, precession, and nutation.
He provides a great deal of entertainment.
Hey Svante, if you can’t answer this simple question, then you don’t have a clue about the bigger questions. If you believe a racehorse is rotating on its axis on a circular track, then why do you only see one side of the horse from inside the track?
In applying the scientific method, often it is helpful to apply the “KISS” method: “Keep it simple, stupid”.
The argument is always, basically…what about libration, precession, nutation…hand wave, hand wave, wave…that proves axial rotation.
Why?
What exactly is it about these things that you people think can’t be explained by, “orbital motion, with additional complications” (nobody said the moon’s orbital motion would be straightforward).
None of you can actually argue how any of these things prove axial rotation. It’s just that certain things seem to make more sense to you with axial rotation.
Explain how these things prove axial rotation. You can’t. It will just be a hand-waving fiasco.
Well, you are all the Red Queen about rotation, axial rotation, local rotation and spinning. You won’t define your terms like a normal human being.
So you must be from the planet Frunobulax.
OK, B-Li.
It’s already been proven to be rotating.
See Giovanni Domenico Cassini circa 1693.
bob d…”See Giovanni Domenico Cassini circa 1693″.
Didn’t he make pizzas? Or was it clocks?
They named a spacecraft after him, which is now on Saturn.
DR EMPTY
you claim
“What exactly is it about these things that you people think cant be explained by, orbital motion, with additional complications (nobody said the moons orbital motion would be straightforward).”
So explain the librations then.
Hopefully it will be simpler than an elliptical orbit with rotation tilted with respect to that orbit.
Be careful, you will probably melt your brain trying to explain it.
See…they can’t explain why axial rotation is “proved”.
Since the far side of the moon moves with faster linear velocity than the near side of the moon, if the moon wasn’t turning on its axis it would fly apart.
Point proved.
☺️
That’s all you got and emoji?
Not much of a counter argument so I’ll consider
Point proved
You could just scroll up.
So you want me to scroll up to where you didn’t prove your point.
All you did was redefine synchronous rotation as orbital motion with no rotation.
We are not accepting your new definition.
You’re all over the place. You can’t follow a discussion, and basically you’re just here to troll.
HUMPTY DUMPTY DREMPTY.
You won’t make your points, you don’t engage in the discussion and you accuse me of trolling.
I have proved the moon rotates according to the normal definition of rotation.
It points the same face to the earth, which is not a constant direction, therefore it rotates.
End of story.
Learn some astronomy.
Discuss how libration happens with out the moon turning.
Or forever be a dumbass.
B-Li, please stop trolling.
svante…”What force do you think creates the libration? And the precession and nutation which are artifacts of rotation”.
There is only one force on the Moon…gravity. Diurnal libration is an effect due to relative motion. Longitudinal libration is what Tim was referring to and it is due to Earth’s gravity.
I explained it well and you did not respond to my explanation. You never do, you respond with red-herring arguments.
Once again, in a circular orbit, the gravity vector acts inward toward the Earth along a radial line. As a circular orbit becomes more eccentric, the gravity vectors acts as a sine or cosine component. I explained it using a ball rolling down a ramp.
If you don’t understand physics to this depth, you should not respond, unless of course, you are trolling.
In a circular orbit, the gravity vector acts along a radial line, as I just said. With an ellipse, the radial line is shifted since the action on the body is taken from both foci of the ellipse and the angle bisected. Rather than pointing toward a centre as in the circular orbit, the gravity vector component is determined by that angle.
In the flatter part of the ellipse, the gravity vector will still point along a radial line. However, as the more eccentric portion of the ellipse is reached, the effect of gravity switches to a component of the force produced by the bisected angle.
Imagine an ellipse with cross hairs through the centre representing the x-y axis. The y-axis portion is narrower and the x-axis portion longer. Imagine two focal points on the x-axis near the eccentric portions of the ellipse.
As the orbiting body passes x = 0, on the y-axis, lines from the focal points to the body produce an equilateral triangle. The y-axis bisects it and that’s the direction along which gravity acts, just as in a circular orbit.
Now move the body in between the x-axis and y-axis along the orbit. Draw lines in the same manner to the body from the focal points. Now the angles subtended by the focal lines will be about 60 degrees on one and 30 degrees on the other, wrt to the x-axis.
When you bisect that angle, the bisector is no longer the gravity vector. You must calculate a component of the bisector to determine the gravity vector.
Remember, the Earth is in the physical centre of the ellipse and we are concerned about how the gravity vector affects the Moon at various portions of the elliptical orbit.
This is a lot like the Sun shining an angle to a location on the Earth. Solar intensity is no longer direct but a component of the direct intensity vector.
So, the gravity vector is not quite as strong as the body nears the more eccentric parts of the orbit and the effect of the Moon’s linear momentum has a greater effect. Therefore the orbital path changes from a a less eccentric path to a more eccentric path.
This will cause a slight turning of the Moon BUT NOT ABOUT ITS AXIS since the near side, far side, and axis turn simultaneously but to a lesser degree due to the decreased effect of gravity.
It is vital to understand that libration is not due to a rotation of the Moon about its axis but to the changing effect of Earth’s gravity on the orbital path.
The Moon is not rotating at all about it’s own axis, it is being dragged as a rigid body off it’s linear path into a curvilinear motion. This action correctly explain why the Moon turns through 360 degrees wrt the stars.
The nonsense that the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit fails to explain why the same side is always toward the Earth. It’s an assumption and a bad assumption based on an illusion.
You are good at complicating something very simple.
The Moon sweeps out equal areas per time unit according to Kepler, so it orbits faster when it is closer.
Add a steady rotation and there’s your longitudinal libration.
Simple.
“…so it orbits faster when it is closer.”
…and you can stop there. Explanation finished.
It’s interesting that Svante quoted Tim up above. Even more interesting, the quote involved one of Tim’s efforts to distract, using a “red herring” of elliptical orbits. Tim was quickly shot down, as are all such efforts to pervert reality.
Svante forgets that Tim has refused to answer the simple question: “Is a racehorse also rotating on its axis?”
Tim now knows the correct answer is “no”, but that goes against Institutionalized Pseudoscience”. But, if he answers “yes”, he knows that makes him a complete fool.
So, he refuses to answer.
Svante chooses to hide behind someone that is hiding from reality. What a twisted web they weave….
Tim had lot of understanding for your lunar reference frame.
It’s just that you have to invent a lot of strange new forces to account for libration, precession and nutation.
Svante, I always refrain from calling someone a “liar”.
But just so someone else doesn’t use that derogatory term on you, maybe you could show us where I have invented “a lot of strange new forces to account for libration, precession, and nutation”.
Thanks.
Please give me the physical formulas, numbers and calculations that produce the correct libration, precession and nutation without rotation.
svante…”Please give me the physical formulas, numbers and calculations that produce the correct libration, precession and nutation without rotation”.
I gave you the tools and explanation to do that for yourself. Draw the ellipse, locate it’s focal points along the x-axis. Draw line from each foci to the orbiting body and bisect the angle. Every vector you need for all your requirements is in there.
See? Svante’s hands have already started waving.
What a tangled web they weave….
By the way, what happened to your toy train?
Tuut Tuut!
Just wait and see…all their “explanations” of why their favorite red herrings “prove” axial rotation will only be descriptions. It will be “the libration of latitude can only be explained by there being an axis of rotation which is tilted x degrees…”, and blah blah blah. Which is a description, not an explanation. It won’t be, “this is why the axis is tilted x degrees”, because they don’t actually know. And since they don’t know, they can’t explain why the same phenomenon couldn’t produce a libration of latitude even with an object that is orbiting and not rotating on its own axis as they see it.
MikeR says:
February 15, 2018 at 6:42 AM
Read through from here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-372464
It was eventually agreed that you could have a “faux” North and South Pole, and a “faux” equator, even with “orbital motion without axial rotation” as you guys see it.
Keep flapping those hands…
You mean the conversation that finished with:
You know Svante is really desperate when he has to quote a weasel.
I over-estimated them.
svante…”Halp, how do you think the location of the South Pole of the Moon was determined”?
First, they determined the lunar orbital plane, which is slanted about 5 degrees to the ecliptic (the solar/Earth orbital plane), then they guessed where the N-S axis would be.
The Moon is not rotating in that plane about its axis so the axis has to be guesstimated.
“…then they guessed where the N-S axis would be.”
…based on how much extra of the moon is revealed to us by the libration of latitude, yes. This is not difficult to understand, but they desperately need something to cling to, and that’s when these red herrings come up.
Gordon Robertson says:
“they guessed where the N-S axis would be.”
You do have a sense of humor!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-379004
So I am looking at your sides little screen shot here
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
and the arrows are all pointing straight up, but the caption says
“Figure 2: Orbiting AND rotating on its axis (CW, in synch with orbit)
So something that is pointing in the same direction is rotating in synch with orbit.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
that is funny, if you weren’t getting your panties all up in a bunch defending it.
Sorry loser
…and that has as little to do with the point being made now, as it did then.
Point not being made.
See I can argue by assertion as well as you can.
Yes weasel, as the graphic clearly shows, Figure 1 is orbiting only. Figure 2 is both orbiting AND the arrow is rotating CW in sync with the orbit. So, in Figure 2, as the arrow turns 45° CCW in orbit, it also rotates 45° CW. So, the arrow always remains pointing the same direction.
See if you can find an adult to explain it to you.
So JD,
How does your kindergarten project explain libration?
That”s right it doesn’t.
As I recall you were having trouble with Newton’s Laws.
It has all been explained before, weasel.
You are unable to understand. Likely because you put all your effort into misrepresenting others.
Nothing new.
So I am looking at your sides little screen shot here
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
And I laughed so hard the soda came out my nose.
This makes me laugh too
“Yes weasel, as the graphic clearly shows, Figure 1 is orbiting only. Figure 2 is both orbiting AND the arrow is rotating CW in sync with the orbit. So, in Figure 2, as the arrow turns 45 CCW in orbit, it also rotates 45 CW. So, the arrow always remains pointing the same direction.”
I didn’t need you to explain how funny that graphic is.
See if you can find an adult to explain it to you.
JD,
I tried, I showed it to an adult, she laughed and wondered where you went to school/
B-Li, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts says:
December 15, 2018 at 11:03 PM
Svante, you can’t hide behind Tim. You went too far and now you must face reality:
Svante, I always refrain from calling someone a “liar”.
But just so someone else doesn’t use that derogatory term on you, maybe you could show us where I have invented “a lot of strange new forces to account for libration, precession, and nutation”.
Thanks.
MikeR says:
January 31, 2018 at 2:26 PM
Svante, your desperate “Oh look, a squirrel” efforts won’t work.
Why not just always tell the truth? Then you won’t get in such a bind.
Svante
Don’t get irritated by the ignorant and denying boasters!
Newton explained in his Principia (Book III, Prox XVII) that the Moon rotates about its axis in exactly the same time as it orbits around Earth, and Lagrange and Laplace gave mathematical proofs of his explanations.
Whatever they think and write, today’s ignorants can’t undo that.
I discovered today an interesting paper written by Ch. Simon (in 1869):
Mémoire sur la rotation de la lune
http://www.numdam.org/article/ASENS_1869_1_6__69_0.pdf
(Unfortunately in French.)
Very interesting.
The author’s aim was to mathematically substantiate Laplace’s theory of the relationship between the lunar rotation about its axis on the one hand, and the initial conditions that prevailed at the beginning of the Moon-Earth life together on the other hand.
*
Those who permanently discredit and denigrate all work of this kind down to ‘IP’ or ‘Institutionalised Pseudoscience’ are in fact themselves I2P2, i.e. Ignorant, Incompetent, Pretentious Pseudoscientists.
I almost feel sorry for Bindidon. He wants so badly to be accepted, but he just can’t get there.
Lacking any background in physics, he chooses to substitute different languages. His thinking is that if he says something no one understands, they will believe he is brilliant.
Hey Bindidion, translate this for us:
“Lorp nuvyom tirwhact haddimasc phony. Nostreb chardem fraud. Kel abtem ralpmer loser?
Juram ax yarksta o sichmap purflo, falkreb wud haykav nochste.”
If you can’t translate it, by youar “logic”, you must be uneducated and incompetent.
N’est pas?
Bindidon says:
“Dont get irritated by the ignorant and denying boasters!”
Yes, I don’t actually think they believe in what they say.
Claiming to know better that “NASA and all University Astronomy Departments” is just a bit too crazy even for them.
They’re just fun to play around with once in a while.
svante…”Claiming to know better that NASA and all University Astronomy…”
Ah, yes (W.C.Fields), the old appeal to authority reply. NASA could not possibly be wrong, even though Tesla proved them wrong, and Svante magically knows what is taught in every university astronomy class.
Nope, Tesla did not prove NASA wrong.
For one thing the timing is off.
And Tesla didn’t prove Cassini wrong either.
The moon doesn’t have the same background stars as it revolves around the earth, so it’s not pointing in the same direction as it revolves around the earth, so it is rotating.
bob d…”The moon doesn’t have the same background stars as it revolves around the earth, so it’s not pointing in the same direction as it revolves around the earth, so it is rotating”.
You need to get with the program, Bob. The point has never been whether the Moon is rotating, the point has always been that the Moon does not ROTATE ABOUT ITS OWN AXIS.
The Moon is changing direction wrt the stars due to the mechanics of it’s orbit. It is being tugged by gravity from its desired straight line motion into an orbit.
Don’t understand why you have so much trouble seeing that. If the Moon had a greater linear momentum, Earth’s gravity could not hold it in orbit. If it had less, it would spiral into the Earth.
Why can’t you see that its motion wrt the stars is about gravity and momentum, not local rotation. Next thing you’ll be telling me, Halley’s comet is rotating on its axis.
Putting it in all caps doesn’t get the point across any more better
“ROTATE ABOUT ITS OWN AXIS.”
Yeah, it does, I don’t understand why you can’t get this.
weasel, you left out “NOT”, as in Moon “DOES NOT ROTATE ON ITS AXIS”.
Doubling down, now using all caps in bold.
What a stunning use of a computer keyboard.
JD,
Why don’t you look something up before you stick your foot in your mouth.
“Next thing youll be telling me, Halleys comet is rotating on its axis.”
Yes with a period of 2.2 days
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Icar…79..396P
The weasel can’t even follow the comment flow.
Not to mention his other numerous faults….
bob d…”I don’t understand why you can’t get this”.
Don’t understand??? Let me fill you in. I studied engineering physics and the dynamics part of the course was crammed full of problem on rotation, orbits, centripetal forces, momentum, and so on. I can do problem related to rotation in my sleep.
A typical problem involved a spacecraft approaching Mars at such and such a speed. The problem was to solve how many seconds retro rockets had to be fired to slow the craft enough to go into orbit around Mars at such and such an altitude.
It’s totally apparent to me that the Moon lacks any local angular velocity, otherwise the same side would not always point toward the Earth. It’s also blatantly apparent that the orbital motion of the Moon is translation and that explains perfectly why the same face is always toward the Earth.
bob d…”Putting it in all caps doesnt get the point across any more better
ROTATE ABOUT ITS OWN AXIS.”
Sorry, Bob, it seemed you spinners were having trouble grasping that simple concept.
Gordon,
Learn the proper terms, maybe you should check your textbooks.
“Its totally apparent to me that the Moon lacks any local angular velocity, otherwise the same side would not always point toward the Earth. Its also blatantly apparent that the orbital motion of the Moon is translation and that explains perfectly why the same face is always toward the Earth.”
Pointing towards the earth is not a constant direction.
What the heck is local angular velocity anyway.
Go on, continue to make up your own terms.
So to answer your question, yes Halley’s comet is rotating on its axis.
So why don’t you define what local rotation is?
And how it is different from other kinds of rotation.
How can you possibly not know what he means!?
Oh…you’re just trolling again.
DR EMPTY,
Still avoiding the question.
Define your terms, what is the difference between local rotation and rotation?
They’re not my terms. But from context, it’s fairly obvious that by “local rotation”, Gordon means “axial rotation”.
The simple racehorse destroys the Spinners false religion.
If the race track were straight, the racehorse would not appear to be rotating. As viewed from either side of the race track, the horse would not be rotating.
But, if the horse were actually rotating, on the straight track, that motion would be obvious from BOTH sides of the track.
Now, just curve the straight track into an oval, with the same rotating horse. The rotation would be visible from BOTH inside and outside the track.
A real racehorse, on an oval track, is NOT rotating on its axis.
But, many clowns get fooled by their false religion.
Nothing new.
Still pitching that loser argument?
Yes weasel, it appears you are.
What I am “pitching” is reality. It is the truth. It is easily verifiable.
The fact that you hate reality is what makes you a loser.
It appears you don’t know what the word rotate means.
You can go down to your local library and check out a dictionary.
You are too illiterate to use your computer.
Yes weasel, drag out your insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. That’s all you’ve got.
Nothing new.
Well you could demonstrate you know what the word rotate means.
But so far you haven’t.
Nothing new but insults and misrepresentations.
How do you know I hate reality?
You don’t it’s just a lie spewing from your keyboard.
More insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations from weasel.
That’s all he’s got.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman says:
Like this:
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
Yes, you have proved that over and over.
svante…”Like this:”
Not sure if I can trust a video in which centripetal is pronounced incorrectly. It’s not a centri-petal force, with the accent on petal, it’s a centripetal force with no separation between centri and petal.
Don’t understand your point. Everything they talk about in the movie re orbits is exactly what we non-spinners have claimed. You seem to be focusing on the ball spinning after Tim releases it.
The ball is attached to a string. Unless he releases it precisely in a tangential direction, the string will pull on the ball and cause a torque.
Also, the string is under tension. It is stretched when the ball is attached due to the centripetal force it exerts on the ball. When he releases it, the tension is released and that will slightly affect the ball’s trajectory.
In other words, he’ll have to time his release to account for the tension as well as releasing the ball slightly before the tangential point. I am referring here to the shot where the ball comes straight at the camera.
If the ball was a lot heavier, and the string was a
near-weightless, solid wire that did not stretch significantly, I am sure the ball would not spin after release.
Anyway, what has any of this to do with the Moon’s orbit?
Gordon Robertson says: ———The ball is attached to a string. Unless he releases it precisely in a tangential direction, the string will pull on the ball and cause a torque.
Also, the string is under tension. It is stretched when the ball is attached due to the centripetal force it exerts on the ball. When he releases it, the tension is released and that will slightly affect the ball’s trajectory.—————
Exactly! Not only that but this video has nothing to do with this argument. Its just a stray observation and they are extrapolating the rotation as a residual force. Also notice how it completely disappears after bouncing off the camera.
Yes Svante, I will keep proving that you clowns have a false religion.
You are so blind that you can’t even understand your own links. Your link gets it right, but you can’t see that it proves you wrong.
Dear Dr Roy emergency moderation service. I was recommended this site because Dr Roy Spencer represented a balanced view. However, when Svante makes some very reasonable points, and expressed in a much more moderate way than many of the participants, you shut him down and accuse him of trolling. Surely you should be able to cope with reasoned differences of opinion on this site?
☺️
The question that’s never asked in this whole global warming, climate change, carbon dioxide crisis is what can government or anyone due to change the weather by controlling human emissions of CO2? When you look at Earth’s history and facts from physics and math you quickly realize that statistically human CO2 emissions can’t possibly cause climate change.
Fact #1 CO2 is a trace gas making up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Human’s account for less than 4% of its emissions. Nature 96+%.
Fact #2 As a greenhouse gas, CO2 has little affect when compared to water vapor which accounts for 95% of the GH effect and is 99.99% naturally produced. According to W.Va. Geocraft- Greenhouse data, The % of the total GH gas contributions in the atmosphere that contribute to the GH effect from human activities is a tiny 0.28%. In other words, nature accounts for 99.72% of the GHE!!
Fact #3 The geologic record indicates that during warm periods CO2 and water vapor levels were as much as 10 times higher than today, but ice ages followed. Conversely, during ice age events the oceans released less CO2 and water vapor and levels were lower than today, but it did not prevent the warming that followed.
How can anyone believe that CO2 is the prime cause of climate change or that government’s controlling of CO2 emissions will have and effect on climate change? Will somebody please ask a climate alarmist to comment on this!!!
Chng ti l nh th_u thi cng mi sn b tng, lo lng t_i _ N_ng,
l m_t khu v_c pht tri_n, _ N_ng c r_t nhi_u c_ s_ h_ t_ng ___c xy d_ng v s_ d_ng sn b tng mi bng
V_i __i ng_ cng nhn vin _ng __o, tay ngh_ cao,
_ qua tr__ng l_p _o t_o chuyn su v s_ h_u h_ th_ng my
mc hi_n __i c_ng nh_ l trang thi_t b_ v
ha ch_t nh_p kh_u t_ Chu u, gip hi_u qu_
cng vi_c cao, gi thnh c_nh tranh, ch_t l__ng s_n ph_m t_t
D_ch v_ _nh bng sn xi m_ng _ t_i _ N_ng c_a chng ti s_ mang l_i nh_ng s_n ph_m hi_u qu_ nh_t cho cng
trnh thi cng
I as well as my pals appeared to be analyzing the great secrets located on your site
while then I got a horrible feeling I had not expressed respect to the blog owner for those techniques.
Those boys are already consequently excited to
see them and have now in reality been making the most of those things.
Appreciation for turning out to be indeed considerate as well
as for deciding on variety of essential things millions of individuals are really desirous to understand about.
My honest apologies for not saying thanks to earlier.
Here is my site; Viaxin Male Enhancement – Pills That Boost Size & Stamina! |Review
I think other web-site proprietors should take this web site as an model, very clean Xialis Rx – Get Stronger And Last Longer! | SpecialOffer fantastic user genial style and design, as well as the content.
You’re an expert in this topic!
Great work! This is the type of info that are meant to
be shared around the web. Disgrace on Google for not positioning this post higher!
Come on over Xialis Rx – Get Stronger And Last Longer! | SpecialOffer seek advice from my site .
Thank you =)
I’m really impressed with your writing skills
and also with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or
did you modify it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent
quality writing, it is rare to see a great blog like this one today.
my homepage :: Max Steel Pills – Get Steel-Hard Erections! | SpecialOffer
Great post! We are linking to this particularly great content
on our site. Keep up the good writing.
My blog; Xialis Rx – Boost Your Testosterone Today! | SpecialOffer!
I do trust all the concepts you have introduced on your post.
They’re really convincing and can definitely work.
Still, TruVirility Pills – The #1 Performance Support Pill Is Here! |Review posts are too
quick for starters. May you please prolong them a bit from next time?
Thank you for the post.
With havin so much written content do you ever run into any issues of plagorism or copyright infringement?
My website has a lot of completely unique content I’ve either created myself or
outsourced but it seems a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my authorization. Do you know
any methods to help protect against content from being ripped off?
I’d truly appreciate it.
I as well as my pals appeared to be analyzing the great secrets located on your site
while then I got a horrible feeling I had not expressed respect to the blog owner for those techniques.
Those boys are already consequently excited to
see them and have now in reality been making the most of those things.
I as well as my pals appeared to be analyzing the great secrets located on your site
while then I got a horrible feeling I had not expressed respect to the blog owner for those techniques.
Those boys are already consequently excited to
see them and have now in reality been making the most of those things.
href=https://webdooniya.com/how-to-find-instantaneous-velocity-definition-formula/>amazing visit now(s)
Aslında bahis ikisinin birbiriyle rastgele bir istanbulbahis ilgisinin bulunmadığını söylemek de mümkün olabilmekte.
Hi! This article is so great! Thank you for sharing this awesome information. I liked the way you presented your information. I enjoy reading this article which includes lots of helpful information its very interesting and amazing.
https://balmainelectrical.com.au/residential-electrician-birchgrove/
Spot on with this write-up, I absolutely believe this website needs far more attention. Ill probably be returning to read through more, thanks for the information!.