“The magnitude of the increase is unprecedented.”
A new study published by NASA’s Norman Loeb and co-authors examines the CERES satellite instruments’ measurements of how Earth’s radiative energy budget has changed. The period they study is rather limited, 2005-2019, probably to be able to use the most extensive Argo float deep-ocean temperature data.
The study includes some rather detailed partitioning of what sunlight-reflecting and infrared-emitting processes are responsible for the changes, which is very useful. They also point out that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is responsible for some of what they see in the data, while anthropogenic forcings (and feedbacks from all natural and human-caused forcings) presumably account for the rest.
One of the encouraging results for NASA’s CERES Team is that the rate of increase in the accumulation of radiant energy in the climate system is the same in the satellite observations as it is when computed from in situ data, primarily the Argo float measurements of the upper half of the ocean depths. It should be noted, however, that the absolute value of the imbalance cannot be measured by the CERES satellite instruments; instead, the ocean warming is used to make a “energy-balanced” adjustment to the satellite data (which is the “EB” in the CERES EBAF dataset). Nevertheless, the CERES dataset is proving to be extremely valuable, even if its absolute accuracy is not as high as we would like in climate research.
The main problem I have is with the media reporting of these results. The animated graph in the Verge article shows a planetary energy imbalance of about 0.5 W/m2 in 2005 increasing to about 1.0 W/m2 in 2019.
First of all, the 0.5 to 1.0 W/m2 energy imbalance is much smaller than our knowledge of any of the natural energy flows in the climate system. It can be compared to the estimated natural energy flows of 235-245 W/m2 in and out of the climate system on an annual basis, approximately 1 part in 300.
Secondly, since we don’t have good global energy imbalance measurements before this period, there is no justification for the claim, “the magnitude of the increase is unprecedented.” To expect the natural energy flows in the climate system to stay stable to 1 part in 300 over thousands of years has no scientific basis, and is merely a statement of faith. We have no idea whether such changes have occurred in centuries past.
This is not to fault the CERES data. I think that NASA’s Bruce Wielicki and Norm Loeb have done a fantastic job with these satellite instruments and their detailed processing of those data.
What bothers me is the alarmist language attached to (1) such a tiny number, and (2) the likelihood that no one will bother to mention the authors attribute part of the change to a natural climate cycle, the PDO.
Thank you for clarifying this article.
> First of all, the 0.5 to 1.0 W/m2 energy imbalance is much smaller than our knowledge of any of the natural energy flows in the climate system.
We might not want to observe a planet where energy imbalance is bigger that its natural energy flows.
An A/C planet, perhaps?
Added to “But Trace Gas”:
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
Wee Willy,
There is no “energy imbalance” causing heating. The Earth has cooled. It radiated more energy than it received. How can it do otherwise?
Learn some physics, you idiot!
Or keep on being a climate crackpot, if you prefer.
Mike Flynn,
You say:
“There is no energy imbalance.”
Roy says:
“I think that NASAs Bruce Wielicki and Norm Loeb have done a fantastic job with these satellite instruments and their detailed processing of those data.”
The study found an energy imbalance.
Who should we believe, Sky Dragons you deny just about everything, or Roy, Bruce, and Norm?
Best,
Wondering Wee Willy,
You and your ilk may believe as you wish.
You might even want to agree with Richard Feynman who said “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
The Earth has cooled. Feel free to imagine otherwise.
Mike Flynn,
Contrarians have a thin bench.
Sky Dragons have no bench at all.
That’s all that matters.
Deal with it.
Every time there’s a convective outburst one could say that it’s because of an energy imbalance. The very act of convection brings the atmosphere back into balance. You clamor about the heat wave out west as evidence of a heating up planet, and totally ignore the record low temps expected in the east, which I will beat my previous record low for tomorrow by several degrees. It’s your thinking that resulted in dozens of deaths in Texas due to record cold last February. The earth is not heating up. It’s impossible due to the convective nature of our atmosphere. As far as the heat out west, it’s the result of the recent LaNina which has ended. Heat waves and droughts in the west have lasted as long as 200 years, so consider yourself lucky.
The climate is controlled by 2 things. Solar output and ocean cycles, and they don’t always jive with each other so there’s going to be considerable variation in the climate
It’s impossible for CO2 to be the driver of our climate. Period
Eli wrote:
Convection only moves energy from the surface and lower atmosphere to higher elevations. That process does not remove that energy from the Earth to deep space, which must occur or the planet would overheat. CO2 has a major roll in that final process, which you apparently are ignoring.
> the record low temps expected in the east
We’ll see when ren and Eben harp about it.
Sounded good until you used jive instead of jibe.
>> controlled by 2 things. Solar output and ocean cycles.. impossible for CO2 to be the driver
Sure [sarcastically], and an oven is controlled by two things as well, the heating quantity of the heating element and convection inside the oven,.. and definitely absolutely not at all [more sarcasm] by how far open the door is left ajar.
Thought experiment of very, very well insulated oven set to max for 1 hour (inside of an average temperature kitchen).
1.a Oven door is closed 0% (aka wide open) for an hour so that lots of heat leaves oven confinement.
1.b Heating element remains at max level.
1.c Quantity of heat escaping through large opening is deduced/measured to be Q0.
1.d Q0 out matches heating element Q.
2.a Oven door is closed 99% afterward for 1 hour to allow buildup of temperature inside.
2.b Heating element still at max level.
2.c Quantity of heat escaping through tiny opening is deduced/measured to be Q1.
2.d Q1 out matches heating element Q. Again.
We have matching amounts of heat going out of the oven at stability points, yet with nothing different except the closing of the door, we find that the temperature inside changed dramatically.
Moral: Don’t judge the temperature changes inside by a few observations of heat escaping.
The planet is not an oven, but there are similarities with increasing CO2 and closing the oven door. That similarity is not obvious until we have a model of CO2 and analyze it fairly well (using data capture in the analysis feedback loop). We can argue about the analogy all day long, but the math/analysis/measurements will ultimately decide if the analogy is worth it.
Adding CO2 adds more energy capture sources of photon energy that would otherwise have left into space on a more direct path. We also have more sources of photons, true. A nice physical model exists that allows us to conclude that the temperature will rise inside somewhere to a different equilibrium point. This will coincide with the same outward facing escape heat profile before and after but with a higher temperature level near the surface when we have higher levels of CO2. How much higher is what the math and models are designed to predict. Again, more CO2 adds more sinks in the atmosphere so that release of photon energy near the surface takes a longer amount of time to reach space. I believe in a nutshell and simply that covers modern theory on climate warming from CO2 increases.
>> You clamor about the heat wave out west as evidence of a heating up planet, and totally ignore the record low temps expected in the east
The belief the planet is in warming trend is based upon the imbalance of evidence favoring the warming side of the ledger. It’s impossible to bring up every piece of data to defend warming of the planet in every discussion and at the same time expect that no evidence can be brought up for the cooling side of things.
>> ..in Texas due to record cold last February.. Heat waves and droughts in the west have lasted as long as 200 years..
See? There is always data on the cold side one can bring up. And this is but a sliver of the overall cold evidence. The warming side is still much larger.
If there are loads of ice at the polar caps and if “a convective outburst” is a thing (both true), then let’s not be too surprised that somewhere like Texas experienced a very cold brief period at some point. [The planet, thank goodness, is not warming up so fast that we are done with white Christmases.]
On the other hand, the cold blast made it down to Texas! That also goes on the warming side of the ledger. One could say, as the polar regions are taking a warming beating, they still manage to add a little frost to the rest of the planet in revenge. But the cold is losing.
Our planet’s climate is always changing.
So there is always an “energy imbalance”.
”
“Climate change” and “energy imbalance”
are two useless, generic phrases.
Changing Climate is more apt than Climate Change.
SOLAR DECREASE UPDATE:
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/19/1008248475/the-record-temperatures-enveloping-the-west-is-not-your-average-heat-wave
Changing Climate allows for all sorts of variations.
Climate change too.
>> “Climate change” and “energy imbalance” are two useless, generic phrases.
Useless for conducting science but not useless for communicating efficiently amongst trusting individuals.
All you disingenuous and dishonest haters that have been attacking me for claiming that Climate “Scientists” blame 100% of the warming on CO2, Dr. Spencer clearly states that the Climate Models assume Natural Energy Balance, ie the only variable is man-made CO2.
https://youtu.be/sqbsvR5Ik9M
https://imgur.com/QbBB6tP
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, Climate scientists aren’t studying the climate, they are selectively identifying data to support the myth of CO2 causing the Warming. BTW, the graphic Dr Spencer uses shows a dog-leg in 1990. Nothing about the trend is CO2 would justify a dog-leg. My bet is however that cloud cover has decreased since 1990 if that data is anywhere near accurate.
https://imgur.com/aezjwJ9
> Nothing about the trend is CO2 would justify a dog-leg.
Technical analysis is astrology for men.
Willard, how could CO2 cause the rapid change in temperature post 1990? The trend totally changes and you are blaming CO2. What changed in the physics of the CO2 molecule in 1990? That is the question every real scientist would ask. What changed with regards to CO2. Simply answer that question.
Life,
Thank you for your question.
If CO2 was the only parameter in the equation, your curve fitting exercise would at least make sense. I’m not saying that it would be conclusive or anything, for that you’d need a mechanism. But it would still make sense.
In return, let me ask *you* a question:
Do you think red baiting has ever worked except to get more people killed?
Williard:
https://youtu.be/hs70QLpBBvo
https://imgur.com/I9kto8G
Are you telling me that your eyes are telling you that there isn’t a sharp change in trend in this temperature chart?
https://imgur.com/aezjwJ9
If yes, get your eyes examined. There is a clear change of trend immediately starting in 1990. I ask again. What changed about the physics of the CO2 molecule in 1990? If you can’t explain a dog-leg in a chart, you can’t explain any of it because there are clearly hugely significant factors that are not understood. Once again, what is causing all the dog-legs?
CO2Lifer, HERE’s another view of that ocean data. Looking at the smoothed curve fit, there doesn’t appear to be a sharp “dogleg” inflection at 1990. The old hairy eyeball curve may be misleading you.
Life,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting
I’m telling you that inference is not something that you can do with your eye balls.
Wacky Wee Willy Asshat wrote –
“Im telling you that inference is not something that you can do with your eye balls.”
I’m telling you that you are an idiot, you presumptuous patronising donkey.
Keep braying.
Mike Flynn,
Good morning.
“What changed in the physics of the CO2 molecule in 1990?”
_________________________________________________________
Nothing. Physical laws dont change. Only the amount of CO2 in atmosphhere incrases, but not only in 1990; it increases exponentially since beginning of industrialisation. Therefore, of course, warming accelerates.
Then why were they bleating about a coming ice age in the 60s to early 80s? Ice started to expand as CO2 increased. 1880s to the early 50s was as warm as now. CO2 is not a variable. We are not considering all the variables, nor are we aware of all the variables. It is an integrated system, yet they appear to be measuring the contents of a beachball with linear analysis. Oceans, clouds, moisture content,solar,galactic.
“We are not considering all the variables, nor are we aware of all the variables.”
True for you, perhaps. For science, not so much.
To say that science is only considering CO2 is ridiculous. But it is a common strawman posted here.
@Nate – so if so many other things are important, why are people only concerned about CO2 when it comes to climate?
CO2 clearly doesn’t drive warming as the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not very good anymore (if it ever was a good correlation).
>> Then why were they bleating about a coming ice age in the 60s to early 80s?
I’m sure some were, but a study iirc of journal entries suggested the ratio in the 70s was something like 7 to 1 in favor of warming. By 1979 the US Academy of Sciences had put a very unambiguous position paper out that the climate was clearly warming and it was because of CO2 as the driver. Also by that year there were very good papers out on modeling the atmosphere that included both convection and radiation.
>> CO2 clearly doesnt drive warming as the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not very good
They both have upward trends with CO2 being clearer. Despite the usual natural sources and sinks of CO2, CO2 has been going up overall for decades. There are many studies of the past that show temperature lags CO2 potentially by many centuries, so I would not try to correlate the two too strongly to judge immediate cause and effect.
CO2 as a driver is based on scientific principles (and much experimental data of workings of CO2 in other contexts). Think of it as a little tweak of the dial in an air conditioned controlled environment. A small little change can lead to large effects. Ironically, the majority of the gain in temperature is from water but due to the increase in CO2. Water comes out of solution in the air quickly but CO2 doesn’t. Small changes in CO2 levels leads to slight increases that lead statistically to more average quantity of water in the air that multiplies the effect until the balance of outgoing radiation into space is re-established (at that higher temperature). So directly H2O is responsible for more temp rises, but the driver for more H2O comes from the growing CO2.
It looks like methane from permafrost could become a significant contributor as well, again as a result of effects initiated and sustained by higher levels of CO2.
>> of the past that show temperature lags CO2
My bad. It’s the other way around. The point was to suggest that there are differences between these two in the short term.
But while on the topic. The natural approach many times is that temperature leads, then CO2 follows as it bubbles out of the ocean for example. Man has flipped that storyline around and has initiated temperature rises by affecting the CO2 first. It’s hard to believe temperatures would have risen anything to the level they have in these past decades (post 1970s) had there been no contributor but nature alone (with solar sources being relatively stable during the time). In fact during the past few decades some contrarians had predicted a new ice age to have occurred by about now, instead temperatures have continued to rise and even faster than in earlier decades.. as predicted by CO2 analysis.
RE: “Technical analysis is astrology for men.”
Love it!
“been attacking me for claiming that Climate ‘Scientists’ blame 100% of the warming on CO2”
Did you bother to read Roy’s article? It highlights that these climate scientists are NOT doing that.
“They also point out that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is responsible for some of what they see in the data, while anthropogenic forcings (and feedbacks from all natural and human-caused forcings) presumably account for the rest.”
So your ‘100% CO2’ claim is evidently a strawman. Shocking.
Nate Says:
“Did you bother to read Roys article? It highlights that these climate scientists are NOT doing that.”
Simply watch the video.
https://youtu.be/sqbsvR5Ik9M
Dr. Spencer is making every point I’ve made thousands of times and have been attacked for it.
Here is the graphic if you don’t want to watch the video.
https://imgur.com/I9a0qlR
Shocking, either Nate is lying to you or your eyes and ears are.
“They also point out that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is responsible for some of what they see in the data, while anthropogenic forcings (and feedbacks from all natural and human-caused forcings) presumably account for the rest.”
But I though you said that the PDO was not periodic and had little effect on air temperatures overall.
Not periodic, and nothing in this paper suggests that.
I have said that ENSO has a clear but small effect on global temps, and PDO appears to as well, in part thru modulating ENSO.
And BTW over the short 2005-2019 period discussed the 2016 Super El Nino will have a considerable influence. Associated with that was a jump in PDO.
https://tinyurl.com/5ft6ytxp
T ~ 0.1*PDO
And the PDO covers how much of the Earth’s surface?
Swanson says: CO2Lifer, HERE’s another view of that ocean data. Looking at the smoothed curve fit, there doesn’t appear to be a sharp “dogleg” inflection at 1990. The old hairy eyeball curve may be misleading you.
Are you kidding me? OK, the Dog-Leg occurs in 1985, but there is clearly a dog-leg. Between 1955 and 1985 the chart increased 2.5, from 1985 to 2020 it increased 30, or over 10x.
Problems a real scientist would focus on:
1) Heteroschedasticity, clearly the volatility pre and post 1985 dramatically changes.
2) Relative randomness pre 1985, and linear post 1985. Auto/serial-correlation appears post 1985.
3) The physics of the CO2 molecule didn’t change in 1985.
4) You have provided 2 different charts with dog-legs at different periods, no “settled” science has multiple charts telling different stories for the same observation. That is Orwellian Nonsense.
5) The trend in CO2 didn’t materially change between 1955 and 2020.
6) The W/M^2 of CO2 shows a log decay. The impact of CO2 would show a flattening of the curve, not a steepening of it.
7) Visible radiation penetrates and warms the oceans, not LWIR
8) CO2 is relatively linear, the marginal change in W/M^2 with an increase in CO2 shows a log decay (diminishing returns)
Simply study the physics of the CO2 molecule and you will understand why none of these charts support CO2 as the cause of warming. If you want to see the impact of CO2 on temperatures, isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures. When you do that, what do you find? No warming.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo
https://imgur.com/a/siHPINY
CO2isLife says:
*micdrop*
Everybody else:
*crickets*
Lol?
Life is a boring memer.
Regulars just ignore his spamming.
Welcome aboard!
>> 2) Relative randomness pre 1985, and linear post 1985. Auto/serial-correlation appears post 1985.
Temperature rates are also colored by internal earth variability (sloshing around of heat, including bringing them up from oceans, and dealing with melting ice which consumes heat without any temperature increase due to melting itself).
As the CO2-based longer term upward drift increases in speed, this precise effect is sometimes enhanced and sometimes mitigated (on short term bases) by natural short term variability. This is why climate scientists prefer to look at 30 year intervals or so.. but people on forums insist on focusing and fighting over yearly changes.
>> 3) The physics of the CO2 molecule didn’t change in 1985.
If CO2 additions by man would stop overnight, temperatures would keep going up for a while. Think of it as new yeast being added to bread in the oven. The yeast you inject into it now won’t have full effects for a while to come. The fact we are adding even more CO2 means the total effects to be realized in the future keep going up, which potentially leads to increases in rate of temp rises at least up to a point.
5) >> The trend in CO2 didn’t materially change between 1955 and 2020.
Not true or misleading. The world continues to industrialize in many places that weren’t back in 1955 and we accordingly are building more products. There is more tree cutting for farmland and growing livestock. Cement production has continued to rise. We make improvements in efficiency but to suggest we are almost the same to 1955 is not accurate. Each new decade has added the same as the prior decade and then some.
>> 6) The W/M^2 of CO2 shows a log decay. The impact of CO2 would show a flattening of the curve, not a steepening of it.
Log decay is if you analyze an initial amount of CO2 and add no more. And that decay is over a hundred years to get sizable reductions — again assuming we stop adding more CO2.
[Integrating the yearly differentials:] If human activities add 0 CO2 per year, the current CO2 levels will decay slowly until they reach back to natural equilibrium levels. If human activities add a constant amount of CO2 each year, current CO2 levels will grow linearly. If human activities add more each new year (on average linearly growth in CO2 yearly additions), then the overall CO2 follows a quadratic path upwards. In other words, the total CO2 is the integral of the yearly changes, with the understanding that if humans add 0 per year, the overall additions per year to the atmosphere will revert to negative to move in the direction of natural sinks/sources equilibrium below current levels.
Overall CO2 amounts in the past few decades seem somewhat linear in appearance because the actual “quadratic” (aka, faster-than-linear) growth is very slow since humans yearly produce a small fraction of all natural sources combined (and is further masked by variability within the planet year to year).
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988 to blame climate change on humans.
The underlying goal was to give the United Nations new powers as a world government of climate change and energy use.
UN members decided they wanted the new powers themselves.
The IPCC mission was made very clear in 1995 when they declared all natural causes of climate change were “noise”.
They provided no logical explanation for declaring that 4.5 billion years of natural climate change had “died”, at some time during the 20th century (perhaps 1975?), and greenhouse gasses were “made the boss”.
That’s when I knew the always wrong coming climate crisis predictions, that I trace back to Roger Revelle in 1957, was science-free scaremongering, to create fear, for political purposes.
64 consecutive years of always wrong predictions of a coming climate crisis.
About 40 years of climate computer games predicting more than double the warming that actually happens (based on the average computer game projection, representing the government bureaucrat climate science consensus, which is obviously wrong).
No improvement in climate computer game accuracy in about 40 years, proving that accurate projections are NOT a goal.
No emphasis on the only climate model whose projections are not far above observations — the Russian INM model.
The Russian model is simply blended in with all the other less accurate models.
Can you imagine meteorologists with dozens of weather forecasting models, ignoring the one model that makes the best forecasts, preferring to use an average of all the weather forecasting models, to make inaccurate forecasts?
And then we’ve have re-writing of global average temperature history.
In 1974, officials reported -0.5 to -0.6 degree C. of global cooling from 1940 to 1970.
Now the numbers are only from zero to -0.1 degrees cooling, with slightly different years.
That was obvious science fraud.
Done because falling temperatures, with rising CO2 levels, were inconvenient data — didn’t fit the CO2 is the climate control knob narrative — so the global cooling was gradually “adjusted away”.
Government bureaucrat climate science is much closer to junk science than real science.
There is a political agenda supported by always wrong, scary predictions of the future climate, made with excessive confidence, and no uncertainty.
And while we hear those always wrong predictions of coming climate doom every year, we have about seven billion witnesses who lived with up to 45 years of ACTUAL global warming since the mid-1970s.
And those 45 years had mild, beneficial warming, with CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere that greened our planet.
The greatest warming has been in colder areas of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly during the colder months of the year, and mainly at night.
Think of warmer winter nights in Siberia as the “poster child” of global warming since the mid-1970s.
How is that a climate emergency?
Again with the RG monthly declaration there is only “beneficial warming”.
Again we ignore the fact that humans have always thrived in the temperate zone of the planet. The parts with consistent rainfall and moderate temps that enabled agriculture and minimized deaths from heat waves and tropical diseases.
But RG lives in the cold upper Midwest, and is over 60. Hence he considers warming a desirable outcome.
Here’s two plans for him that won’t affect the rest of us.
Get an electric blanket!
Or move to Florida! Enjoy year round heat and humidity and bugs.
Reminds me of another “emergency”, which seems to have followed a very similar Modus Operandi, the start of which was perpetrated early last year and which is ongoing even now….
“The underlying goal was to give the United Nations new powers as a world government of climate change and energy use.”
Just substitute ‘global health responses’ for ‘climate change and energy use’.
*cough*
Dr. Spencer, you make the claim that CO2 must cause some warming.
https://youtu.be/sqbsvR5Ik9M
https://imgur.com/eTF6sVN
I would argue these points:
1) CO2 COOLS the stratosphere by speeding the energy out of the system
2) CO2 and H2O absorb the same wavelengths, so when H2O is present, CO2 won’t cause any warming.
3) To identify the true contribution of CO2 you have to control for the UHI Effect and Water Vapor. That is Antarctica and Deserts. Those locations show no warming. Nada, ZIP.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo
https://imgur.com/a/siHPINY
Also, how can CO2 cause the dog-leg in 1990?
https://imgur.com/aezjwJ9
CO@Lifer, It’s a problem with your eyes:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-731772
your
What is total cooling from stratosphere?
100% Proof Positive. Dr. Spencer specifically states that climate models assume 100% warming is due to Man. 100%.
https://imgur.com/I9a0qlR
Just go back and read the responders to my posts. These are very dishonest and disingenuous people that have attacked me for making that very claim. If you want to know how much warming is due to CO2, simply look at Antarctica and the deserts. No model needed, simply look at the data.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo
Dr Spencer, how could back-radiation ever cause the oceans to warm? The oceans saturate the air above them with H2O. Look at modtran. Look up from the surface of the oceans and add as much CO2 as you want and you won’t change the actual backradiation at all if you add H20. The saturates air above the oceans literally makes CO2 irrelevant. CO2 only impacts the climate when H2O precipitates out, and then it actually works to cool the stratosphere.
https://youtu.be/sqbsvR5Ik9M
Look up from the surface and change CO2 from 400 to 800 and just slightly alter the H20 from 1.1 to 1. You actually cool the atmosphere.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Based on your data showing slowly rising temperatures since 1979, is this even surprising?
The UAH data does not show slowly rising temperatures. All of the increase to date occurs in two discrete steps that are coincident with super El Ninos. It is surprising that ENSO is not considered in the CERES analysis. As a chaotic oscillator, ENSO never balances.
https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/15/the-new-pause/
Another step on Da Escalator:
https://skepticalscience.com/escalator
Another idiotic comment accompanied by another pointless link from the Idiot Wee Willy.
He’s a strange lad, is Wee Willy. Appeals to the authority of other fantasists, cartoonists, and assorted other climate crackpots.
What a guy!
Mike Flynn,
No authority is required to recall that contrarians fall for Da Escalator.
All one needs is to click the link see it.
Go ahead, click on it.
Swoon,
Whacko Wee Willy,
Da Escalator? Skeptical Science?
You are an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Tell me if Roy answers your silliness.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Why would I bother doing anything you ask, and to which “silliness” do you refer?
Mike Flynn,
It was a rhetorical question.
I am referring to the comment you posted in response to one of Roy’s comments.
Did you tell him you were Mike Flynn?
Woeful Wee Willy,
Why should I bother doing anything you ask, I ask again?
Whether you think facts are “silliness” is up to you. Other people are obviously free to think otherwise. Is your unsupported opinion somehow valuable?
I think not. Can you provide support for a contrary view?
Mike Flynn,
If you cared about honor, you’d tell Roy that you’re Mike Flynn.
You would not hide under a sock puppet to bypass his ban.
Is this clearer this time?
“You would not hide under a sock puppet”
As you do you mean?
That “no u” is overly silly Richard.
Since you like incorrect formalism:
sock puppet != pseudonym
If you can guess why that’s an incorrect statement, you’ll get a cookie.
Both serve to hide your true identity.
Sure, RLH.
“Another step on Da Escalator”
What goes up must come down.
No U.
I already told you, most alphabets contain a U
You say lots of irrelevant things, Richard.
You say a lot more
What comes in must come out.
The 40 year UAH trend is up.
All surface data compilations are up trends too.
With only two choices for our planet, warming or cooling trends, I am confident the past 45 years have been a warming trend.
No amount of data mining can change that trend.
Whether the two super El Ninos in 1998 ans 2015/2016 are unique events, that will never be offset by La Ninas, remains to be seen
But the long term ENSO trend adds up to near zero.
So does the PDO eventually. But it also contains wriggles that are over 30 years long.
That are not well correlated to the rising trend.
A hockey stick corresponds quite well to the rising trend, apparently.
Dr. Spencer, your model assumes a death spiral and your model accurately reflects highly suspect data. GIGO.
https://imgur.com/aezjwJ9
Here are some things to consider:
1) You have evidence the oceans are warming
2) There has been fewer clouds over the oceans since 1990
3) Henry’s Law explains how warmer oceans would de-gas CO2
4) More CO2 would warm the oceans more
5) Warmer oceans would degas more CO2 leading to a death spiral
6) CO2 has been as high at 7,000 ppm and the earth never experienced a death spiral
7) Life, including corals reefs, thrived with much higher levels of CO2
8) Use Modtran and look up from the surface, and then again from 0.1 km altitude. That is the layer of the atmosphere that would directly warm the oceans. Change the level of CO2 and measure the change in energy in that layer of the atmosphere. It won’t change much.
9) Nothing about the trend in CO2 would have caused that dogleg in 1990, something else must be causing that warming
1) yes, CO2 cools the stratosphere. All climate models that produce tropospheric warming also produce stratospheric cooling, too. That’s what greenhouse gases do, they warm the lower atmosphere and cool the upper atmosphere.
2) CO2 and H2O do not absorb the same wavelengths, but even if they did, it wouldn’t matter. The more greenhouse gas an atmosphere has, the greater the greenhouse effect (warming below, cooling above).
CO2 likely didn’t cause the dog-leg in 1990 (as shown by the model fit in my presentation slide #6)… it could be an artefact of poor data coverage of the deep oceans, or a sudden reduction in aerosol pollution around that time. Maybe some natural climate fluctuation. Who knows?
Roy Spencer
Thank you very much for this, even it won’t change a bit in the perpetual mispresentation of real facts AND presentation of pseudofacts by the usual suspect.
J.-P. D.
Bindy, maybe you missed this “CO2 likely didnt cause the dog-leg in 1990.”
If you can’t explain a dog leg you can’t explain any of the data. There is clearly some highly significant factors that are unknown. You can either model the post-1990 data or the pre-1990, but no model would be valid that explain bother without explaining why a dog leg occurred. That is simple modeling 101.
Also, CO2 and H20 do absorb the same wavelengths.
https://imgur.com/cBaqWUJ
And CO2’is’Life really believes that anyone (other than a few stubborn denialists) would trust him, a simple layman, more than in Roy Spencer!
Incredible.
J.-P. D.
Bindy, maybe you don’t understand what Dr. Spencer said in the video.
1) Climate Data is garbage and unreliable if it exists as all
2) Climate models don’t model the climate
3) Climate models assume 100% of the warming is due to man-made CO2.
What am I missing?
What you are missing is all what you don’t want to see, and hence aren’t able to read, digest and grasp:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-731671
And now, baby, stop boring me.
“2) CO2 and H2O do not absorb the same wavelengths, but even if they did, it wouldn’t matter. The more greenhouse gas an atmosphere has, the greater the greenhouse effect (warming below, cooling above).”
The problem is more profound. Modtran does suggest they would be overlapped, yet it could be wrong. I mean picking “tropical atmoshpere”, I get 307,123W/m2 in emissions with 400ppm, and 339,12 with 0ppm, a difference of 31.997W/m2. Setting vapor to 0, that differnce grows to 43,018W/m2, suggesting some 25% superimposition.
Yet modtran assumes every deviation from a black body emission curve would be due to GHGs (or at least aerosols), and does not account for deviations with surface emissivity. And surface emissivity is only about 0.91!
https://greenhousedefect.com/what-is-the-surface-emissivity-of-earth
Either way, the problem is all these models, even the “GHE” itself, are assuming no overlapping by GHGs, a perfectly emitting surface, and no clouds. This causes huge error margins. Sorting them out, bit by bit, has the potential to blow up current “climate science”. It does matter a lot!
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/the-beast-under-the-bed-part-2
I might add I “nullified” CH4, Ozone and Freon, so to only check for an overlay of CO2 and vapor.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.html
2) CO2 and H2O do not absorb the same wavelengths, but even if they did, it wouldn’t matter. The more greenhouse gas an atmosphere has, the greater the greenhouse effect (warming below, cooling above).
I’m not sure I understand this concept. There is 1 photon. No matter how many GHG molecules there are, there is only 1 photon to absorb and re-emit. You can’t create energy by simply adding more GHGs. If you could we could power the world with GHG generators. What does happen is with more GHGs, the distance between absorbing molecules is shortened, so the warming layer increases in height, but it doesn’t increase in temperature. This principle gets reversed with altitude, and GHGs actually work to speed the release of energy from the atmosphere by converting slowly moving conduction and convection thermal energy to rapidly moving radiative energy. Think of the atmosphere as a group of inverted funnels. It is easy to leave, but hard to come back down. The hole at the bottom is much later than the hole at the top, so once you leave the funnel, the path of least resistance it to pass through the next funnel above instead of trying to make it back through the small hole in the lower funnel.
“You can’t create energy by simply adding more GHGs”
GHGs will never create energy, not even the first GHG-molecule. I probably should not say it here, since I know Dr. Spencer has certain beliefs, but “back radiation” is not causing any GHE. In short, “back radiation” as any radiation, is a function of temperature, not vice versa.
I mean, just look at the emission spectrum of Earth. It should intuitively explain what the GHE is. Or use modtran for instance. It is all about emission altitude and furthermore emission temperature. “Back radiation” has nothing to do with it.
Also GHGs are NEVER saturated, adding them will always increase emission altitude and lower emission temperature. And the superimposition of GHGs AND clouds is where the huge confusion is.
Just think about it. What if a GHG within a certain spectral line should elevate the emission level to say 4.000m, while there is a cloud pushing the emission level to actually 5.000m.
Then what is the effect of the GHG, and what the effect of the cloud? Enjoy 😉
“1) yes, CO2 cools the stratosphere.”
How much does stratosphere cool. And how much does CO2 cool the stratosphere?
It seems to me, if got planet which has stratosphere, will it be cold.
As general thing, I don’t think gases cool much from radiating and thinner {lower density] gases radiate less.
The thermosphere has a lot lower gas density than stratosphere, but gas molecule hitting each other at much velocity [compared stratosphere- or troposphere]. Thermosphere is +2000 C [due to high collision but does not convect or radiate any amount energy which can warm something- it’s not warm and cool, it’s like space which has no temperature. So thermosphere glows fiercely, but such high temperature emissions are not said to cooling thermosphere by any significant amount.
Now if put some dust up into stratosphere, the dust will cool the stratosphere. Dust actually has temperature, and gas molecule temperature is the average velocity lots molecules is counted within some volume of space in which hit each other.
But don’t know how much the stratosphere, it probably cool by some amount. What is the amount?
Now, I am know living in an Ice Age, and I don’t think warming is problem.
It seems warming causes deserts to green. If think warming is going to cause water vapor, then that is pretty obvious. But how exactly, is the interesting bit.
So, one could a question what is the warmest ocean and/or what is the average surface temperature of the Pacific Ocean.
What is warmest ocean gets the answer the Indian ocean:
“Here are the oceans in order of their temperature:
1. Indian Ocean”
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-ocean-is-the-warmest.html
And next one is The Pacific.
Indian ocean being warm, is due about 1/2 being tropical ocean {not that anyone said this obvious thing]. Anyhow I guessed Indian Ocean average +17 C. And Pacific was around 17 C, but it seems the northern Hemisphere pacific Ocean would about +17 C, and it’s southern Hemisphere of pacific ocean which makes entire pacific ocean about 17 C. And it’s seems Pacific average fluctuate a bit {due how big it is the average doesn’t change as much- but if cut Pacific at equator, then Northern Hemisphere Pacific is somewhere close to 18 C, and if it were warm by 1 degree, what is effect it?}. But anyhow I haven’t got to Atlantic ocean yet and wondering anyone knew it’s average surface temperature?
“Maybe some natural climate fluctuation.”
Or a combination of different climate fluctuations at different semi-periods. Wriggles as I like to call them.
” CO2 and H2O do not absorb the same wavelengths, but even if they did, it wouldnt matter.”
If CO2 and H2O absorbed exactly the same wavelengths, together they would approach saturation of those wavelengths faster than if they did not.
“2) CO2 and H2O do not absorb the same wavelengths”
“The effect of overlapping between the CO2 band and the water vapor band is taken into consideration by adopting the following approximate equation..” (Manabe, Strickler 1964)
To expect the natural energy flows in the climate system to stay stable to 1 part in 300 over thousands of years has no scientific basis, and is merely a statement of faith. We have no idea whether such changes have occurred in centuries past.
The paleo temperature and sea level reconstructions at least would bound on any long term natural energy imbalance and form a scientific basis for this statement.
Mark B
I agree.
J.-P. D.
Dr. Spencer,
I know that you like experiments. Using infrared camera pointed to sky at night, your greenhouse gas and backradiation are nowhere to be captured? Surf the net for a mature infrared videos of sky at night. So where is this greenhouse gas effect that continues after the sun goes down or after we stop producing carbon dioxide?
Nabil:
Yes, I did this 8 years ago. Read especially the last 3 paragraphs.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/imaging-the-greenhouse-effect-with-a-flir-i7-thermal-imager/
…and this, from 11 years ago:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
Dr Spencer,
Every square foot of surface has about 1 ton of atmosphere pressing upon it. This ton of atmosphere is radiating energy. It is above absolute zero. It doesn’t matter whether it is O2, N2, CO2 or whatever – all radiating proportional to absolute temperature.
And of course, the amount of radiation depends on density, which varies with altitude, amongst other things.
Point your IR thermometer at the sky normal to the surface. How many tons of radiating gases are included in the view of your instrument? Are you really surprised that your instrument is responding to such infrared radiation? Point your instrument closer toward the horizon. The temperature increases, as you are now reading the radiation from a longer optical depth of denser, hotter, atmosphere closer to the surface.
Of course air has a temperature! Climate crackpots manage to convince themselves that O2 and N2 cannot radiate IR, but then acknowledge that air temperature can be measured! Everything above absolute zero radiates IR. Removing any of the atmospheric constituents form a sample of air makes not one jot of difference to the temperature, nor should it.
The fact that nobody at all can even say where this mythical “Greenhouse Effect” may be observed and measured, might indicate that it is a chimera. Pointing an IR thermometer at the sky, or measuring radiation emitted by the atmosphere with highly sophisticated radiometric equipment is evidence of nothing more than the fact that all matter above absolute aero emits radiation.
Very good comment, Mike Flynn!
Whimsical Wee Willy,
Can’t bring yourself to face facts? Even though you have addressed your plaudits to your imaginary foe, I will accept your opinion – in this case.
Thanks for acknowledging the “goodness” of my comment.
There, you see. I even accept praise from idiots and asshats. Unbisaed, that’s me!
Mike Flynn,
Enjoy your evening,
Swenson
N2 and CO2 are transparent to IR at atmospheric temperatures. Water vapor, clouds and CO2 are not, and at many frequencies absorb some to all of the IR depending on beam length. Since you refer to believers of these basic scientific truths as ‘crackpots’, there is really no reason to have any discussion with you on the topic, and I only post this so newbies can do some basic reading and determine the flaws in your mis-statements.
Swenson made no mention of transparency of N2 and O2 to IR, but rather that all molecules radiate IR. It seems you didn’t understand his post at all. Maybe you would like to rephrase so that newbies can get a more accurate view.
“Climate crackpots manage to convince themselves that O2 and N2 cannot radiate IR”
I guess you are including Dr. Spencer in the group of crackpots, since he and all who have seen the data, agree that what you are saying here is nonsense.
Different gases radiate at different wavelengths. Why is that fact so difficult for you?
Total obfuscation as usual. Is there evidence that O2 and N2 cannot radiate IR? Where did Swenson imply gases don’t radiate at different wavelengths?
Why is having an open mind and curing your AGW dogma addiction so difficult for you?
> Is there evidence that O2 and N2 cannot radiate IR?
Have you looked, Chic:
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
“Have you looked, Chic?”
Pretty much sums up Chic.
8 years ago !
11 years ago !
You have to do the experiments again !
Maybe everything has changed since then?
ha ha
purchase antabuse
The images that you provided are in line with those available online. They do not show a bright sky at night. For 330 w m-2 of back radiation from sky we expect Orange to yellow night sky. The images do not show these colors. They are either gray, dark, or slightly blue, depending on the filter used. Sorry, there is no backradiation.
As for infrared thermometers, they are thermometers, good for short distances. No one uses them to map the sky.
Dr. Spencer,
The images that you provided are in line with those available online. They do not show a bright sky at night. For 330 w m-2 of back radiation from sky we expect Orange to yellow night sky. The images do not show these colors. They are either gray, dark, or slightly blue, depending on the filter used. Sorry, there is no backradiation.
As for infrared thermometers, they are thermometers, good for short distances. No one uses them to map the sky.
“The main problem I have is with the media reporting of these results. The animated graph in the Verge article shows a planetary energy imbalance of about 0.5 W/m2 in 2005 increasing to about 1.0 W/m2 in 2019.
OK, now let’s look at this scientifically.
1) CO2 in 1880 is about 290ppm
2) CO2 in 2005 is 377ppm
3) CO2 is currently about 413ppm
4) Temperature change between 1880 and 2005 is about 0.75 Degrees C
https://imgur.com/WjS3zAY (Note the Dog Leg in 1990)
5) Temperature change between 2005 and 2020 is about 0.75 Degrees C
6) CO2 shows a log decline in W/M^2 with an increase, so how can a smaller change in CO2 lead to equal changes in temperature if CO2 is the cause?
7) What caused the dog-leg?
8) Do the quantum physics of the CO2 molecule change in a manner that would explain a dog-leg?
9) How reliable is the data, and how would LWIR between 13 and 18 microns ever warm the deeper oceans?
10) Do we have data regarding the sunlight reaching the oceans over this time period?
11) What is causing the PDO and ADO is most likely also causing the warming elsewhere.
Surprise surprise, look what I stumbled upon.
In fact, I now believe that the PDO is critical to our understanding of global warming. This is because a change in weather circulation patterns can cause a small change in global-average cloudiness. And since clouds represent the single largest internal control on global temperatures (through their ability to reflect sunlight), a change in cloudiness associated with the PDO might explain most of the climate change weve seen in the last 100 years or more. -Dr. Roy Spencer
https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/the-pacific-decadal-oscillation/
Oh, my. So now it comes down to the color scheme applied to temperature imagery, rather than the temperatures themselves? Wow.
Hot is red, right?
Can a scientist who selects clashing colors be trusted?
Is blue cold?
Astronomers do the other way round, blue is hot, and red is cold.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-objects-strangely-feel-cooler-to-the-touch-than-blue-ones/
Nabil, I’m afraid that your lack of understanding of how radiometry works means I can no longer participate in this discussion.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002JA009390
Comparing 14 years of ARGO data to the time duration of one cycle of quasi periodic PDO is about like the satellite data is to one Gleissberg solar climate cycle. I suspect global warming in these 40 yrs of data are also somewhat influenced by a longer natural cycle. But it is hard to isolate.
Similarly the lag in temperatures to the daily solar radiance cycle could be an analogy for a lag in global response to the recent decrease in solar activity after a major sustained solar maximum.
Cycles and lags are everywhere in natural climate records.
Only alarmists love use of the word unprecedented. Those who have a brain in their head know the absurdity of its use in any climate discussion.
Agreed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-730590
You do realize what that means don’t you?
Indeed I do, Richard.
It’s easy to plan future contrarian tropes with past contrarian tropes.
Idiot
Your past performances makes me plan to ignore more “idiot” from you in the future, Richard.
>The magnitude of the increase is unprecedented.
…..Bill Nye The Science Guy
Apparently many people have been so heavily indoctrinated by the consensus assertion that CO2 causes warming that they are unable to think rationally. I, and others, keep pointing out that CO2 has no significant effect on climate but sadly many are not willing to take the blinders off.
It is really quite simple:
Since both have been accurately measured worldwide about 7 molecules of WV have been added for each molecule of CO2. Because the absor_p_tion lines of WV are spread out compared to CO2, there is less absor_p_tion overlap and each WV molecule is about 1.37 times more effective at absorbing radiation than a CO2 molecule. The result then is that WV increase has caused about 10 times more ground level warming than CO2 increase. The extra cooling from more CO2 in the stratosphere apparently compensates for the small added warming from more CO2 at ground level.
WV has been measured by NASA/RSS using satellite instrumentation and reported monthly. They assert that the measurement is quite accurate because of a high signal to noise ratio and report an RMS of about 1 mm which is about 3.4%. Their measurements show that the WV increase is about 43% more than POSSIBLE if as a result from liquid water warming (the results of feedback). This demonstrates that the human contribution to planet warming has been from WV increase, not CO2 increase.
The conclusion is the same regardless if you calculate the WV increase correctly from the relation of saturation vapor pressure to temperature of liquid water, or as done in GCMs, sometimes as calculated internally, which results in approximately constant RH with temperature increase, or by explicitly stating that RH remains constant with temperature increase.
And Salby, Berry, Harde and others have shown that most of the CO2 increase has been caused by nature and Salby has shown that CO2 follows temperature in both short and long time scales.
“have shown”
Weasel words. They have advanced maverick hypotheses that have been roundly criticised by experts. They have a different POV, and you are nowhere near educated enough on the matter to grant them preeminence.
If I see “trapping heat” one more time my head will explode
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
You go play Pocket Pool with your Climate balls
Thanks, Eben. I like it here.
How’s the head?
Wee Willy,
Oh dear, the “blanket” again! Really? Don’t these donkeys realise that peer reviewed studies show that the “Black Bedouins” wear thick dark robes in the hot desert – to keep cool!
And of course, insulation is used more often to keep things cool. The dimwits at NASA promulgating this nonsense are about as thick as you. Hard to say, really. Who is dumber?
Stick to “silly semantic tricks” and “auditing skillz”. It will be less embarrassing for you when you come out looking like an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Whining about semantics and blankets in the same comment is a thing of beauty.
You’re a gift that keeps on giving!
Love,
Wistful Wee Willy,
Is that really the best you can do, kiddo?
Not all that impressive, but not all that unexpected, either.
Mike Flynn,
The only reason I reply to you is to mention your name.
So I could write “Mike Flynn” and it would be enough for me.
If your abuses do you good, suit yourself.
See if I care.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
Mike Flynn,
“The only reason I reply to you is to mention your name.”
This shows an unhealthy fixation, to say the least. Understandable in primitive societies which did (and still do, in places) that names have magical properties.
Quite apart from that, to impute magical properties to a pseudonym used by another anonymous person, is simply bizarre!
Maybe if you could come up with a logical reason for your uncontrollable desire to write “Mike Flynn” as often as you do, you might engender some sympathy, at least. Otherwise, you might just look like what you are – an obsessive and delusional climate crackpot.
As to supposed “abuses”, why do you feel the need to feel “abused”? is this just another example of the ‘silly semantic games” you claim to be playing?
You are an idiot, that’s all. Get over yourself.
Mike Flynn,
You don’t know my needs.
Thanks!
“You dont know my needs.”
Your needs appear to be that you don’t continue to make a fool of yourself. Out of luck so far.
No U.
Most alphabets contain a U
y tho
My comment went completely over your head. Not surprising.
You need to click on “reply,” Roberto.
If I see another contrarian whine about the word “unprecedented,” it’ll be another day like any other in Climateball.
Whickering Wee Willy,
You inhabit a richly bizarre fantasy world, don’t you?
If you could pull your head out of your ass for a moment or two, you would have to face reality. I assume you don’t like inconvenient truths, so you choose to wear your ass for a hat.
You may well be an asshat, but at least you’re delusional. Why don’t you post another irrelevant link to SS, NASA, NOAA, or any other refuge of a ragtag mishmash of climate crackpots? You could always dare me to waste time clicking on it!
Good luck with that!
Mike Flynn,
There’s no need to post any link.
Your spit is worthless.
Will you run out of it?
Tune in tomorrow!
Wobbly Wee Willy,
I am comforted that you no longer feel the need to post any more irrelevant and stupid links.
Why the change of heart? A momentary attack of sanity?
Mike Flynn,
I don’t post links for you. Sometimes I post links, sometimes I don’t. If I can show how silly you are with a link, I post one. If I can show how silly you are without a link, I don’t. Since you have something like five different comments, I switch it up.
Have you considered therapy?
“Have you considered therapy?”
Have you considered getting a life?
I did, Richard.
But No U.
It’s “unprecedented since….”. Get your quotations correct.
Roy’s parser eats dots, Richard.
Strange that they’re still there then
All four of them when you don’t copy-paste.
https://volcano.si.edu/faq/historical_activity_600years.jpg
Dr. Roy, here’s the reality of the CERES calculations, from Loeb et al. 2018, emphasis mine.
Thus, the real uncertainty has to be the difference between the standard CERES data products and the actual EEI, which is something on the order of 3.5 W/m2 …
Regards to you and yours,
w.
Willis Eschenbach
Thx for comminicating this here.
J.-P. D.
NASA doesn’t appear very proud of Loeb’s educational background. All they list is “Atmospheric Scientist”, whatever that is. But, we know his dog’s name is “Cruiser”.
https://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/stem-career-connections/meet-dr-norman-loeb-atmospheric-scientist
I wonder if Loeb works around any physicists. In physics, one learns that flux is NOT required to “balance”. So, the “EEI” is just more anti-science nonsense.
> NASA doesnt appear very proud of Loebs educational background.
https://terra.nasa.gov/people/dr-norman-g-loeb
“He hopes to one day see a multi-decadal climate data record of the Earth’s radiation budget to help improve our understanding of climate.”
He’ll never understand climate if he keeps trying to “budget” radiated flux. Flux is NOT a conserved quantity.
Look up the “solid cone” example and try to learn, Willard. Or, just keep wasting your time trolling. It’s entirely your choice.
> Look up the solid cone example
Right after you do the pole dance experiment, Pup.
Willard chooses to continue being a troll.
That’s probably a good idea because he can’t learn anyway.
You’re trolling with that flux bit of yours, Pup.
The pole dance experiment would be better for your health.
Trolling is what you do.
Do I hear a “No U,” Richard?
Troll
No U.
Alphabet soup anyone?
What’s the good mannered word for butting in, Richard?
Not Willard for sure
No U either.
Willis Eschenbach says: Thus, the real uncertainty has to be the difference between the standard CERES data products and the actual EEI, which is something on the order of 3.5 W/m2 …
The 3.5 W/m2 (or whatever it might be) is a residual bias between the satellite observations of SW and LW TOA. The error between, for instance, individual SW measurements in the time series is much smaller. That is the instrument is biased but stable.
In this study they use an average EEI from Argo to, in essence, calibrate out the CERES EEI bias. They then look at the relative change over time of the Argo measurements and the CERES measurements and find them to be consistent. The uncertainty of consequence isn’t the bias term, it’s the net measurement to measurement relative uncertainty.
Mark B, they fool you with all that nonsense.
Flux can NOT be added/subtracted/divided/averaged. You can NOT have an energy balance based on flux alone. Flux is NOT conserved.
And object at equilibrium can emit much less than it absorbs. A blackbody sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2 only emits 240 W/m^2. 960 does NOT equal 240.
Sputnik V vaccination has begun in Slovakia. The pass round of the Russian vaccine to the motherland was accompanied by a civic calumny and led to the abandonment of Prime Strife of the the religious ministry Igor Matovich and a reorganization of the government. As a denouement, the sphere received the Russian vaccine, undeterred by the low-down that neither the European regulator nor the WHO has furthermore approved it.
In neighboring Hungary, which approved the fritter away of Sputnik in February as the principal in Europe, more than 50% of the mature natives has already been vaccinated; in Russia – a paltry more than 10%. In Slovakia, five thousand people signed up toward the Sputnik vaccination.
Dear administrator, You can write information about your blog on my bulletin board.. You can present another article on this point at this association https://amso.rabaty.site
My Problem with the conclusions of Climate Scientist (Except Dr. Spencer and Christy of course): The Multiple Dogs that Don’t Bark.
1) Multiple Charts show dog-legs at different time
2) Multiple charts of the same observation vary dramatically
3) If glaciers were melting at an accelerating rate, sea levels would show an acceleration
4) The charts and conclusions reached aren’t consistent with the physics of the CO2 molecule
5) The models profess certainty totally inconsistent with the quality of the available data, if the data is no good, neither is the conclusion
6) Obvious experiments aren’t run and contradictory information is completely ignored
7) Historical temperature charts pretty much demonstrate tremendous natural variation, yet climate models assume Natural Forces are in balance and only man-made CO2 can impact the climate (just think about how absurd that is when said out loud).
8) Climate scientists don’t seem to understand how absurd that statement or assumption is
9) We can’t model the weather 1 week out, the stock market 1 day out, and yet we are being told there is high confidence in climate models predicting catastrophe years in the future
10) Experts make statements that are clearly not factual, often tell half-truths, and fail to correct of clarify when myths are published, Think Mt Killimanjaro melting glacier in sub-zero temperatures
11) They don’t even attempt to control for factors other than CO2 in their research, in fact, they rely on UHI and Water Vapor to make the case for man made warming and attribute it to CO2
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
12) The physics of the CO2 molecule don’t change depending upon the date or location, CO2 doesn’t cause dog-legs or hemispheric differentials
And I could go on and on and on
CO2
12 minor problems
so what?
Do you expect perfection?
A climate crisis is coming in 20 years.
It’s true that prediction was made in every year since 1957.
But the prediction is right.
It’s been peer reviewed and published.
By PhDs with computers.
Big computers!
And 105% confidence (during the consensus confidence show of hands vote, it appears that a few scientists raised both hands — practical jokers.
Just a slight miscalculation with the date of climate doom.
You can’t expect perfection from scientists, or even normal people.
E. Swanson says: June 19, 2021 at 12:27 PM
CO@Lifer, It’s a problem with your eyes:
This is the true power of Progressivism, it can literally brainwash people to to not believing their eyes and simple common sense.
E. Swanson used this graphic to prove his point that there is no dog-leg and that it is a valid and reliable graphic.
https://eos.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ocean-heat-content-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-measurements.png
Just open your eyes and mind and look at the evidence produced to prove me wrong. You will never see a more Orwellian 1984 example in your life.
1) The level/range in 1982 to 1985 is below the level/range of 1958 to 1968.
2) Volatility and lack of trend define the data before 1985, a clear linear trend, defined as a series of higher highs and higher lows.
3) The R^2 between CO2 and Temperature before 1985 is non-existent, post-1985 is is likely over 90.
4) CO2 increases between 1958 and 1985, Temperatures FELL.
5) The physics of CO2 didn’t change in 1985
6) CO2 and Temp have a near perfect match post 2005, there is no relationship between CO2 and Temp pre-1985
That is the power of progressivism. If you can get a huge number of gullable people eager to join a cause you can do a whole lot of damage. 600k people fought and died to instill Kim Il Sung and communism in N Korea. That is the power of Progressivism and Marxism. It gets people to act totally counter to their best interests. They feed on people that will believe anything you tell them, even when faced with irrefutable evidence as the chart provided by Swanson.
https://imgur.com/5uMtCxf
> CO2 increases between 1958 and 1985, Temperatures FELL.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1950/to:1990
Willard, look at the Chart Swanson posted. I already know you can shop around for temperature charts to make any point you want. This is a real simple concept. Swanson posted a graphic to make the point that I was wrong. His graphic totally vindicates me and proves him wrong. Unless climate expert have no knowledge of how to read a graphic, anyone should understand just how wrong Swanson and you are. Anyway, did I miss it? Did you or any of your fellow alarmists explain how CO2 can cause a dog-leg which we now know exists in all these charts?
Life,
You cherrypicked two end points.
You got caught.
That’s all there is to it.
Have some more sea level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:NASA-Satellite-sea-level-rise-observations.jpg
How do you explain that: hippies?
Are you saying that the slope to the left continues downwards in a similar straight line?
No, Richard.
You are.
So how do you think the line to the left would be best represented?
Why would I think about your squirrel, Richard?
Because you are trying to draw conclusions (or lead others too) about what is happening to the right in that graph (the future) without, at the same time, drawing any conclusions as to the left (the past).
A very dishonest way of doing science.
> Because you are trying to draw conclusions
No, Richard.
You are.
How can I be making conclusion outside of the range when I contend that linear slopes are not capable of doing that?
Are you suggesting that the irrelevant conclusion you draw is not a conclusion, Richard?
An observation that a linear trend is only valid over the range it comes from is not a conclusion. It is an observation.
Validity isn’t an observational property, Richard.
Nor is logic to you either, apparently.
Is that a No U, Richard?
Indeed it is!
It’s just you finding something to say.
Are you saying that your “are you saying” wasn’t a way for you to say something without saying anything, Richard?
Idiot
No U, my lil’ dogwhistler.
Salby has talked about this time in the temperature record. He talks about it recently during one of his presentations. The temperature was flat between 1950 and about 1977 and then there was a non systematic step change and then it flattened again. He also showed how CO2 lagged temperature on short time scale.
CO2Lifer, You can argue all you want with the AGU presentation, but notice that they were presenting the same data which Roy used in his latest video and which you copied. The difference is in that the AGU paper included error bars and a smoothed curve which has no “dog leg” in it. You re also ignoring that the warming from CO2 isn’t a linear function and there are long time lags in ocean heat content. There’s also another feedback due to the reduction of sea-ice and snow, which Roy ignores in his 1-D model, but which results in greater warming at high latitudes. Then there’s the Thermohaline Circulation, which exhibited a significant reduction in the early 1990’s, seen particularly in the high latitude North Atlantic.
I love your radical right Red Scare screed from 1963. That’s the sort of crap which got the US deeply involved in Vietnam in an attempt to slow the Communist march to take over the world (after China went communist, the Korean War and Cuba’s revolution/missile crisis), one “domino” at a time. I suggest that you stick to the latest batch of Q-Anon conspiracy theories, they are much more fun to debunk.
We don’t need no stinkin’ data, or always wrong wild guess predictions of a coming climate crisis, CO2
We have about 7 billion witnesses who LIVED WITH actual global warming, for up to 45 years, since the mid-1970s.
And every person alive today has lived with rising CO2 levels for all of their lives.
No one was harmed.
No emergency
No crisis
Not even a minor problem !
Now’s your chance to plug your favorite Burke quote, Richard!
“Willard is a dingbat”
Is that the quote you meant?
Richard Greene,
I hope you didn’t hurt the feelings of too many dingbats. They might not appreciate having Wee Willy as one of their tribe. Lowers the tone of dingbats generally, I would imagine.
No, Richard.
It’s “You can never plan the future by the past.”
Which is silly, if you think about it.
The trick is to do as the other Richard does and not to think about it.
“”It’s You can never plan the future by the past.”
Which is silly, if you think about it.”
So Willard is more thoughtful than Edmund Burke. (In Willard’s own mind)
No, Richard.
Every animal is.
Every animal is what? More intelligent than you? Quite probably so.
I love how you play dumb while issuing a No U to that effect, Richard.
Is it that you are dumb? Or the rest of the world is? That is the real question.
Animals plan, Richard:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/06/surprising-complexity-animal-memories/589420/
And if we extend the concept to intention-guided behavior, it goes beyond that kingdom:
https://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group.php?id=8432
Even your mindless retorts are planned in some sense.
Whereas yours are just repetitive
That would be U, Richard.
The main problem with these findings is very obvious from NASA’s own website describing the rate of increase in thermal expension of the ocean, as an important part of sea level increase.
The trend is not accelearing in this period, and as Dr. Spencer mentions affected by cyclic episodes – most obvious descelerating after 2015-16.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/key-indicators/steric-height
Sea levels are increasing? Not at these locations. Many things, the least of which are CO2 and atmospheric temperatures impact sea levels.
https://imgur.com/a/siHPINY
Actually, temperatures aren’t increasing either if you control for UHI and water vapor.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
CO2Lifer, Norway’s sea-level is receding because of isostatic rebound after the glaciers melted after the end of the LGM.
There’s no UHI in the satellite record or in the oceans.
E. Swanson, the North East Coast sea level of America level is rising because of the same bit opposite effect. All I hear about is that alarmists claiming that CO2 is causing the warming.
https://imgur.com/aWjDRIB
https://imgur.com/KemP0Rk
https://imgur.com/4ofE0B7
https://imgur.com/7mvIPho
Care to provide evidence from your side refuting my evidence?
Yes, the area around Hudson Bay in Canada is rising, also due to isostatic rebound. Nothing new here, keep moving. Careful, you might actually learn something about climate change.
Once again Swanson, you have evidence of sea-level increase in some areas, I repeat some areas. What possible evidence do you have to tie CO2 to the sea level rise? The only way you can tie CO2 to sea level is to do what Dr Spencer says climate models do, you assume Narural Forces are in balance so the only source allowed in the model is due to man. That is fraud and will always give you the answer you want, it is only allowed to give one answer, man is the cause. By what mechanism does CO2 cause sea level to rise?
https://imgur.com/a/siHPINY
Correlation isn’t causation. You need a valid hypothesis and supporting evidence. YOu don’t have them other than failed computer models.
“Correlation isnt causation. You need a valid hypothesis and supporting evidence. ”
We have it.
1) Increasing CO2 increases DWLR.
2) Increasing DWLR increases the temperature of the ocean surface film and the atmospheric boundary layer.
3) The temperature gradient across the ocean surface decreases.
4) The equilibrium temperature of the ocean increases.
https://skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
Ent, you went off the cliff at 2).
One of your problems is that your source is a Warmist site.
ET Says:
We have it.
1) Increasing CO2 increases DWLR.
No it doesn’t at current concentrations. There are a finite number of photos and the current level of CO2 and H20 absorb them. In other words the atmosphere is saturated with GHGs, and at higher altitudes they actual aid cooling. When you isolate the impact of CO2 you get no warming at all.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo
2) Increasing DWLR increases the temperature of the ocean surface film and the atmospheric boundary layer.
Prove it. H20 saturates the air above the oceans and adding CO2 won’t change anything. Taking the 101st aspirin won’t cure the pain that is no longer existent.
https://imgur.com/cBaqWUJ
3) The temperature gradient across the ocean surface decreases.
CO2 evently blankets the globe, so its contribution is constant. The gradient that matters is the depth gradient, and LWIR doesn’t penetrate or warm the oceans. If you claim it does, so me a legitimate experiment that proves that 13 to 18 Micron wave length warms water. Hint, Ice emits higher energy LWIR than that. If LWIR between 13 and 18 microns could warm water Ice would melt itsenf. Do you understand that concept? Ice would melt itself if what you claim is true. SImply get an IR meeter and point it at ice. It will register near 10 or 11 microns, well above the energy of the 15 microns CO2 emits.
4) The equilibrium temperature of the ocean increases.
Oceans increase when you allow more visible radiation to reach them. Water has the highest specific heat of all common materials. The PDO clears out clouds resulting in more visible warming radiation to reach the oceans. Willard points that out below.
For the lurkers I can clarify this by adding a bit more detail.
3a) The rate of heat loss from the ocean drops below the rate of heat input.
3b) Extra heat accumulates in the ocean.
3c) The rate of heat loss increases until it balances the heat input.
Whether you believe in the effect of not, it has been experimentally observed.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351#:
CO2Lifer can’t even bother to read the sea-level summary on Wikipedia, posting the same cherry picked graph which is easily explained by glacial rebound. Other locations around the Earth show a rise, yet CO2Lifer ignores the evidence, which is supported by the many references on the Wiki page.
Then, we find the usual denialist claim that the AOGCM’s aren’t perfect, so they can be ignored. Well, I think we know that and we also know that Dr. Spencer’s model is even less accurate, even as he found warming from that effort. You seem to forget that the UAH satellite analysis is based on the same physics as that for CO2’s warming, so shouldn’t you also extend your denial to their work as well?
Ent, it has NOT been “experimentally observed”.
That “paper” is just more of the anti-science nonsense.
Want one example? What is the measured DWIR when they are measuring the surface penetration? What was the corresponding air and water temperature?
“What is the measured DWIR when they are measuring the surface penetration? What was the corresponding air and water temperature?”
Look at figures 8,9,10 and 12.
Those figures are all good examples of anti-science nonsense: “Time-averaged heat balance”!!! Trying to represent SH and LH as fluxes?
What is the measured DWIR when they are measuring the surface penetration? What was the corresponding air and water temperature?
EM,
Quite apart from the fact that the paper contains no reference whatsoever to an “experiment” of any sort, the following extract from the abstract is illuminating –
“Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.”
Rubbish. Warmer water floats on colder water. No increase in temperature of the colder, denser water beneath. Then, at night, the surface layer cools, descends, allowing displaced water to replace it at the surface, cooling in its turn. The net result is that deep abyssal water is at its maximum density, generally around 3 C.
Obviously too complicated for the authors to accept. They probably work for the Government in one form or another.
Swenson, The density of pure water (i.e., distilled) is a maximum at about 4C. However, for the oceans, the high salt content results in increasing density all the way down to the freezing point, which is about -1.8C. The low temperature of the bottom waters is the result of high latitude waters sinking due to sea-ice formation, which releases salt into the water below the ice, making it even more dense. This sinking has nothing to do with the day/night daily cycle, except that the coldest waters will occur during the polar winter night as the waters freeze.
ES,
You wrote –
“The low temperature of the bottom waters is the result of high latitude waters sinking due to sea-ice formation, which releases salt into the water below the ice, making it even more dense.”
No.
Climate crackpots use new-age physics, which has water cooling in high latitudes, and then magically flowing from the North and South cold regions towards the Equator, up hill, down dale, crossing mid ocean ridges emitting molten magma directly through the crust, and crossing observed crystal hotspots without changing temperature.
You may not be aware of ancient ice making methods in various desert regions, using the fact that water will cool to below freezing, even when ambient air temperatures are well above freezing. Professor John Tyndall gives a lucid account of experiments supporting his explanation for this phenomenon, nearly 200 years ago.
No need for high latitudes to create conditions for dense cold bottom waters.
Here’s the sort of thing –
‘Warm monomictic: water cools to near 4C in winter, when turnover may occur. Lakes are stratified during other times of the year and are not ice covered. Lakes in the tropics or low altitudes in northern temperate areas can be warm monomictic.”
Of course, deep tropical lakes such as Lake Tanganyika have warmer bottom waters, with unknown numbers of geothermal vents emitting unknown quantities of water at measured temperatures up to 103 C. Tends to keep the bottom waters above 4 C!
Basically you are talking rubbish. Just more climate crank wishful thinking.
Swenson/Flynn, Yes, freshwater lakes do tend to turnover in winter. But the oceans are not filled with freshwater (DUH). Are you seriously arguing that the well known physical properties of sea-water are wrong? Oceanographers been learning about the oceans for many decades, long before concerns about the oceans’ roll in climate change.
Your refusal to accept established facts is not unusual these days, the US Republican Party can’t accept our duly elected President, having become the Trumpian party.
For those who rely on sea level observations it would be wise, as any sailor will tell you, that tidal observations and predictions require some inclusion of lunar and solar orbits, atmospheric pressure, wind direction, fetch, and duration, bottom profile, depth and type, off shore and coastal profiles, bays, estuaries etc. to even get close to what will actually happen at the next tide at any given spot.
Simple isn’t it?
Oh, and that is without any consideration of land movement, either rising or falling.
“Sea levels are increasing? Not at these locations.”
No one in Climate Science is claiming that Sea Level Rise should be uniform, nor ignoring the GIA.
No one in Climate Science is claiming that CO2 is the ONLY driver of Temperature. Thus CO2 can rise when Temperature falls, as it did due to La Nina this year.
Continually knocking down these notions that no one is supporting is rather pointless.
CO2 has become our most reliable STRAWMAN specialist.
Nate Says: No one in Climate Science is claiming that Sea Level Rise should be uniform, nor ignoring the GIA.
Sure, my point is that there are countless factors that impact sea level, the vast majority aren’t measured. There is no way to claim CO2 is causing sea level increase. Where are your measurements for erosion? Tectonic Plate Shift? Underseas Volcanoes? You don’t have any supporting data, yet you claim CO2 is the cause without even having any supporting data.
Climate Science relies on cherry-picking data, that is all they do. I simply turned the tables and you did a great job highlighting how inappropriate such a tactic is. Care to explain how the Mt Kilimanjaro glacier is melting in sub-zero temperatures?
https://imgur.com/7nnfPK3
What about leprechauns, mermaids, sea monsters and politicians?
EM,
What about them?
They all can be killed by an Aussie animal that looks cuddly, Mike Flynn.
A bit look you, except for the dangerous part.
Swenson
“What about them? ”
CO2isLife has not considered their contribution to sea level rise.
Global average surface air temperature remains around 15 C and there is difference of average surface air temperature in Northern and Southern Hemisphere- the Southern Hemisphere is about 1 C cooler than Northern hemisphere.
Both average land and average ocean surface air temperature of southern hemisphere is lower than northern hemisphere.
Why and how it’s different can be “blamed” on various things, ie Africa is mostly in northern Hemisphere. And how one decides to measure Antarctica surface air temperature. And how you count the arctic ocean.
Trying to follow the crazy rules that appear to exist {not making my own crazy rules].
It appears average land surface air temperature in northern hemisphere is about 12 C, and with southern hemisphere it is about 8 C. Giving global average surface air temperature of about 10 C.
Other than Africa, Australia land mass is major player in bringing up the Antarctica cold average temperature in southern hemisphere.
And as said, large amount African land mass above equator counter balances the coldness of Canada, Greenland and Russia.
The ocean average global surface temperature of about 17 C, has south having about 16.5 and North being about 17.5 C.
The coldness of large amounts ocean water in southern hemisphere Ocean would be colder if not due to the Indian Ocean, and northern hemisphere get it’s bump up due to vastness of the Pacific Ocean tropical ocean [and shortage of northern cold surface waters {or it has a lot more cold southern surface waters]. One could say the vastness immovable coldness of Antarctica land mass has large effect upon vast southern Water.
Or Antarctica location as land Mass is only reason Southern Hemisphere is colder than Northern Hemisphere.
But as I said, Earth average surface temperature or Earth average temperature is the temperature of entire ocean- which has average temperature of about 3.5 C.
In terms of “real” temperature, the arctic ocean is the coldest ocean. Arctic Ocean is both coldest ocean in terms it’s entire volume of ocean water, and it’s surface temperature.
If arctic ocean had average or uniform temperature of 5 C, it’s CAGW that CAGWers are looking for. Earth’s vast deserts would all green like crazy [other than vast desert of vastness of immovable coldness of Antarctica land mass]. CAGWers are always hopeful about a possible changing of the coldness of Antarctica- but also ever hopeful about communism- or they have serious mental problems or massive delusions of changing things.
But roughly there is uniformity in terms entire ocean temperature and if most ocean warms to 5 C {from 3.5 C} it will warm the arctic ocean. Or arctic ocean could still remain coldest ocean, but it could warm up a lot- ice free summers, and even ice free winters. Weather cause not to ice free in winter, I mean most of time one could have ice free summers [or even winter] anyhow, we long way from that- and may never [in this interglacial period] have this, again.
Now, on to more practical matters of how to green the Sahara desert without waiting for global warming to do it.
A problem with greening the Sahara deserts is, it would [or “should”] increase global air temperature.
One might ask, if the hottest continent gets hotter, will Africa have more snow?
Africa doesn’t currently have much snowing. The coldest country in Africa, Lesotho, does snow. It’s average yearly air surface temperature is about 14.5 C. Or it has slightly lower average temperature than California {and it snows in California and it even snows in spot where highest daytime air temperature was recorded in in whole world- which about 300 miles from where I live, btw, we got some summer, here, and had daytime high of about 112 F. It looking like summer was never going to start, but now it’s summer}.
It fair to say, that if one greens the Sahara desert, it will not have much effect upon Lesotho- Lesotho will continue to snow- it’s very far, far south of Sahara Desert. Anyhow near the greened Sahara desert it seems it could snow more in some places. And snowing in US doesn’t lower average temperature in US and could considered a “warming effect”. So area near Sahara which currently reach night time temperature of below 0 C, could be warmed by snowing.
“Near-freezing temperatures in north-central Guinea in January destroyed crops and livestock on which thousands of people depend for food as well as cash.”
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/report/83042/guinea-record-cold-snap-destroys-crops-kills-hundreds-animals
Guinea is lot closer the Sahara than Lesotho- or warming effect of green Sahara might prevented that cold weather. Might have snowed on mountains tops and rained at lower elevations.
Now, one reason why one should think greening Sahara, will cause global warming, is because Africa will dump less heat into space, and Sahara desert is a big place that dumps lots of heat into space. Hot daytime and cold nights.
And one should always think of global warming as causing more uniformity in global temperature, mostly making nights and winters warmer.
The next issue is how to green Sahara. Or what way greening the Sahara require least costs or least amount of total manhours to make it green.
I have to chuckle just a little bit about your statement
Secondly, since we don’t have good global energy imbalance measurements before this period, there is no justification for the claim, “the magnitude of the increase is unprecedented.”
Actually, since there is no data, the implication that there really is no precedent (unprecedented) is actually pretty accurate. :<)
“We can therefore expect even greater changes in climate in the coming decades if internal variability associated with the PDO remains the same. If the PDO were to reverse in the future, that reversal would likely act to decrease the rate of heat uptake.”
Who knew that the PDO was so central to their conclusions? Though Roy did point it out.
> Who knew that the PDO was so central to their conclusions?
From the Verge article:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/18/22539924/earth-trapping-heat-climate-change-nasa
Theres another factor at play too natural changes to a climate pattern called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Between 2014 and 2019, the pattern was in a warm phase which caused fewer clouds to form. That also meant more heat could be absorbed by the oceans.
I’ve said that 1 billion times. Look for something that would allow more warming visible radiation to reach the oceans and you will get warming. It has nothing to do with CO2…Duh!!! Visible radiation warms the globe. To warm the globe you have to warm the oceans. To warm the oceans you need more VISIBLE radiation reaching the oceans. Anyone outside climate science knows that. Thanks Wallard for making my point and demonstrating that CO2 has nothing to do with the warming. How do the models account for the PDO? They assume all natural factors are in balance so any resulting warming must be due to CO2.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/18/22539924/earth-trapping-heat-climate-change-nasa
Witless Wee Willy,
You are a gullible fool. Nothing “holds on” to more heat. Another who thinks so is delusional.
Give it a try. Appeal to the authority of someone who has demonstrated by experiment that they have made something “hold on” to more heat.
All matter in the universe is hot. Remove the heat source, matter cools to absolute zero. Unless you subscribe to the woke physics of the climate crackpots, of course!
Try accepting reality – just stop being an asshat for a few moments. Add heat in the form of ice to your hot soup. Watch the soup cool, even though you have added energy.
Put some insulation between you and the Sun, and immediately feel cooler.
Or you can believe that adding ice to hot soup makes it hotter, and that blocking the rays of the sun likewise increases temperature!
I don’t expect you to understand, because you are idiotic climate crackpot.
Surprise me.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
I know. The quote was from their paper.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2021GL093047
> I know.
Anyone who read the Verge article Roy cited also knows.
So your “who knew” was a dud.
“Their results were published in Geophysical Research Letters this week.” refers to the original paper I quoted from.
Not big on irony are you?
Richard,
Here is what you said: Who knew that the PDO was so central to their conclusions? Though Roy did point it out.
Not only did Roy point it out, so did the Verge article he criticizes. And in fact so does the press release:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled
So what are you ironizing about exactly?
It’s not by reading Roy’s post or your comments that we’d know that the energy imbalance only doubled.
Wandering Wee Willy,
You do realise that the PDO is only a pattern of observed temperatures, don’t you?
The PDO neither contributes energy to, nor removes removes heat from, the Earth system.
Baron Fourier realised that during the night, the Earth loses all the heat it absorbs from the Sun during the day, plus a little bit of the Earth’s own store of internal heat. Hence, the cooling of the Earth since its creation, Winter being colder than Summer, temperatures falling at night, and similar phenomena.
This is all too much for some climate crackpots at NASA and NOAA. I suppose if you are well paid to promote fairy tales and fantasy, you keep doing it.
Mike Flynn,
Go on.
“Who knew that the PDO was so central to their conclusions?” /irony
Does that help you?
Who knew that the wriggles in the PDO were so important? /irony
Shen, C., W.-C. Wang, W. Gong, and Z. Hao. 2006.
A Pacific Decadal Oscillation record since 1470 AD reconstructed from proxy data of summer rainfall over eastern China.
Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L03702, February 2006.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-results-of-MTM-and-wavelet-analysis-on-the-reconstructed-PDO-a-MTM-spectrum-90_fig5_251436097
No, Richard.
It does not help you.
Well as you are way beyond any help that should not worry you.
Twas just a flesh wound, Richard.
Not even worth a No U.
Black Night are you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs
No U, Richard.
And you miss a K.
It’s the Sun stupid
https://bit.ly/2SfMpKf
In addition, our ML model forecasts a new phase of extended solar minima that began prior to Sunspot Cycle 24 (ca. 2008–2019)
Yet we have just had the warmest decade , so is it the Sun stupid?
It’s a great pity that you did not continue that wavelet analysis further in time to allow the lower part of the graph to come more into view.
Continuing it to >100 years might prove fruitful
See https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-results-of-MTM-and-wavelet-analysis-on-the-reconstructed-PDO-a-MTM-spectrum-90_fig5_251436097 for a similar analysis for the PDO
I do realize that the data length will not allow you to do that of course.
What I should have said was
“Its a great pity that the data did not continue that wavelet analysis further in time to allow the lower part of the graph to come more into view.”
It’s amazing to see how cycles are welcome when they show something in the right direction (translate: ‘cooling’).
And above all: what would say TrickZone’s Gosselin – and hence, Eben, his gulliblest follower on this blog – if Machine Learning would show warming?
” Vade retro, Satanas! ”
J.-P. D.
Weird Wee Willy wrote –
Mike Flynn,
“If you cared about honor, youd tell Roy that youre Mike Flynn.
You would not hide under a sock puppet to bypass his ban.
Is this clearer this time?”
Clear. You are still a delusional climate crackpot unable to face reality. Why would you expect me to do anything at all at your behest? You are more deranged than I thought, kiddo!
Oh dear, Wee Willy, your unsubtle attempts at manipulation don’t seem to be going so well, do they?
I’d suggest you concentrate on science and fact rather than “silly semantic games”, but you are too firmly embedded in your fantasy world to contemplate reality.
Continue with your idiocy. It suits you.
Mike Flynn,
You ask:
“Why would you expect me to do anything at all at your behest?”
I don’t.
Honoring Roy’s decision to ban you would be for him and for you.
You will do as you please.
You always do.
Wearisome Wee Willy,
If you expect anybody to congratulate you for stating the blindingly obvious, I fear you are doomed to disappointment.
Mike Flynn,
Congratulations are the lesser of my concerns.
Sleep well,
willard…”the more greenhouse gases we emit, the more heat they trap”.
And how, exactly, can GHGs trap heat? That zany idea comes from the notion that the glass in a real greenhouse is trapping infrared energy. We know that the glass is trapping molecules of air that has been heated by the soil and greenhouse infrastructure.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. Without mass, i.e atoms, there can be no heat. So, how exactly do atmospheric molecules trap heat like the solid glass in a greenhouse?
That’s why heat cannot pass through a vacuum. An ideal vacuum is an absence of atoms…no atoms, no heat.
GHGs can trap about 5% of the surface radiation, theoretically, but so what? They can convert that IR to heat, but so what? The GHGs are in a colder part of the atmosphere and they can do nothing with that heat.
One AGW argument claims that GHGs can reduce the rate of IR radiation from the surface therefore affecting the rate at which heat is dissipated. Based on the S-B law, the only mechanism capable of doing that is the entire atmospheric temperature. That is, the rate of heat dissipation at the surface is dependent on the temperature difference between the surface and the layer of atmosphere touching the surface.
Since those surface are in thermal equilibrium, no heat could be dissipated at the surface were it not for convection. As heated air rises, cooler air is transported from higher altitudes to the surface. Heat at the hotter surface can then be conducted to the cooler heat at the atmosphere surface layer.
Lindzen has claimed that without convection the surface temperature would be around 70C.
That surface layer air is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, therefore N2/O2 are responsible for the rate of surface heat dissipation, not the scant 0.31% of the entire atmosphere made up of the major GHGs WV and CO2.
Furthermore, according to R.W. Wood, a former expert on gases like CO2, the N2/O2 mix once heated cannot release the heat easily, therefore the heat is retained by N2/O2, not WV or CO2.
There’s your GHE, heat retained by gases representing 99% of the atmosphere that cannot release heat easily.
“Lindzen has claimed that without convection the surface temperature would be around 70C. ”
From a typical square metre of surface onvection carries away about 80W. Take away that convection and the equivalent warming action is 80W. Increasing the input wattage warms the equilibrium surface temperature by 4W/C.
Thus removing convection would increase the temperature by 80/4=20C.
That would raise the temperature from 15C to 35C. Lindzen’s claim that it would rise to 70C is mistaken.
That was the only paragraph worth correcting. The rest of your Gish Gallop is too absurd to be worth discussing.
Gordon,
Once again you put quotes in my mouth.
Please stop.
I rather suspect that quotes are just one of the few things that people might like to stuff in your mouth. To try and shut you up that is.
Nice try, Richard.
But No U.
Strange alphabet you have.
I have no stock of that company, Richard.
Compare PDO
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation#/media/File%3APDO.svg
with temperature.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File%3AGlobal_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
By inspection the slope of the temperature record flattens when PDO is negative and steepens when PDO is positive.
This is what would you would see if the cyclic warming and cooling due to PRO were superimposed on a long term warming trend.
This is exactly what the NASA study describes.
Now take that back to the 1400s in time and make your conclusions then. Has what you ‘discovered’ been true since then?
Shen et al has proxy data for the PDO going back that far.
The amplitude of the PDO is about 0.2C and that’s also the 95% confidence limits of the pre-1880 temperature data.
The effect of the PDO gets lost in the noise before 1880. You can only meaningfully discuss its effect on 20th and 21st century temperatures.
” You can only meaningfully discuss its effect on 20th and 21st century temperatures.”
See Shen et al for disproof of that comment. They take it back to the 1400s in observations of the PDO. Are you saying that it had no effects on temperatures back then?
“PDO. Are you saying that it had no effects on temperatures back then?”
No.
I’m saying that before 1880 you cannot distinguish the effect of PDO from the noise in the temperature data.
It may or may not have had an effect on temperatures, but the data isn’t good enough to tell.
If you’ve read Shen et al you will have noticed that they induced their PDO data from rainfall proxies in China, not from temperature data.
I understand that Shen at al is based on proxy data. What I am saying is that, regardless of if you can find good temperature data way back then, it will have had an effect that is the same as occurred more recently, but back then.
The more recent behavior demonstrates that the PDO has quite a significant effect of global temperatures as the paper Roy references shows.
There are those who claim that the PDO is not cyclic (but with varying length cycles) and that is plainly not true.
> regardless of if you can find good temperature data way back then, it will have had an effect that is the same as occurred more recently, but back then.
And how do you reconcile that idea with your Burkean quip according to which we can’t plan the future with the past, Richard?
“There are those who claim that the PDO is not cyclic (but with varying length cycles) and that is plainly not true. ”
PDO is not like a sine wave produced by a signal generator.
You are talking about it as a precisely defined and predictable phenomenon. It is not.
You cannot precisely define its frequency or wavelength, it’s amplitude or neutral value.
Try listing the date and temperature of the last three maxima and the last three minima. Then use them to calculate the date and temperature of the next maximum and the next minimum. There’s too much uncertainty to allow precise projections.
“PDO is not like a sine wave produced by a signal generator.”
Indeed it is not.
Which is why I use the term wriggles rather than cycles. It would be very unusual for nature to be driven by sine waves (except for tuned instruments). In most cases what we should expect to see if something that occurs at relatively regular intervals with some variation between occurrences. Much as the PDO seems to produce.
If you take the proxy information that Shen et al created and run it greater than 30 year filter over it (as I have shown previously) then you get exactly that sort of behavior out of it.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/pdo-reconstruction-1470-1998-shen-2006-with-gaussian-low-pass-30-and-75-year-filters.png
Willard: You seem to think that simple quotes are the only way to look at things. Sometimes you are just being would up.
“The more things change, the more they stay the same”
One of the criticisms that DSP, wavelets, etc. often meets is that the real world is not driven by sine (or cos) waves and therefore the outcomes they show can be inappropriate.
Which is why I use rather broad low pass filters which do not suffer from that particular problem. If you use > 1 year, > 15 year, > 75 year low pass filters then you get ALL frequencies that occur higher than those cut points, not ones just concentrated on particular sine waves which tuned filters would produce.
That, to my mind, allows more of nature to show though.
I’m not sure of the link between PDO and temperature.
The Maunder Minimum in 1700 and the Dalton Minimum in 1800 were cold periods which both coincided, according to your graph, with PDO maxima.
If PDO were driving climate you would expect both cold periods to coincide with PDO minima, not maxima.
Heat at the tropics does not necessarily mean heat at higher latitudes.
More generally, X does not generally means Y unless there’s some kind of entailment between the two.
Which is kinda rare in empirical sciences.
Idiots are rare too. You seem to qualify though
No U.
So 25 letters now
Unless…
In this article: https://t.co/EIBMfmGydL?amp=1 opposite conclusions are reached. EEI is decreasing. Asked the author and told me that he didn’t consider sensors’ ageing.
He=Loeb
I am now feeling slightly alarmed.
The New York Times reports:
“A heat dome is baking Arizona and Nevada, where temperatures have soared past 115 degrees this week and doctors are warning that people can get third-degree burns from the sizzling asphalt.
At Lake Mead, which supplies water for 25 million people in three southwestern states and Mexico, water levels have plunged to their lowest point since the reservoir was filled in the 1930s. In California, farmers are abandoning their thirstiest crops to save others, and communities are debating whether to ration tap water.
In Texas, electricity grids are under strain as residents crank their air-conditioners, with utilities begging customers to turn off appliances to help avert blackouts. In Arizona, Montana and Utah, wildfires are blazing.
And its not even summer yet.”
You can definitely worry about the drought in California and Arizona.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
This is a typical circulation when the tropical eastern Pacific is cool. A high is maintained over the cool ocean.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_epac_1.png
Curious how, more and more often, the weather is going outside the limits our civilization is designed to cope with.
I wonder why?
I suspect that in previous times people just got on with it regardless of what nature threw at them. Nowadays there is a tendency to complain if things are ‘unusual’.
One of the advantages of modern civilization is that, thanks to air conditioning, people survive to complain about extreme heat waves.
And to central heating, about severe cold.
SAM in positive mode since 1500
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2235
No significant trend in summer flood risk during the twentieth century for the Elbe and Oder Rivers
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JD005034
Cool paper. Of note:
Entropic
How did they cope during the Holocene Thermal Maximum, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017.jpg
EPA says we have been here before.
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/figure-gd-1-10.png
Why not cite the EPA then, Denny:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures
The record in the US for the last 100 years shows the same general pattern
https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2019/06/slide24.png
These are wildfires, Denny, and we know that human intervention dominates, something that even the GWPF should accept since it cites a paper that does.
If what you want is heat waves, again the EPA has us covered:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves
Oceanic variability influence on US droughts.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL082838
Droughts more severe, extensive and prolonged in NH than 20th C
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/10/e1500561
Southern Ocean surface cooling
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329372480_Natural_variability_of_Southern_Ocean_convection_as_a_driver_of_observed_climate_trends
Relationship of AMOC and AMV and related climate impacts
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019RG000644
Natural variability dominates over Indian land mass
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-019-02779-y
Up to 50% of recent Arctic Sea Ice loss due to natural variability.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0256-8
Recent cooling in Yellow and East China Seas
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278434317303588
Southern Ocean SST cooling
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/7/jcli-d-17-0092.1.xml
East Antarctica cooled over last 60 years.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321895760_Autumn_Cooling_of_Western_East_Antarctica_Linked_to_the_Tropical_Pacific_ENSO_and_East_Antarctic_climate
Non uniform inter hemispheric temperatures trends over 550 years
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-010-0794-2
Antarctic Peninsula cooling
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18645
Seesaw teleconnection between Arctic and Antarctic
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL042793
57 extreme droughts and floods in China from 1736 to 2000.
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/14/1135/2018/cp-14-1135-2018.pdf
Extreme droughts in California and Patagonia during medieval times
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/CLEE/Stine_1994_Nature_ExtremeAndPersistentDrought.pdf
Missouri River Basin
“ The maximum persistence of droughts and floods over the past 500 years far exceeds those observed in the instrumental record….”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015WR018444
“ The maximum persistence of droughts and floods over the past 500 years far exceeds those observed in the instrumental record….”
Missouri River Basin
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015WR018444
Droughts in Europe
“Using reconstructed droughts over the last 250 years, we show that although the 2003 and 2015 droughts may be regarded as the most extreme droughts driven by precipitation deficits during the vegetation period, their spatial extent and severity at a long-term European scale are less uncommon.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-27464-4
Proxy reconstructions of precipitation from central India, north-central China, and southern Vietnam reveal a series of monsoon droughts during the mid 14the15th centuries that each lasted for several years to decades. These monsoon megadroughts have no analog during the instrumental period.
https://earth.usc.edu/~stott/stott_papers/Sinha%20et%20al%20%202010.pdf
The wettest period was c. AD 1075 in the Medieval Warm Period, and the driest periods were c. AD 1635, c. AD 1695 and c. AD1805 during the Little Ice Age. Decadal-scale variability suggests that the rainfall forcing mechanisms are a complex interaction between proximal and distal factors.
South Africa
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124202
Australia lacks paleodrought reconstructions; however, this work suggests that Australia may also have experienced megadroughts during the Medieval period that have no modern analog.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL062447
Extremes in moisture such as the 1990s pluvial and the 2000s drought are extraordinarily rare over the Common era in Mongolia but not without precedent in the last 2060 years.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/3/e1701832.full
This paper presents new high-resolution proxies and paleoclimatic reconstructions for studying climate changes in China for the past 2000 years. Multi-proxy synthesized reconstructions show that temperature variation in China has exhibited significant 50–70-yr, 100–120-yr, and 200–250-yr cycles. Results also show that the amplitudes of decadal and centennial temperature variation were 1.3°C and 0.7°C, respectively, with the latter significantly correlated with long-term changes in solar radiation, especially cold periods, which correspond approximately to sunspot minima. The most rapid warming in China occurred over AD 1870–2000, at a rate of 0.56° ± 0.42°C (100 yr)−1; however, temperatures recorded in the 20th century may not be unprecedented for the last 2000 years, as data show records for the periods AD 981–1100 and AD 1201–70 are comparable to the present.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-017-6238-8
No AMOC decline
https://os.copernicus.org/articles/17/285/2021/?mc_cid=cbeda0c2d5&mc_eid=b0f93db32f
We conclude that the observed AMOC trend is not significantly different (p> 0.01) from plausible estimates of internal variability.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL059473
Denny, This work is a comparison of data from RAPID at 26N with CIMP5 model results. Note their conclusion:
Over the 8 years of the study, that works out to a decline of about 4 Sv. The average AMOC at the beginning of the period was about 20 SV, so that change represents a rather large fraction of the total. Of course, 8 years isn’t a long enough period to conclude that this change isn’t due to natural variations. What about the following 10 years to the present? Have you got any data for that?
Negative anomalies inside the southern polar vortex are expanding. The polar vortex in the post-La Niña period is strong. We can be reassured about the sea ice in the south. The ozone hole will also be bigger this year.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2021.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2021.png
A drop in temperature inside the winter polar vortex causes a drop in surface temperature (the stratosphere drops into the troposphere in winter).
Summer temperatures in the Arctic will also remain within the average. The reason is simple – in July, the Earth is in its orbit farthest from the Sun.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
ren
Summer is exactly the period during which Arctic temperature departures from the mean are the lowest and the least interesting.
What matters there is how the departures behave outside summer time.
J.-P. D.
Solar wind magnetic activity remains at solar minimum. No strong solar flares – isolated sunspots with low magnetic activity.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
Will there be climate change? Yes they will occur due to a strong decrease in solar activity.
Jumps in solar activity are clearly visible above the 65th parallel.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_NH_2021.png
SOLAR DECREASE UPDATE:
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/19/1008248475/the-record-temperatures-enveloping-the-west-is-not-your-average-heat-wave
Now I am alarmed:
“European Warm Spell: On 20 June Germany had the 4th consecutive day with Tmaxes over 35C (the 3rd with 36C+),first 36C in Poland with 36.1C at Slubice. Baltic countries and Belarus exceeded 32C but next days the national monthly records in these countries and Finland are at stake.”
https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1406691953304084481
Call your local climate department and have them install one of these quickly
https://bit.ly/3vMNWVA
This is not surprising when the jet stream has a meridional course.
studentb
I live exactly at the place where June temperatures were the highest these days in Germany: the Northeastern region.
Believe me: we enjoy them, just because March, April and May alltogether were boringly cool.
So cool that Gosselin’s TricksZone felt the need to report about an unprecedented cold April!
Grrrand Coooling ahead! So what. Typical Coolista blah blah.
*
Thus keep cool, studentb, and don’t worry about these nice 35 C which soon will disappear. A few years ago, we had 38 C during July, and no one got excited.
In a few days I’ll download GHCN daily again and look at how the Arctic regions above 60N do behave. That might be a bit more interesting.
J.-P. D.
Willard
You seem to have lots of knowledge of climate change but I would suggest deeper investigation into your NPR article. I heard the same story driving home from work.
They mentioned Omaha, NE breaking a record with 105 F. I was looking for data on other cities but the NWS does not seem to have this data style for Phoenix or Palm Springs. The Omaha page has every record high temperature in June. If you look at the data the 105 is in no way unusual, surrounding this record are others and even earlier date in 1936 was a 107 record.
https://www.weather.gov/oax/monthly_climate_records
I think they must have totally forgotten about the 1930’s with several very hot years.
This one shows the extent of the heat wave in 1936 and the drought conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave
A cause for the 1936 heat wave is considered here.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150504101248.htm
The dry conditions created the heat wave and the pressure domes. Western US is experiencing a drought at this time. They then have much higher than normal temperatures. Megadroughts are not new to these areas and have been much much worse in the past with a cooler Earth.
Willard
Maybe read and consider this information.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/
This is why people are skeptical of climate science. They single out this small period of time and generate alarming word choice to frighten an ignorant population into taking some course of action.
This is the part of climate science that bothers me. Science should use all available evidence before forming conclusions on a tiny fraction of information.
Climate Scientists are behaving a CO2isLife does. Like him (cherry picking data on small regions and making sweeping generalizations to support his own belief system, like that Antarctica has cooled means global warming is false). The Climate Scientists are using a drought in the West to peddle fear. If you look historically at the situation this is not at all out of bounds or even remotely close to how bad it can get. The past megadroughts really challenge the belief that a slight increase in global temperatures is responsible for drought conditions in an area that has frequent and persistent droughts.
> If you look historically at the situation this is not at all out of bounds or even remotely close to how bad it can get.
That it won’t be as bad as in a millennium ago might not be the strongest argument against the claim that it’s a pretty unusual event, Norman. And if we start to get a series of such events on a shorter scale, say every five years, that starts to be worrisome.
The best way not to cherrypick data is to take all the indicators we have and build the most complete picture we can. But then we’ll need judgment calls as to how to create some kind of evaluation function out of them.
As long as we’ll need judgement calls, we’ll have contrarians.
Willard
Your point: “The best way not to cherrypick data is to take all the indicators we have and build the most complete picture we can. But then well need judgment calls as to how to create some kind of evaluation function out of them.”
Better yet than judgement calls is to come up with mechanisms that produce deviations from normal patterns in temperature and precipitation and then show how warming or cooling world can actually alter the mechanisms. Running events millions of times on super computers and then calculating some statistical probability that a real event happened because of global warming is a method that will generate tremendous skepticism as it provides no theory or mechanism to explain why such a condition occurs.
Meteorologists are getting better at understanding patterns that produce certain types of weather events, such as severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. They have mechanisms that give some predictability (the degree of unstable air).
For the 1936 drought they believe two unusual hot spots in ocean temperature, one in Pacific and the other in the Atlantic produced the extreme drought conditions which produced very hot conditions and had nothing to do with global warming.
I would be far more interested if the climate scientists would spend time thinking and coming up with mechanisms of why the USA West is in a long term drought pattern. What is stopping the normal rain patterns? Just saying it is caused by climate change is lazy science and also emotionally charged to produce fear to produce a change in large group behavior. Find the cause, then see if a warming world would make the event worse.
They can determine how severe storms can get in regions based upon the instability of the air. Severe storms are frightful but one does not need to push an agenda when reporting the conditions are favorable for severe weather. If climate scientists want to be valuable contributors, they would do much better finding mechanisms and then reporting on them. Then people living in regions could take actions to minimize the effects of a particular climate pattern in a region. One would be to clear cut trees around homes to prevent property loss in fires. Saving water when conditions warrant to reduce suffering during bad times.
If you study the Bible you may recall Joseph interpretation of Pharaoh’s Dream. The 7 fat cows followed by 7 starving cows. Joseph revealed it meant 7 years of abundant growth followed by 7 years of severe drought. With this you can plan and take steps to avoid the worst of bad conditions.
With current climate science, they wait for some bad weather or climate condition (flood, hurricane, fire, heat wave, drought) and then make the great claim it was caused by climate change. You will have to admit this is very lazy science and mostly useless. What does it do? Anyone can do this as well as the experts. Good science would find the cause and conditions that create long term weather patterns and gain some predictability of the future which could then be of great use.
> You will have to admit this is very lazy science and mostly useless.
One may say the same of something of the following:
Do you have anything to substantiate that?
Wayward Wee Willy,
OK. No judgement call needed if you include the entire history of the Earth. No cherry picking, no need for instruments.
The Earth has cooled. No longer has a molten surface. No heating.
Oh, you want me to “prove” the Earth was created with a molten surface, do you?
You are an idiot. You have proved it to my satisfaction. Others can reach their own conclusion.
Your “silly semantic games” do not turn fantasy into fact. CO2 heats nothing, Gavin Schmidt is not a climate scientist, Michael Mann is a delusional faker, fraud, loser and scofflaw.
Climate is the average of weather – no more and no less. A number which controls nothing at all – has no effect on weather, but apparently has an effect on climate cranks like yourself, who believe in stupidities such as the supposed “Greenhouse effect.”
Carry on being an idiot. It’s free.
Mike Flynn,
Have another quote:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves
Try to counter this with your bad ass attitude.
Best of luck!
Wee Willy Idiot,
Climate is the average of weather. If you believe you can see into the future better than a 12 year old, good for you!
Climate crackpots believe that they can predict the future by examining past weather, but I doubt their faith.
Willard
NPR radio is one source for my comment. When some bad weather event takes place they have a Climate Scientist come on and comment how the event is unprecedented and likely caused by climate change, however none provide any mechanism on how a warming earth caused such a weather event. The large number of hurricanes last year was one example, the link you provided is another, the Texas drought in 2012 was another. The Moscow heat wave was one. The blizzards a few years ago in the East coast and record snowfall was another.
These are just a few, it takes place much more often than just those examples. And it is not just NPR, other news media does similar tactics.
All those weather events listed amounted to nothing in terms of climate or a long term shift in patterns. Texas is okay, Moscow is not cooking. One heavy year of snowfall did not produce a series of heavy snowfalls.
I am not sure I could convince you that my words are quite true with past examples, open your mind and listen. Next bad weather event listen to the media and see if some Climate Scientist is not interviewed and claims the event is unprecedented and caused by climate change. Then keep listening for the next event and the one following that one etc…
Norman,
“But CAGW” is the central square of the Climateball Bingo:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
Without any specifics, there’s no lead to follow. Same with “but science,” “but alarmism,” or any other square.
Glittering generalities are of no help to me.
Willard
Here is one example for you. If this does not work for you to understand my position on the issue I will consider it a waste of time to continue on this line. You believe what you do but at least listen to the media when some bad weather event takes place and they pull in a Climate Scientist. It will happen several times and the outcome is highly predictable. You seem closed minded on this point. Not sure why.
https://earthjustice.org/features/how-climate-change-is-fueling-extreme-weather
Norman,
You talked about “climate science.” Then you cited the Earth Justice website. If you talk about climate science, I expect you to cite and quote climate scientists, not an advocacy website.
If that website misrepresents the science, then there’s a problem with the website. If there’s no misrepresentation, then what’s the problem? Something tells me that the societal changes AGW may require are not to your liking.
For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.
There is precedent for Western US drought destroying a civilization.
Research the Anasazi.
EM,
I assume you have a point, but I am not sure what it is.
Drought has severely affected many civilisations in recorded history. The Akkadians, the Old Kingdom of Egypt, and so on.
If you think this was due to the Greenhouse Effect, I would presume you are a climate crackpot.
I don’t think you are that silly, so you might wish to elaborate on your comment.
Weather is continuously changing. No two days are exactly the same. Chaos writ large.
And so, the average of weather, climate, changes. Droughts, floods, glaciation, desertification, greening, afforestation, deforestation – all part of Nature, to put it simply.
If you think you can bend Nature to your will, eventually you will lose, if history is any guide. Man has existed for a short time, and hopefully a good time. Maybe I’m wrong, but preparing for the worst (as best I can), but hoping for the best, with the aim of living a contented life, seems reasonable to me.
So you see, in my view, alarmism and climate fear seems to be wasting a good worry for no particular reason. Bad luck for the Anasazi. They obviously needed more powerful magic.
Maybe another example of the universe unfolding as it should?
Norman Says: Climate Scientists are behaving a CO2isLife does. Like him (cherry picking data on small regions and making sweeping generalizations to support his own belief system, like that Antarctica has cooled means global warming is false).
That is a gross representation of what I do. Developing a hypothesis and controlled experiment isn’t “cherry-picking” it is sound science.
Let me review the Scientific Method.
1) Make an observation: The Physics of a CO2 molecule are constant, and CO2 evenly blanks the globe. Therefore the impact of CO2 is constant as far as W/m^2, yet regional temperature charts show wide discrepancies. Those differentials must be due to something other than CO2. Those factors are largely the UHI and Water Vapor.
2) Hypothesis: The UHI and Water Vapor effects must be the cause of the temperature differentials.
3) Develop an experiment: Identify locations (not Cherry Pick) that should have minimal impact of UHI and Water Vapor. These are largely cold and dry desert locations and have BIs of less that 20 or so.
4) Collect the data. Search for desert locations and areas with low BIs. Basically you are scrubbing the NASA data and removing the sites corrupted by the UHI and Water Vapor effect. Eliminatin corrupted data and outliers is sound science, it isn’t cherry picking.
5) Analyze the data to see it in fact the identified locations support the hypothesis or reject it. Once again, the locations were chosen to test a hypothesis, not to prove a point that there are some sites that show no warming. I’m sure there are many other sites that show no warming, but the sites I selected were elected to test a previously states hypothesis. That is science, not cherry-picking. Cherry picking is when you look through the data and simply choose data that supports you preconcieved conclusion. My data was specifically chosen to meet certain characteristics of the site, and I did not use the chart pattern as the basis of its selection. That is Cherry-Picking.
6) Here are the results and they speak for themselves and support the hypothesis that if you identify locations that are not largely impacted by the UHI and Water Vapor effect you will find no warming. I didn’t randomly choose Antarctica, Antarctica is the ideal location to control for the UHI and Water Vapor effect. That is how real science is done.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
Anyway, care to explain why so many locations show no warming with a 33% increase in CO2? That is the real question that needs to be answered. Do the laws of physics cease to exist at those locations?
Also, control for the ice sheet and you find a similar story with the sea levels.
https://imgur.com/a/siHPINY
I made public an assessment 13 years ago, based substantially on paleo data, that “…carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change.” It was hosted for many years on another site. When I discovered they had finally dropped it (nearly all of the links had died) I reposted it and it can now be seen at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350530743_Historical_Data_on_Global_Warming_provided_by_US_Government_Agencies . Your analysis is a solid corroboration of that conclusion. Good work!
CO2isLife
Nice reply.
Your first point is an incorrect assumption:
https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/215_8252801031_5e6c24afc9_o.jpg
CO2 is not uniform throughout the atmosphere. You have sinks and emission sources so it will not be uniform. Also this image will show that CO2 increase is not caused by ocean outgassing. The warm tropical oceans have lower concentrations of CO2 than the industrial regions in the Northern Hemisphere.
2) there are other things that can change global temperatures. Clouds for one, pollution, large volcanic eruptions. CO2 is just a steady increase, other factors will produce the ups and downs you see. Have you read articles on UHI and how they do take it into account? There are many published articles on how they deal with this knows phenomena.
YOU: “Anyway, care to explain why so many locations show no warming with a 33% increase in CO2? That is the real question that needs to be answered. Do the laws of physics cease to exist at those locations?”
The amount of change of IR from this increase in CO2 is small and can be overcome by other factors in regions.
Norman,
The Omaha bit was based on the the following tweet from the National Weather Service in Omaha/Valley Nebraska:
https://twitter.com/NWSOmaha/status/1405679809053614080
The piece was mostly about the Western heat wave. My takeaway from it isn’t that we are experiencing a record heat wave (let’s hope we won’t live another Dust Bowl!) but that the frequency of such extreme event could be increasing. Probly too early to tell. Still a matter of concern.
Let’s hope the Grand Solar Minimum will attenuate it!
willard…”My takeaway from it isnt that we are experiencing a record heat wave ”
So scientific!!! Willard, a confirmed global warming alarmist, reads a paper and concludes we are having a record heat wave.
You mentioned Dust Bowl. Do you know anything about the 1930s in the US and Canada whatsoever?
Yes I do, Gordon.
You were 15.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You do know that climate is the average of weather, don’t you?
Probably not, judging by your infatuation with the unknown future. Something could be increasing? Or could be decreasing, or even not going to change.
Convince me you can look into the future better than a 12 year kid, kiddo, and I’ll believe you. Demented unsupported climate crackpot claims about the future are not acceptable.
Donkey. Brays loudly, craps everywhere, lashes out at random.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Did you know that there’s no need to read your comments?
Have a quote:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves
Silly Billy Willy,
Heat waves are weather! In case you didn’t know.
As to the EPA, you realise that the climate nutters at the EPA are even more deluded than those at NASA and NOAA. They claim there is a “climate crisis”, and appeal to the authority of the IPCC, who at least acknowledge that it is impossible to predict future climate states!
Climate is the average of weather, pup!
You have a way to go before you can run with the big dogs.
Learn some physics, kiddo. Stop being such a gullible ninny!
Mike Flynn,
You might have missed the “from an average of two heat waves per year during the 1960s to six per year during the 2010s.”
How many definition of weather do you know that span over 50 years?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
lol sure https://realclimatescience.com/2019/06/nasa-data-tampering-not-just-for-temperatures/
we have always been at war with eastasia
Ah, teh Goddard. Always great!
Sea levels may not be related to heat waves, Dave.
Silly Willy,
Averages per year? Climate is now yearly averages? Really?
Notwithstanding your “silly semantic games”, you do realise that ” . . . major cities across the United States . . .” is representative of nothing more than what it states – some cities in an area which constitutes less than 6% of the world’s land mass. Who cares?
Have you heard of the UHI effect? The bigger the city, the more pronounced the UHI effect, unsurprisingly. Cities becoming warmer over time – gee, who’da thought?
Got anything useful – like the locations where the mythical GHE may be observed and measured?
You might be an idiot, but at least you are delusional.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
lol let’s see Goddard vs Willard, yeah tough call there
regardless of how you feel about random bloggers and their claims, anyone who’s actually looked at the original Palmer Drought Index data for ten seconds can see there’s never been another drought close to the 1930s, whatever the hysterical partisan crisis-mongers would like you to believe
and there very likely never will be due another such drought b/c of the intervening land use changes
but since you like Steve so much perhaps you’ll enjoy these as well — feel free to accuse him of “making up data,” that one’s always a fan favorite
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/09/03/long-heatwaves-are-a-thing-of-the-past-in-nebraska/
https://realclimatescience.com/1500-years-of-heatwaves/
Teh Goddard is not that random, Dave:
https://timpanogos.blog/2011/05/26/chronic-drought-complicated-by-chronic-denialism/
I should have kept my research on teh Goddard.
But then I never thought any credible Climateball player would ever take him srsly!
Dr, Spencer,
Not that it’s important or adds anything to the discussion, but I have a good friend on the CERES team. We had their family over for a BBQ over Memorial Day weekend. Didn’t discuss “global warming” or “climate change” once.
entropic…” That would raise the temperature from 15C to 35C. Lindzens claim that it would rise to 70C is mistaken.
That was the only paragraph worth correcting. The rest of your Gish Gallop is too absurd to be worth discussing”.
***
You are correcting a former professor of atmospheric physics at MIT by adding 35C onto a fabricated global AVERAGE computed largely from thermometers shaded from the Sun and wind. The oceans account for 70% of Earth’s surface area and a large chunk of the guestimated 15C average.
Lindzen was talking about surface temperatures and I have literally experienced close to what he means. On a summer camping trip to one of the hottest parts of Canada we had to move on because the temperature in the shade was above 40C. A local hotelier told us they used to put a thermometer in the Sun for a laugh and it read in the mid-50s C.
At the camping spot on a river there was literally no convection, not even a whisp of wind. The heat from the direct Sun was unbearable, and that’s in a northern latitude. If thermometers in the Sun can reach into the 50C range, it’s not incomprehensible that without any convection, they could reach 70C.
***
One thing I have noted over and over is your inability to contradict an argument on thermodynamics using the science. Unless you can address the points I made, based on the science of thermodynamics, your gish gallop comment is nothing more than a pathetic ad hom.
Your convection free camp site was a lot closer to the 35C I predicted than the 70C Lindzen predicted.
I give you science and you give me anecdote.
You brandish Lindzen’s qualifications, saying that because hehas higher qualifications than I do he is right and I am wrong. That is the logical fallacy known as the Argument from Authority.
Finally you complain about an ad hominem attack. You are mistaken. I was attacking the poor quality of your arguments. An ad hom is an attack on you personally.
Entropic man
That is now the very best!
Robertson
– whining about an alleged ad hom
– appealing to authority.
1. Robertson is one of the most disgusting commenters on this blog; he can’t stop denigrating science people with brute force ad homs like ‘stinking cheater’, ‘cheating SOB’ and the like – just because he is not able to understand what they wrote.
2. Robertson belongs to those people who all the time discredit other commenters referring to scientific work, with ‘That’s appeal to authority!’.
Ha ha ha.
J.-P. D.
There is a delay between ASRAS and LWOutAS because of the heat uptake of the planet. Is it possible to quantify this lag from the CERES data as a function of time?
studentb
Temperatures on our terrace – near Berlin, Germoney at 1 PM @ UTC+2
– 21.06: 31 C, sunny/cloudy
– 22.06: 16 C, clouds & a bit of rain
Yeah, we had a little heat wave during a few days.
OK?
J.-P. D.
ICE AGE COMING NEAR YOU
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-greatest-heat-wave-in-northwest.html
Whacky Wee Willy,
“My own evaluation from looking at a wide range of forecast guidance . . .”.
Oooooh! An evaluation regarding the future!
Who cares? You? If you really care, what do you intend to do about it?
Nothing?
That’s what I thought. You are an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
The evaluation you mock was made by Cliff Mass:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Mass
I thought contrarians liked him.
Ah well.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Any fool can “evaluate” the future in any manner they want, and many do.
The future is unknowable.
I’ll repeat –
“Who cares? You? If you really care, what do you intend to do about it?
Nothing?
That’s what I thought. You are an idiot.”
– and a slow learner.
Mike Flynn,
Enjoy your afternoon.
there is no justification for the claim, “the magnitude of the increase is unprecedented.”
just measured my height and it is unprecedented — I have never been taller
(cough cough in the last month cough cough)
ahem
anyways, if global heat uptake is always positive, why did the troposphere cool, warm, and then cool again over the last ten years? bit tired of hearing how the oceans ate the modelers’ homework
” if global heat uptake is always positive, why did the troposphere cool, warm, and then cool again over the last ten years?”
ENSO
Which is, I believe, modulated by the PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/pdo.jpeg
PDO with 15 year low pass added
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/amo.jpeg
AMO with 15 year low pass added
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/giss.jpeg
GISS with 15 year low pass added
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/had crut.jpeg
Had Crut5 with 15 year low pass added
Remove the space between the d and the c for the url to work correctly
I tried my best to find a correlation between your PDO and Had*crut T record, but it is quite poor.
You try?
Both exhibit cyclic behavior. Which seems to correspond across all sources done so far.
The differences in land based and satellite based sources since 1980 or so is quite striking.
So you don’t want to check if Temp and PDO are actually correlated across the whole record?
Afraid it won’t be?
Are you afraid that they might be in the early record but not more recently? Have to come up with a mechanism to explain that?
To say that the PDO does not exhibit cycles, be they not always of the same length, is to deny the evidence.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/pdo-reconstruction-1470-1998-shen-2006-with-gaussian-low-pass-30-and-75-year-filters-and-had crut-overlay.png
Your link didnt work
Because of Roy’s parser I had to add a space between d and the c. Remove that space and all will then work.
Nate says: I tried my best to find a correlation between your PDO and Had*crut T record, but it is quite poor.
The argument as I understand it is that warm phases of the PDO impart a warming trend on global temperature and vice versa.
Semi-analytically, that means warm PDO corresponds with positive slope in the detrended temperature and cool PDO with a negative slope. In the linked WFT plot there’s decent correlation between the derivative (hence residual slope) of temperature and the PDO with RLH’s filtering.
The peak residual slope is on the order of +0.0012 C/year which is small relative to the observed warming over the observed period, even ignoring the negative half cycle.
Also the warming in the period shown in the plot seems to be leading the switch in the PDO cycle which makes arguing causality from PDO problematic.
What is it with me and links today?
https://tinyurl.com/nxsf74yx
Interesting. Could be something.
The problem is that if you look at his filtered PDO going back to 1854, we have Had5 going back to 1850, there is no match prior to 1930.
OTOH, on short time scales the PDO and Temp match up too many features to be fortuitous.
https://tinyurl.com/bnn74jd8
Now explain the observation of the PDO going back to 1450 or so in Chen at al.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/pdo-reconstruction-1470-1998-shen-2006-with-gaussian-low-pass-30-and-75-year-filters-and-had crut-overlay.png
(Remove the space between the d and c for the url to function as expected)
“PDO going back to 1450” but not temperature.
Your green 15LP PDO stops in 1920. Why not show the one from above that goes back to 1850s?
That one does not match 15LP Temp or its derivative for the < 1930 period.
Also the reconstructions going back are very different.
https://byrd.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2021-04/Porter_et_al_J_Climate_2021.pdf
Fig 6
Nate says: Your green 15LP PDO stops in 1920. Why not show the one from above that goes back to 1850s?
Indeed, the correlation between PDO and Had doesn’t seem to hold up prior to 1920 something and the most recent years aren’t following the drop in PDO.
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/pdoAndHad.png
Nice. Very clear.
“Why not show the one from above that goes back to 1850s?”
You have an accurate source for temperature data going back to the 1850s?
One without wide uncertainty bands surrounding it that is?
Uncertainty means it can be anywhere in that band, not purely at the center of it as most wish to assume.
“Also the reconstructions going back are very different.”
Are you suggesting that ice cores are better than rainfall records as a proxy source? Others may differ.
Certainly both cannot be correct.
“Nice. Very clear.”
It shows very clearly periodicity. Do you dispute that?
“It shows very clearly periodicity. Do you dispute that?”
One ‘cycle’ is not enough to establish periodicity. Do you not get that?
This reconstruction makes clear that the 20th century amplitude and duration is not representative, does not repeat in the 19th, 18th, etc.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/PDO1000yr.svg/1280px-PDO1000yr.svg.png
But there are other reconstructions that oddly differ.
“You have an accurate source for temperature data going back to the 1850s?
One without wide uncertainty bands surrounding it that is?
Uncertainty means it can be anywhere in that band, not purely at the center of it as most wish to assume.”
So uncertainty means we shouldnt look? What year do you decide to stop looking?
As noted the match is absent < 1930.
I think Mark B. clear description of why this is a problem is still valid.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-736371
“One cycle is not enough to establish periodicity. Do you not get that?”
Yup.
“This reconstruction makes clear that the 20th century amplitude and duration is not representative, does not repeat in the 19th, 18th, etc.”
So, pray tell me, what contributes to the up and downs of the summary as shown? Chance?
You want to believe more in a hockey stick than anything else. I don’t.
“So, pray tell me, what contributes to the up and downs of the summary as shown? Chance?”
Anthro Forcings, ENSO, volcanoes, solar.
“You want to believe more in a hockey stick than anything else. I dont.”
Its about evidence, not belief.
So your answer about the AMO is what?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/amo.jpeg
AMO with 15 year low pass added
So any cyclicity in the PDO is driven by “Anthro Forcings, ENSO, volcanoes, solar.” but any similar cyclicity in the AMO is just ‘well recognized’?
What am I supposed to answer about AMO? It also doesnt appear to be well correlated to Global Temp.
Perhaps the right linear combination of PDO and AMO will be better correlated to Global Temp.
“It also doesnt appear to be well correlated to Global Temp.”
Perhaps it might be better correlated to more local temps.
“https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10946″
Published: 04 April 2012
Aerosols implicated as a prime driver of twentieth-century North Atlantic climate variability
Ben B. B. Booth, Nick J. Dunstone, Paul R. Halloran, Timothy Andrews & Nicolas Bellouin
Nature volume 484, pages228232 (2012)Cite this article
Abstract
Systematic climate shifts have been linked to multidecadal variability in observed sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic Ocean1. These links are extensive, influencing a range of climate processes such as hurricane activity2 and African Sahel3,4,5 and Amazonian5 droughts. The variability is distinct from historical global-mean temperature changes and is commonly attributed to natural ocean oscillations6,7,8,9,10. A number of studies have provided evidence that aerosols can influence long-term changes in sea surface temperatures11,12, but climate models have so far failed to reproduce these interactions6,9 and the role of aerosols in decadal variability remains unclear. Here we use a state-of-the-art Earth system climate model to show that aerosol emissions and periods of volcanic activity explain 76 per cent of the simulated multidecadal variance in detrended 18602005 North Atlantic sea surface temperatures. After 1950, simulated variability is within observational estimates; our estimates for 19101940 capture twice the warming of previous generation models but do not explain the entire observed trend. Other processes, such as ocean circulation, may also have contributed to variability in the early twentieth century. Mechanistically, we find that inclusion of aerosolcloud microphysical effects, which were included in few previous multimodel ensembles, dominates the magnitude (80 per cent) and the spatial pattern of the total surface aerosol forcing in the North Atlantic. Our findings suggest that anthropogenic aerosol emissions influenced a range of societally important historical climate events such as peaks in hurricane activity and Sahel drought. Decadal-scale model predictions of regional Atlantic climate will probably be improved by incorporating aerosolcloud microphysical interactions and estimates of future concentrations of aerosols, emissions of which are directly addressable by policy actions.”
“The AMO is correlated to air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular in the summer climate in North America and Europe.[17][18] Through changes in atmospheric circulation, the AMO can also modulate spring snowfall over the Alps[19] and glaciers’ mass variability.[20] Rainfall patterns are affected in North Eastern Brazilian and African Sahel. It is also associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricane activity.”
“So any cyclicity in the PDO is driven by “Anthro Forcings, ENSO, volcanoes, solar.”
No. Your question didnt specify -I assumed you were talking about what accounts for Global Temp variation.
Nobody seems to know what drives PDO variation, other than ENSO.
Well rainfall records in China seem to indicate that whatever drives the PDO has been there regularly since the 1450s.
“530-yr PDO reconstruction from the western side of the Pacific Ocean based on a drought/flood (D/F) index (a five-grade category index), from eastern China for 1470 to 2000, derived from Chinese historical documents.
28 regions with complete or relatively complete (very few gaps, which were filled using the index from their nearest regions) time series and strong PDO signals are selected from 58 available regions in eastern China (2240N, 110122E). These regions located at the two ends of the PDO-related summer rainfall dipole. The warm phases of the PDO coincide with anomalous dry periods in both North and South China, and wet periods in the middle and lower Yangtze River Valley. The opposite moisture regimes exist in cool phases. This pattern is a result of changes in the strength of the summer monsoon and the position of the subtropical high altered by the PDO. During warm phases, the summer monsoon is weak, and the strong subtropical high is located far to the south and west. Therefore, the summer rainfall in eastern China can provide useful information
about the PDO.”
Correcting the liars talking about heatwaves.
EPA has a heatwave index, published this year, with data from 1895 through 2020:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-lying-about-us-heatwaves-is-done-by.html
I can describe the data without the usual data mining and/or data truncation:
The index today is about the same as in the late 1890s.
The 1895 to 22020 peak is about 1.3, in the mid-1930s, and the 1930s are, by far, the decade with the most heatwaves.
After global cooling began in about 1940, the 1960s were the low heatwaves decade, with the index near zero.
The index is currently about 0.5
Cherry picking the 1960s as a data start point is a deliberate attempt to create an uptrend for political reasons, ignoring the prior 65 years of data.
That deception is a form of lying.
Anyone who lies about heatwaves can never be trusted on any climate-related subject.
Your source does not trace the provenance of that graph, RM.
If you want me to do the leg work for you, all you got to do is ask.
It’ll cost you, however.
Willard:
Thank You Willard:
Being suspicious and skeptical are important scientific character traits. Also important is the ability to say “we don’t know that” or “I don’t know”.
The post at my link has been improved, based on your input:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-lying-about-us-heatwaves-is-done-by.html
The post now includes a link to the EPA chart, and an explanation of how the EPA tries to deceive viewers by deliberately truncating data — starting with the lowest heatwave decade of the 1960s — to create an uptrend to 2020.
The “liar charts” (Figure 1) load first on the page at the EPA link. (Noytr: The EPA also truncated US wildfire acres burned data, using the sane trick to deceive viewers.)
I have provided instructions on how to find the full Figure 3 chart from 1895 to 2020.
The 1960s had so few US heatwaves that all other decades from 1895 to 2020 are higher. Truncating US heatwaves data is lying, and censorship. Claiming the full data chart is still available is not a good excuse. This is typical misleading by leftists. Especially common during the Dementia Joe Biden Administration.
Ric,
In the past, I had allowed that EPA was merely incompetent. (Sect 3 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com ) Given your observations it is looking more like they are being intentionally deceitful; apparently a rather common characteristic of the Deep State.
Oooohhh yeah! The Deep State at work! Tell me how I can join them.
I have been told that it is fun being paranoid and better than drugs.
c,
You have just demonstrated that you need to join nothing, unless you want to deny that you are a climate crackpot!
Is it that much fun being paranoid (like Michael Mann), and convinced there is a global conspiracy headed by Big Oil (or some other vague, undefined enemy) to bring down the heroic climate warriors, who are desperately battling against all odds to save the world from dark forces?
Just how stupid do you wish to look?
You don’t need my help, obviously.
RM,
Thank you for having cited your source. In it should find this link:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/downloads-indicators-technical-documentation
In the technical documentation on heat waves, you should read:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/heat-waves_td.pdf
Hope this helps improve your rants about FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOM.
Oh Wearisome Wee Willy,
You are stupid enough to use the EPA as an authority on weather?
Join the rest of the climate crackpots.
Mike Flynn,
Where’s your Sky Dragon bench?
Woeful Wee Willy,
Trying the diversion tactic, are you, pup?
What is a “Sky Dragon Bench”, pray tell?
Another of your “silly semantic games”, is it?
You are an idiot, refusing to accept reality. You do know what EPA stands for, don’t you? Environmental Protection Authority. More propaganda than science, unless you can demonstrate the opposite, which of course you can’t, can you?
Bad luck, kiddo. Appeal to another authority – Michael Mann (faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat), perhaps.
Ho, ho, ho!
Mike Flynn,
You asked about the EPA.
My comment quoted Cliff Mass, who’s not from the EPA.
Pray tell more about diversionary tactics!
The EPA is the Environmental Protection Authority?
Well that’s news to me!
Wayward Wee Willy,
Here’s what I asked –
“What is a Sky Dragon Bench, pray tell?”
No question about the EPA. You just made that up.
Bad luck, pup.
You have to learn to mewl before you can bark.
You are an idiot, so drooling and slobbering might be more your style.
Mike Flynn,
Here is what you asked:
“You are stupid enough to use the EPA as an authority on weather?”
Thanks for playing dumb!
I don’t know where people like this genius Richard Greene get their ideas about everybody being a liar, just because the chart they want to see is no longer at the place they want to have for it.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves
Yes … now this master picture, which begins with the data from 1895, has been moved to the anonymous Fig. 3! Horrible.
Comment a-t-on pu dissimuler une information aussi importante? Oh, Mon Dieu, quelle manipulation!
*
Here is another picture telling us a bit more than the simple heat wave plot (it has been derived from similar information collected and processed by John Christy).
For each year starting in 1985, it shows the number per 100,000 observations of daily maximum / low minimum / high minimum temperatures in CONUS:
https://i.postimg.cc/sDvCHwqx/GHCN-daily-CONUS-maxima-minima-nogrid-percentiles-1895-2020.png
It is nice to see
– that the lowest minima are continually decreasing since 1895
– that in 1934 and 1936, not only the highest number of maxima, but also the highest number of highest minima were observed;
– that since around 1970, the highest minima are increasing.
*
But CONUS is CONUS, and not the Globe:
https://i.postimg.cc/28bcsJwq/GHCN-daily-Globe-maxima-minima-grid-percentiles-1895-2020.png
(Of course: the second graph is based on area weighted data, otherwise the Globe would look like CONUS, because 80 % of the worldwide 100+ year old stations are located there.)
It is nice to see
– that here too, the lowest minima are continually decreasing since 1895
– but that here, the correlation between maxima and highest minima looks a little bit different, doesn’t it?
J.-P. D.
I don’t know much about the PDO:
https://postimg.cc/JHLfw9s3
And thus, I’ll come back tomorrow evening with a percentile-based comparison of it with historical ENSO data.
Because somehow I miss a correlation of this PDO stuff with known El Ninos, beginning for example with the 1877/78 edition.
Mal sehen…
Buenas noches from my UTC+2 corner
J.-P. D.
PDO and ENSO are linked, just not in a simple way. I look forward to anything you can bring in terms of insight into their connections.
You may find the linked article of interest. From this one would expect significant correlation between ENSO and PDO, but it would be interesting to quantify that correlation.
Link:
Try again:
https://tinyurl.com/bc9367dm
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/going-out-ice-cream-first-date-pacific-decadal-oscillation
The above is interesting but it does not cover the fact that the PDO is cyclic. That is, it can be shown to have cycles, which are quite long period in nature.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/pdo.jpeg
PDO with 15 year low pass added
“cyclic” seems to have lost all its usual meaning.
It no longer seems to mean periodic, no longer seems to mean with steady amplitude.
As the article noted, PDO is a mixture of things, some of which may have cycles, some of which are just noise.
I stretch cyclic to include non-sinusoidal cycles, that’s all.
A Low pass filter does not distinguish between ‘noise’ and cycles, only that they are > 15 years in length.
You could always run a 15 year LOWESS over the data and achieve basically the same thing. Would you consider that to be a useful exerice? If not, why not?
Here is a century of random white noise with the same filter:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/noise/mean:108/mean:144/mean:180
Now plot that (as I did) with the ‘random’ data also and tell me that the summary is not a fair characterization of the data it represents. If the data source you use contains ‘cycles’ then a low pass filter will show it. Not added. Nothing removed.
Just because it is ‘random’ does not mean that there are no ‘cycles’ in it much as you would like to make it seem. And I think we can agree that any examination of the PDO says that it is made up of a lot of things that can be considered to be ‘cyclic’. The paper you referenced said that also.
You still haven’t explained how come Shen et al shows a continuation of the ‘cycles’ discovered in the recent PDO going back as far as the 1450s.
‘Noise’ alone won’t account for that.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/pdo-reconstruction-1470-1998-shen-2006-with-gaussian-low-pass-30-and-75-year-filters-and-had crut-overlay.png
(Remove the space between the d and c to make the link work as expected)
Sorry. The paper was referenced by Mark B, not by Nate.
https://tinyurl.com/bc9367dm
1. The Aleutian Low
2. The persistence of (ocean) memory
3. The Kuroshio Current
The Shen et al doesnt agree with other ones,
https://byrd.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2021-04/Porter_et_al_J_Climate_2021.pdf
Fig 6
“If the data source you use contains cycles then a low pass filter will show it. Not added. Nothing removed. Just because it is random does not mean that there are no cycles in it much as you would like to make it seem.”
The data source is random white noise from WFT. It is not periodic. Not sure why you wanna claim that contains ‘cycles’.
When you filter and limit the band, noise appears to be ‘cyclic’.
with unfiltered signal
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/noise/mean:108/mean:144/mean:180/plot/noise
“The data source is random white noise from WFT. It is not periodic. Not sure why you wanna claim that contains ‘cycles’.”
Not played much with random data have you? Ever heard of the color of noise? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colors_of_noise
All ‘random’ data contains ‘cycles’. It proves nothing.
In any case, the PDO is not random, as the referenced paper clearly shows.
“When you filter and limit the band, noise appears to be ‘cyclic’.”
How is a low pass filter limiting the bandwidth? Anything, ANYTHING, below the cut off frequency is displayed. Sure it has an upper cut off value but that would only serve to filter out the high frequency noise.
“The Shen et al doesn’t agree with other ones”
You going to tell Shen et al then?
Not even the wavelets match.
Also goes to show your claim about the PDO not being ‘cyclic’ is not true, just shows different ‘cycles’ that is all.
As to if ice cores are more accurate than rainfall records well….
“with unfiltered signal”
Just goes to show that my eyeball of the data shows it has periods in it. That wavy line is central to the points in the ‘noise’ is it not?
As do all of my >15 year data filters. The acid test is ‘is it a good summary of the data presented?’ If the answer is yes, then the validity of the summation is correct.
c.f.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/amo.jpeg
AMO with 15 year low pass added
“Just goes to show that my eyeball of the data shows it has periods in it. That wavy line is central to the points in the ‘noise’ is it not?”
Seems that this is just pure semantics, then. Not sure why it is important to you to call it a ‘cycle’.
Noise has ‘cycles’ in it that do not repeat and have random phases, frequencies, and amplitudes.
Thats what makes it noise.
This is quite different from, eg, the solar cycle which repeats with a very narrow period range 10-11 y.
ENSO is a bit of a hybrid. El Ninos appear at somewhat random times, but when they do appear, the spatio-temporal pulse is roughly the same shape every time, peaking ~ at Christmas.
It is still the case that 1854-present PDO, that you you showed above, but dont show in your comparison plot, does not match the T pattern for the same period.
Can you add to your graph?
FYI
“cyclic
/ˈsīklik,ˈsiklik/
Learn to pronounce
1.occurring in cycles; regularly repeated.”
“Cyclic | Definition of Cyclic at Dictionary.comhttps://www.dictionary.com browse cyclic
Cyclic definition, revolving or recurring in cycles; characterized by recurrence in cycles. See more.”
Random noise, by definition, does not repeat or recur. It is not cyclic.
Random noise contains all sorts of frequencies. ALL of them. Therefore filtering it will produce those frequencies. If you run a low pass filter over noise it will produce the low frequencies that are present. So you have ‘proved’ nothing.
The facts are that all of nature is driven by periodicity. Some of the periods are approaching sine waves. Some are approaching triangular waves, Some are approaching square waves. Some come and go as other frequencies are modulating them.
Some are pulses that may or may not repeat.
Very, very few are pure random noise. Even less are white noise.
None produce straight lines, such as OLS linear regression does.
“you run a low pass filter over noise it will produce the low frequencies that are present. So you have proved nothing.”
I’ve proved that noise does not fit the definition of ‘cyclic’. It does not contain cyclic or repeating signals, as you had claimed.
Moving on.
The PDO record from 1850 to present does not seem to be correlated to temperature, over long time scales, so, cyclic or not,..now what?
I gather that PDO contains ENSO contributions. That may explain why it is correlated to T on short time scales, since ENSO definitely affects T on short times.
“Ive proved that noise does not fit the definition of cyclic. It does not contain cyclic or repeating signals, as you had claimed.”
No you haven’t. All ‘noise’ contains all frequencies as it should. Passing that thorough a low pass filter will produce whatever low frequencies are present. As it should.
“The PDO record from 1850 to present does not seem to be correlated to temperature, over long time scales, so, cyclic or not,..now what?”
Are you saying that there are no low frequency wriggles in the PDO? Are you saying that despite that wavelet analysis shows that there are indeed wriggles present? Are you arguing against yourself?
“I gather that PDO contains ENSO contributions. That may explain why it is correlated to T on short time scales, since ENSO definitely affects T on short times.”
Are you saying that you do not expect that ENSO is modulated by the PDO? And thus have an impact on temps over much longer periods than just ENSO delivers.
On another subject
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/had crut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters1.png
(Remove the space between d and c to make the url work as expected)
shows that all temperature sources since 1850 show similar behaviors. What mechanism o you have for that?
RLH says:
“Nate says: The PDO record from 1850 to present does not seem to be correlated to temperature, over long time scales, so, cyclic or not,..now what?”
Are you saying that there are no low frequency wriggles in the PDO? Are you saying that despite that wavelet analysis shows that there are indeed wriggles present?
“The PDO record from 1850 to present does not seem to be correlated to temperature . . .” is clearly addressing the correlation between “wriggles” in the two time series, not their existence.
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/pdoAndHad.png
Mark B; Thank you for that analysis. It is quite interesting how the ‘wriggles’ in the various series match up.
Please also do credit Vaughan Pratt for the 1, 1.2067 and 1.5478 inter stage multipliers for the CTRM (assuming that you used those)
“Are you saying that there are no low frequency wriggles in the PDO? ”
No, obviously not. Where would you get that idea?
Do you not know what correlation means? It means the two signals have wriggles that are not in sync.
If they are not in sync than it is unlikely that wriggles in one CAUSE the main wriggles in the other.
“that are not in sync.” Arghh. Should have said “are in sync”.
“No you havent. All noise contains all frequencies as it should. Passing that thorough a low pass filter will produce whatever low frequencies are present. As it should.”
You said you were not cycle-obsessed, but here you are still ‘finding’ cycles in noise.
Noise contains all frequencies. Some noise has more low frequencies. But those are not ‘cyclic’, in that it they do not have a regular repeating cycle that has some predictability to it.
Noise is random, stochastic, thus not repeating and not predictable.
Did you see Mark B’s graph?
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/pdoAndHad.png
“You said you were not cycle-obsessed, but here you are still finding cycles in noise.”
I can find low frequencies in noise? Who knew they could even exist?
White noise: Equal levels across all bandwidths. Should show identical levels in band pass filters.
Pink noise: Falls of at -3db/octave. More low frequency below than above in band pass filters.
Red noise: Falls of at -6db/octave. More low frequencies than Pink in band pass filters.
Blue noise: Rises at +3db/octave. More high frequency above than below in band pass filters.
Violet noise: Rises at +6db/octave. More high frequency above than below in band pass filters.
Grey noise: A human equal loudness rating. Lowest in the middle of the band.
RLH says:
Mark B; Thank you for that analysis. It is quite interesting how the ‘wriggles’ in the various series match up.
It would be interesting if the PDO and Had series “wriggles” matched up, but they don’t.
“It is quite interesting how the ‘wriggles’ in the various series match up.”
It is quite interesting that you are seeing things that at least two others of us do not see.
In denial maybe?
A precise fit, no. A connection, probably.
A ~50 to 60 year periodic in both cases. Crut4 ahead of PDO in both cases.
Crut4 and Crut4 decadal showing a phase delay of 20 years or so.
PDO and PDO long quite nicely aligned over the overlaps.
“It is quite interesting that you are seeing things that at least two others of us do not see.”
Like you do not see the relationship between GISS and Crut, RSS and UAH I showed earlier
Had5 and PDO go back to 1850s, so > 160 y.
140 y shown here. In there I can see one downward wriggle of ~ 40 y in PDO that matches the derivative of had5 Temp.
Really the rest of the time there is no match to Temp or derivative of Temp.
Both the peaks in the 1930s and the 1990s and the trough in the 1960s match quite nicely.
Of course that is only one ‘wriggle’ so we will have to wait for more data I suspect.
Other than that, periodicity shows up in all traces.
Other climate related sources show similar periodicity, some shorter, some longer. All non-sine waves but that is to be expected.
You seem upset that the PDO is not the only input into global temperatures. I would be surprised if it is. There is a lot of the globe outside of the central Pacific to take account of you know.
“Both the peaks in the 1930s and the 1990s and the trough in the 1960s match quite nicely.”
Nope. Clearly you wear glasses that filter out non-confirming information.
“You seem upset that the PDO is not the only input into global temperatures. I would”
Strange trolling tactic..
RLH says:
Both the peaks in the 1930s and the 1990s and the trough in the 1960s match quite nicely.
The plot shows approximately three complete cycles of the PDO and two warming cycles of Had. This means necessarily that the phase relationship varies which is difficult to reconcile with the hypothesized causality of PDO phase driving the Had temperature anomaly.
Further, if two of the three PDO cycles contributed to the two Had warming periods, it’s problematic explaining how the contribution was relatively large in those cases and was apparently absent or balanced by some unknown effect in the other.
“Clearly you wear glasses that filter out non-confirming information.”
Clearly I am surprised that even that sort of confirmation exists. I expect it to be more complicated with other factors impacting it and other frequencies beating with it and messing up the signal.
But no, you want trivial outcomes dropped on your plate for easy consumption.
Not come up with a reason why GISS and Crut exhibit such similar patterns across many years I note.
“This means necessarily that the phase relationship varies which is difficult to reconcile with the hypothesized causality of PDO phase driving the Had temperature anomaly.”
Who said that one drives the other? Certainly not me. It is much more likely that other factors drive both PDO and Had.
” Who said that one drives the other?”
The one who said this:
“What I am saying is that, regardless of if you can find good temperature data way back then, it will have had an effect that is the same as occurred more recently, but back then.
The more recent behavior demonstrates that the PDO has quite a significant effect of global temperatures as the paper Roy references shows.”
“” Who said that one drives the other?”
The one who said this:”
The paper did indeed show that the PDO (and ENSO) have an impact on global temperatures. That did not exclude the fact that what we are seeing is that both are being driven by other factors and are thus correlated.
The dangers of ‘local’ being extrapolated to ‘global’ has been mentioned elsewhere. Let’s not add to that mistake.
“expect it to be more complicated with other factors impacting it and other frequencies beating with it and messing up the signal.”
IOW, anything goes. Your ideas are fully protected from falsifiability.
As are yours with a hockey stick to support them.
RLH: That did not exclude the fact that what we are seeing is that both are being driven by other factors and are thus correlated.
The difficulty is we’ve established that the data since 1850 shows poor correlation between global temperature rise and PDO.
We have established that it exhibits some correlation. We have not established it has full correlation.
With local versa global that is hardly a surprise.
Any comments of the rather obvious cyclicity of the AMO?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/amo.jpeg
AMO with 15 year low pass added
Any comments of the rather obvious cyclicity of the AMO?
So what you’re saying Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation is oscillatory over multiple decades? I wonder if anyone has noticed this before?
Of course they have. Are you going to deny it?
Or that it has a period of ~60 years?
“As are yours with a hockey stick to support them.”
A ‘hockey stick’ is an apt description of shape of the long term T record.
It is not a mechanism, as you seem to imply.
The mechanism is Anthro and Natural Forcings. And the hockey stick shape IS consistent with these.
The GHG Forcing is quantitive, and ultimately falsifiable via model data comparison.
“Not come up with a reason why GISS and Crut exhibit such similar patterns across many years I note.”
The reason is obvious. The are based on the same data!
Odd question.
Similar but not identical. That is the puzzle.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/had crut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters1.png
Remove the added space to get round Roy’s parser
“A ‘hockey stick’ is an apt description of shape of the long term T record.”
Hockey sticks have been created before to justify the determined reason behind the rise in temperatures. Didn’t go well last time.
“It is not a mechanism, as you seem to imply.”
No, it’s a justification.
“The GHG Forcing is quantitive, and ultimately falsifiable via model data comparison.”
How is the model versa measurement going? In most cases the models are running too hot AFAIK.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/?mc_cid=98f7be9b02&mc_eid=44e134bf32
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/68-models-vs-obs-1979-2021-oceans-Fig01.jpg
“That is the puzzle.”
Not really. You can read about their different algorithms.
Another red herring.
“How is the model versa measurement going? In most cases the models are running too hot AFAIK.”
Yes, could be. The jury is out on that.
Clearly the models are capturing the main features of the T record. I am most impressed with modeling from 4 decades ago, that was able to model the previous 100 y, then use that tuned model to successfully predict the subsequent 40 y T rise and its spatial pattern.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
But just as related weather models have improved over decades by comparing to observations, climate models are doing so as well.
Consider, eg, how much Hurricane strength and path predictions have improved over time.
“Not really. You can read about their different algorithms.”
Ones that start and finish in the same (or similar) place but differ in the middle.
“Yes, could be. The jury is out on that.”
I refer you to Roy’s article and graph I referenced earlier.
“Hockey sticks have been created before to justify the determined reason behind the rise in temperatures.”
The point of science is to account for what we observe. You can call that ‘justify’ if you like, but that is just political spin.
‘It is not a mechanism, as you seem to imply.’
“No, its a justification.”
There has been a real, physics-based mechanism for GHE forcing since way before it became politicized.
You need to show, scientifically, not politically, why it is flawed.
“Consider, eg, how much Hurricane strength and path predictions have improved over time.”
We are better at weather, true. Doesn’t mean we are any better at climate though. Models versa measurement, as Roy demonstrated, are close to disagreement.
“You need to show, scientifically, not politically, why it is flawed.”
The IPCC allows for way too little natural variation in the climate. They don’t even want to acknowledge the clear cyclicity in the WMO for instance. You will look in vain for any acknowledgement of a 60 year cycle in anything, despite what the AMO records clearly show.
“They dont even want to acknowledge the clear cyclicity in the WMO for instance.”
They dont even want to acknowledge the clear cyclicity in the AMO for instance.
My only defense is that W and A are close together on the keyboard.
“I refer you to Roys article and graph I referenced earlier.”
One paper or one scientist’s take on an issue is generally not the whole story.
I refer you to the articles cited in posts that disagree with Roy’s POV.
“One paper or one scientists take on an issue is generally not the whole story.”
Why do you think that there is only one who disagrees? Oh, I forgot, 97% of scientist agree. How could it be anything else?
Just as the herd says that nothing in nature and climate has a 60 year cycle.
The herd is not always correct.
“IPCC, 97%, Hockey shtick, yada yada yada”
More and more your political biases are showing…
Personally, I think bringing politics into the discussion is is a lazy way out of having to back up your assertions with real science facts.
“Just as the herd says that nothing in nature and climate has a 60 year cycle.”
Well, after this long discussion backing away from that claim, you return to it?
But you have yet to come up with evidence of a 60 y cycle that repeats beyond the mid 20th century.
“The AMO is correlated to air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular in the summer climate in North America and Europe. Through changes in atmospheric circulation, the AMO can also modulate spring snowfall over the Alps and glaciers mass variability. Rainfall patterns are affected in North Eastern Brazilian and African Sahel. It is also associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricane activity.”
“But you have yet to come up with evidence of a 60 y cycle that repeats beyond the mid 20th century.”
1850 good enough?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/amo.jpeg
Maybe.
Hockey-stick Mann found oscillations in reconstructed Temps, and even named it AMO.
https://www.nature.com/articles/378266a0
but then lost them:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w
This latter paper goes thru a lot of the history of it.
Your claim that nobody has paid attention to them or acknowledged them seems to be quite erroneous.
In any case, cyclic or not, AMO doesnt seem to contribute much to the Global Temp record.
“However, previous work12,27 demonstrates a very weak projection of any AMO signal onto large-scale mean temperature, as the putative signal is associated primarily with a large-scale redistribution of heat, rather than a mean change in surface temperature.”
“The AMO is correlated to air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular in the summer climate in North America and Europe. Through changes in atmospheric circulation, the AMO can also modulate spring snowfall over the Alps and glaciers mass variability. Rainfall patterns are affected in North Eastern Brazilian and African Sahel. It is also associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricane activity.“
“lost them” in the models.
Absence of internal multidecadal and interdecadal oscillations in climate model simulations
“Hockey-stick Mann found oscillations in reconstructed Temps, and even named it AMO.”
I must get round to doing all the proxy series I did previously to demonstrate their cyclicity. Mind you, as they don’t update things to the current day, then things will be no different than they were then when I first did them.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/anderson-mann-ammann-loehle-and-had crut-global-anomalies-aligned-in-overlap-periods-with-gaussian-low-pass-15-year-filters1.png
(usual thing about removing the space between d and c to get the url working correctly)
Again we are back to the issue that anthro forcing can account for the hockey stick shape and magnitude of the rise. While these internal cycles cannot. They have neither the strength nor the time history required to account for the global temperature record.
So are you expecting the global temperature as measured by satellites (say Roy’s UAH for instance) to show a rise or a fall in a couple of days time?
Non sequitur.
Whatever it does, will it help you falsify AGW?
Nothing I say or show will falsify AGW in your mind apparently.
You just believe that chance coincidence of multiple separate factors explains all you see. I don’t. Time I expect will determine who is correct.
Pity you don’t have enough faith in your beliefs to venture what will happen in only a few days now though.
“You just believe that chance coincidence of multiple separate factors explains all you see. I dont. Time I expect will determine who is correct.”
So science tests a physics-based theory, as has been done here. And it passes many many tests. Yet YOU decide that it is all ‘coincidence’?
How do you decide that, other than by applying bpolitical biases?
“Nothing I say or show will falsify AGW in your mind apparently.”
Pls review for me what you think you have shown that falsifies it???
All natural ‘cycles/wriggles’ that are longer than 15 years and which Mann, at least, claims do not exist.
“So science tests a physics-based theory, as has been done here.”
Science is allowed to counter with an observation that natural cycles/wriggles contribute to a lot more than is allowed for in the work done to date.
Or you could just rely on random chance making a whole load of other factors just look like those cycles/wriggles and thus dismiss their existence.
“Science is allowed to counter with an observation that natural cycles/wriggles contribute to a lot more than is allowed for in the work done to date.”
You havent shown us the evidence that they ‘contribute a lot more’, and that there contribution is capable of producing the rising trend.
Sorry, you just havent.
Declarations, beliefs, hopes, desires. None cut it in science.
“Or you could just rely on random chance making a whole load of other factors just look like those cycles/wriggles and thus dismiss their existence.”
What ‘whole load of other factors’? What are you applying random chance to?
You understand that for those of us lacking your particular set of biases/beliefs, we require more than hand-waving speculation.
“The IPCC allows for way too little natural variation in the climate. They dont even want to acknowledge the clear cyclicity in the AMO for instance. You will look in vain for any acknowledgement of a 60 year cycle in anything”
This is simply wrong. There is a whole body of literature studying AMO and PDO, and what cycles are in them. And Mann contributed to that research.
His latest work is one paper on top of a large pile saying different things, hardly the end of the story.
Perhaps you should get these facts before painting a picture with a broad brush.
IPCC on AMO:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-6-6.html
“The cycle appears to have returned to a warm phase beginning in the mid-1990s, and tropical Atlantic SSTs were at record high levels in 2005. Instrumental observations capture only two full cycles of the AMO, so the robustness of the signal has been addressed using proxies. Similar oscillations in a 60- to 110-year band are seen in North Atlantic palaeoclimatic reconstructions through the last four centuries (Delworth and Mann, 2000; Gray et al., 2004). ”
IPCC on PDO
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-4-2.html
“Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
Contents88.48.4.2
8.4.2 Pacific Decadal Variability
Recent work suggests that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, see Chapters 3 and 9) is the North Pacific expression of a near-global ENSO-like pattern of variability called the Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation or IPO (Power et al., 1999; Deser et al., 2004). The appearance of the IPO as the leading Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of SST in AOGCMs that do not include inter-decadal variability in natural or external forcing indicates that the IPO is an internally generated, natural form of variability. Note, however, that some AOGCMs exhibit an El Nio-like response to global warming (Cubasch et al., 2001) that can take decades to emerge (Cai and Whetton, 2000). Therefore some, though certainly not all, of the variability seen in the IPO and PDO indices might be anthropogenic in origin (Shiogama et al., 2005). The IPO and PDO can be partially understood as the residual of random inter-decadal changes in ENSO activity (e.g., Power et al., 2006), with their spectra reddened (i.e., increasing energy at lower frequencies) by the integrating effect of the upper ocean mixed layer (Newman et al., 2003; Power and Colman, 2006) and the excitation of low frequency off-equatorial Rossby waves (Power and Colman, 2006). Some of the inter-decadal variability in the tropics also has an extratropical origin (e.g., Barnett et al., 1999; Hazeleger et al., 2001) and this might give the IPO a predictable component (Power et al., 2006).”
RLH says:
All natural ‘cycles/wriggles’ that are longer than 15 years and which Mann, at least, claims do not exist.
Assuming you’re referring to link this, Mann is presenting an attribution argument.
It would be nonsensical to present attribution for something which he thought did not exist.
Did Nate and Mark B not attribute any ‘wriggles’ visible in the PDO to various random factors coincidently conspiring to produce just those ‘wriggles’?
Did Mann not try and do the same for the AMO?
I could observe, for instance, that the rise in global temperatures since 1979 matches quite well with the rise in the AMO since that time also.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/amo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/globe-2.jpeg
RLH says:
Did Nate and Mark B not attribute any ‘wriggles’ visible in the PDO to various random factors coincidently conspiring to produce just those ‘wriggles’?
Did Mann not try and do the same for the AMO?
There is a coherent and well-documented hypothesis with supporting analysis from multiple researchers that suggest the PDO is mostly and the AMO almost entirely is an artifact of improperly considering natural and anthropogenic drivers.
That is to say, the interesting question is not whether the “wriggles” exist in various data series, it is the mechanisms that cause the “wriggles” to present as they do.
“There is a coherent and well-documented hypothesis with supporting analysis from multiple researchers that suggest the PDO is mostly and the AMO almost entirely is an artifact of improperly considering natural and anthropogenic drivers.”
I do not accept that as being conclusive evidence of why the ‘wriggles’ exist. Using chance as an explanation to describe the ‘wriggles’ requires and unusual degree of supposition.
I do not accept that as being conclusive evidence of why the ‘wriggles’ exist. Using chance as an explanation to describe the ‘wriggles’ requires and unusual degree of supposition.
Nobody claimed these studies are conclusive. Science is largely inductive.
The attribution process estimates the causal relationship between control parameters and an observable effect, ideally with reasonable precautions that the relationship be distinguishable from spurious correlation. Whatever criticisms one might have about a particular attribution approach, they generally and explicitly try to rule out “chance”.
“Nobody claimed these studies are conclusive.”
I am not persuaded that what has been presented so far is in any way conclusive.
I think that way too often chance (or other combined random, unrelated, factors) has been used to try and explain away naturally occurring ‘wriggles’.
I am also convinced that using simple band pass filters that are not specific, except in a very broad sense, are the best way to retain any long period signals that are present in climate data without any undue side effects.
Using a 12 month Gaussian filter to remove the annual cycle and a 15 year low pass/band pass Gaussian filter as it then uncovers longer periodicity does just that.
Using a longer 75 year similar ‘corner’ is not yet viable for most climate data unfortunately.
“I could observe, for instance, that the rise in global temperatures since 1979 matches quite well with the rise in the AMO since that time also.”
Matching of ONE rise, while NOT matching the rest of the AMO record, is hardly convincing evidence of correlation, much less causation.
“Did Nate and Mark B not attribute any ‘wriggles’ visible in the PDO to various random factors coincidently conspiring to produce just those ‘wriggles’?
I don’t recall ever making argument about the causes of PDO. I specifically stated that I didnt know what causes it.
What I argued about is whether the ‘wriggles’ in it are ‘cyclic’.
“Matching of ONE rise, while NOT matching the rest of the AMO record, is hardly convincing evidence of correlation, much less causation.”
So you agree they match then?
“What I argued about is whether the ‘wriggles’ in it are ‘cyclic'”
Shen et al says they are.
Shen et al. PDO re-construction from Chinese rainfall records
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/shen.jpeg
Nate says: What I argued about is whether the ‘wriggles’ in it are ‘cyclic’”
RLH says: Shen et al says they are.
Shen etal 2006: The reconstruction indicates that the
PDO is a robust feature of North Pacific climate variability
throughout the study period, however, the major modes
of oscillation providing the basic PDO regime timescale
have not been persistent over the last 530 years. The
quasi-centennial (75–115-yr) and pentadecadal (50–70-yr)
oscillations dominated the periods before and after 1850,
respectively. Our analysis suggest that solar forcing
fluctuation on quasi-centennial time scale (Gleissberg
cycle) could be the pace-maker of the PDO before 1850,
and the PDO behavior after 1850 could be due, in part,
to the global warming.
So you agree with Shen that the PDO is probably driven by external forcings that include natural and anthropogenic non-cyclic events?
“So you agree with Shen that the PDO is probably driven by external forcings that include natural and anthropogenic non-cyclic events?”
Nope.
Fig 5 (their wavelet analysis)
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-results-of-MTM-and-wavelet-analysis-on-the-reconstructed-PDO-a-MTM-spectrum-90_fig5_251436097
clearly shows periodicity above 30 years which is very difficult to explain via natural and anthropogenic non-cyclic events.
I do not believe that coincidence alone could provide such a strong signal, not such a repetitive one, as running a simple low pass filter over the data shows.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/shen.jpeg
RLH,
You consistently promote Shen over this very different reconstruction with much less cyclical noise:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/PDO1000yr.svg/1280px-PDO1000yr.svg.png
As a non-expert, how do you know which one is more correct?
I suspect you favor one that fits your preference (bias) for cycles.
RLH,
You consistently promote Shen over this very different reconstruction from tree-rings with much less cyclical noise:
https://tinyurl.com/x65cn2rb
As a non-expert, how do you know which one is more correct?
I suspect you favor the one that fits your preference (bias) for cycles.
“You consistently promote Shen over this very different reconstruction with much less cyclical noise”
And you consistently fail to address as to if you consider rainfall records to be more or less accurate than ice core ones. And if, as you seem to believe the ice core ones are more informative, why?
“I suspect you favor the one that fits your preference (bias) for cycles.”
Wrong. I require an explanation for the disparity.
“reconstruction from tree-rings with much less cyclical noise”
Why would tree rings show such a disparity from rainfall records?
This is what Shen et al shows (after treating with a 30 year low pass filter)
https://imgur.com/jzZaNAs
What that appears to show is that prior to 1800s back to the 1400s are dominated by one, longer, periodicity and after the 1800s another, shorter, one.
This coincides with the ‘little ice age’ in timings.
“This is what Shen et al shows”
So your answer to why you favor more cyclic Shen and ignore the other one is to just show us Shen again?
They are different, IDK why, nor do you. Perhaps the PDO is not a Pacific wide phenomena?
Shen et all shows long term rainfall records in China. Do you dispute that?
“Shen, C., W.-C. Wang, W. Gong, and Z. Hao. 2006.
A Pacific Decadal Oscillation record since 1470 AD reconstructed from proxy data of summer rainfall over eastern China.
Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L03702, February 2006.”
“530-yr PDO reconstruction from the western side of the Pacific Ocean based on a drought/flood (D/F) index (a five-grade category index), from eastern China for 1470 to 2000, derived from Chinese historical documents.
28 regions with complete or relatively complete (very few gaps, which were filled using the index from their nearest regions) time series and strong PDO signals are selected from 58 available regions in eastern China (2240N, 110122E). These regions located at the two ends of the PDO-related summer rainfall dipole. The warm phases of the PDO coincide with anomalous dry periods in both North and South China, and wet periods in the middle and lower Yangtze River Valley. The opposite moisture regimes exist in cool phases. This pattern is a result of changes in the strength of the summer monsoon and the position of the subtropical high altered by the PDO. During warm phases, the summer monsoon is weak, and the strong subtropical high is located far to the south and west. Therefore, the summer rainfall in eastern China can provide useful information about the PDO.”
No.
So the tree rings are from N. America. Do you dispute them?
“Variations in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation over the past millennium
MacDonald, Glen M. ; Case, Roslyn A.
Abstract
Hydrologically sensitive tree-ring chronologies from Pinus flexilis in California and Alberta were used to produce an AD 993-1996 reconstruction of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and to assess long-term variability in the PDO’s strength and periodicity. The reconstruction indicates that a ~50 to 70 year periodicity in the PDO is typical for the past 200 years but, was only intermittently a strong mode of variability prior to that. Between AD 1600 and 1800 there is a general absence of significant variability within the 50 to 100 year frequency range. Significant variability within in the frequency range of 50 to 100 years reemerges between AD 1500 and 1300 and AD 1200 to 1000. A prolonged period of strongly negative PDO values between AD 993 and 1300 is contemporaneous with a severe medieval megadrought that is apparent in many proxy hydrologic records for the western United States and Canada.
Publication:
Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 8, CiteID L08703
Pub Date: April 2005 DOI: 10.1029/2005GL022478 Bibcode: 2005GeoRL..32.8703M “
“So the tree rings are from N. America. Do you dispute them?”
No. Just 2 different sides of the Pacific showing different behavior.
“The reconstruction indicates that a ∼50 to 70 year periodicity in the PDO is typical for the past 200 years”
“Wavelet analysis indicates that overall there is significant power in the 50 to 70 year band consistent with lower frequency
variability present in observed PDO behavior”
Again you seem to be cherry picking confirming evidence while ignoring non-confirming.
This is a perfect example of ‘confirmation bias’.
White noise has a flat spectrum. It should have no special peaks in it.
Here is again 100 y of white noise, filter with an 8 y Gaussian filter, and we look at its spectrum.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/noise/mean:96/mean:77/mean:58/fourier/magnitude/to:20
Voila, a single peak pops out.
Apparently confirmation bias includes not being able to see obvious cyclicity in Chinese rainfall records also.
Here it is in the time-domain.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/noise/mean:96/mean:77/mean:58
“Here is again 100 y of white noise, filter with an 8 y Gaussian filter, and we look at its spectrum.”
It is obviously not white noise which should include all frequencies in it. If it does not display an even distribution of frequencies over the entire bandwidth it is not white noise.
“White noise is random noise that has a flat spectral density that is, the noise has the same amplitude, or intensity, throughout the frequency range”
True white noise contains all frequencies. Why would you expect something different?
Different random number generators (often called white noise) are very difficult to generate in computing unless external or human input is also included. Most are repetitive in one way or another.
“No. Just 2 different sides of the Pacific showing different behavior.”
Fine. But the PDO is supposed to be a N. Pacific-wide mode of variability.
Apparently not.
Hard then, to see how it can account for Global Temp variation.
Nate: You obviously accept running means, wavelet analysis, etc., but are somehow prejudice against simple Gaussian filters. Why?
“Hard then, to see how it can account for Global Temp variation.”
‘Contribute to’ rather than ‘account for’ I would think is much more likely.
“It is obviously not white noise which should include all frequencies in it. If it does not display an even distribution of frequencies over the entire bandwidth it is not white noise.”
It absolutely is white noise. It is simply a finite amount.
Thus it will have apparent special peaks in the spectrum that a much longer series would not have.
The filtering also produces artefacts.
No doubt you approve of LOWESS but disprove of Savitzy-Golay filters also.
“The filtering also produces artefacts.”
What artefacts would they be then? Introduced by Gaussian low pass filtering?
Apart from no high frequencies that is.
Nate: Do you have a url for your favorite PDO tree ring/ice core data so that I can download it?
“Thus it will have apparent special peaks in the spectrum that a much longer series would not have.”
What part of random noise contains all frequencies do you not get?
Low pass filters will just show what low frequencies are present in any given sample of random noise.
“Contribute to rather than account for I would think is much more likely.”
True.
“What part of random noise contains all frequencies do you not get?
Low pass filters will just show what low frequencies are present in any given sample of random noise.”
they can produce artefacts, eg suppressing frequencies non-smoothly.
Again, a FINITE sample of noise can have certain prominent peaks in it that a longer sample certainly will not have.
All the data for PDO are finite periods of time, containing only a few apparent cycles.
Filtered vs unfiltered spectrum of the same white noise
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/noise/mean:84/mean:96/fourier/magnitude/to:20/plot/noise/fourier/magnitude/to:20
The filtering effect isnt so bad. But the Finiteness of the data set is producing peaks and valleys in the ‘uniform’ spectrum.
“they can produce artefacts, eg suppressing frequencies non-smoothly.”
A Gaussian low pass filter will not suppress or distort anything that is below its corner frequency. That is the greatest thing about it.
“Filtered vs unfiltered spectrum of the same white noise”
A Gaussian CTRM has 3 poles, you only use 2 AFAIK.
What part of Gaussian Low Pas filters only show low frequencies do you not get?
Nate: So your challenge, should you wish to accept it, is to run a 15 year LOWESS over any climate data source of your choosing and demonstrate that is fails to produce the ‘distortions’ that you claim a Gaussian low pass filter of 15 years does.
And, of course, also displays something other than what the a Gaussian low pass filter does in the first place.
Whoops. Here with 8 y 3-pole, and no filter.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/noise/mean:96/mean:77/mean:58/fourier/magnitude/to:20/plot/noise/fourier/magnitude/to:20
Note the 8 year filter, should cut frequencies > 1/8 year which corresponds to frequency 12 in this plot.
Notice that the filter is suppressing well below 12.
Now do it with an 8 year LOWESS
Can’t even follow simple instructions can you? A correct Gaussian CTRM is 96, 80 and 62.
Vaughan Pratt gave 1, 1.2067 and then 1.5478 as inter stage multipliers. Divide 96 by those numbers and round to the nearest month to give the above.
As an aside, what does a simple running mean of 96 months produce?
P.S. The random is not random (or even pseudo random) as it produces the same answer every time.
“Notice that the filter is suppressing well below 12.”
That assumes that all frequencies up to 12 are present in the short sample you use and which you have not shown (and guess what, they are not).
‘P.S. The random is not random (or even pseudo random) as it produces the same answer every time.’
Its definitely random white noise. But not updated every time. We only have one PDO record, so..
“Notice that the filter is suppressing well below 12.’
That assumes that all frequencies up to 12 are present in the short sample you use and which you have not shown (and guess what, they are not).’
All frequencies are present in the unfiltered data, which I did show. Wachu takin bout?
I used your original 1, 0.8, 0.6 running averages. I doubt it makes much difference.
As a CTRM cannot ‘improve’ on a simple running mean (other than to remove any distortions that simple running mean adds which is what it actually does) and a simple running means produces almost identical outputs I can only conclude that, despite your assumptions that all frequencies are present, they are in fact not present. As I said. The sample you use is unchanging and short, so that is little surprise to anyone except, apparently, yourself.
I notice that you did not provide a simple running mean, a S-G and a LOWESS filter of the same lengths to provide a set of valid comparisons.
What is it that you have against Gaussian filters in the first place? Just been told that all filters are bad and thus you need to try and prove it so?
“We only have one PDO record”
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:180/mean:142/mean:116
“than to remove any distortions that simple running mean adds which is what it actually does) and a simple running means produces almost identical outputs I can only conclude that, despite your assumptions that all frequencies are present”
IDK how u reach that conclusion?
Since all frequencies are clearly present as I showed you. No assumptions necessary.
“As I said. The sample you use is unchanging and short, so that is little surprise to anyone except, apparently, yourself.”
No surprise to me.
Yes it is unchanging and short.
The instrumental PDO record is unchanging and short. We don’t have the luxury of repeating that experiment.
Shen’s PDO reconstruction is unchanging and still short.
That is precisely the point. In a finite series, even noise has peaks in its spectrum.
“IDK how u reach that conclusion?”
Because a simple single running mean produces almost the same output.
“We only have one PDO record”
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:180/mean:149/mean:116
(couldn’t count myself last time)
Matches up nicely with Shen et al.
Still not explained why Gaussian filters are bad but normal distribution is OK.
Just add it to your list of things I never claimed.
“Matches up nicely with Shen et al.”
Except the record 1930 to 1850 doesnt match.
“Except the record 1930 to 1850 doesnt match.”
From which source?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/jisao-pdo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/shen.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/pdo.jpeg
are all different. But they all purport to be about the same thing.
So you never said
Nate says:
June 25, 2021 at 12:44 PM
“So, pray tell me, what contributes to the up and downs of the summary {of the PDO} as shown? Chance?”
Anthro Forcings, ENSO, volcanoes, solar.
Adding ‘{of the PDO}’ after the fact, to clarify what was unclear at the time, just to Troll???
The two instrumental series agree.
As I clearly stated Shen doesnt agree with the instrumental record prior to 1930.
“Adding {of the PDO} after the fact, to clarify what was unclear at the time”
As the summary I was discussing was all about the PDO….
So are you now saying that the PDO is indeed ‘cyclic’, as I have been saying all along?
“As I clearly stated Shen doesnt agree with the instrumental record prior to 1930.”
Which instrument record? Of what area? About what variable? You have managed to say that on numerous occasions but totally failed to provide the actual source when asked.
Are you saying that Shen does not accurately record the rainfall records in China?
Are you saying that those records are not linked to the PDO in the Western Pacific?
Stop trolling and read what people actually write.
“Stop trolling and read what people actually write.”
Stop avoiding and answer the question.
If you are trying to compare global temperatures to the local PDO and claim there is no correspondence it is not unreasonable to observe that the PDO covers but a small portion of the Earth’s surface and other factors would need to be included.
It is also correct to observe that Gaussian Low Pass filters do not distort anything fed to them. They just remove the High Pass section (though that too is recoverable by some simple maths if you also require that).
“If you are trying to compare global temperatures to the local PDO and claim there is no correspondence..”
As already discussed, the PDO is supposed to be a Pacific-wide mode of variability. But the reconstructions from the East and West sides don’t agree.
The Shen reconstruction also doesnt agree with the instrumental record from 1850-1930. The NOAA one that you posted.
There is also a lack of correlation of Instrumental PDO to Global Temps in the 1850-1930 period.
SO the PDO as a proposed driver of decadal variation in Global Temperature has these issues to overcome.
“The Shen reconstruction also doesnt agree with the instrumental record from 1850-1930. The NOAA one that you posted.”
Does the Shen data correspond to the rainfall records in China over the period in question?
It seems so. And? That doesn’t nullify the issues I’ve again pointed out.
So what you are saying is that rainfall records in China do not match the PDO.
Or the PDO on its own does not fully explain the Global temperature data.
What I posted is what I am saying.
From now on, quote me if you want to refute something I’ve said.
There is nothing we can do about AGW even if it is true. Just look at the lockdown, not one measurable thing happened to the climate during that period. It is entertaining though, so at least we get that and we get a possible solution to the Fermi Paradox, so that is good.
The temperatures this year are rather unremarkable and within natural variability, at least, recently.
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/hottest-temperature-recorded-50-states
binny…”Robertson
– whining about an alleged ad hom
– appealing to authority.
1. Robertson is one of the most disgusting commenters on this blog;”
***
Thanks, Binny. I receive your derogatory comments with good humour. Makes me laugh, cheers me up.
I got a better laugh, however, when you claimed to be working on the fudged GHCN data to analyze the Arctic.
Robertson
Feel free to have a good laugh.
No one laughs here when brazen, reckless and disrespectful dumbasses like you call respectable people ‘stinking cheaters’ or ‘cheating SOB’.
And when I read you about ” working on the fudged GHCN data to analyze the Arctic “, I get even a bigger laugh.
Simply because you don’t know anything, neither about GHCN let alone about the Arctic.
That is the reason why you are a gullible sucker of chiefio’s ignorant nonsense!
Yeah, chiefio aka Smith, the genius who thought a decade ago that all temperature stations in the Arctic would have disappeared!
Ha ha ha.
Smith the dumbie didn’t even see that exactly at the time he missed these stations in GHCN V2, they all were moved to the new GHCN V3 corner by the NOAA people.
Poor Robertson…
J.-P. D.
binny…”Yeah, chiefio aka Smith, the genius who thought a decade ago that all temperature stations in the Arctic would have disappeared!”
Smith did not say that, he merely pointed out that NOAA was only using one of the many available stations in the Canadian Arctic to create their temperature series.
He also pointed out that NOAA only uses 3 stations in California, all of them near the warm coast. He pointed out as well that no station data was available for Bolivia, so NOAA synthesized temperatures from surrounding areas that were much warmer. You see, most of Bolivia is at high altitude, where it’s cooler.
Don’t blame Smith because you’re such a dumbass, gullible type who forces himself to believe everything he is told from authority figures. Smith is just the messenger.
Robertson
” … he merely pointed out that NOAA was only using one of the many available stations in the Canadian Arctic to create their temperature series. ”
” He also pointed out that NOAA only uses 3 stations in California, all of them near the warm coast. ”
” He pointed out as well that no station data was available for Bolivia, so NOAA synthesized temperatures from surrounding areas that were much warmer. ”
Again, you’re a poor guy to believe such a nonsense.
I have shown you long time ago how wrong you were with this dumb Bolivia stuff.
But people like you never admit they are wrong, and come again and again and again with the same bullshit.
How is it possible to keep so stubborn?
J.-P. D.
entropic…I was not appealing to authority re Lindzen I was ‘trying’ to point out his qualifications to claim that the Earth’s surface temperature would be 70C without convection. You replied using a hypothetical 15C global average and an equally hypothetical 35C warming without convection.
And, my example was not meant to be anecdotal, it was meant as an example of the effect of a lack of convection. You focused on my report of 40C IN THE SHADE while ignoring the estimate of the locals that temperatures could rise into the 50C range.
That’s not anecdotal, it’s a fact. If the temperature in the shade is 40C, it is reasonable to assume it can reach 55C in direct sunlight. That’s not far off Lindzen’s prediction of 70C.
There are currently warnings for humans about serious burns being acquired from walking on solar heated surfaces in bare feet. Human’s can developed minor burns at nearly 120F (about 49C) and serious burns at 130F (about 55C). This is not anecdotal mate, this is the reality when the Sun bakes a surface without convective cooling.
Asphalt starts to melt around 120F(49C).
“According to the Library of Congress, it’s possible, but not probable, that you could fry an egg on a sidewalk during a hot day. Eggs need to reach a temperature of 158*F to cook through. Sidewalks can usually get up to 145*F. The hotter the day, the more likely your egg will fry.”
158 F = 70 C
145 F = 62.7778 C
60 C or more on dry surface with moderately hot air temperature of say 45 C [113 F] or as low as 40 C [104 F] is common.
One would need record breaking type high air temperature [around 50 C] to get 70 C {and having near zero wind should help]
-‘Heat dome’ scorches western US with record-breaking temps
By Stephanie Pappas – Live Science Contributor 6 days ago
https://www.livescience.com/heat-wave-death-valley.html
“Temperatures in Death Valley, California, hit a scorching 122 degrees Fahrenheit (50 degrees Celsius) Tuesday (June 15), short of the all-time record for this spot at the lowest elevation in North America… Southern California broke multiple heat records, with Palm Springs wilting under a high temperature of 119 F (48.3 C). Meanwhile, Phoenix, Arizona, tied its 1974 record temperature of 115 F (46.1 C).”
Here about 300 miles from Furnace Creek it was somewhat warm [well below 100 F} and a bit windy, today.
Frying eggs on the sidewalk is quite common for news teams on a hot summer day in the South. A black iron skillet can easily reach 160 °F during daily solar peak, no clouds, and positioned correctly. Such events make for entertaining videos and contribute to the agenda.
Of course the braindead media-types fail to realize they’re just proving “It’s the Sun, stupid”!
Perhaps you could link to Lindzen’s convection paper?
As a professional I would expect his temperature standard to be either station data or satellite microwave data.
I doubt he is going to think in terms of shade temperatures, sunlight temperatures tarmac temperatures or any other of the amateur measurements you refer to.
willard…”If what you want is heat waves, again the EPA has us covered:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves”
**
The EPA is now run by alarmist creeps. Note how their records begin in the 1960s, completely ignoring the heat waves of the 1930s in the US that dwarf the current heat waves.
Hey grandpa!
Tell us what is was like back then when you were a boy.
You must be about 90 years old by my reckoning.
GR,
The Australian Met Bureau simply declared all official temperature records prior to 1910 “unreliable”, thus avoiding the extreme heat wave of 1896. At least 435 recorded deaths due to heat. One town recorded max of 120 F, three days in a row, and lost 1.6 % of its population during the heat wave.
Obviously, therefore, any “global” temperatures based on official records prior to 1910 is nonsensical, as Australia is roughly the same size as the contiguous USA.
The GHE is pseudoscientific nonsense anyway, so temperature data manipulation is irrelevant.
Climate cranks think otherwise, of course.
> Obviously, therefore, any “global” temperatures based on official records prior to 1910 is nonsensical, as Australia is roughly the same size as the contiguous USA.
Nice Chewbacca Defense, Mike Flynn!
Weary Wee Wiily,
More “silly semantic games”? Cryptic Star Wars references?
Maybe you could quote me, and why you disagree.
Otherwise, you just look what you are – an idiotic climate crank.
Mike Flynn,
You say:
“Maybe you could quote me”
I just did.
Yours,
Whickering Wee Willy,
More “silly semantic games”?
You are obviously a delusional climate crank.
All mouth and no trousers. Just attempting to appear intelligent by being an idiot.
Not working too well, is it?
Mike, Mike,
Don’t you recognize that you wrote:
“Obviously, therefore, any global temperatures based on official records prior to 1910 is nonsensical, as Australia is roughly the same size as the contiguous USA.”
Your vacations must have slowed you down.
Warm up a bit,
swenson…”Climate cranks think otherwise, of course”.
Some, like the Canadian government are claiming that climate change is one of the greatest dangers we face. I claim the real danger is the politically-correct who are working at every level to manage peoples’ minds.
I have never seen such blatant attempts at mind control as what I am witnessing today.
GR, do not worry about mind control. We ignore mindless people like you.
It would take around 42 trillion 1-foot floating balls to cover the entire ocean to cut off evaporation – the main source of the most deadly and powerful greenhouse gas – the dreaded dihydrogen monooxide. Making them from plastic wuld obviously be unfeasible, but they can be made from foamed silicate rocks, preferably ones high in silica to give them higher albedo and good foaming properties. Indeed, such balls would be eventually destroyed by the action of waves, which would require the constant resupply of such but that would also add extra alkalinity into the ocean, drawing down the excess co2. if injected into the ceanic gyres, such balls would start showing their effect already with only the partial cover.
What about photosynthesis?
Your balls would block the light reaching phytoplankton and reduce conversion of CO2 to oxygen.
I haven’t done the numbers, but my hunch is that the reduction in photosynthesis would increase CO2 in the atmosphere than the pH change would draw down.
EM,
Ah, but of course the balls would be made of glass. Special glass, of course. Transmitting those wavelengths essential for photosynthesis, reflecting others to keep GHE believers satisfied.
And strong, of course. Flat bottomed ships could roll across such balls with great efficiency. I would suggest etching the surface to ensure an optimal Reynolds number, reducing frictional forces between the ball surface and the water.
I suppose a special coating would ensure that any liquid dihydrogen monoxide would not adhere to the rolling balls to stop it achieving gaseous status.
One would need large balls, preferably of brass, to promote such a scheme to the UN. I have several envelopes with unused backs, if you need the services of a ballsy consultant whose motto is “The bigger the fee, the bigger the balls-up.”
Engineers do have some past experience with brass balls.
http://www.threaded.com/engineers_song.htm#:
The conversion of co2 to oxygen (technically, it is water that is converted to oxygen), happens at the point where organic carbon (=reducing equivalents) is buried (lets assume that the hypothetical methane-mediated hydrogen escape into space is negligible as assumed by everyone everywhere nowdays). I don’t know where if anywhere the reduced organic carbon is buried in the oceans nowdays, but it sure is not in the gyres where the primary productivity is abysmally tiny. Nothing is buried in those wastelands, they just absorb solar radiation and evaporate water. Any carbon that is fixed but not buried only sequesters co2 temporarily and will be returned back into the atmosphere on a geologically instant time scale of few to few tens of millenia tops. The prime role of oceanic carbon fixation today afaik is to keep the co2 dissolved in water and out of equilibrium with the atmosphere through the pellet transport carbon pump. Indeed, if the ocean did become equilibrated with the atmosphere by say being stirred vigorously, the co2 levels in the air would rise to something like 700-800ppm without any extra input. but the alkalinity is a much more permanent draw-down variable, shifting the equilibrium point rather that just trying to keep the system out of equilibrium as the pellet transport pump does.
Indeed, covering the entire ocean with the balls would disrupt the biosphere severely [but would also give it a new horizons for evolution by creating a new habitat – open-oceanic floating mats], but guess what would disrupt it even more severely – the runaway greenhouse effect!
Now i know that most of what I propose here is dr evils scale madness, but i just want to draw peoples attention the the real greenhouse enemy of the world – the Water Vapour. In pretty much ALL the models that the ‘official science’ produces, WV as well as other forms of water act as positive feedbacks, destabilizing the climate system and leading to its eventual demise. It turns the relatively weak, predictable and controllable co2 into a savage ‘control knob’ threatening to destroy the earth, and makes the allegedly inevitable increase of solar constant by a few percent per gigaannum a damoclean sword over the well-being of the world inevitably leading to its fiery demise in the geologically not so distant future. Yet, everyone just assumes that the VW cannot possibly be controlled an reigned in. I say different, If one really believes in all those models, one should at least start to THINK about how to mitigate this horrible dihydrogen monooxide menace.
To demonstrate how innocent the co2 is on its own, just consider this It is estimated that the instant contribution of the present co2 to the GHE is around 25% or 8C of 33C of the total nominal GHE. This leaves the 25C to WV and also miniscule methane and ozone contributions. The O3 and CH4 contributions on their own are no more than a few degrees, list give them more credit than they deserve and round down the wv contribution to 20K. To achieve that much ghe with extra co2, you’d need to increase its concentration 2**20=a million-fold times, bringing its partial pressure of the atmosphere to 400 times the current TOTAL atmospheric pressure. Sure, with the atm. composition changing that much, the simple approximation of 1K per doubling of co2 would soon break down, with total effect probably being much stronger due to the lapse-rate and pressure broadening feedbacks, but just the sheer hugeness of the number show how weak and subordinate the co2 really is on its own. Its not the enemy, the Dihydrogen Monooxide is.
So, if you truly believe that the overwhelming majority of atmospheric models and the understanding thereof are correct [obviously i don’t, and neither does the dr spencer, in my opinion] you should be worrying about the dihydrogen monooxide vapor, not the trigger-knob that could tip it over into killing us all, which may be co2 but may be something else altogether.
Interesting thoughts, coturnix.
The hoax starts even before we consider CO2 and H2O. The hoax starts with comparing an imaginary object to a real planet. The 255K comes from the imaginary object, and the 288K comes from Earth’s average temperature. The difference, 33K, is believed to be the infamous GHE.
It’s somewhat like calculating the total energy in a car’s gas tank, and then calculating how far the car will go based on the car’s weight alone. There’s no accounting for wind, tire friction, combustion heat loses, hills, etc. If the car doesn’t perform as per the “perfect” world, then it must be due to … [enter your favorite scapegoat].
There is nothing wrong with Earth’s temperature. It is NOT hotter than it’s supposed to be.
> It is NOT hotter than its supposed to be.
Let’s hope it is, Pup, for in Joe’s model the hidden half is -273C:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
For a full-time troll Willard, your 7-minute response time is unacceptable. You need to be responding within 3 minutes. Someone could get a comment in before you! You’ve got a lot of anti-science nonsense to protect.
Step it up.
You don’t want to be a failure at everything, do you?
You’re the troll, Pup. I’m the slayer.
And once again you’re going for the Kafka trap.
7 minutes, again Willard!
That’s unacceptable.
Surely you can troll better than that?
>> The 255K comes from the imaginary object, and the 288K comes from Earth’s average temperature.
yep, also would add that the average earth temperature of 288K is actually averaged over both space AND time, as the earth mean temperature varies over the course of the year by +-2K.
But there is nothing wrong with using ‘imaginary objects’ as a reasoning tools in science, so long as one keeps that in mind.
The difference of 33K is not believed to be GHE, it is GHE. It is not a real number, it is a nominally calculated number, as we don’t really know what the earth temperature would have without the greenhouse gasses due to the numerous feedbacks. What we are pretty sure of is that it would be much lower than it is now. But the 33k is not an ‘imaginary’ number either, as it is the difference between the temperature that the earth is and that the earth HAS TO BE according to the well-established physics, simple enough that there is very little doubt about its correctness. The ‘real’ GHE is unknown, and probably not well-defined to begin with, but we do know that it is large and at about the same order of magnitude as the number above.
coturnix, you may not have realized how confused your comment was.
First you stated: “It is not a real number…”
Then, you stated: “But the 33k is not an ‘imaginary’ number either…”
And there is this:
…as it is the difference between the temperature that the earth is and that the earth HAS TO BE according to the well-established physics…
So you’re claiming the 255K (imaginary object) is what Earth HAS TO BE, according to well-established physics??? How did you decide that? The 255K is for an imaginary object. It has NOTHING to do with planet Earth.
You appear to be trying to distance yourself from the GHE nonsense, while clinging to it. That can make you very confused.
It’s pretty simple. The Earth was supposedly formed having a molten surface – over 1000 K.
It has obviously cooled, through 500 K, 400 K, 300 K, and now 288 K.
How low can it go? Not to 0 K, or even 4 K, as long as the Sun is shining!
Who cares anyway? Current cooling rates calculated by real scientists (not the pseudoscientific “climate” types), vary from about 1 – 4 millionths of a Kelvin per annum. No need to be alarmed about icefall Earth, just yet.
The Dullard will no doubt complain. He’s an idiot, and positively refuses to accept science.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
+ClintR
i don’t distance myself from the GHE ‘nonsense’, i most certainly believe such a model is at least fundamentally correct, although there’s always devils in the details. I just wanned to argue some more =) I know i won’t be able to prove anything to you because u people are either trolls or insane =)
>>So you’re claiming the 255K (imaginary object) is what Earth HAS TO BE, according to well-established physics??? How did you decide that?
using the well-established physics ^-^
>> The 255K is for an imaginary object. It has NOTHING to do with planet Earth.
A sphere is an imaginary mathematical object. Does it have anything to do with the real earth? Same here, just because something is imaginary doesn’t make it useless or irrelevant. We do know how much light earth gets from the sun, and hot it needs to be to lose it back to space. But it is warmer, much warmer, in fact 33K warmer. That’s the OBSERVED greenhuose effect.I can be explained by various things, among them – the theoretical GHE ‘blanket’ caused by the greenhouse gases (sorry that both the observed effect and the most plausible explanations are named the same, human lingos are limited and imperfact), it could also be explained if the earth surface emissivity was (255/288)**4=61%, but while there are areas on earth that have similar emissivities (the certain kind of bare-ground deserts), most of earth has thermal emissivity over 90%, which leaves the ghgs as the only explanation standing.
coturnix, we both agree with the 255K for an imaginary object. Your mistake is then believing that 255K means anything, relative to real planet Earth.
You’re trying to compare an imaginary object to a real object. Just as my example of the car with a tank of gas. You are omitting all of the REAL considerations. Earth is NOT an imaginary object. The 255K has NO connection to Earth. Hence, the 33K figure has no connection to Earth.
You are confusing reality with your beliefs. You don’t like having your beliefs attacked. That’s why you’ve started the ad homs: “I know i won’t be able to prove anything to you because u people are either trolls or insane.”
+ClitR
>>coturnix, we both agree with the 255K for an imaginary object. Your mistake is then believing that 255K means anything, relative to real planet Earth.
Ok, at this point i think i was wrong to agree with you since you’re twisting my words anyways. I shall recant on my words and say that 255K is not an imaginary number, and the eerth with such a temperature is not an imaginary object. Because it is not imagined, it is a result of *measurement*. That’s what we measure by means of radiant energy fluxes. It’s is not imaginary. But it is different from the temperature measured by means of expanding gasses or thermocouples (notice that neither of those methods measure temperature directly!). This difference between two numbers IS the REAL (not imaginary) and EXISTING greenhouse effect. which needs to be explained, and it is explained pretty well with the radiatively active agents including amongst them greenhouse gases (but also clouds) interfering with the radiant heat loss to space. This effect is also called the greenhouse effect, which can me confusing though but our language is imperfect, too bad.
>>You are confusing reality with your beliefs.
no, you do unless you’re trolling. I’m no psychiatrist and can’t tell if a person is lying r being genuinely insane.
>>You don’t like having your beliefs attacked. That’s why you’ve started the ad homs: “I know i won’t be able to prove anything to you because u people are either trolls or insane.”
No, I started adhoms because they are factually accurate =) it’s not libel to tell the truth. I don’t knwo whether you’re a troll (e.g.in this case a conscious liar), an insane person, a believer, or simply too stupid to understand the topic but it gotta be one of those, i see no other alternatives.
Also, more on adhoms. They express my opinion about your motivations as well as express my frustration, and in connection with the latter, serve as reminder to myself and anyone reading my comments that they are not supposed to convince you or change your opinion on anything (assuming you have an opinion). I use arguments for your arguments, not for you. I don’t expect you to understand them or change ur beliefs, they are for bystanders.
coturnix…”To demonstrate how innocent the co2 is on its own, just consider this It is estimated that the instant contribution of the present co2 to the GHE is around 25% or 8C of 33C of the total nominal GHE”.
The Ideal Gas Law says the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause about 0.04C warming for each 1C warming of the atmosphere.
That’s based on PV = nRT where V = volume is presumed fairly constant and n = number of air molecules is fairly constant.
With those as constants, P = (nR/V)T, meaning that temperature is directly proportional to pressure.
Dalton’s Law, which is part of the IGL, states that the total pressure of a mixed gas is the sum of the partial pressure of each gas. However, since temperature is proportional to pressure, that must hold true for each partial pressure. That is, the sum of the partial temperature rises produced by each gas should equal the total temperature rise of the entire gas.
This is not speculation. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. When there are more atoms/molecules of one kind of gas in a given volume, the pressure is higher for that gas and the temperature is higher. At 0.04%, CO2 simply lacks the volume of atoms to produce much heat.
Since nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of the total atmospheric gas and CO2, a mere 0.04%, it’s obvious that 99% of the heat in the atmosphere comes from N2/O2, while only about 0.04% comes from CO2.
I guess climate modelers/alarmists missed the Ideal Gas Law in school. Not surprising since many of them are mathematicians and geologists who prefer to pick numbers out of a hat rather than apply good science.
>>The Ideal Gas Law says the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause about 0.04C warming for each 1C warming of the atmosphere.
It says no such thing, in fact it doesn’t deal with causing any temperatures. It just relates changes in temperature pressure and volume for adiabatic processes. GHE is about something entirely different.
Except nitrogen and oxygen don’t abbbbsorbb near as much IR as CO2, about a billionth, give or take.
Take the shape of Frisbee, make 20 meters in diameter.
Have float “upside down” in ocean. Have walls about 1 foot above waterline. So filled with ocean water, but edge is higher the waterline. Add pipe {say 1 meter in diameter} put in middle and going down say 100 meter below waterline.
Waves will go over the 1 foot walls, and water will flow down the pipe. Adjust or modify it, so to get most water flowing down pipe per day or hour. Fish will attracted to it. And maybe whales will destroy it, or maybe humans could misuse it.
But it should cause global warming, and we need global warming, because we are living in an Ice Age.
50F currently
Locally or Globally?
ICE AGE UPDATE
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/june-tracking-to-be-nzs-hottest-amid-warm-and-wet-winter/IWMXTMXMK6226QA6HMCK4DJDV4/
Just currious Willard, Your point?
New Zealand is on track to record its warmest June on record, with an unseasonably mild weekend forecast ahead of a surge of freezing air early next week.
How could CO2 cause record high in one single location and not others, and then sudden cooling? By what mechanism could CO2 possibly cause that? Do the physics of CO2 change depending on its location, and allows the molecule to both warm and cool?
My bet is that New Zealand hasn’t had many clouds lately, and that more visible radiation is reaching the location. Now, a cold front is moving in, and it will result in colder temperatures. Did NZ have a cloud free high pressure bubble over it all of June? My bet is yes, and that has noting to do with CO2. Other areas are experiencing record colds.
Record-cold temperatures grip Northeast Memorial Day weekend
It’s still spring, making unsettled and cold weather possible.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/record-cold-temperatures-grip-northeast-memorial-day-weekend/story?id=77988364
Just curious, Life:
Do you think your What Abouts will work?
From where I am, we bet with money.
I’m sorry Williard, did I miss it? Was there an answer somewhere in your comment? Avoiding the questions won’t make your position any more valid, it simply proves to everyone how you simply can’t defend your baseless and indefensible position.
Why should I respond to whataboutism, Life?
When was the last time you answered any of my questions?
Do you realize that your newsie is dated 2021-05-31?
Who do you think you’re kidding right now?
Many thanks!
Don’t challenge the Quipmaster. He will ghost you.
Was that a challenge, Stephen?
What challenge was that?
Please beware your wishes,
Worrisome Wee Willy,
You wouldn’t bet me with real money. You’d lose. Just like Gavin Schmidt who was going to bet me, until someone else pointed out that he couldn’t win. Another dimwit.
You are all mouth and no trousers.
Go on – what’s the bet? How much “money” are you prepared to lose? Provide evidence of an irrevocable escrow document or similar. Otherwise, you are just blathering, as is the usual custom of idiot climate crackpots.
Put your money where your fat mouth is (if you can extract your foot long enough).
Donkey.
Mike Flynn,
Now you have my attention.
Bet on what, and with whom?
Worried Wee Willy,
First, convince me you actually have any money. You live in a fantasy, but this is the real world.
Now you can claim you didn’t really want to bet at all – you were just playing “silly semantic games”.
As to the substance of any bet, all you have to do is claim you can forecast the future objectively better than I can. You may use any resources you see fit.
First “Show me the money!” – from Jerry McGuire, from memory.
Dingbat.
Mike Flynn,
In contrast to you, I honor my name.
My name is attached to an email.
That email is public.
How about you:
Should I try to find your professional one?
Wriggly Wee Willy,
“Show me the money”!
You don’t want people to think you are a slimy little wriggling grub, do you?
Mike Flynn,
You misquote
“”Show me the money””
Who’s that “me”?
Yours,
And the wriggling starts. Call the idiot troll out, and his bluster turns to whimpers.
Anything to avoid actually having to back up his pretentious nonsense with real money!
Pretty simple, see if Wiggling Wee Willy actually commits himself legally to wagering enough that it will hurt when he loses. He won’t. Excuses, evasions, just like the other climate crackpots who believe they can peer into the future better than I can.
Just another gutless wonder – all form and no substance.
Mike Flynn,
Who’s doing the calling, and on what?
You know my email.
Where’s yours?
Weary Wee Willy,
You really have no intention of showing the money, do you?
What’s the matter? Not prepared to demonstrate publicly the courage of your convictions?
OK, welsher! Not only a slimy grub, but a gutless slimy grub.
As we all know.
Mike Flynn,
EM and RLH made a bet without making too much effort not long ago, perhaps when you are on vacation.
You’re a sock puppet, and have no honor.
With whom would I be betting?
Give me a real email.
Don’t make me find it.
stephen p anderson…”The temperatures this year are rather unremarkable and within natural variability, at least, recently”.
I like to pull this article out every so often. Look at figure 5, which is so-called global warming plotted on a scale where 15C is the guestimated global average.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090225192924/http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html
Nothing remarkable at all.
“Look at figure 5 … Nothing remarkable at all.”
Those graphs in your link are misleading in two respects.
1) The scales are NOT the same. Figure 4 covers 400,000 years, while Fig 5 covers 30 years, a 13,000x difference. This makes the second graph artificially look 13,000x flatter in comparison.
2) Fig 5 ‘conveniently’ stops at a local minimum in 2009, hiding the true nature of the rise. The next decade showed an increase of 0.5 C (follow3d by some cooing in the past 2 years). Overall the warming is about 0.5 C in 40 years.
So, the 0.5 C change in 40 years actually is rather remarkable. And if it continues at that rate, it will soon be quite remarkable.
TF, you don’t know how to interpret data.
The graphs indicate Earth’s temperature can vary around its average. Such variance is NO cause for alarm.
(Did you do the hammer/hand experiment yet?)
The graphs indicate specific ways Earth’s temperature has varied around its average in the past. Variance that is different in form from past variance is ipso facto interesting and might indeed be cause for alarm. Certainly grounds for further study to determine just how unusual in might be, and what might be causing the unusual variation.
(Momentum is *related to* force, just like velocity is *related to* acceleration. But momentum is not “a force”, it is not “a type of force” or any other judge word you want to add. A fast car has a lot of forward momentum, but if I am riding along that forward momentum is not a dangerous forward force on me.)
TF, I’m glad that you NOW understand that momentum is “related to” a force.
You must have done the hammer/hand experiment….
When will you do the Pole Dance experiment, Pup?
Troll Willard shows up too late to help Folkerts.
Too little, too late.
Incompetence and immaturity ain’t science.
Clint, your original statement (near as I can tell, from back in Feb) was “Does momentum represent a force?”
Your word — “represent”.
Momentum does not “represent” a force.
Velocity does not “represent” an acceleration.
Energy does not “represent” a power.
Angular momentum does not “represent” a torque.
Charge does not “represent” a current.
The letter “F” often “represents” a force. Or an arrow often “represents” a force. I might even say that d(p)/dt “represents” a force (although more accurately d(p)/dt would represent the *net* force: F(net) = ma = m d(v)/dt = d(p)/dt).
*********************************************************
Everyone who has studied a bit of physics knows these pairs are “related to” each other. Everyone except you seems to know they are not the same, and do not “represent” the other quantity in the sentence.
TF, a more truthful way to “represent” what I said would not be taking it out of context. I was describing orbital motion. I mentioned that the motion could be “represented” by two vectors. One of the vectors could be “represented” by momentum, which can “represent” a force. I NEVER said momentum was a force. I was trying to explain orbital motion.
You, and some other idiots, thought you really had me. You, and some other idiots, tried to say I was claiming momentum was force. I NEVER said that. You’re still trying to misrepresent me. That’s what trolls do.
I explained to you that Newton’s 2nd Law provided the connection:
F = ma = mdv/dt = mdp/dt
You still are trying to malign me. That’s what trolls do. But, at least you’ve learned a little physics. Now you are admitting “Momentum is *related to* force”.
Learning is better than trolling.
> shows up too late to help
The only help Tim needs with you is this one, Pup:
https://tenor.com/search/he-is-already-dead-gifs
You say hammer experiment. I say pole dance.
That’s how I roll.
Way late again, Willard.
And, you left off the “T”.
You’re the troll, Pup.
I slay.
In some sense I also Rick Astley.
Sorry child, but you “play”.
Pup,
We know the game and
We’re gonna play it
You troll,
I Rick Astley
Your fantasies ain’t science, little one.
You are not strengthening your position, Clint.
“I was describing orbital motion.
OK.
I mentioned that the motion could be “represented” by two vectors.
Orbital motion includes all sorts of vectors. Position. Velocity. Acceleration. Momentum. Force. Torque. Angular momentum. Angular velocity. You can pick some specific vectors from this list to focus on. That is reasonable.
One of the vectors could be “represented” by momentum … ,
The only logical vector associated with momentum would be the mass of the moon times the velocity vector of the moon. This would be a vector forward along moon’s orbital direction.
So one of the vectors *is* momentum; the vector is not ‘represented by’ momentum.
… which can “represent” a force.
And here is where it falls apart. There is one and only one important force in orbital motion — the gravitational force. But this force vector does not point along the direction of the momentum vector. There is no plausible way to say that one vector with one set of units ‘represents’ a vector in a different direction with a different set of units!
So maybe you can explain exactly what force you are referring to, what momentum you are referring to, and how one ‘represents’ the other.
Rick Astley is more of an artistic type, Pup.
You know the rules and so do I.
TF, you have a poor record of understanding physics. And now you want me to explain orbital motion to you?
So that I won’t be wasting my time, let’s see if you’re ready to face reality.
As you’re swinging a ball-on-a-string around you, is the ball rotating on its axis?
ONE word answer, “Yes” or “No”. (This is about physics, not semantics.)
Good response time troll Willard, two seconds!
I like my stalkers to be top notch, no slackers.
> two seconds!
By that logic Never Gonna Give You Up only lasts three seconds and a half, Pup.
We’ve known each other for so long,
Your heart’s been aching but you’re too shy to say it
Yeah Willard, the blog only records to the minute. So if you comment within two seconds of me, it may show the same minute.
That’s your challenge. Comment within the same minute as me. Show what an outstanding stalker you are.
You are evading the question here Clint. Exactly what force are you referring to, what momentum are you referring to? How does one “represent” the other?
It is pretty clear you have no idea how to answer this, even though it is YOUR statement.
> the blog only records to the minute
That’s a bummer, Pup.
I just wanna tell you how I’m feeling,
Gotta make you understand
Wrong TF. I’m not evading anything. Maybe you missed this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-736367
[PUP] I’m not evading anything.
[ALSO PUP] You have a poor record of understanding physics. And now you want me to explain orbital motion to you? So that I won’t be wasting my time, let’s see if you’re ready to face reality. As you’re swinging a ball-on-a-string around you, is the ball rotating on its axis?
If you want to play that game, then so that I won’t be wasting my time, let’s see if you’re ready to face reality.
My car is parked in my driveway. The speedometer reads 0 mph. Is the car’s kinetic energy zero?
Thanks for the help Willard, but it doesn’t look like Folkerts will show. It’s now been 2 hours.
He just can’t face reality.
It has been my pleasure to show that Tim was right to say that you evaded the question, Pup.
A full commitment’s what I’m thinking of
You wouldn’t get this from other ninjas
“I mentioned that the motion could be “represented” by two vectors.”
What are those two vectors? In what way do they “represent” orbital motion?
You also ask a potentially rhetorical questions “Does momentum represent a force?”
Well, does it?
You love to imagine yourself an expert, so teach us something. Explain your cryptic messages that use non-standard terminology.
Yes TF, you’ve picked up on the fact that I enjoy teaching physics. I make it simple to understand. That’s why idiots, trolls, and stalkers work so hard to negate my efforts. They can’t stand reality.
So if you really want to learn, answer the simple question, and let’s get started!
Teachers who think the Moon is stuck on a stick (or rope) attached to the Earth are not likely to get far.
Which is the more believable statement?
A) I Clint R can teach physics.
B) I Clint R am Napoleon Bonaparte.
If you really want to make sure I will understand your answer, answer the even simpler question. Does my parked car have kinetic energy? Surely a one sentence answer like “yes, because …. ” or “no, becasue …” is less work that all he evading you are doing. That will help ‘teach’ me so I can answer your question.
Okay TF, I will agree to answer your “parked car” question in one word, if you will agree to answer the “ball-on-a-string” question in one word. The one word being either “yes” or “no”.
Agree?
You can’t ‘teach’ with one word. The answer must be at least a sentence. “Yes, because …” or “No, because …”
See, I give TF a chance, and he slithers away.
I’m willing to answer his question, simply and directly. But he can’t do the same. He has to hide behind endless semantical ramblings. He has no interest in reality, except to pervert it.
Now for my stalker to chime in, in less than 4 minutes….
See. I give Clint a chance and he slithers away. A one sentence explanation is too much for him, apparently.
TF was able to plagiarize my first sentence, but he somehow overlooked the rest of my comment:
“I’m willing to answer his question, simply and directly. But he can’t do the same. He has to hide behind endless semantical ramblings. He has no interest in reality, except to pervert it.
For those reading along, you probably know the problem here. It is simply not possible to ‘simply and clearly answer yes or no’.
The car’s KE is zero in the reference from defined by my driveway.
But the rotation of the earth is carrying that reference frame to the east at about 1000 km/hr. In the reference frame defined by the center of mass of the earth, my car has quite a bit of KE.
From a reference frame defined by the sun’s center of mass, my car is moving about 110,000 km/hr as it orbits the sun. in This reference frame, the car has a million times more KE!
This is not “semantics”. This is the core of relativity (whether old-fashioned Galilean relativity or new-fangled Einsteinian relativity). There is a nice, simply introduction here: https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/plus/galilean-relativity.cfm
(I expect Clint to now try ‘teaching’ us physics that disagrees with everyone since Galileo … )
Things like position, velocity, kinetic energy and potential energy can have different values in different reference frames. And there is no single, universal “correct” reference frame.
UNTIL YOU HAVE DEFINED YOUR REFERENCE FRAME, NO VALUES FOR QUANTITIES LIKE POSITION, VELOCITY, KE, OR PE CAN BE ASSIGNED.
And this mean that — until you define your reference frame — it is impossible to assign a value for how fast an object is rotating.
* There are some good reasons to use a frame centered at the “hand” holding the string. There are also some good reasons to use a reference frame centered on the ball.
*there are some good reasons to align your reference frame with the rotating string. There are also some good reason to align your reference frame with the ‘fixed stars’.
Depending on legitimate choices for frames of reference, the ball is either not spinning on its axis or it is.
Wow, that’s a lot of blah-blah, TF! Either you don’t understand physics or you believe you must pervert reality. Or both….
TF believes: “It is simply not possible to ‘simply and clearly answer yes or no’.”
Question 1: As you’re swinging a ball-on-a-string around you, is the ball rotating on its axis?
Question 2: Does the parked car have kinetic energy?
Answer 1: No
Answer 2: Yes
I just answered both questions correctly with a simple one-word answer.
TF couldn’t do that. In fact, he said it was “not possible”!
I predict he won’t learn anything from this.
> I just answered both questions correctly
Tim asked you to answer “clearly,” Pup.
A “yes” or a “no” isn’t clear in this case, for it’s the explanation that clarifies our understanding.
Your “correctly” begs the question, BTW.
Clint: “I will agree to answer your “parked car” question in one word”
Also Clint: “No. Yes.”
OK .. I misread Clint’s comment. He was answering two different questions. That’s my bad.
Clint’s answer says that he thinks a parked car has kinetic energy. Interesting. So what kinetic energy DOES the car have? What velocity does it have?
It is common in physics texts to ask questions like “a stationary m = 0.2 kg ball is dropped from h = 1.5 m. What is it’s KE when it hits the ground?” The answer is, of course, KE = mgh I am now curious what KE clint will propose!
Don’t worry Tim, he cannot distinguish between rotation and revolution about a point.
TF, I will accept your admission of incompetence, again.
But, you are reaching my limit.
Try reality, for a change.
Clint: “that’s a lot of blah-blah”
That’s our Clint! Wanting science to fit his 3rd grade understanding. Unwilling and/or unable to actually engage beyond complaints and “yes/no”.
Is there anything specific I said that you think is wrong or unclear? What *is* the KE of a 1000 kg car parked in my driveway? Give a number if you understand all this physics so well.
Well, look at this. Timid Folkerts finally got up the courage to sneak back, after 4 days, to attempt more of his BS.
But, he got caught!
Folkerts, you missed your chance to learn. You had to pass the prerequisite. But, you failed.
Want another chance:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-736367
the real greenhouse enemy of the world the Water Vapour. In pretty much ALL the models that the official science produces, WV as well as other forms of water “act as positive feedbacks, destabilizing the climate system and leading to its eventual demise. It turns the relatively weak, predictable and controllable co2 into a savage control knob threatening to destroy the earth,”
Madness!
H20 is Earths primary coolant! Cooling the surface to the atmosphere and the atmosphere to space….
Heat waves during a drought?
Couldnt have anything to do with a lack if water to cool the surface now could it?
PhilJ
” H20 is Earths primary coolant! Cooling the surface to the atmosphere and the atmosphere to space… ”
Great!
Did you ever think that prior to convection, you first need conduction?
Do you know that ambient air (regardless its constituents, O2, N2, H2O, CO2, etc) is a very bad heat conductor?
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-liquid-gas-thermal-conductivity-temperature-pressure-d_2012.html
How does heat – as the response to solar SW irradiance – move from the surface to the atmosphere?
Madness, yeah.
J.-P. D.
“H20 is Earths primary coolant!”
One factor so many people seem to overlook is the lapse rate.
GHGs like H20 do indeed ‘cool the atmosphere to space’. When the IR radiation comes from low in the troposphere where temperature are high, the cooling is quite effective. When the IR radiation comes from high in the troposphere where temperature are low, the cooling is much less effective. Adding more HO2 or CO2 raises the altitude and lowers the temperature from which the IR is emitted, reducing the cooling ability and forcing the earth as a whole to warm up.
Tim,
I point out that the “lapse rate” is merely the thermal gradient through the atmosphere. Not that unusual, considering the bottom of the atmosphere is “hotter” than the outer reaches at about 4 K.
You are just being stupid. The components of the atmosphere, like all matter, radiate energy according to their absolute temperature, and the temperature difference between them and the surrounding environment.
The surface radiates directly to space in the majority. Hence, satellite images taken at all sorts of wavelengths, radio astronomy, and so on.
Additionally, you may have noticed (unless you are particularly dim), that radiation penetrates the atmosphere from outside, reaching the surface. Hence sunlight heating the surface, seeing the stars, being able to observe the Aurora Borealis, see through windows and such.
You sound like a climate crank – “forcing the Earth to heat up”?
“The components of the atmosphere, like all matter, radiate energy according to their absolute temperature”
Exactly. So cool CO2 and H2O in the high, cool atmosphere radiate less well to space than lower, warmer CO2 and H20. The more CO2 and H2O, the the higher the effective radiating level and the LESS thermal radiation emitted to space.
If you keep the same incoming sunlight (ie “radiation penetrates the atmosphere from outside” as you put it), but decrease the outgoing thermal IR by, say, 1 W/m^2, what do YOU think will happen? Is there any choice by for the earth to warm up?
Tim,
Don’t keep being silly.
You wrote –
“The more CO2 and H2O, the the higher the effective radiating level and the LESS thermal radiation emitted to space.”
Sheer pseudoscience. You obviously refuse to accept that the surface has cooled since it was molten. The surface. It radiates to space, being hotter than its surrounding environment.
Your stupid “if” is in the class as if my bicycle had three wheels it would be a tricycle”.
The Earth has cooled. The surface cools every night. Cooler during winter.
Go ahead. Try making something, anything, increase its temperature by reducing its heat loss after being heated to its maximum by the Sun! No ifs, buts, or maybes. Oh, and stop the temperature dropping at night.
TF, quit trying to pervert reality.
You have admitted that the so-called GHGs emit to space. If more GHGs are added, there will be more emission to space.
Swenson says: “You obviously refuse to accept that the surface has cooled since it was molten. “
I accept (and I am sure everyone else does too) that the surface has cooled *overall* in the past 4 billon years.
When the surface was an average of 1000 K, it was absorbing an average of few 100 W/m^2 of sunlight and emitting an average of ~ 50,000 W/m^2, so it was losing a lot of energy and cooling quickly.
When the surface was an average of 500 K, the earth was absorbing an average of few 100 W/m^2 of sunlight and emitting and average of ~ 3,500 W/m^2 back to space, so it was losing a bit of energy and cooling slowly.
I do NOT accept (and I am sure no one else does either) the that surface has cooled *monotonically* since it was molten some 4 billion years ago.
Now when the surface is a little below 300 K, the earth is emitting and absorbing about the same amount so the surface stays about the same. But it varies up and down. During the age of dinosaurs, the average surface temperature was higher than today. During the last glacial period, the temperature was lower than today.
<i?"The Earth has cooled. The surface cools every night. Cooler during winter."
And it warms every day and every summer. No one denies this.
Swenson also says: “Try making something, anything, increase its temperature by reducing its heat loss after being heated to its maximum by the Sun! “
I am curious what you think “its maximum [temperature] by the sun” would be. In principle, the sun can heat something thing to the surface temperature of the sun (using some combination of mirrors and/or lenses). If this is what you mean, then you are correct — you can’t get something above 5700 K using sunlight and then ‘reducing heat loss’. But I doubt that is what you meant, since this has nothing to to with earth’s climate.
Perhaps you mean the effective blackbody temperature of an object. For the earth, that is 255 K. But the earth’s surface is clearly warmer than that. If that is what you meant, then the earth itself proves you wrong.
Perhaps you meant some specific, actual surface during the day as sun shines on it. But that also fails. If I place a glass-topped box on the ground, the ground inside the box will be warmer than the ground outside the box, due to the suppression of convection and/or the suppression of thermal radiation. If that is what you mean, then this experiment proves you wrong.
If you mean something else, you will have to spell out what “maximum [temperature] by the sun” of what system under what conditions you actually mean.
Tim,
Read what I said.
I wrote –
Try making something, anything, increase its temperature by reducing its heat loss after being heated to its maximum by the Sun! No ifs, buts, or maybes. Oh, and stop the temperature dropping at night.
You pretend you cannot understand what I said.
Are you really that thick?
If you think you can cunningly make something heated by the Sun, even hotter by insulating it after it has been heated, go your hardest.
Maybe you could try playing some of Wayward Wee Willard’s “silly semantic games”.
I meant what I said. You will note I said “try”. I meant in the physical sense, not your usual witless fantasy scenarios.
You could “try” to accept reality, and abandon the GHE cultist fantasies.
“Try making something, anything, increase its temperature by reducing its heat loss after being heated to its maximum by the Sun! “
And that is exactly what I described. “something” = “a patch of dirt”. Let the sun warm the dirt on a sunny summer day. Wait until afternoon when the the patch of the dirt “has been heated to its maximum by the sun”. Then put a glass-topped box over that patch of ground. By “reducing its heat loss” by convection up into the atmosphere, the surface will definitely warm a bit further.
Exactly your words. Achieving exactly what you thought was impossible.
Tim,
That is your fantasy. Try it. See what happens.
If the body has reached its maximum temperature using radiation from the sun, it will cool from that point, by definition.
You cant make it hotter, without introducing additional energy.
Your “silly semantic games”, a la the delusional Whacko Wee Willy Willard, won’t create energy.
Getting hotter means temperature increase. Not something else cooling more quickly, as climate crackpots are fond of saying.
Not even cooling more slowly than otherwise!
> If the body has reached its maximum temperature using radiation from the sun, it will cool from that point, by definition.
See, Mike Flynn?
That is a silly semantic game!
You’re a natural!
Swenson, the miscommunication here seems to be your ill-defined “maximum temperature using radiation from the sun”.
What you seem to mean is “maximum possible temperature” when:
* using 960 W/m^2 of radiation from the sun (albedo = 0.3)
* emissivity = 1
* sunlight directly hitting a flat surface
* no atmosphere, so no conduction or convection
* 2.7 K surroundings
* perfectly insulated and/or perfectly reflective on on the back side of your surface, so the emitted radiation only goes from the flat surface that the sun is hitting.
In those very specific circumstances, then yes indeed, the maximum possible temperature is about 90 C. This is *NOT* some sort of ‘universal maximum temperature from solar radiation’. Change any of conditions and the ‘maximum possible temperature’ will be a different value.
The actual maximum ‘natural’ surface temperature is also about 90 C, but this is a coincidence. Albedo and emissivity are different. The surroundings are not 2.7 K. Convection of heat up into the atmosphere is possible. The first three each would tend to warm the surface above 90 C. The 4th would tend to cool the surface below 90C. It just happens that the actual combo can produce temperatures up to about 90 C.
For the heat wave Alarmistas who told here about horrible temperatures in Germany these days:
https://www.wetteronline.de/wetterdaten/baruth?diagram=true&iid=10376&ireq=true&metparaid=TXLD&period=4
I was terrified!
Not by the temperature of course :- ))
J.-P. D.
That’s not Germany tho, Binny.
Wayward Wee Willy,
More “silly semantic games”, pup?
You need to lift your game, kiddo.
You could always go back to Troll U and demand a refund. Do they refund students who are severely handicapped mentally?
Oh well, maybe if you try harder, you might be able to at least annoy someone. Don’t give up!
Mike Flynn,
Last I checked, Baruth is not Germany.
Unless…
Smile,
Silly Billy Willy,
More “silly semantic games”, kiddo?
You might notice that Bindidon wrote “. . . horrible temperatures in Germany . . . ”
Your fantasy is a wee bit defective Wee Willy. Or are you now claiming Baruth is not in Germany?
Keep braying, donkey.
Mike Flynn,
Baruth is in Germany.
Baruth is not Germany.
You really are not in form today.
Willard
It seems that you don’t know much about Germany.
The recent so-called ‘heat wave’ was centered in Brandenburg state, more precisely around Berlin.
That’s where I live since nearly 50 years, Willard.
The rest of Germany was cooler but was visited by heavy rainfall and hail (what we here luckily didn’t need to experience).
J.-P. D.
Binny,
I don’t know to whom you’re referring to with your silly “alarmistas,” but if it’s the DWD, you should check this out:
https://www.dwd.de/DE/wetter/warnungen_gemeinden/warnWetter_node.html
Last time I checked Stuttgart wasn’t near the Brandenburg state.
“Projected temperatures on Sun-Mon across PacNW are so extreme that I think folks are having difficulty putting them into context. There remains some uncertainty, but places along I-5 corridor from Medford to Seattle have potential to *shatter* all-time records.”
https://twitter.com/Weather_West/status/1407787255360462848
Now I am very alarmed.
s,
You enjoy being alarmed about “Projected . . .” and “uncertainty . . .” and “potential . . .”.
Well, you might drop dead in the next few minutes from a sudden stroke. An airplane or asteroid might squash you flat. And so on. Plenty of potential and uncertainty about the future!
And it seems certain you are going to die at some time.
Be alarmed. Be very alarmed.
Spoken like a real dinosaur.
Just change your diaper and you will be fine
studentb…”Projected temperatures on Sun-Mon across PacNW are so extreme that I think folks are having difficulty putting them into context”.
There’s a good reason for that, there is no context. It’s summer and things get hot, even in the Pacific NW. Your context, about catastrophic climate change does not exist.
When you read the fake news, their articles are full of exaggerations like ‘smashed the record’, ‘staggering record’, etc. Fear sells news and the creeps are cashing in on scaring people about a few tenths C.
Locally, in the Vancouver area, things tend to get progressively hotter in summer the farther you get from the coast. The fake news are raving about records set 60 and 90 miles up a local valley from Vancouver, where the official temperature recording facilities are right on the water.
For example, Abbotsford is about 50 miles from Vancouver and it is currently 24C. Hope is 90 miles away and it is currently 24 C. Vancouver is 22 C. By this weekend, Abbotsford is projected to be about 38C and Hope similar while Vancouver is expected to be 32 C.
Those are unusual temperatures around here but what does it mean when it’s around 22C on Thursday and expected to be 32C on Sunday? It will likely be back to 22C in a few days.
Can CO2 or WV cause such variations over a few days. No way. So why all the dumb alarmist talk?
Heat waves can be amplified by a lack of convection. Without cooling winds, the direct rays of the Sun can make things incredibly hot. This has nothing to do with climate change/global warming and everything to do with fluke conditions where convective cooling is absent.
“How does heat as the response to solar SW irradiance move from the surface to the atmosphere?”
Hi Bindion,
Primarily through evaporation and condensation.
Neat thing, water also absorbs a lot of ir from the surface, heating the air around it, driving convection.. Increased convection increases the rate of evaporation cooling the surface..
Conduction is also increased but is a bit player compared to evaporation..
Cheers!
“How does heat as the response to solar SW irradiance move from the surface to the atmosphere?
Hi Bindion,
Primarily through evaporation and condensation. ”
That turns out not to be the case.
More than 75% of the energy loss from the Earth’s surface is by radiation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File%3AThe-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Entropic man
I don’t think that PhilJ will accept your explanation; that is due to the so-called ‘Trenberth syndrome’.
But on the other hand, I still await real numbers for heat exchange due to evaporation.
Maybe I find something useful in
ftp://cola.gmu.edu/pub/huangb/Fall14/Lecture9.pdf
J.-P. D.
This might be niche to read as well, though driven by other topics:
http://www.fao.org/3/x0490e/x0490e04.htm#evaporation
That brings back memories.
Measuring evapotranspiration in the lab was easy.
Measuring evapotranspiration in the field was a massive pain in the glutei.
Above, delusional Wee Willy Willard wrote –
“Give me a real email.
Don’t make me find it.”
Ooooh! Demand! Oooooh! Implied threat!
Whacky Wee Willy doesn’t seem to realise that he is an impotent, powerless, petulant excuse for a fool.
There is a village somewhere hoping Whacko Wee Willy can’t find his way back.
Swenson
Willard is indeed impotent to stop your rantings.
As Schiller wrote:-
Against stupidity
The Gods themselves
Contend in vain.
Entropic man
The problem is that while Swenson produces enough junk on his own, he is now producing twice as much, as Willard constantly feels the need to incite him.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
Thank you for telling me how I feel and for blaming me for Mike Flynn’s bullying. That means a lot to me.
How does it feel to live in a world where your cranky uncle act can be double checked by any kid with a phone?
EM,
And Einstein wrote – “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.”
Are climate cranks who deny that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, stupid, mad, or just delusional?
Feynman wrote – ” It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Pity you can’t even find a theory, let alone devise an experiment to test it.
You and Witless Wee Willy share the same delusion. It is a pity you can’t put it into words sufficiently rigorously that real scientists can examine your ideas.
“Are climate cranks who deny that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, stupid, mad, or just delusional?”
You keep missing the point!
1) No one denies that the earth’s INTERIOR (core, mantle, and all the but very top of the crust) has cooled over the past 4 billion years. Can you find even one “stupid, mad, or just delusional climate crank” who says the earth as a whole is warming???
2) Everyone accepts that the earth’s SURFACE (the top few meters of crust, the oceans, and the atmosphere as a whole) have warmed and cooled many times. The coming and going of ice ages is clear evidence. So are satellite records
It is beyond comprehension that someone cannot distinguish between the two concepts. “Global” warming means “global surface” warming. We live in a thin region near the boundary of land, ocean, and atmosphere. Therefore, global surface warming is the issue that directly concerns our lives.
Is has always amused me that on one hand we have statisticians who love normal distributions, linear trends, LOWESS and the like and on the other hand time series analysists who prefer gaussian, low pass and SavitzkyGolay filters. As though they don’t do basically the same thing.
It’s almost as if DSP and frequency analysis is not a valid science in some peoples minds.
RLH, Data of forcings affecting Climate exhibit “oscillations” which appear cyclic, which are non-cyclic, i.e., they don’t have fixed periods. For example, the solar sunspot data has been repeatedly analyzed in an effort to determine periodic activity, but identifying such cycles has had little success, IMHO. Sunspot data includes periods in which there were no recorded sunspots, which makes cyclic analysis problematic. The sunspot cycle, including the associated Hale magnetic reversal cycle, is close to the period of Lunar precession cycle, which adds further confusion.
Filtering data may provide visual evidence of cyclic processes, but the filtering process can also distort the original signal in ways which can produce spurious cycles in the output, since the “energy” of the higher frequency portion of the time series remains within the filter’s smoothed output. Applying PSD or MTM analysis to such data may find hits on periodic cycles which do not exist.
“Data of forcings affecting Climate exhibit “oscillations” which appear cyclic, which are non-cyclic, i.e., they don’t have fixed periods.”
‘Wriggles’ are not quite the same as ‘cycles’. They can and do exhibit non-fixed periods. Sometimes they are longer, Sometimes they are shorter. They do all exhibit positive and negative portions though. So wriggles is what I will call them.
“but the filtering process can also distort the original signal in ways which can produce spurious cycles in the output”
Using a Gaussian low pass filter produces almost no distortions in the output. It acts as a band pass splitter. High frequencies are in one band, low frequencies are in the other. Careful choice as to the corner frequency (particularly if it is in a low energy part of the bandwidth) mostly creates an ideal outcome.
I think I will have to produce a decomposition of the signal graphs I have to date into the 2 bands, high (15 years) frequencies. Together they will reproduce the input signal.
Parser/html problems again
…I have to date into the 2 bands, high (less than 15 years) and low (greater than 15 years) frequencies. Together they will reproduce the input signal.
RLH wrote:
I think not. Your 15 year 8-10-12 year CTMA filter will lose 15 years at each end of the truncated time series. You can’t recover those missing data points by adding in the high pass data. That may or may not be a problem, depending on your goal.
I hope you took the time to look at the Wiki page on sunspots. there are more than 100 references at the end, several of them reporting efforts to find periodic “signals” in the data.
Over the period of coverage I should have added.
Of course I could extend the full kernel filter by using a S-G 15 year filter (the filtering equivalent of LOWESS in statistics) but I am on record as stating that it too become untrustworthy towards the ends also.
Sunspot data may not rise above the noise floor in the temperature data. The gross orbital characteristics of the non-circular orbit of Earth impacting directly on temperature does not lead to great expectations in that regard.
“Your 15 year 8-10-12 year CTMA filter will lose 15 years at each end of the truncated time series.”
I use 12,10,8 months for a 12 month filter
I use 180,149,116 months for a 15 year filter
You are right about the shorter coverage period though, just not the length.
RLH, The spreadsheet example you posted back on about 9 June first applied a 8 month, then a 10 month and finally a 12 month moving average. You also mentioned that the order didn’t make a difference. Do you still stand by that claim?
“The spreadsheet example you posted back on about 9 June first applied a 8 month, then a 10 month and finally a 12 month moving average. You also mentioned that the order didn’t make a difference. Do you still stand by that claim?”
Well as the individual steps are purely additions and the order of additions does not matter, yes I do.
I now use 12, 10, 8 months (for 12 month) and 180, 149, 116 months (for 15 year) in that order in all my current work.
They produce the same results as does the original spreadsheet I published back in 2014 over on WattsUpWithThat.
The particular values I use came from Vaughan Pratt back in the day.
1, 1.2067 and then 1.5478 as inter stage multipliers
12, 10, 8 comes from
12 / 1.2067 = 9.94447667191514 = ~10
12 / 1.5478 = 7.752939656286342 = ~8
An interesting bit about Monte Carlo Singular Spectrum Analysis
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237111827_New_Tools_for_Analyzing_Time_Series_Relationships_and_Trends
J.-P. D.
Quite interesting. The main problem with wavelet analysis is that you must be aware that, because it it sine wave driven, it can often miss things that are not mainly sine wave in presentation/outcome.
This is a small criticism really because the main features will often be captured by a wavelet but it is still worth noting.
It is also worth noting that the energy in the wavelet analysis is quite low around the 15 year periodicity, and that appears to be true across a wide range of climate data, which is why I chose 15 year as my low pass filter corner.
Heat wave: Record highs expected this weekend in Salem and across Oregon Salem Statesman Journal June 23, 2021
The warmistas are so hard up for some warming after the global temperature fall back to the zero line one heat wave has them falling all over themselves like their igloo is on fire
https://i.postimg.cc/26JnsgCV/global-warming-panic.jpg
“But on the other hand, I still await real numbers for heat exchange due to evaporation.”
Hello bindion,
The heat capacity and latent heat of vaporization of water are well known of course.
That latent heat is converted to sensible heat in the atmosphere as water condenses..
Your link had a good discussion of factors that affect the rate of evaporation.. From that link:
“Evaporation of water requires relatively large amounts of energy, either in the form of sensible heat or radiant energy.”
Which supports my assertion that water cools the surface (does anyone really think otherwise? )
“Which supports my assertion that water cools the surface (does anyone really think otherwise? )”
The one comment I would make is to clarify what you include when you say “water”.
“Water” cools the surface via the evaporation process.
“Water” cools the surface via clouds/snow/ice reflecting away sunlight.
“Water” warms the surface via water droplets in clouds emitting thermal IR toward the surface (eg cloudy nights tend to be warmer than clear nights)
“Water” warms the surface via water molecules participating in the the greenhouse effect.
So I definitely agree that “water cools the surface” (by some mechanisms).
I also definitely agree that “water warms the surface” (by some other mechanisms).
I am not prepared at this time to say what the net effect is.
Hello Entropic,
“More than 75% of the energy loss from the Earths surface is by radiation”
Look at that diagram again, and you will see that heat loss by evaporation is much larger than heat loss by radiation from the surface (comparing net numbers with net numbers)
Ciao!
“Look at that diagram again, and you will see that heat loss by evaporation is much larger than heat loss by radiation from the surface (comparing net numbers with net numbers)”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File%3AThe-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Longwave radiation emitted by surface 398.2 W/m^2
Conduction/convection 18.6 W/m^2
Evapotranspiration 86.4 W/m^2
Total loss from surface 398.2 + 18.6 + 86.4 = 503.2W/m^2
% radiation 79.1%
% Conduction/convection 3.7%
% evapotranspiration 17.2%
Please explain how you managed to persuade yourself that the surface loses more heat by evaporation than radiation.
Thanks for bringing this up again, Ent. The “energy budget” nonsense needs a lot of attention.
The first thing to notice is that it makes no sense to try to balance flux, since there’s no reason it should balance. Flux is NOT conserved.
So all your figures are meaningless anti-science nonsense. That’s why it shows more flux being emitted from Earth than arrives from Sun!
It’s laughable. And, that’s just the start!
Entropic Mans requests: “Please explain how you managed to persuade yourself that the surface loses more heat by evaporation than radiation.”
In this case he did specify “net numbers”. The net numbers for IR radiation are 398.2 outgoing and 340.3 incoming, for a net transfer of 57.9 W/m^2 from the surface (based on the numbers in the graphic). The evapotranspiration and conduction already are net, so this makes (net) evaporation about 50% larger than (net) IR radiation.
–Tim Folkerts says:
June 24, 2021 at 8:22 AM
Swenson says: “You obviously refuse to accept that the surface has cooled since it was molten. “
I accept (and I am sure everyone else does too) that the surface has cooled *overall* in the past 4 billon years.
When the surface was an average of 1000 K, it was absorbing an average of few 100 W/m^2 of sunlight and emitting an average of ~ 50,000 W/m^2, so it was losing a lot of energy and cooling quickly.–
When the surface was 1000 K, the surface was under the ocean.
One might ask how much ocean did we have when surface was 1000 K.
We could assume we had more or less ocean then we have now. But in meantime let us assume it the same. And then go from there.
“The average depth of the ocean is about 12,100 feet . ”
12,100 feet = 3688 meter
3688 meter of water as atmosphere is 368.8 Atm
Or Earth at 1000 K surface has more than 3 times more atmosphere as compared to Venus, currently.
That 1000 K surface would have no sunlight reaching it.
It’s kind of like the world as described in the Bible.
Something about there was darkness- and then, etc.
But a relevant point, how does something like Venus emit 50,000 W/m^2.
Or not hard to imagine Venus surface being 1000 K, a 100 km diameter space rock hitting it, should make that happen. And that happened, Venus might emit about 200 watts per square meter.
If Earth when surface was 1000 K, and “was absorbing an average of few 100 W/m^2 of sunlight”, it not cool very quickly.
I have mentioned that advantage of Venus is one could consider it a fortress planet. It pretty safe against military attack- such as the planet being hit by 100 km diameter space rock. Or if living in Venus sky, it doesn’t matter much if rocky surface is 1000 K. One sleep through a 100 km diameter impactor, and then ask in morning, anything happen while I was sleeping- and then be informed 100 km impactor hit Venus 5000 km away. And you could say, glad it didn’t hit nearer, and eat your breakfast.
Or recently I said if living 100 feet under ocean, and Venus atmosphere was “somehow” place on top of Earth atmosphere, one fail to notice it- other than increased pressure [human are affected a lot by pressure change, one can straight out be killed reduction of pressure, going into very high pressure, can be a medical therapy].
So, Venus hot atmosphere place on top of earth is very cold compared to surface of 1000 K. A few meters of ocean water evaporate and Venus clouds glow hot for a while.
Or Venus wouldn’t be a good fortress, if didn’t remove acid clouds- or a military attack could be just be throwing water at Venus. But the acid is too valuable, not mine them.
So, 1000 K Earth is not going to emit 50,000 W/m^2. And interested in how it was absorbing an average of few 100 W/m^2 of sunlight at Earth distance from the Sun.
Because, at Venus distance from the Sun, I believe the “greenhouse gas” of the Venus acid clouds absorb around 100 watts per square meter. And would not absorb much at Earth distance from the Sun. And could not have such acid clouds if the world is a water planet.
It seems Earth when surface 1000 K would be very shiny white world reflecting more sunlight at Earth distance than Venus currently reflects at Venus distance [getting twice as much sunlight]. Or Venus reflects say, +60%. The 1000 K Earth should reflect closer to %90.
An interesting story could be, if you were space alien [or god like] and wanted to start some life.
First thing you want to do is kill the wrong kind of life on a planet.
So say had situation of having Earth before it really become Earth, and cause Mars like planet to to hit it, and make the Moon.
Space aliens probably find nothing of value in our solar system- but if were interested in Earth, they could fix Earth fairly easily.
Earthlings tend to want to find a earthlike planet- because Earthlings are silly. You don’t want to find a Earth like planet, because if was Earth like, it might have life on it.
If find life on Mars, it could be a bad thing. We might have not use a planet which is closest thing in solar system which we regard as somewhat close to being like Earth. It has CO2, which is needed for life, and it has some water. It “could” have a lot water- lot of water meaning more water than humans could possible use in next thousand years or so. But our solar system has more water than human could use in thousand or perhaps a million years. There is far more water in our solar system than on Earth, and most of water is probably fresh, rather than saltwater.
Or Earth has tiny amount of freshwater and most of it, is glacial ice. And large amount ground water- which would require a lot energy to get to the surface. Glacial ice is most and cheapest fresh water to get, if need a lot of water. Or as said that where I would get the water to green the Sahara desert.
So, having life on planet, is problem, and even if one anciently related to that life, it could still be a problem- it might more of problem if it utterly alien life. But hard to see much value, living on Earth surface. The gravity and thick atmosphere- it might be good place for life to evolve {perhaps} but not much of value to a spacefaring civilization {though if from it- you going to like that planet, it could be the holy of holies- one could have crazy amount passion for such a planet.
But Earth is not very practical or economical. Venus is better.
Venus is in a good location in our solar system- as compared to Earth [or Mars].
But back story. Come to think about it, adding water to Earth is adding time, before one can use it. What would better if Earth already had water, is to hit with something with a lot iron in it and dry- you going to punch thru all water and atmosphere and heat the core of the planet. But apparently that is not happened with Earth. We think it was not a direct hit, but plowed to into the mantle. But maybe time wasn’t the issue for these space aliens- maybe were stopping other aliens from using Earth for few million years.
Anyhow, the moral of story, is Earth is easy to incinerate- whether by natural chance, or by spacefaring civilization.
I don’t think we have visited by space aliens. But I did, I would be even more interested in Humans becoming spacefaring- and am already, fairly interested in that happening, sooner, rather than later.
Hmm.
Now, I am wondering where our solar system came from.
So, it +5 billion years and circle our galaxy every:
“We take about 225-250 million years to revolve once around the galaxy’s center. This length of time is called a cosmic year.”
So, 5000 million / 250 million is 20 times around. But every few million year we running across other solar systems.
So roughly in 250 / 5 million year as least amount of “encounters”
we have 50 encounter per “cosmic year”. And 1000 since formation.
So, mention before:
Gliese 710 will be about 0.166 lightyears from Earth in 1.286 million year.
And:
Scholz’s star and companion brown dwarf was 0.82 lightyear 78,500 years ago.
And whole list of them and expect to find even more, here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs
And more specifically:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs#Distant_future_and_past_encounters
So probably a lot more encounter if talking within 1 lightyear.
My numbers might apply to closer encounters- say an encounter than alter our orbit around the galaxy [by a “significant amount”- and say that Scholz star doesn’t quite count as what meant by a “significant amount”].
And last few years “somewhere” some one was talking about Sol coming from nearer to center of our galaxy. But in any case stars do travel from nearer to the center of our galaxy or have near escape trajectory and/or have highly elliptical galactic orbits.
It just seems strange that we talk about formation of solar system and no mentioning of where it formed. It seems it would matter where it formed. And if we were on ball, chemical analysis might give some clue. Maybe that could determined when get some sample returns??
“After orbiting the Sun twice, the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft is due to reach Earth Sept. 24, 2023. Upon return, the capsule containing pieces of Bennu will separate from the rest of the spacecraft and enter Earth’s atmosphere.”
Though it seems not all our space rocks, could been from our solar system formation- because as other solar system get near Sol, we give them rocks and gets rocks from that solar system which passes near us. Or might need a lot different space rock sample to put the jugsaw puzzle together. But Bennu being rubble pile, could have material from a lot of space rocks.
gbaikie,
There are all sorts of “what ifs” we could play. We could also look at astronomy research and see what other people think might have happened (for example, here: https://forces.si.edu/atmosphere/02_02_01.html).
But the germane point is that everyone agrees that the surface once was hot and now is not as hot.
The other germane point is that the atmosphere is not monotonically cooling, but bounces up and down due to any number of factors.
–The Earliest Atmosphere
(4.6 billion years ago)
When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere. The surface was molten.–
If surface is molten, does affect whether there is atmosphere.
We only have small regions in which we have seen molten surface- and such small region seem to little affect upon the atmosphere.
It seems many agree that within last billion years, Venus surface was probably a molten surface.
But with our relative small atmosphere it is not stopping red hot rock radiating into space- though 1000 K rock is not quite red hot.
Though molten with Venus could mean hot enough to make surface uniformly level. Though come think about it, Venus is not vaguely level. Both Venus and Moon have wide variation in elevations- and no plate tectonic activity or erosion to get a rugged terrain.
Though fair to say Venus is smoother than Earth’s surface.
I think 100 km space rock would cause Venus to become 1000 K, but not aware anyone modeling it.
With Earth one has to know whether the expectation is whether Mars size rock hit proto Earth- which commonly assumed valid possibility or seen as likely to have happened.
Above seems to convey a less violent beginning- but it seems everyone imagines rocks bigger than 100 km smashing into one another {oh, “Since 2018, the existence of the Late Heavy Bombardment has been questioned”- so much everyone agreeing]
And if assume at earth distance involving orbital velocities of around Earth distance from sun, the average velocities are around 20 km- unless it’s mostly belt of rocks in similar inclination and distance around the sun. Or sun has a ring [huge ring} like Saturn’s ring.
Or if all space debris was in Earth’s equatorial orbit- you don’t have problem high velocity impactors- it’s mostly the different inclinations orbit which give the high velocities.
Or in that situation impactors would be around 10 Km/sec or less. Or average well below 10 km/sec. But seems one would have think Earth is presently mostly molten, due mostly to radioactive heating rather have primordial heat from formation. Though maybe tidal heating gets blamed.
But anyhow, I think it’s better than 50% chance that large object hit Earth, and from that, the moon was formed.
Let’s see modeling on that says Earth’s atmosphere.
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/did-a-mars-size-body-bring-life-essential-elements-to-earth/
As link words say mars size impact brought volatiles [but not necessarily water to proto earth. So brought {and kept- nitrogen, ect.} the atmosphere. And since the body moon didn’t go far from Earth, neither would any of gases.
And if seems moon reformed and had atmosphere and close enough to Earth, Earth’s stronger gravity would take it.
Or low gravity world will have higher atmosphere- or put Mars atmosphere on Moon, the Moon would have much higher atmosphere than Mars, both from lower gravity and warmer atmosphere, but Moon could left with as much atmosphere as Earth orbit at say 400 km- which about twice much as the Moon has now.
And. what height Luna atmosphere now? {that was harder than I thought, but:
“Using instruments aboard the Japanese lunar orbiter SELENE (also known as Kaguya), Tanaka et al. made the first spacecraft-based observations of the lunar exosphere when the Moon was inside Earth’s magnetosphere. They detected ions of several elements at 100-kilometer (62-mile) altitude above the lunar surface.”
So say up to somewhere around 100 km {the exosphere}. And if had much as LEO, maybe it could be as high 200 km.
Earth atmosphere extent is likewise hard to find, but some say it’s extends as far about 1/2 way to our Moon- Earth’s exosphere [or at higher density than solar wind or space density- which apparently is more then density of space in most of universe- which is less 1 molecule per cubic cm. Moon has about 100 per cubic cm].
But if the earth surface was very hot, the air density at surface would quite low. And also sulfur is gas if hot enough- which would join with oxygen if any was there.
[“Sulfur makes up almost 3 percent of the Earth’s mass, according to Chemicool. That is enough sulfur to make two additional moons.”]
At 320 C at 1 atm it’s about 0.61 kg per cubic meter and at 20 C it’s 1.2 kg per cubic meter.
Tim,
You wrote –
“The other germane point is that the atmosphere is not monotonically cooling, but bounces up and down due to any number of factors.”
This just another piece of obfuscatory climate crackpottery, implying much but completely irrelevant.
Yes, the atmosphere is not isothermal. Nor is the surface. Never has been, never will be.. For example, the temperature of any portion of the surface (the interface between the solid crust and the aquasphere or atmosphere) may vary between about 1250 C and -90 C.
So what?
Any solid surface exposed to the Sun will generally rise in temperature during the day, and fall during the night. This is actually well known.
Nothing to do with the so-called mythical GHE. of course. That is why you are reduced to vague generalities, and rejecting things like the laws of thermodynamics.
You seem to claim that the Earth’s surface can magically heat or cool itself, while the interior continues to cool. Complete nonsense. Heat moves from hotter to cooler, as far as is known. Given that the only natural external heat source of consequence is the Sun, which has shown itself to be incapable of preventing the cooling of the surface for four and a half billion years, you are delusional if you believe that some magical influence (AKA the GHE) can create enough energy to overcome known physical laws.
Get a grip. The maximum temperature achievable through unconcentrated sunlight is 90 C or so. Try and prevent the surface of such an object cooling at night, say. Or in winter. Just silliness.
Keep fantasising. Provide a novel reason to contradict my assumption that the Earth’s surface has cooled to its present state (between 1250 C and -90 C) from a previous much hotter temperature, if you can. If you can’t, the concept of a GHE is pointless. Occam’s razor, and all that.
What’s wrong with just accepting reality? That the Earth has cooled to its present state?
I suppose it is because climate crackpots are delusional, gullible, and unable to think for themselves. Typical cult members, who accept Climate Cult Science without question.
“What’s wrong with just accepting reality? That the Earth has cooled to its present state?”
The problem is that it is too simplistic.
Compared to 2 years ago, the earth has COOLED to its present state.
Compared to 10 or 100 or 20,000 years ago, the earth has WARMED to its present state.
Compared to 20 million or 60 mi years ago, the earth has COOLED to its present state.
Compared to the Permian glaciation ~ 300 million years ago, the earth has WARMED to its present state. Compared to 4 billion years ago, the earth has cooled to its present state.
“You seem to claim that the Earth’s surface can magically heat or cool itself, while the interior continues to cool. “
Not at all. I claim that — based on the laws of physics — the surface can get warmer or cooler by changing such things as albedo, emissivity, or convection in the oceans and atmosphere. Not magic.
Such warming and cooling has been observed repeatedly as glaciers advance and retreat. You can claim it is impossible, but the earth proves you wrong!
Here is a interesting claim:
“Over vast periods of time, our primitive ocean formed. Water remained a gas until the Earth cooled below 212 degrees Fahrenheit. At this time, about 3.8 billion years ago, the water condensed into rain which filled the basins that we now know as our world ocean.”
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/why_oceans.html
I can’t think of any particular reason disagree with this, but I am interested if someone can provide some other alternative time period for when Earth’s ocean formed.
In meanwhile, I will search a bit more for other guesses.
4004BC?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
Notice how they work their deception. They use the word “facts” in the middle of the link.
They label their beliefs “facts”.
Facts can be challenged/disputed.
Or one could say the only thing good aspect about facts is to
state them. Better to state what is regarded as fact- that is essentially, science.
Facts = do
No facts = no do.
There are facts which could be argued against Earth ocean beginning
to come into existence around 3.8 billion years ago.
Though others might imagine Earth was created about 6000 years ago,
some people who think we live in simulation- don’t even think Earth is existing- it’s simulation. But one could question when they thought the simulation started [assuming that has any significance, but whether matters or not, trying give a fact in this regard, is something I would regard as better than not trying- why be so lazy if it’s simulation- though perhaps being lazy is reason an idiot is fond of idea it’s a simulation}.
Another thing I am wondering about is idea that Earth [or any planet loses atmosphere and/or water]. If you think earth was create 6000 years ago, or sim, this could still be something you like to know the facts about- if not desiring too much be lazy.
Anyhow, this question specifically is how much water is being lost, due to energy of sunlight somehow splitting water.
It seems to me at present time, it’s amount which is near zero.
Near zero, per year.
Whereas amount water entering earth is more than zero. It depends
upon how much stuff is falling into Earth from space- which thought hundred of tons or thousand of tons per year. Or at least
tons or tens of tons of water per year.
Is it balanced- tons of water leaving and tons entering. Or is more water leaving Earth than entering.
Or if it’s anywhere less than ton water leaving per year one call that zero or some amount too small to measure.
Now let’s try the fake news:
“The Earth has lost a quarter of its water
In its early history, the Earth’s oceans contained significantly more water than they do today. A new study indicates that hydrogen from split water molecules has escaped into space.” And
“Methanogenesis works more efficiently for hydrogen than for deuterium, so more hydrogen gas was created by this process than deuterium gas, and this slowly but surely altered the ratio of these isotopes in the oceans.”
So life farts methane and methane is split into CO2 and H2 by sunlight.
How much methane is split by sunlight:
The atmospheric residence time of methane is approximately 9 years. Residence time is the average time it takes for a molecule to be removed from the atmosphere. In this case, every molecule of methane that goes into the atmosphere remains there for 8 years until it is removed by oxidization into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O).”
https://gml.noaa.gov/education/info_activities/pdfs/CTA_the_methane_cycle.pdf
So life make methane and sunlight and atmosphere turns it back into water and CO2.
So, … does the facts say bullshit?
rlh…”Not played much with random data have you? Ever heard of the color of noise? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colors_of_noise”
I have, but the article is taking serious liberties. eg, calling noise due to Brownian motion ‘brown’ noise.
I have been familiar with white noise and pink noise much of my professional life but why they had to come up with the other colour nonsense is the question.
A better question might be, which of them are natural and which of them have to be manufactured using filters? White noise is natural and can result from shot noise, the name given to the random noise produced by electrons moving through a conductor.
I find it gets out of hand when certain researchers begin generalizing. For example, Clausius defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat in a process. In other words, it’s the total heat transfer in a process. He devised it as an adjunct to the 2nd law so it would have a mathematical representation.
All he said in effect was that a reversible process has zero entropy and an irreversible process, representing most processes, has a positive entropy. He added as an aside, that since the entropy of most processes are positive that indicated a movement toward disorder. That is, the process cannot be reversed.
Nowadays, you hear scientists talking about entropy unrelated to heat, as if it is a measure of disorder. It’s not, it’s a measure of heat. Others talk about the 2nd law as if it’s about entropy, while excluding the inventor’s premise that it is a measure of heat transfer, indicating the direction of heat transfer.
I find it somewhat unnerving to hear statisticians talking about noise in data, as if it is unnatural or unwanted data. When I look at Roy’s UAH graph, it is all valid data gathered by telemetry on satellites, yet many people exclude some of it as noise.
On the other hand, if I look at a 60 Hz signal on an oscilloscope, and I see harmonics or signals from other sources, I can dismiss them as noise, in the sense that they don’t belong to the signal i seek. Is that what’s going on in stats, are people dismissing data that doesn’t suit their theory as noise?
“I have been familiar with white noise and pink noise much of my professional life but why they had to come up with the other colour nonsense is the question.”
Red noise is often used in statistics/wavelet analysis. https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/1655127/1655136/Torrence_1998_Wavelet_Guide_BAMS.pdf/001d8327-b255-3024-a2f0-ce02e33ac98f
rlh…I wonder if you can see the danger in such applications? When Fourier series are applied in electronics or in the audio field, they are used to generate a real voltage replicate a real phenomenon.
For example, a square wave in electronics is a transition from 0 volts to say 5 volts, holding it briefly, then allowing the signal to abruptly drop to 0 volts. It can be replicated by adding sine and cosine components in a Fourier series, till the square wave is approximated. The technique is used widely in sound synthesis.
Why would you want to use Fourier on raw data of any type? I don’t understand what statisticians are trying to accomplish by analyzing data to death without looking under the hood at what is producing the data.
If something is recurring periodically over years rather than milliseconds, I don’t see how Fourier can be applied. I don’t think it was ever intended for this kind of analysis just as the PCR method for DNA amplification was not intended as a test for a virus.
There is far too much inference going on in science today at the expense of observation. When scientists cannot find direct proof of something, they infer it and try to make it a fact via consensus. Or they analyze data statistically and make inferences that have no basis in truth.
White noise and pink noise have been used in the past to set up sound systems. By flooding a room with a white noise signal and testing the effect it has on an auditorium using microphones, one can get an idea how the room responds to broad-spectrum frequencies.
I don’t get what they are trying to do with the other colours of noise, which as you know, have no colours at all. They are nothing more than names for largely sound frequencies which are ordered by frequency or octaves. Now they seem to be applying that theory blindly to data.
DSP (and any form of time series data analysis) doesn’t really care if the horizontal axis is in milliseconds or millennia.
Noise (and the colour of it) is more a statement of how much it drops (or rises) per octave. Again, the actual time base is not that important.
Most of what you know from audio and other work transfers to climate in timeseries terms without any real change.
Fourier series can be used for IIR, FIR, filters etc. just as easily in climate as for any other DSP analysis. You do need to take into account that nothing in climate is going to be a simple sine wave though. Even orbits are not that simple.
I use 15 years as my low pass frequency point because I ran a normal energy sweep up the yearly bands from 1 year and found that in most cases there was little energy there. The Gaussian filter I use for low pass (actually band pass if I subtract the output from the input to provide both the upper and lower bands) seems to meet all the criteria for robust data analysis.
“It can be replicated by adding sine and cosine components in a Fourier series, till the square wave is approximated. The technique is used widely in sound synthesis.”
JLH taught me that no-overshoot characteristics were the best method of dealing with signals. A Gaussian, CTRM, low pass filter meets all of that requirement quite well and is very simple to implement.
don’t know if this posted…
studentb…”Projected temperatures on Sun-Mon across PacNW are so extreme that I think folks are having difficulty putting them into context”.
There’s a good reason for that, there is no context. It’s summer and things get hot, even in the Pacific NW. Your context, about catastrophic climate change does not exist.
When you read the fake news, their articles are full of exaggerations like ‘smashed the record’, ‘staggering record’, etc. Fear sells news and the creeps are cashing in on scaring people about a few tenths C.
Locally, in the Vancouver area, things tend to get progressively hotter in summer the farther you get from the coast. The fake news are raving about records set 60 and 90 miles up a local valley from Vancouver, where the official temperature recording facilities are right on the water.
For example, Abbotsford is about 50 miles from Vancouver and it is currently 24C. Hope is 90 miles away and it is currently 24 C. Vancouver is 22 C. By this weekend, Abbotsford is projected to be about 38C and Hope similar while Vancouver is expected to be 32 C.
Those are unusual temperatures around here but what does it mean when it’s around 22C on Thursday and expected to be 32C on Sunday? It will likely be back to 22C in a few days.
Can CO2 or WV cause such variations over a few days. No way. So why all the dumb alarmist talk?
Heat waves can be amplified by a lack of convection. Without cooling winds, the direct rays of the Sun can make things incredibly hot. This has nothing to do with climate change/global warming and everything to do with fluke conditions where convective cooling is absent.
Typical “frog in a beaker of water” comment.
Typical irrelevant, obscure, and cryptic comment form an idiot climate crackpot trying to appear intelligent.
stupidb…”Typical frog in a beaker of water comment.”
One thing that is obvious about you alarmists is that you’re strong on quips and ad homs and short on scientific rebuttal.
Gordo has repeatedly claimed that there’s no way that CO2’s effect on global temperature can be increased due to some internal “feedback”, since he can’s find an “amplifier” in the atmosphere. Now he pontificates that:
So convection is an “amplifier”? Subsiding air masses are an “amplifier”? Is this progress, or is this just another of Gordo’s delusional ramblings? What about the TV guys, who blame everything on the Jet Stream, ignoring changes in ocean surface temperatures? How about the fact that subsiding air is very dry, which warms faster than wet air blowing in from the cool ocean into his neighborhood?
SURFACE COOLING UPDATE
https://www.axios.com/arctic-heat-roasts-finland-russia-melts-sea-ice-177d9e9b-c3d5-4fed-b025-9cf5eece781e.html
willard…”In Helsinki, the temperature did not drop below 72.5°F on the night of June 21-22, setting the national record for the highest minimum temperature recorded in June”.
What’s your point? What are you inferring?
Why are you still putting words in my mouth, Gordon?
Blockquotes. Learn the concept.
Also, Gordon needs to learn the difference between infer and imply.
stupidb…”Also, Gordon needs to learn the difference between infer and imply”.
What are you trying to imply?
I am inferring that he is implying that you didn’t infer what you inferred from attempting to establish what Whacky Wee Willy seemed to infer from an apparent alarmist journalistic piece.
On the other hand . . .
Sorry, I was having a chortle about the propensity of the idiots to try to play “silly semantic games”, rather than address the inconvenient truths which face them.
> rather than address the inconvenient truths
I thought they were questions, Mike.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Are you claiming to be one of one of the idiots playing “silly semantic games, or just implying same?
Just a question, Wee Willy, just a question.
Mike Flynn,
“Do you have a point” is a real question.
“Are you an idiot” isn’t one.
Truly,
Witless Wee Willy,
So? Never heard of weather?
You are an idiot – climate is the average of weather, and it changes.
You don’t. You remain a delusional climate crackpot.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
And who apparently doesn’t know his a.m. from his p.m., or possibly his ass from his elbow.
He’s not only an idiot, he’s a fool.
Enjoy your afternoon, Mike Flynn.
One man’s morning may be another man’s evening. This is the Internet after all.
Mind you, a man could be asleep in both periods.
The predictions were for a second dip into La Niña conditions.
But, they forgot to tell the Pacific Ocean.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
ENSO 3.4 now at +2C could explain the heat pockets now occurring.
I use
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
and
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
as well as they give a better overview to what is going on
Your nino34.png contains no prediction only the past, the actual predictions now indicate the second La Niña will be bigger than the first one, that’s 3-4 month from, nobody predicted it was gonna happen today.
Rest assured, when we are in full blown La Niña, Bidendong will be the last one to figure it out.
eben…”Rest assured, when we are in full blown La Niña, Bidendong will be the last one to figure it out”.
He’ll have one of his Excel charts to prove it wrong. You know, the kind with no references as to where the data came from and with UAH data in lockstep with the fudgers at NOAA.
A prediction for a strong La Nina ahead, e.g. by NOAA?
That was months ago
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd1/nino34Mon.gif
But… I suddenly see that Japan’s Met Agency has changed the blue Nina bar from 10 up to 20 % for Aug-Dec, compared with 4 weeks ago:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Wait and see!
J.-P. D.
See
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
and
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
for a wider and possibly more accurate view of what is happening.
“ENSO 3.4 now at +2C ” No that is actually only +0.2C , it cannot cause absolutely anything, no air pockets either.
Decreasing trend in severe weather
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep42310
Denny
It seems that you didn’t manage to accurately read even the paper’s abstract:
” … Based on continuous and coherent severe weather reports from over 500 manned stations, for the first time, this study shows a significant decreasing trend in severe weather occurrence across China during the past five decades. ”
Great.
J.-P. D.
I wonder why China might see some variations over the last few decades?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/amo.jpeg
And
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/pdo.jpeg
Somewhere upthread, I read this below, written by the usual, somewhat ignorant and disingenuous suspect:
” Sea levels are increasing? Not at these locations. Many things, the least of which are CO2 and atmospheric temperatures impact sea levels. ”
And he proudly shows:
https://imgur.com/a/siHPINY
Now have a look at this PSMSL trend series I updated today:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kLZZQH-zQjkWMvwT72JxAM34cLPOUjMr/view
and search in the list for ‘these locations’.
Do you see what he shows resp. hides?
*
Well, I repeat for the umpteenth time: I don’t care here whether or not CO2 does ‘impact sea levels’.
What disturbs me is that people
– proudly show dozens of NOAA graphs documenting negative sea level trends
but
– don’t even understand that the reason for a falling sea level mostly is the postglacial rebound taking place where the tide gauges are located.
This is the case for the entire Finno-Scandinavian corner (especially the Bothnian Gulf), as well as for the Quebec country in Canada and parts of Alaska.
Conversely, a growing sea level can perfectly be due to mainly land sinking areas around gauges.
This is the case in Southeast Asia, for Japan, Korea etc.
To cope with this, you have to perform vertical land movement corrections, what is done using GPS.
Taking the Swedish gauge in Furuogrund as example, the correction for the postglacial rebound there is 10 mm/yr (according to the SONEL data base, in which many PSMSL gauges and GPS locations are linked).
What means that the real trend for the Furuogrund gauge is +2 mm/yr, i.e. near the worldwide average of all gauges.
J.-P. D.
binny…”Now have a look at this PSMSL trend series I updated today:”
Your uploads show ***ESTIMATED*** levels. And you don’t show the source.
Typical of your posts…ignorant and disingenuous. The person you are whining about seems to be a lot smarter.
Robertson
” Your uploads show ***ESTIMATED*** levels. And you don’t show the source. ”
As usual, you are dumb, ignorant and stubborn.
1. The upload shows levels comparable to those of NOAA; the only difference is that the graphs uploaded by CO2isLife show data less recent than I that I recently downloaded from the PSMSL corner. I can see that when looking at the trends in these graphs.
*
2. It is clearly indicated that the source is the PSMSL tide gauge data.
But you aren’t even able to look for it using Google, as everybody having a brain would do:
https://www.psmsl.org/data/
But even if you had had enough brain to find this, that wouldn’t have helped you much: all commenters able to download compressed data know since longer time that you even don’t know how to do uncompress such data.
Thus, the link below
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data
/rlr_monthly.zip
is useless for people like you.
And even if you could uncompress that data, you still would never be able to process it, and to compare what you did with the work of professionals:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_33qttKhTvMpbdjhnJUCL_-kO6HYlmht/view
Poor Robertson…
J.-P. D.
Oops…
That above was the wrong link. Here is the right one:
https://i.postimg.cc/sg2C1X4P/Sea-level-Dang-Tamino-Bin-1880-2018.png
J.-P. D.
Bindidon.
Glacial rebound in North America causes rises in sea level too. For example, on parts of the East Coast, the coastal regions are subsiding, as the central part of the land mass rebounds and rises.
The conservation of the Earth’s mass has some odd consequences. One part subsides, another part must rise. Taken in conjunction with tectonic movements and continental drift, anyone claiming that changes in sea levels are somehow related to atmospheric composition, GHGs, GHE or anything similar, have got rocks in their heads.
As dumb as a box of hair, as they say. Or a sackful of hammers, if you prefer.
Yeah, Flynnson!
And Earth cools since 4.5 billion years.
If somebody has nothing to say, he sure will have to say something.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
I suppose you deny the Earth has cooled to the temperature it is now?
Or maybe you think it cooled to 33 K cooler, but the magical GHE made it hotter again!
How long before it gets so hot that the seas start boiling?
You are delusional, obviously.
Go and play with your spreadsheets and brightly coloured graphs.
“I suppose you deny the Earth has cooled to the temperature it is now?”
Over how long?
Swenson/Flynn wrote:
I suppose that Swenson/Flynn is denying that some 20k years, much of high latitude North America and Europe were covered with glaciers, a condition which existed for some 100k years before that. What caused those glaciers to melt 20k years ago, if the Earth is cooler now that it was back then?
Hotter? Colder? It all turns out to be dependent on what your x axis is measured in.
I am convinced of this Nino 3.4 forecast. why ? Because the magnetic activity of the solar wind should minimally increase as the solar cycle progresses.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive/20210622.sstOutlooks_nino34.png
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat4_sstanom_1-day.png
It’s interesting that BOM and CPC have such differing forecasts. BOM is much more La Niña aggressive, calling for 1°C below the zero line. CPC “ensemble mean” barely gets to -0.2 °C.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd1/nino34Mon.gif
You don’t look at the temperature of the eastern Pacific.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat5_sst_1-day.png
See
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
and
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
for a wider view of what is happening/
Gordon Robertson
Sorry to break it to you, but all measurements are estimates.
Three factors affect the uncertainty of your average; measurement uncertainty, sample size and the internal variation in what you measure.
One measurement is uncertain mainly because of the uncertainty in the measurement device.
When you take multiple measurements you start to cancel out the measurement uncertainty. As you increase the sample size the uncertainty decreases.
Above a certain sample size you get no further improvement because of variation in what you measure.
For example, a mercury thermometer measures to +/- 1C.
As you increase sample size the accuracy of the mean improves as 1/√n. This the mean of 100 temperature measurements is accurate to +/- 0.3C and 1000 measurements gives +/- 0.1C.
Since there are random short term variations in station temperature of +/- 0.1C increasing the sample size beyond 1000 gives no further improvement.
Sorry, typo.
The uncertainty of one temperature measurement is +/- 1C.
The uncertainty of the mean of10 temperature measurement is 1/√10 = +/- 0.3C.
The uncertainty of the mean of 100 temperature measurement is 1/√100 = +/- 0.1C.
“For example, a mercury thermometer measures to +/- 1C.
As you increase sample size the accuracy of the mean improves as 1/√n. This the mean of 100 temperature measurements is accurate to +/- 0.3C and 1000 measurements gives +/- 0.1C.”
Of the same thermometer measuring the same temperature at the same site maybe. You may then consider the ‘errors’ to be normally distributed and thus draw that conclusion.
The range of measurements taken by any one thermometer at any one site will still remain at +/- 1C however. You don’t get to improve on that. That uncertainty will always exist in all the measurements taken by it.
And the mean is a bad way of determining the ‘average’ temperature of anywhere unless you can demonstrate that the distribution during the period in question is ‘normal’. Which it clearly isn’t.
Take a weather system moving across a random distribution of measurement sites. One set will exhibit a rise/fall in temps before the other, depending on the difference in the weather, the speed at which it moves and the distribution of the thermometers it moves over. Is that difference to be lost in your statistical accumulations?
“The range of measurements taken by any one thermometer at any one site will still remain at +/- 1C however. You don’t get to improve on that. That uncertainty will always exist in all the measurements taken by it.”
Climate science has no interest in single measurements. They are always calculating spatio-temporal averages over many measurements. Calculated quantities CAN have a lower uncertainty.
So this a red herring.
“And the mean is a bad way of determining the ‘average’ temperature of anywhere unless you can demonstrate that the distribution during the period in question is ‘normal’. Which it clearly isn’t.”
Declaration that has not yet to be demonstrated by RLH. Another red herring.
Are you saying that the temperatures throughout the day are normally distributed?
“Climate science has no interest in single measurements. They are always calculating spatio-temporal averages over many measurements. Calculated quantities CAN have a lower uncertainty.”
Only if the data is normally distributed.
Central Limit Thm useful here.
Central Limit Theorem
1. The data must follow the randomization condition. It must be sampled randomly
2. Samples should be independent of each other. One sample should not influence the other samples
3. Sample size should be not more than 10% of the population when sampling is done without replacement
4. The sample size should be sufficiently large. Now, how we will figure out how large this size should be? Well, it depends on the population. When the population is skewed or asymmetric, the sample size should be large.
Temperature data violates 1 and 2 at least. You cannot make up for that with quoting 4.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
Let {X1….Xn} be a random sample of size n — that is, a sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables drawn from a distribution of expected value given by mu and finite variance given by sigma ^.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_test
“random variable”
So climate temperature data is random is it? Not correlated in any way. Over any timescale?
RLH
Once more: not much more than smalltalk, as do write lots of people at WUWT, especially the uncertainty maestros who denigrate everything what doesn not explicity refer to it, UAH’s remote sensing included.
*
By writing this stuff above, with no commitment and without adding any work of your own to back it up, you silently discredit any work done by others that does not explicitly follow what you wrote.
Thus, once more: Stop talking, START WORKING !
J.-P. D.
You rather obviously have not seen the work I have already done on various climate series to date and published both at my blog and also referenced here.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/pdo.jpeg
PDO with 15 year low pass added
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/amo.jpeg
AMO with 15 year low pass added
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/had crut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters1.png
(Remove the space between d and c to make the url work as expected)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/pdo-reconstruction-1470-1998-shen-2006-with-gaussian-low-pass-30-and-75-year-filters-and-had crut-overlay.png
(Remove the space between the h and c for the url to work as expected)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/globe-2.jpeg
and last but not least UAH
RLH, Sop, what are the trends in the temperature data, before and after your filtering is applied?
What sort of trends are you looking for?
“before and after your filtering is applied?”
Why would you expect that filtering alters overall trends?
The AMO shows exactly a 60-year cycle, probably related to the polar vortex cycle.
As this shows
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/amo.jpeg
AMO with 15 year low pass added
“The AMO is correlated to air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular in the summer climate in North America and Europe. Through changes in atmospheric circulation, the AMO can also modulate spring snowfall over the Alps and glaciers mass variability. Rainfall patterns are affected in North Eastern Brazilian and African Sahel. It is also associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricane activity.”
Oh je, das sieht aber richtig süß aus, RLH!
Are you kidding me? This is simply ridiculous.
With ‘START WORKING‘ I didn’t mean toy playing with simple filters applied on existing series, RLH.
I meant to REALLY WORK on raw sources like
UAH 6.0 2.5 deg grid
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
GHCN daily
ftp://ftp.ncd-c.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ (suppress the hyphen)
HadISST1 SST and ICE
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
PSMSL tide gauge data
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data
with as goal to prove that you are really able not only
– to process such data
but above all
– to show us the difference, with regard to your condescending comment posted on June 25 at 3:21 AM, between
— what all people obtained until now (little layman Bindidon included)
and
— what YOU managed to generate out of all these sources.
And with difference, I mean of course something more consistent than your trivial examples above, especially that posted on June 25 at 6:26 AM!
Nous vous attendons, RLH, avec toutefois la patience qui s’impose.
J.-P. D.
Why would I reproduce what UAH et al has already done? Do you expect that they are incorrect in what they do?
“Why would I reproduce what UAH et al has already done? Do you expect that they are incorrect in what they do? ”
Replication is standard practice in science, part of the system of checks and balances.
I doubt that Dr Spencer would mind you doing an independent check on his work.
Well I have shown that it is possible to replicate (or nearly so) Roy’s running 13 month average without any reference period being required. From the absolute data, not just the anomalies.
” Why would I reproduce what UAH et al has already done? Do you expect that they are incorrect in what they do? ”
Read my comment again, it contains the answer to this question.
I see that you prefer to turn around the pot with redundant questions, and are starting an endless discussion.
My guess: neither do you intend to do the work I proposed (btw: not only for UAH), let alone are you able to do it.
J.-P. D.
> turn around the pot
https://tenor.com/search/i-understood-that-reference-gifs
“I see that you prefer to turn around the pot with redundant questions, and are starting an endless discussion.”
As you see no value in he work done, I suggest that you don’t comment any further.
If you wish to set others work to do, please do so. Just don’t include me.
Willard
Errare humanum est! est!! est!!!
I think my mistake has been due to me looking at the forecast in this marvellous Tagesschau on an evening where only Germany’s Northeast was painted in dark red :- ((
OMG.
Looking back at wetteronline.de, I see the same peak nearly everywhere:
https://www.wetteronline.de/wetterdaten/koeln?diagram=true&iid=x5701&ireq=true&metparaid=TXLD&period=4
etc etc
My bad.
J.-P. D.
“The extreme freeze meant the UK experienced the coldest February night for 25 years with temperatures plummeting to below -20C in some parts of the country.”
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/thames-freezes-storm-darcy-takes-hold-145828747.html
Jesus… what about this?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/19/so-far-germany-seeing-coldest-april-in-104-years-second-coldest-since-1881-snowiest-since-1986/
I’ll download data from the Deutscher Wetterdienst, and will look at what remains of all that scary story in between.
A propos, RLH: did you ever generate a daily temperature data for Spain in June 2019?
If you had ever, you would really know what ‘plummeting’ means, especially for Moron de la Frontera near Sevilla…
J.-P. D.
“did you ever generate a daily temperature data for Spain in June 2019?”
From what data source?
Why do you need to ask?
Because there are many sources of data out there.
Binny,
Did you notice how Richard did not remind you that climate is not weather? That asymmetric behavior or lack thereof would be unprecedented since at least a few days.
So be it. Enjoy these photos:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2021/jun/25/moscows-record-heatwave-in-pictures
Pay no attention to how Russia’s weather service, a famous warmista, spins it.
“Did you notice how Richard did not remind you that climate is not weather?”
What I did was observe that within the last year alone extremes are shown at both hot and cold ends of the spectrum.
But if you insist, climate is weather over 30 years or more.
Even if I don’t insist climate is weather over 30 years or more, Richard.
Thank you for that 2021-02-12 newsie you posted in response to Binny’s comment. It’s not 30 years, but it beats his own newsie in response to yours by two full months.
If you look at the Euro alerts:
http://www.meteoalarm.eu/index.php?lang=en_UK
you should be able to see why Binny is ironizing.
So you agree that the last 12 months or so have shown extremes at both ends of the weather spectrum? Both in the UK and Germany and probably elsewhere also.
I agree that the number of extreme events is increasing, that people are starting to notice, and that contrarians are huffing and puffing:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world
Would you agree that we need better contrarians, Richard?
RLH, As we know, what’s called “climate” is the statistics of weather. If the weather exhibits Gaussian characteristics, given a fixed deviation, an overall warming would appear as more extremes on the warm side but fewer on the cold side of the distribution. But, if the deviation also changes, warming might also produce more cold extremes as well as more warm extremes.
As I’ve pointed out before, the energy budget measurements show that the tropics receive more energy from the Sun than exits the TOA. while in the polar regions, there’s more emissions than solar input over the year. The polar deficit is balanced by the energy transfer from the tropics to the poles, as sensible and latent heat, a process which produces the weather in between.
It would seem logical that the convective heat and mass transfer from the tropic to the poles would increase if the tropics warm, as appears to be happening. But, during Summer, the Arctic may warm faster than the mid-latitudes, reducing the temperature difference and reducing the transport. To my mind, it’s logical to expect that during the Winter half of the year, the circulation would increase.
It’s obvious that warmer air flowing toward the poles must be balanced by returning cold air (usually as near surface masses), to complete the circulation loop. I think this could lead to more cold outbreaks, such as that seen in Texas this year. In addition, include the apparent reduction in the AMOC/THC, which also moves sensible heat energy toward the North Atlantic. With a reduced AMOC, I think the atmospheric circulation must increase further to maintain a balance.
Only the models might settle the debate before whatever reality appears, if their results could be accepted.
“Would you agree that we need better contrarians, Richard?”
Perhaps we need better scientists instead.
“If the weather exhibits Gaussian characteristics”
Does it?
> Perhaps we need better scientists instead.
Who would replace them if not better contrarians?
RLH replied to my post about Gaussian statistics, writing:
Regarding my simple mental model, perhaps one should ask: Does it matter?
RLH replied to my post about climate statistics, writing:
Regarding my simple mental model, perhaps one should instead ask: Does it matter?
You claimed that weather exhibited Gaussian distribution characteristics. I questioned that.
> I questioned that.
You did?
That’s what a question mark does.
Does it?
To question could mean to interrogate, to dispute, or to ask.
Question marks end sentences that can do their things.
“To question could mean to interrogate, to dispute, or to ask.”
I questioned his suggestion that weather was a Gaussian distribution
But did you, really?
Either a simple “yes” suffices to answer both questions or it does not.
I don’t think it does.
“But did you, really?”
I did.
I did
Then a simple “yes, it does” answers your question, Richard.
Only simpletons such as yourself require that spelling out.
If a simple “yes” can respond to your question, dear Richard, then you’re not looking for a very informative answer to something that would require an investigation.
Therefore you’re posturing.
Therefore you’re an idiot
It is wrong to let kids sleep in until 5:00 a.m. If children are not up and at it by 4:00 a.m. they will never amount to anything.
What does “nearly impossible” mean? Is it a scientific term?
Read for yourself:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03052-w
Willard at 2:07 PM
“Read for yourself”
That’s asking a lot (too much) of a denier. They’d rather not read, invent a strawman and attack that, while keeping their heads firmly stuck in the sand.
Never give me the odds, Tyson.
We need better contrarians. They need to learn to read scientific papers. All it takes is some training.
Roy’s would be a better place if it was a scientific reading club instead.
So, you’re on first name basis with Dr. Spencer. Maybe Dr. Spencer should take you on as an advisor. How does he not see that?
>According to the Met Office….LOL.
If you had a blog, Stephen, it’d be Stephen’s.
Judy’s is Judy’s, Tony’s is Tony’s, Pierre’s is Pierre’s.
Get your pattern recognition running. You can connect the dots.
Willard at 2:51 PM
We need better contrarians. They need to learn to read scientific papers. All it takes is some training.
Roy’s would be a better place if it was a scientific reading club instead.
Agreed.
When I was a young pup a dear mentor told me that I should read one research paper a week. That advice served me well in my chosen field, and although I’m relatively new to climate science I still find that advice useful.
Yes TM, you were indoctrinated. You are now a cult member. You cannot leave.
Amazingly, that fits you. You have no science background, and you can’t think for yourself.
You’re a perfect fit.
Show us how you dance around a pole, Pup.
Willard, you responded within one minute!
I’m impressed.
I like my stalkers to be on time.
It’s “slayer,” Pup.
And if you ask me how I’m feeling
Don’t tell me you’re too blind to see
Sorry Willard, but 12 minutes for you to respond just doesn’t cut it. Stalking requires effort.
You’re on record for a 1-minute response time.
Try to keep up.
You’re only here to lulz, Pup.
Never gonna give you up.
Two minutes response time is acceptable, Willard.
You stalkers have a standard to maintain.
Keep it up.
Ping, Pup.
“nearly impossible” just a shyster talk,
just like their “80% certainty”
“Hottest June day ever in Malta today 24 June. Luqa Int. Airport and Gudja recorded 40.2C, 0.1C above the previous record set at Luqa in 1997 and at Balzan in 2007.”
Do not panic. I am sure there is a logical explanation for all
these events and they will soon go away. Then we can all return to the good old way of life we experienced in the 1950s.
People that have an understanding of ocean oscillations on temperatures will recognize the “logical explanation” for the warming events.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
I don’t know about going back to the 1950s, but there certainly were a lot fewer idiots back then.
“A new study finds that the exceptional temperatures seen in Siberia in the first half of 2020 would have been extremely unlikely without anthropogenic climate change.”
Does this mean that this heat wave would be perfectly possible if the climate change was natural ? does it mean only anthropogenic climate change causes heat waves ?
First class climate shystering if I ever see one.
Notice the shift in Eben’s argument. It is no longer “is there climate change?” nor “are there unusual heat waves?”, nor “is there such a thing as “anthropogenic climate change (ACC)?”. No, the argument is now whether the heat waves are related to ACC or due to some other mysterious factor such as “natural climate change”. What a load of crock.
S,
No answer then, I take it?
Maybe you could define “anthropogenic climate change”. And of course, you should be able to clearly show the quantifiable effects of humans on the weather, as climate is just the average of weather.
Of course you can’t. Trying avoidance in the form of not-so-clever semantic tricks is all you have.
Are you really an idiot, or just pretending?
Obviously studentb’s “not-so-clever semantic tricks” have hit a nerve here.
eben…”First class climate shystering if I ever see one”.
Definitely. Temps in Vancouver, Canada have gone from 24C to 28C in a day and they are projected to reach 10C higher the next day (38C).
How the heck does a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere do that? Next week, we’ll be back to the Vancouver average this time of year in the low 20s C.
The question arises as to what can cause an increase of 14 C in an region known for temperature temperatures, winter and summer. A temperature of 38C is so rare around here you could count the number of days on one hand it has occurred in the last 50 years.
The only reasonable cause is:
a)the Sun is hotter
b)there is absolutely no convection to cool the area
c)seriously warm air has moved in from elsewhere
d)there is climate shystering going on.
Claiming these heat waves are due to climate change/global warming is absolute nonsense.
Here’s the other side of the stupidity. Vancouver set a record for the coldest day in June earlier in the month.
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/vancouver-news/brr-vancouver-just-saw-its-coldest-june-temperature-in-over-40-years-3855079
“How the heck does a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere do that? ”
Poor puzzled GR, he has been making this plaintive cry for ages and still hasn’t a clue.
DMT, you missed the point of GR’s rhetorical question. Of course, CO2 does not cause the weather GR mentioned.
Have you ever studied the CO2 nonsense? Or, do you just accept it on faith? If you want to actually study it, you will find it fails science.
You can start with the phony “Earth Energy Imbalance”, which violates the laws of physics. Then, you can move on to the 33K nonsense, which compares two incomparable objects.
Where would you like to start?
“c)seriously warm air has moved in from elsewhere”
Which can be warm for it’s elevation of the surface air temperature-
I think you got a mountain range somewhere around there, and Alberta
typically gets this kind of warming from this mountain range.
Presently it’s back to being rather cool here.
Maybe our warmer weather entered a wormhole and went way up there.
maguff…”And one of my fellow Science Moms, Joellen Russell, whos at Arizona, she said today — she said: I had to wake my kids up at 5:00 a.m., so they could go outside to play because it was too hot and dangerous for them to play later in the day”.
Oh, oh…now climate science is being done by moms and their opinions of what is too hot. The article did not state what is too hot, a typical knee-jerk reaction from climate clowns.
Again Gordon Robertson demonstrates his unbounded ignorance.
It is well known, by those who know it well, that Joellen Russell is a Professor at the University of Arizona with 58 peer reviewed publications on the subjects of:
(1) Understanding the influence of ocean conditions on the Earth’s climate and monitoring changes in ocean conditions to predict climate change. (2) Exploring the ocean’s role in climate using statistical analyses, ultrahigh resolution coupled climate models and Earth System Models.
PRESENT POSITION
Thomas R. Brown Distinguished Chair of Integrative Science
Professor, Departments of Geosciences, Planetary Sciences, Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, Mathematics
University of Arizona, 1040 E Fourth St., Tucson, AZ 85721-0077
I will accept her learned conclusions over your misinformed bloviating any day.
TM, your devotion to your cult is admirable. You accept academics over science and common sense.
Joellen Russel wakes her kids up at 5:00am to play? Has she never heard of swimming pools? Does she not realize that the rattlesnakes are still out in the early morning?
She appears to be afraid of things there’s no need to be afraid of, but not afraid of things she should be afraid of.
It’s called “lacking common sense”.
Clint R at 6:11 AM aka Tonto the Clown, your opinion is duly noted too.
Clint R at 6:11 AM aka Tonto the Clown, how prophetic that you should pipe up today, just a week away from the Independence Day Rodeo. I’ll take that as a good omen for my cutting horses. thx!
TM, your avoidance of reality is matched by your immaturity.
Clint R at 7:53 AM aka Tonto the Clown
Your opinion is duly noted, again.
Sorry TM, but your avoidance of reality, and your immaturity, is not just opinion, it’s fact.
(And you responded in 3 minutes! You cultists are sure dedicated.)
Clint R at 8:28 AM aka Tonto the Clown
Your opinion is again duly noted, again.
You know why you’re just parroting the same thing over and over, don’t you TM?
You’ve got NOTHING.
GR at 11:01 PM
“The article did not state what is too hot”
I smell a strawman.
How’s about 3-sigma.
A 3-sigma strawman?
rlh…”but if you insist, climate is weather over 30 years or more”.
This is not intended as a knock on your statement, however, we need a more precise definition of climate and according to Tony Heller, there is none. We use the word climate loosely without a firm definition. Alarmists use the word irresponsibly with the fear inference surrounding ‘climate change’.
Claiming climate is the average of weather really means nothing. If we reference a desert climate, we can point to the average precipitation. However, the Arctic regions are like a desert but the Arctic climate is due to a lack of solar energy, which is not weather. It may produce weather, but it’s not weather per se.
The deserts that line the Equatorial regions apparently come from moist air rising, dumping their water load then descending as dry air into the desert regions. So what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Is this a case of climate causing weather or weather causing climate?
You idiot. You may as well complain that the Dow Jones Index is simply the average of 30 companies listed on the stock exchange and therefore unaffected by, say, the inflation rate or the price of oil or covid19!
Honestly, how stupid can you get?
How stupid can you get? Consider that whenever there is a hurricane or a record breaking hot day the news media reports it as a result of climate change. The stupid part is how many people actually believe the Media’s claptrap and support the imposition of carbon taxes. The really stupid bit is the discussion of imposing dystopian restrictions due to a climate change crisis that make the COVID restrictions look like an idyllic utopia.
As Heinlein once purportedly stated: ‘Never underestimate the power of human stupidity’.
dmt…”Honestly, how stupid can you get?”
Obviously not as stupid as an idiot like you who cannot respond to an assertion that climate has no solid definition in physics.
We’ve had deserts for bazillions of years. Did someone go into a desert, measure the rainfall and declare it a desert climate because it sustained that annual rainfall over a 30 year period?
What forces caused the desert region? Why is their less rainfall in such a region and what would cause that to change? As Tony Heller claimed there is no solid definition for climate in physics.
When the alarmists talk about climate change, which climates are changing and what is causing them to change? Alarmists think it is a trace gas in the atmosphere and I claim they know nothing about physics for the simple reason their observations are based on inference and consensus, not on measurement.
When you ask an alarmist for proof, the reply is, “what else could it be”? That’s what science is about, finding out.
Gordon Robertson at 1:25 PM
Your appeal to authority vis a vis Tony Heller is hilarious!
p.s.: https://tinyurl.com/Who-Is-Tony-Heller
“Claiming climate is the average of weather really means nothing.”
A reference period of 30 years is considered to be usual in climate matters.
Sequences of less than 30 years such as weather are accumulated together.
Sequences of more that 30 years are considered to be climate.
I chose a corner frequency of 15 years for my low pass filters to stay away from the 30 year band. (and because most climate data shows very little energy at that point).
You’ve done a good job of defining the difference between climate and weather yourself.
You define a desert by low precipitation. You additionally define the tropical deserts by their position in the descending region of the Hadley Cell. You define the Arctic by low insolation.
These are all physical processes which determine baseline conditions for the region concerned.Those baseline conditions define the climate and the long term averages for the local meteorology.
Short term stochastic variations around those averages are the weather.
You can extend that to define “climate change”.
A change in the underlying physics which causes a long term change in the baseline conditions for a region.
Ent, your wording is bad. There is NO “change in the underlying physics”. The Laws of physics do not change. That’s why they’re called “Laws”.
If you’re feeling pedantic:-
The Laws of Physics determine the amount of energy/heat flowing into, around and out of a region. This determines the baseline conditions in that region, such as average temperature, precipitation and other variables.
While the relevant physical parameters such as solar insolation etc remain constant, the long term averages remain constant and define the climate. The stochastic variations around that climate baseline are weather.
When the relevant parameters change, so does the climate.
That’s better.
“a long term change in the baseline conditions for a region”
Change can by cyclic as well as linear.
A range of other climate series published today
AIRS v6
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/airs6.jpeg
AIRS v7
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/airs7.jpeg
ERSST
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/ersst.jpeg
AO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/ao.jpeg
NAO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/nao.jpeg
PNA
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/pna.jpeg
RSS
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/rss.jpeg
SAM
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/sam.jpeg
SOI
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/soi.jpeg
Shen et al. PDO re-construction from Chinese rainfall records
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/shen.jpeg
ENSO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/enso.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/best.jpeg
BEST from 1750
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/best-land-and-ocean.jpeg
BEST Land and Ocean from 1850
More anti-science from your cult, huh TM?
Clint R at 8:31 AM aka Tonto the Clown
Here you go, so you don’t feel left out: https://tinyurl.com/Physics-Exam-Question
TM, did your cult instruct you to resort to irrelevant nonsense?
maguff…”This talk discusses the history of detection of climate change…”
No, it doesn’t, it discusses the change of global temperatures with the change in atmospheric CO2.
If you look below the first slide you will see the names Ben Santer and Phillip Stott, two of the uber-alarmists out there. This talk is nothing more than an exercise in pseudo-science.
Gordon Robertson at 1:12 PM
Wrong again! If you had listened and/or understood this talk you would have invented a different set of strawmen to attack.
The slander of Ben Santer is fully addressed in the talk; you are foolish to have missed that!
“Water warms the surface via water molecules participating in the the greenhouse effect.”
Hello Tim,
Where I come from ‘warm’ means to increase the temp..
A colder atmosphere cannot warm a warmer surface.
Dont fall for the crazy word semantics that less cooling is warming… Its still cooling!
Its indisputable that water is the primary means that transfers heat from the surface to the atmosphere and is the primary means by which the atmosphere cools to space…
Ergo h20 is the Earths primary coolant!
Ciao!
Where I come from warm means to increase the temp.
Where I come from being warm can include not being as cold as being naked.
A reduction in the loss of heat can also mean being warmer.
“Where I come from ‘warm’ means to increase the temp.”
Where I come from being warm can include not being as cold as being naked.
A reduction in the loss of heat can also mean being warmer.
rlh…”“Where I come from ‘warm’ means to increase the temp.”
Where I come from being warm can include not being as cold as being naked”.
***
We are talking about science, are we not? Humans invented temperature scales to measure the relative level of heat. So, if the temperature indicates an increase in temperature it means things got warmer.
Where you come from, the meaning of warming means the same thing. Not being as cold is relative, it’s all saying the temperature is greater, ergo there is more heat.
Humans invented clothing too. For a reason.
The coldest spot on Nullschool Earth today is -67C. The ice is not melting.
What’s the hottest spot?
Alarmists are saying, Be afraid, be very afraid”.
I say, “Be skeptical, be very skeptical”.
THE COOLING OF THE EARTH SINCE ITS CREATION CONTINUES
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/western-canada-heatwave-1.6081519
wilard…”In Kamloops, B.C., the temperature is forecast to hover around 40 or 41 C for six consecutive days”.
Kamloops is in a semi-desert area of British Columbia. It has always been known for high temperatures in summer. The surrounding hills are very dry and have sage brush.
The North Thompson River enters Kamloops on the north side and exits on the west side. The South Thompson flows in from the east and joins it. It goes through Lake Kamloops and further west to the Cache Creek area where it heads south toward Spences Bridge (about 100 miles from Kamloops). From there, the Thompson goes southwest to Lytton (about 20 miles), arguably the hottest part of Canada, in the summer. This is where the Thompson meets the Fraser River.
The entire region west and southwest of Kamloops is desert country complete with sagebrush, tiny cactii, and rattlesnakes. They have filmed in the area using the scenery to represent old westerns.
For anyone to claim they have never seen this kind of heat in Kamloops is about as stupid as it gets. On July 27, 1939 & July 16, 1941, the temperature in Kamloops was 41.7 C.
I recall staying with a friend overnight in Kamloops and going outside at 6 am when the heat was stifling. Must have been 30+ C in the shade at 6 in the morning. Of course, it doesn’t get cooler as the day proceeds toward high noon.
BTW…Lytton is about 150 miles NW of Vancouver where summer temps are normally in the 20C to 25C range, whereas around Lytton a typical summer’s day is 40C.
It is noticeably hotter toward Lytton than toward Kamloops. About 100 miles east of Kamloops one notices the vegetation has changed to lush vegetation and trees, as opposed to bare hills with sage brush. North of Kamloops, one notices lush forests surrounding the Thompson River, within 50 miles of Kamloops.
> Kamloops is in a semi-desert area of British Columbia.
See, Gordon?
That would be a non sequitur!
If you’d make an explicit argument, that is.
Even semi-desert areas can be hotter than usual.
“In Kamloops, B.C., the temperature is forecast to hover around 40 or 41 C for six consecutive days.”
May 26, 2021 | 1:47 PM
BC River Forecast Centre preparing for drought response in Kamloops and much of southern B.C.
The risk of drought is rising in Kamloops and the southern Interior.
…
BC River Forecast Centre section head Dave Campbell says theres been very little rain in the Interior since March 1st
https://www.radionl.com/2021/05/26/bc-river-forecast-centre-preparing-for-drought-response-in-kamloops-and-much-of-southern-b-c/
Hmmm… No water to cool the surface… Heat wave the result…
No surprise there!
Water cools the surface
I read above the two usual ‘skeptic’ statements:
1. ” A colder atmosphere cannot warm a warmer surface. ”
That is absolutely evident.
What is less evident is what Clausius understood in 1887 already, namely that the amount of infrared emitted by a warmer body is lowered by the amount of infrared emitted by a cooler body around it.
Only the difference if infrared between the two can result in the cooler body getting warmed.
This is and keeps ignored ad nauseam by ignorant Pseudoskeptics.
*
2. ” Dont fall for the crazy word semantics that less cooling is warming… Its still cooling! ”
What a crazy nonsense.
It would mean that temperatures only increase during the summers, but never would do during the winters, just because winters always keep colder than summers.
This is the reason why Pseudoskeptics endlessly rant against the fact that if TMIN temperatures mostly increase more than TMAX temperatures, then the result is warming.
And they rant also against departures with annual cycle removals, because this removal gives all months the same expression power.
Using absolute temperatures, you see highest temperatures only during June / July / August, and lowest temperatures only during December / January / February.
Now, if a December month has a higher departure from the mean of Decembers then has a June month from the mean of the Junes, it stays above that June.
Conversely, if a June has a lower departure from the mean of Junes than has a December month from the mean of the Decembers, it stays below that December.
J.-P. D.
“Using absolute temperatures, you see highest temperatures only during June / July / August, and lowest temperatures only during December / January / February.”
And in the Southern Hemisphere?
Bindidon, you seldom attempt any science, and I now understand why….
1) Infrared emission from a surface is NOT determined by the presence of a colder object. Infrared emission from a surface is determined by the temperature of its surface.
2) You don’t understand the issue. If objects A and B are cooling at different rates, with B cooling the fastest, that does NOT mean A is warming! You’re either sincerely confused, or trying to play games with semantics.
And, what is a “Pseudoskeptic”? Is that someone like you who doesn’t understand any of this but wants to pretend he does?
If I put clothes on and I warmer that if I were naked?
RLH, you’ve already demonstrated you don’t understand science. If you did, you would realize that too much wine renders you incapable of formulating a correctly worded question.
Autocorrect changed ‘am’ into ‘and’ and ‘than’ into ‘that’.
I guess you have to be smarter than your keyboard.
Or type and/or check better
RLH,
No. In the hottest inhabited places in the world, the Black Bedouins wear heavy dark robes to keep cool. Researched, peer reviewed, published in Nature, even.
Feeling and being may be two different things.
Irrelevant anyway. The Earth cooled more quickly initially, fourth power of absolute temperature and such. More slowly due to greater radiogenic heat production, but cooled nevertheless.
And has cooled to present temperature. No GHE. Not necessary, unless you believe the Earth cooled to say 255 K, and then rose 33 K due to some magical influence. A forcing, perhaps?
The climate cranks and crackpots are delusional, refusing to believe the Earth has just cooled to its present temperature.
I don’t live in a desert, and even if I did, at night towards morning I would still be warmer with clothes on.
RLH,
What has any of that to do with the mythical GHE, apart from the fact you imply that it only exists when the Sun is shining?
Things tend to increase in temperature when exposed to a suitable heat source, and decrease in temperature in its absence.
So the Earth has cooled. What is so mysterious about that?
“So the Earth has cooled. What is so mysterious about that?”
Care to provide a rate for that cooling? You know in degrees/decade or century.
Or millenia
> what is a “Pseudoskeptic”
Someone who does not apply proper scepticism, Pup. A bit like you, but as a Sky Dragon you’re an extreme case. It comprises most contrarians I have encountered.
Willard, stalking is the only area in which you have any credibility.
But 8 minutes response is pathetic. Notice RLH responded in TWO minutes!
You should worry about your competition. You CAN be replaced.
Never gonna let you down, Pup.
Even if you got nothing but silly trolling.
Unacceptable Willard. You’re asleep at the wheel.
Why can’t you respond on time anymore?
You’ve got nothing else to do….
Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you
Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you
Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣿⠿⠟⠛⠻⣿⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣆⣀⣀⠀⣿⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠻⣿⣿⣿⠅⠛⠋⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢼⣿⣿⣿⣃⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣟⡿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣛⣛⣫⡄⠀⢸⣦⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⡆⠸⣿⣿⣿⡷⠂⠨⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣦⣤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢀⣿⡿⠋⠁⢀⡶⠪⣉⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⢸⣿⣷⣿⣿⣷⣦⡙⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣦⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣵⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣯⡁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
C’mon, Roy!
Sometimes it’s dots. Sometimes it’s garbage.
Fu 2020 Recovery
Two more circumspect papers which discuss uncertainties and multiple equilibriums and are just interesting are Frajka- Williams 2019 and Weijer 2019.
Given evidence of some weakening pre 1950 natural variability has to be considered. Contradictory findings about Holocene variability just increases the significance of decadal and interdecadal trends either way.
“I read above the two usual skeptic statements:
1. A colder atmosphere cannot warm a warmer surface.
That is absolutely evident.”
Hi Bindion,
Thank you!
Thus any statement that sayd the atmosphere warms the surface is blatently false, as you clearly just admitted!
Ciao!
PhilJ
There is only one person who ” clearly just admitted ” to be unable to read properly. That was you…
Try to read my comment again, this time without omitting 90 % of it.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, over 90% of that comment was garbage.
But, don’t let that stop you from attempting science. There’s nothing wrong with a good laugh.
The heat wave is caused by the wind turbines taking the energy away from the wind and slowing down the air circulation,
Prove me wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_farms_in_Canada
https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/05/05/uk-wind-power-breaks-new-record-on-bank-holiday/
Wind farms generated a new high of 17.6GW providing almost half of Britains electricity on Monday afternoon
5th May 2021
“There is only one person who clearly just admitted to be unable to read properly. That was you”
??
Are not these your words:
“1. A colder atmosphere cannot warm a warmer surface.
That is absolutely evident.”
Ciao!
“Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.”
– Encyclopedia Britannica
Hmmm. No mention of any objects in the vicinity.
Binny is a climate crank. According to his never ending trends, the seas will boil within 10,000 years.
Ah, the magical beliefs of the GHE cultists!
maguff…”Right from the beginning, Tony has had an unfortunate record of misusing data or getting his analysis wrong”.
***
Which idiot wrote the smear campaign against Tony Heller from which I took your quote above? Tony Heller does have a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering and he worked as the go-to guy at Intel in analysis. He was so good at analyzing data that Intel anointed him the guru of analysis because he saved them millions of dollars by analyzing data and identifying errors in the data.
So, the idiot who wrote the smear article thinks Heller gets analysis wrong???? And you, like an idiot, accept that crap?
If Watts dumped him that’s his loss. You don’t cut off a guy with the education and talent of Heller because you have a misplaced belief system. And you certainly don’t cut a guy off for disagreeing with you scientifically. That’s an ego/power trip and Watts does not have the background in analysis of Heller.
I remember Roy going toe to toe with a chemical engineer, Philip Latour, and although he disagreed with Latour, he did not cut him off.
No sir, Heller has it right. He lays out the temperature data plain and simple in his analysis of NOAA’s and NASA’s cheating, and catches them red handed. You don’t work for a major company like Intel, specializing in data analysis, and miss the egregious cheating of NOAA and NASA GISS. Even Smith, at chiefio has detailed it and he doesn’t have an nth of the analytical talents of Heller.
Try spreading your bs, in another field.
> Which idiot wrote the smear campaign
Perhaps the author of these lines, Gordon:
willard….once more, Willard comments on an article he knows nothing about. And, as usual, his logic is totally misplaced.
There is a definition of Willard in the Oxford dictionary:
pathetic
1.arousing pity, especially through vulnerability or sadness.
2.miserably inadequate; of very low standard.
The definition even comes with synonyms:
pitiable
piteous
to be pitied
moving
touching
poignant
plaintive
stirring
affecting
distressing
disquieting
disturbing
upsetting
miserable
heartbreaking
heart-rending
agonizing
harrowing
mortifying
sad
wretched
poor
forlorn
tragic
doleful
mournful
woeful
distressful
> on an article he knows nothing about
How do you know, Gordon?
https://tinyurl.com/Who-Is-Tony-Heller
My god what a pathetic man you are. Here you are making up words to put in someone else’s mouth and pretending they wrote them.
May you rot in hell, you Nazi piece of shit.
binny…”What is less evident is what Clausius understood in 1887 already, namely that the amount of infrared emitted by a warmer body is lowered by the amount of infrared emitted by a cooler body around it”.
***
I have explained several times that every scientist in the era of Clausius thought heat was radiated in rays and moved through space as heat. They knew nothing about electromagnetic energy and its relationship with electrons in atoms. It’s ingenuous to speak of the view of Clausius re IR (as in electromagnetic energy) because he had no idea what it was. Maxwell wrote about EM but he was talking about the near-field kind of EM radiated by electric motors, etc.
I have a deep admiration for Rudolf Clausius and it must have been frustrating for him trying to understand how heat was radiated between bodies. Turns out it is not exchanged between bodies, one body cools while the other warms, but it’s all done locally by conversion between heat and EM. Clausius was brilliant at explaining science but his chapter on heat radiation needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
However, in his chapter on heat radiation he stated unequivocally that heat radiation must obey the 2nd law. I don’t recall him saying anything about the rate of heat dissipation being affected by the temperature of a surrounding body. If you have a reference for that I’d like to read it. Clausius had an uncanny sense for understanding atomic properties long before the atom was fully understood.
Another good German, Max Planck, did not discover the shape of the electromagnetic spectrum till after 1887. He managed to live long enough to see Bohr introduce the correct theory relating EM to electrons. He claimed that had he known about electrons it would have made his work much easier.
In 1913, Bohr was investigating the absorp-tion/emission spectrum of hydrogen and wondered why it absorbed/emitted in discreet spectra. He reasoned it was related to electrons and their change of orbital energy levels and worked out the theory by presuming that an electron must reside at a given quantum energy level and that any transition between energy levels had no time parameter. If it absorbed EM it moved to a higher energy level and if it fell to a lower level it emitted EM.
It was not till 1925 that Schroedinger put the math to the theory.
I am still trying to understand why a cooler body surrounding a hotter body can affect its rate of heat dissipation. We know it’s true since the temperature of the air surrounding a body affects it rate of heat dissipation. There is nothing about that in the S-B equation although an equation exists that claims to measure it.
The equation e = e.sigma.Ah(Th^4 – Tc^4) is clearly wrong. When it is expanded it claims:
e = e.sigma.Ah.Th^4 – e.sigma.Ah.Tc^4
The equation now makes no sense since the emissivity is common between them and the Ac = area is missing.
Some modern scientists have presumed EM can be exchanged between bodies of different temperatures and they are clearly wrong.
Gordo provides another delusional rant, concluding with:
As it turns out, it was relatively easy to show that you are wrong.
Swanson, I’m surprised you’re still touting that nonsense. Insulation is different than the issue being discussed. For example, a BB plate in space, receiving 1000 W/m^2 from one side, would reach an equilibrium temperature of 306K. But, if you perfectly insulate the back side of the plate, it would reach a temperature of 364K.
Try boiling water with ice cubes. You can use all the ice cubes you want.
Clint R/DRsEMT, Funny thing, there’s no “insulation” in my Green Plate Demo, only a radiation shield.
Sorry Swanson, I forgot that you were studying to be a janitor, and this stuff is way over your head. A “radiation shield” is “insulation”, to infrared.
Again, the issue is about “cold” warming “hot”. So, unless you can boil water using only ice cubes, you’ve got NOTHING.
(Have you learned the difference between a mop and a broom, yet? Or is that in your next course?)
Clint R/DRsEMT puppet wrote:
So, you now agree that the insulation effect, which is due to back radiation, can warm a heated plate. Oh, wait, the troll can’t make up it’s mind, writing
Thus continuing to ignore the facts from my demos, including the Ice Plate demo, in which the ice plate provided “insulation” to the heated plate, resulting in it’s temperature increase.
Robertson
You’ll never stop spouting your nonsense.
Clausius has shown, in his 1887 document, more understanding of all that stuff than you could ever grasp.
How is it possible to keep so stubborn as you are?
J.-P. D.
YOU GOT NOTHING
You know why youre parroting the same thing over and over
You got nothing
You label your beliefs facts
You dont like having your beliefs attacked
Hence why you started the ad homs
And still are trying to malign me
Thats what trolls do
Your avoidance of reality and your immaturity is not just opinion, its fact
You were indoctrinated
You are now a cult member
Your devotion to your cult is admirable
Did your cult instruct you to resort to irrelevant nonsense
Your fantasies aint science
Incompetence and immaturity aint science
You accept academics over science and common sense
They fool you with all that nonsense
Just more anti-science nonsense
You seldom attempt any science, and I now understand why
You have no science background
You dont know how to interpret data
You cant think for yourself
You can’t learn
Youve already demonstrated you dont understand science
You dont understand the issue
Youll never understand
You have a poor record of understanding physics
I will accept your admission of incompetence
Thats a lot of blah-blah
Over 90% of that comment was garbage.
You may not have realized how confused your comment was
You have to be smarter than your keyboard.
Sorry child, but you play
So that I wont be wasting my time, lets see if youre ready to face reality
If you really want to learn, answer the simple question, and lets get started
Dont let that stop you from attempting science
Theres nothing wrong with a good laugh
Keep wasting your time trolling
(2021-06-26)
Whacky Wee Willy,
Have you lost your grip on reality, kiddo?
Maybe you could try wasting space, hoping somebody, somewhere, might think you are not an idiot.
What do you think?
How about linking to lists of wind farms in Mongolia or Monaco (or solar farms, if you prefer)?
Or are you obsessed with your “silly semantic tricks” and “auditing skillz” ?
Mike Flynn.
You might like:
https://www.npr.org/2012/07/25/157302810/summer-science-clothes-keep-you-cool-more-or-less
Enjoy your afternoon,
Weird Wee Willy,
You do realise that your reference is from a journalistic source, don’t you?
Even so, the good professor is quoted as saying –
“If the sun’s out, you need clothing [atmospheric insulation] to protect your skin [the Earth’s surface] from burning.”
Only an idiot would appeal to an authority which supports his opponent!
Keep it up, idiot!
Mike Flynn,
Which part of “in terms of the heat loss, the naked person is best able to lose heat” you do not get?
It tends to get quite chilly at night though. Especially ‘up North’.
Weird Wee Willy Willard,
You wrote –
“Question marks end sentences that can do their things.”
Ah. I see. Another of your “silly semantic games”!
Did you win?
Mike Flynn,
It’s more pragmatics than semantics.
Take care,
Willard, some sage advice:
“Don’t wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.” Mark Twain.
This goes hand in hand with arguing or debating with fools.
Mark Twain –
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'”
Climate cultists depend on all three.
Wee Willy is an idiot, and tries to look intelligent through obscurity, cryptic uttering, and, as he puts it, playing “silly semantic games”.
Climate crackpots may debate and argue as much as they wish. No physical fact will change as a result. As Feynman said “Nature cannot be fooled.”
“No physical fact will change as a result.”
LOL. Head in the sand or, more likely, head up your a…
Shattering records all over the Pacific Northwest and Western Canada right now. Too many to count and this is just the beginning.
https://twitter.com/ScottDuncanWX/status/1409066649907515394/photo/1
cd, ENSO 3.4 has increased about 0.6 °C in 2 months. Do you suppose ocean oscillations could have such effects?
Mike Flynn,
As Dick also said:
“You’re a hell of a long way from the pituitary, man.”
cd,
As I said, no amount of debate or argument will change a single physical fact.
Your assumption about the future may or may not be correct. It’s weather – atmospheric chaos at work – unless you are stupid enough to believe that excessive amounts of CO2 are causing higher temperatures in the 1% or so of the Earth’s surface you are blathering about!
Feel free to panic on my behalf. Saves me wasted effort.
Very entertaining: seeing alarmists arguing with dragon slayers, when both are wrong.
“Trust, but verify”, as someone once said.
If you can’t clean up your room, Hans, otters will.
Otters?
Please enlighten me what otters got to do with it, oh Eloquent One.
No problemo, Hans:
https://discourseontheotter-blog.tumblr.com/post/126939860670/alex-juhasz
Tho in fairness cleaning up rooms is more of a lobster business:
https://theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489
I, along with Trillian, blame the mice.
Good one.
G.O.A.T. grade school football coach –
Deniers, buy a clue.
What about those who believe that science holds the clue, but that not all the science so far is 100% correct?
Spoken like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
I can now see why the dinosaurs became extinct.
Except for in fiction, rabbits do not speak
Yet:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/betroffenheitstroll.html
That’s a Rabett, not a rabbit.
Could be undetached parts too.
The head? Way too drastic.
“Undetached” might not mean what you’re trying to make it mean, Richard.
Can’t things have more than one meaning?
“Not detached” seems fairly clear, Richard.
You might miss some subtext tho:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YY4qxkqm3o
I’ll be sport and count it as only one misstep.
“undetached parts”
You think I might have been suggesting detaching a part? Like the head?
“The head? Way too drastic.”
You sure like to play dumb, Richard.
Well you obviously don’t play at being an idiot. You have no need to.
TM, did your cult order you to make that dumb comment?
Optimists have a better life than pessimists
Says you
Too often we suffer most sorely
and thereby feel most poorly
from dreaded aches and pain
“Optimists have a better life than pessimists”
Realists tend to differ
I can now see why the dinosaurs became extinct.
s,
No you can’t. You are thinking your fantasy is reality.
Bad luck for you.
Stephen Koonin is interviewed by Tucker Carlson’s Fox Nation Show and it is really worth watching.He pretty much vindicates everything that the climate realists have been saying. He also validates Eisenhourers warnings about Scientific Industrial Complex.
https://imgur.com/a0gfBCd
co2…”Stephen Koonin is interviewed by Tucker Carlsons Fox Nation Show and it is really worth watching.”
Could not find the full length version, only a 40 second clip.
I am convinced the catastrophic global warming scam is a politically-correct lie aimed at getting funding for the UN through their offspring, the IPCC.
Even though I am suffering through a mini heat wave, been there, done that, many a time, and this is no different.
There’s no way a trace gas in the atmosphere can cause this. Only an idiot would believe it to be true.
MORE OCCASION TO WEAR BLACK
https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/prolonged-dangerous-and-potentially-historic-heat-wave-envelops-alberta-1.5487190
Probly windmills.
Whacka, whacka, whacka, whacka,whacka, whacka….
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/hottest-temperature-recorded-50-states
Wrong country, Stephen.
In fairness, country is almost always wrong.
Western music is better:
https://youtu.be/9ZqZ3is9tpk
Better than that is some Gunfighter Ballads and Trail Songs
You North Americans….
The lowest temperature on Nullschool Earth is -67C. The ice still isn’t melting.
What’s the highest? Just to keep a balance.
45.3C. The ice is only melting in people’s drinks.
Ice tends to melt at around 0C.
For the last several month the global temperature is bouncing around the zero line and basically the same as 35 years ago, does this mean CO2 now cause a localized heat wave without warming up the earth as a whole ???
Did the CO2 just make a high concentration clump and the ground heated up under it ???
Explain to me how that works,
No.
Somewhere a village is missing its Willtard, please return him back
How about Portlandia, Eben:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/27/us/northwest-heatwave-record-high-temperatures/index.html
Whacky Wee Willy,
It’s called weather, dummy. Maybe you don’t know that surface temperatures due to the Sun can exceed 90 C.
That’s because you are a climate crackpot, as well as being an idiot.
Press on.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Thank you for this other silly semantic argument.
Whickering Wee Willy,
Nice try at diversion. I wrote –
“Maybe you dont know that surface temperatures due to the Sun can exceed 90 C.”
I see that you think your “silly semantic games” are superior to fact.
Is that because you are an idiot, or do you suffer from from some other form of cognitive impairment?
Poor Woebegone Wee Willy – confuses fantasy with fact. So sad, too bad.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote:
“It’s called weather”
That’s a silly semantic argument.
Thanks for playing,
Wayward Wee Willy,
And you will go away, and play with yourself, I suppose.
After you have finished (shouldn’t take you long, Wee Willy), you can look up the difference between weather and climate – if you can drag yourself out of your fantasy for long enough.
Mike Flynn,
You can suppose whatever you want.
Now comes the time where most commenters are going to sleep, and you keep to play with all the toys alone.
Enjoy your afternoon.
“EDMONTON A historic heat wave is sweeping across western Canada, delivering scorching temperatures to Edmonton.”
….
“The most recent Canadian Drought Monitor map shows abnormally dry to extremely drought conditions extending across British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/5398404/alberta-drought-continues/amp/
How bout that… Lack of water leads to heat wave…
“The AMO is correlated to air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular in the summer climate in North America and Europe. Through changes in atmospheric circulation, the AMO can also modulate spring snowfall over the Alps and glaciers mass variability. Rainfall patterns are affected in North Eastern Brazilian and African Sahel. It is also associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricane activity.”
“Many parts of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and North Dakota have received less than normal precipitation for nearly two years. Thats why soils, at depth, are abnormally dry.”
https://www.westerninvestor.com/saskatchewan-manitoba/prairie-drought-looms-over-a-promising-season-3832934#:~:text=Farmers%20should%20not%20underestimate%20the,says%20a%20North%20Dakota%20climatologist.&text=Many%20parts%20of%20Manitoba%2C%20Saskatchewan,at%20depth%2C%20are%20abnormally%20dry.
“Two decades ago, in an interview with science journalist Richard Kerr for the journal Science, I coined the term the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) to describe an internal oscillation in the climate system resulting from interactions between North Atlantic ocean currents and wind patterns.”
No url for that?
I knew that this was just co-incidence.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/amo.jpeg
Since 1850
P.S. Despite Mann’s claims, the AMV (aka the AMO) had been talked about long before 2000.
That’s not Mike’s claim tho.
Woeful Wee Willy,
By Mike, do you mean the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann, or the superior Master of the Universe, Mike Flynn?
Which is either one claiming, and why would you believe either?
Rhetorical question, of course. You are excessively gullible, as well as being an idiot!
Mike Flynn,
Get lost.
Wandering Wee Willy,
You tell Mike Flynn to get lost.
Another pointless comment – addressed to someone who appears to be, if not lost, certainly absent.
Are you truly so besotted with an imaginary person that you can think of nothing else?
Oh well. You make the rest of us look exceptionally sane and rational by comparison. See, you are not totally useless after all!
Mike Flynn,
You say:
“You tell Mike Flynn to get lost.”
Your denial does not float.
I’m telling *you* to get lost.
Silly Billy Wee Willy,
You address Mike Flynn.
You tell him you are telling him to get lost.
I suppose he might come to that conclusion all by himself, don’t you think?
As to floating, it seems you are floating in a sea of confusion. Try not to sink.
You’re Mike Flynn’s latest sock puppet.
But you’re still Mike Flynn.
That is all.
And you’re still an idiot.
I think I’m going to open a tab for your blunders to date, Richard.
Just so we’re clear that No U.
a b c d ….
Silly Billy Willy,
Whoever said that is confused. Climate is the average of weather over 30 years, according to the WMO, and generally accepted. There is no “internal oscillation in the climate system”.
As to any interaction between deep ocean currents and wind patterns, there is no known relationship between the two.
Sounds like some climate crackpot trying to sound intelligent.
Mike Flynn,
When you say:
“There is no “internal oscillation in the climate system”
you’re in violent agreement with the other Mike.
Rejoice,
Waster Wee Willy,
Who cares? Facts don’t care about agreement or disagreement. That’s the province of dimwitted climate clowns.
I suppose the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat (Mike Mann), would agree.
What do you think? You seem to be into fantasy and faith, rather than accepting reality.
Mike Flynn,
See what happens when you start to epilogue without checking first.
You end up being in agreement with the other Mike.
No worries, nobody cares.
Whacko Wee Willy,
Oh, cryptic! Oh, obscure!
You are not just pretending to be an idiot, are you?
“pretending to be an idiot”
What makes you think he is pretending?
Teaming up with Roy’s bully might not fare very well for your future as the hall monitor, Richard.
Teaming up against Willard seems to be the favorite topic of more than one person on here.
Teaming up is one thing, Richard. Piling on a sub-thread our bully has created is quite another.
It just shows how little social skills you have, so I don’t mind.
Pointing out that you are an idiot works well on any thread.
No U, Richard.
s t . v w
The weather poobahs can’t seem to get it together for Vancouver, Canada. Temperatures did seem to top out at 34C later in the afternoon but Environment, Canada, reporting from the Vancouver International Airport, on the ocean, was 4 to 5 C below other reporting agencies.
So what is the actual temperature here and how is it measured? Seems to me, some agencies are using climate models to produce fudged temperatures, much as NOAA and NASA GISS do. Are weather forecasters caught up in the same fudging? Hope not. Till now, I thought they were pretty legit.
Vancouver extends over a considerable distance but is much smaller than Greater Vancouver. Whereas Vancouver city itself has an area of only 115 km^2, Greater Vancouver, including local suburbs has an area of close to 2.5 million km^2. So, when they talk about the temperature in Vancouver, do they mean the actual city temperature, as measured at the airport, on the water, or do they mean Greater Vancouver which ranges in altitude to 600 feet and extends up to 40 miles inland?
If you have a dire need to know the difference in temperature between Greater Vancouver and Vancouver Airport, I would recommend NullSchool Earth. You can get pinpoint data anywhere.
ken…”I would recommend NullSchool Earth”.
Thanks for tip.
willard…”Two decades ago, in an interview with science journalist Richard Kerr for the journal Science, I [Mann] coined the term the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) to describe an internal oscillation in the climate system…”
***
I would not trust Mann as far as I could throw him, although I wouldn’t mind throwing him off a cliff. In this paper the name AMO is alleged to come from Kerr.
“Abstract. North Atlantic sea surface temperatures for 1856-1999 contain a 65-80 year cycle with a 0.4 C range, referred to as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) by Kerr [2000]”.
Seems obvious that Mann read the paper and took credit for it. Don’t see any paper by him in which it is named.
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/enfield/enfield_etal2001.pdf
If it is true that Kerr named it in 2000 then it was named after the PDO. That would be odd since Bjerknes was studying the AMO back in the 1960s. Seems everyone has studied it EXCEPT MANN, who did not get his Ph.D till about 1998. Why would anyone want to interview a dumb neophyte Ph.D? And his Ph. D was in geology.
Gordon,
All you had to do was to select the quote, search the web, and read the first few items. You should have found:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation/
You would also have discovered that Kerr 2010 refers to the Nature newsie to which Mike alludes in the quote.
Next time, try to check your sources before ejaculating another villainous monologue.
> the Nature newsie
Erm. The Science newsie. This one:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/288/5473/1984
Wayward Wee Willy,
Ooooooh! Models!
Even a “control simulation of GFDLs state-of-the-art (at the time) coupled ocean-atmosphere model (Delworth and Mann, 2000)”!
How erudite! How convincing – not.
Got any facts, Wee Willy? No?
You are an idiot. You would bring a limp lettuce leaf to a knife fight.
Mike Flynn,
This is not a time for “but modulz”:
https://climateball.net/but-modulz/
This is a time for “try to check your sources before ejaculating another villainous monologue.”
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“This is not a time for but modulz:”
Well, gee, who cares what you think it is time for? Not I, that’s for sure! Maybe others do, and if os, maybe you should address your decrees to them.
By the way “but modulz” may have some special meaning to you, in your fantasy, but very little elsewhere, except to show your silliness.
If you mean “models”, maybe you should say so.
As to the nonsense you have quoted, if you want to believe frauds, fakers, scofflaws and deadbeats – go your hardest. Nature can’t be fooled, so it really doesn’t matter what you or I “think”.
Mike Flynn,
I mean “modulz” because contrarians have a ridiculous idea of what models are.
Thanks for asking.
Jus how well is the model to measurement story going? According to Roy not that well.
Satellites are model-based, Richard.
Deal with it.
Climate models. Idiot.
You said “model to measurement,” Richard.
We both know what kind of “measurement” satellites provide.
Why do you keep blundering like that?
Some might argue that’s because you’re an idiot.
I did not include the word ‘climate’ and you go off on a tangent and then claim I am wrong. Sure. Idiot.
> I did not include the word “climate”
Here’s where you did, Richard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-740243
Whatever the type of model, it’s unrelated to the provenance of Kerr 2010.
Just how well is the climate model to measurement story going? According to Roy not that well.
“And indeed we established that this {climate} model did produce such an internal oscillation, with a multidecadal timescale, centered in the extratropical North Atlantic”
> According to Roy not that well.
A quote might be nice for that deflection, Richard, for I smell your next blunder.
Oh, and I can quote from that post you misread too:
“In an article we published a year ago, we showed that the AMO does not in general exist in current generation models.”
“we showed that the AMO does not in general exist in current generation models.”
Climate models were they?
A quote might be nice for that
I think it was only back in April.
April 22nd, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/?mc_cid=98f7be9b02&mc_eid=44e134bf32
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/68-models-vs-obs-1979-2021-oceans-Fig01.jpg
Still no quote, Richard. Starts to sound like a blunder.
Since it’s irrelevant here, you did well to try to bait me elsewhere. I like playing Climateball with modulz. It’ll be fun.
See you there.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/68-models-vs-obs-1979-2021-oceans-Fig01.jpg
Choose any one from sixty eight.
68 what, Richard?
willard…”I co-authored an article (Mann et al, 1995) in the Nature demonstrating the apparent persistence of these multidecadal oscillations…”
I have no interest in what Mann says or in any of the drivel coming out of realclimate, where is is co-owner with Gavin Schmidt. In 1995, Mann was nothing more than a snotty nosed grad student, not worth reading, nor is any of his work.
We all saw the mess he made of the hockey stick and I doubt he knows anything about the AMO.
He (Mann) claims that the AMO does not exist and is instead made up of numerous other factors that coincidently coincide to produce the ‘wriggles’ we see.
Like Nate claims about the PDO.
Nope never claimed that. So often you get such things mixed up.
Like you are uniquely prejudiced against low pass Gaussian filters but accept that LOWESS, wavelet analysis, etc. are all perfectly fine.
Do you want me to find the place where you said it was down to random factors coinciding to produce cyclic behavior?
I’d like that, Richard.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-737210
“”So, pray tell me, what contributes to the up and downs of the summary as shown? Chance?”
Anthro Forcings, ENSO, volcanoes, solar.”
“What am I supposed to answer about AMO? It also doesnt appear to be well correlated to Global Temp.
Perhaps the right linear combination of PDO and AMO will be better correlated to Global Tem”
Seventh blunder.
How can observing that the PDO, which only covers a small portion of the globes surface, and the AMO, which also only covers another small portion of the globes surface, and therefore even combining them together is not likely to fully explain global temperatures be a blunder?
[RICHARD] Mike claims that the AMO does not exist, like Nate claims that the PDO does not exist.
[NATE] Perhaps the right linear combination of PDO and AMO will be better correlated to Global Temp
“Mike claims that the AMO does not exist, like Nate claims that the PDO does not exist.”
What I actually said was that in both cases they were to be explained by a range of other things that coincidently coincided in order to produce the ‘wriggles’ we see. As said by both those partie on separate occasions.
But don’t let the facts get in the way.
RLH,
Even after I corrected you, you continue to get it wrong…
“No. Your question didnt specify -I assumed you were talking about what accounts for Global Temp variation.”
IOW the various factors contributing to Global Temp.
Here’s what you said, Richard:
You insufferable twat.
Great language (and logic) you have there.
” the various factors contributing to Global Temp.”
Were coincidental correspondence of other random factors. Not ‘wriggles’.
Mike knows about the AMO, Gordon.
He came up with the name.
Funny how contrarians don’t realize they’re using an expression their favorite Mike invented.
AMV rather then AMO has been discussed way before Mann decided to ‘name’ it.
“The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), also known as Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV), is the theorized variability of the sea surface temperature (SST) of the North Atlantic Ocean on the timescale of several decades.”
No shit, Sherlock:
“Back in the 1980s and 1990s, a number of articles pointed to a pattern of North Atlantic warming during the 1930s-1950s, subsequent cooling in the 1960s and 1970s, and warming thereafter, which seemed to resemble a natural oscillation in the climate system.”
This qualifies to be that, of course.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/amo.jpeg
The trouble with Mann is that he is more about himself than he is about the science.
And this
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/pdo.jpeg
and this
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/shen.jpeg
are just an illusion too.
I’d rather say that the trouble is that you misread Mike, Richard. But at least you have now read him. Baby steps.
How can I have misread Mike’s attempt to say that the ‘wriggles’ were caused by something than repetition?
Richard,
When you say:
“Despite Manns claims, the AMV (aka the AMO) had been talked about long before 2000.”
you make at least two mistakes.
First, Mike wrote a paper in 1995.
Second, Mike only mentions having come up with the name.
No more playing nice. These counts as two blunders.
At least five since yesterday.
Mike tried to explain it all away as being random events showing up as cyclic behavior. I don’t think that anyone actually believes that anymore.
Your dodges are not artful, Richard.
You’re not artful at all. Though in your mind you think you are.
Did your grandma teach you how to issue so many No U’s, Richard.
And there I was thinking that it was you that were issuing the Us.
See, Richard?
That is another No U.
No. That’s just you being an idiot.
Not really.
“Mike tried to explain it all away as being random events showing up as cyclic behavior. I dont think that anyone actually believes that anymore.”
Some ransom events (the timing of volcanic eruptions), and some not-so-random, the anthro emissions of the 20th century.
He explains that pretty well, what I have been getting at:
“The concept of the AMO has since been misapplied and misrepresented to explain away just about every climate trend under the sun, often based on flawed statistical methods that don’t properly distinguish a true climate oscillation from a time-varying trend: If you assume that all trends are a simple linear ramp, and call everything left-over an “oscillation”, then the simple fact that global warming flattened out from the 1950s through the 1970s driven by the ramp-up in cooling sulphate aerosol pollution masquerades as an apparent “oscillation” on top of a simple linear trend. We’ve published a number of articles over the years (see e.g. here, here, here, here, here, and here) demonstrating that studies that use such an approach to define the “AMO” end up misattributing to a natural “oscillation” what is actually human-caused climate change.”
He then goes on to show that in simulations that include the Anthro Forcings of the 20th century, that a prominent 60 y oscillation peak appears in the time series and the spectrum, while Control simulations lacking the Anthro Forcings lack the 60 y oscillation peak.
This is a sound argument.
Reconstructions of the past 5 centuries showed a similar AMO-like 60 y peak, but in the most recent simulations, only the ones including the known volcanic eruption history had the apparent 60 y peak in the spectrum.
Only time will tell if his interpretation is correct.
studentb…”I can now see why the dinosaurs became extinct”.
Because they had tiny brains, like yours.
willard…”EDMONTON A historic heat wave is sweeping across western Canada, delivering scorching temperatures to Edmonton.
For the next week, almost every single day is expected to reach temperatures above 30 degrees in the Edmonton area.
This is historically unprecedented, said David Phillips, Environment Canada senior climatologist.”
***
It’s unprecedented in late June. Usually, in Edmonton, where they call summer, ‘two month of bad skating’, they are still shoveling snow in late June.
Think I’m kidding?
“Snowfall
Months with snowfall in Edmonton are January through June, September through December. June is the last month it regularly snows in Edmonton”.
https://www.weather-atlas.com/en/canada/edmonton-weather-june
Gordon,
Do you have a point?
Do you?
Mike Flynn,
Yes, I do.
Here’s how Gordon’s comment starts:
“willard”
Nobody called you here.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
What is your point? Do I care what you want?
Rhetorical question, I know.
Mike Flynn,
No need to tell that you ask rhetorical questions.
Everybody knows.
willard…Do you have a point?
Just replying to your non sequitar trivia about heat waves in Edmonton. I have lived there and heat waves are the last thing anyone needs to worry about. If tornados are not tearing the city apart in certain sectors, or giant thunderstorms are not pelting your aluminum awning and automobiles with baseball-sized hail, you freeze to death in winter during one of their -35C cold days.
Gordon,
The non sequitur is all yours:
“you freeze to death in winter during one of their -35C cold days”
And the heat wave goes beyond Edmonton:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57626173
Try to minimize that with another by riffing on Seattle.
Earlier, RLH posted –
“So the Earth has cooled. What is so mysterious about that?
Care to provide a rate for that cooling? You know in degrees/decade or century.”
I usually let people do their own research, because people who ask gotchas are unlikely to believe any information I provide.
However, based on heat flow measurements (admittedly not as numerous as would be desirable), and estimates of residual internal radiogenic heat sources, around 1 to 4 millionths of a Kelvin per annum. Multiply by 10 or 100 to get the answer you requested.
So far, the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and continues to cool. Nothing mysterious – just the laws of the universe in operation.
“around 1 to 4 millionths of a Kelvin per annum”
What would you consider to be the ‘noise floor’ of global air temperature data?
RLH,
Considering that “air temperature” has nothing to do with your initial gotcha, you are just desperately trying to avoid looking like a witless climate crank.
You obviously had no interest in any actual science which contradicted your beliefs.
Why bother pretending to seek knowledge?
You just make yourself look stupid.
I was just pointing out that finding “around 1 to 4 millionths of a Kelvin per annum” was going to be difficult in any temperature data. Air, land or sea.
RLH,
Not really. From the US Bureau of Standards, 1907 or so.
“The sensitiveness of bolometers thus far attained is about [one millionth of a degree] per mm deflection. Paschen (loc. cit.) claims a sensitiveness of [one ten millionth] of a degree by reading to 0.1 mm.”
Not absolute, but direct measurement of change.
As to the rate of cooling of the Earth (as measured in the crust), even measuring the present rate of heat loss is fraught with difficulty, due to many factors.
One might just assume that the original surface temperature was 4500 K more than it is now. If the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years – bingo! 0.000001 K per annum! How coincidental is that?
Have fun.
Finding a difference, year on year, of “around 1 to 4 millionths of a Kelvin per annum” is going to be more than a little difficult.
That is going to require some SERIOUS calibration and isolation.
RLH,
You are right, of course. Rigorous attention to detail, and, as you say, generally taking a serious approach.
Unfortunately, Nature is often uncooperative. For example, measured geothermal gradients in Australia vary between 31 C/km, resulting in 5km depth temperatures of 235 C.
Notwithstanding the uncertainties, measured temperatures support various hypotheses – giving a fairly wide range of cooling rates.
Given that surface temperatures can vary between about -90 C to about +90 C, I am not concerned about present rates of cooling of millionths of a degree per annum.
Nor me. We will just have to assume that it is constant, as it has always been.
For most of the temperature datasets datasets Standard Deviation is about 0.05C.
“based on heat flow measurements (admittedly not as numerous as would be desirable), and estimates of residual internal radiogenic heat sources, around 1 to 4 millionths of a Kelvin per annumz”
Is that core temperature or surface temperature?
Have we ever been able to measure core temperatures?
“Have we ever been able to measure core temperatures?”
Indirectly.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-the-earths-core-so/
Estimate rather than measure then.
As I said earlier, all measurements are estimates.
Richard’s argument loop is now complete.
“all measurements are estimates”
Some are more direct than others
RLH
all measurements are estimates
Some are more direct than others”
Is an engineer really so naive?
I remember measuring resistance at school using a Wheatstone Bridge.
You balanced the voltages by moving a crocodile clip along a length of wire, and then measured the conducting length of the wire.
Knowing the properties of the wire you could then calculate the wire’s resistance and from that calculate the unknown resistance.
All measurements share the same principle. You measure something accessible and then use that to calculate something less accessible.
Your multimeter can be set to give a direct readout of resistance, but it is an illusion. Inside the meter circuitry and electronics are measuring voltage and current and calculating the resistance.
A glass thermometer measures the volume of a liquid, traditionally mercury. The designer has gone to great lengths to calibrate the instrument so that the scale measuring the volume gives you the illusion that you are directly measuring the temperature.
“I remember measuring resistance at school using a Wheatstone Bridge.”
I do too.
But what you are saying is more like determining one Wheatstone Bridge from readings on another. Take by someone else in a different room. Who speaks a different language.
This was the circuit we used.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheatstone_bridge#/media/File%3AWheatstonebridge.svg
The physics teacher wanted to start with the absolute minimum. We breadboarded the circuit. R2 was a length of piano wire attached to terminal D and a crocodile clip on a lead attached to terminal C. We slid the crocodile clip along the wire to zero the voltmeter and then recorded the distance from D to the crocodile clip.
The teacher was kind enough to give us an ohms/mm rating for the wire, but expected us to calculate from length to resistance ourselves.
My point was that we weren’t measuring the resistance of R2 directly; we were measuring the length of conducting wire and inducing the unknown resistance from that.
I’ve bet myself that your circuit had a precalibrated variable resistor at R2 instead, so you thought you were measuring R2 directly.
Offhand, the only direct measurement I can think of is counting objects. Anything else is indirect, requiring at least one intermediate step.
The last time I remember using a Wheatstone Bridge in anger was back in my biologist days surveying a large pasture. We were measuring the resistance of the soil to identify the hardpan left behind where hedgerows had been removed.
“Ive bet myself that your circuit had a precalibrated variable resistor at R2 instead, so you thought you were measuring R2 directly.”
You would be wrong. It was a LONG time ago : )
“Offhand, the only direct measurement I can think of is counting objects. Anything else is indirect, requiring at least one intermediate step.”
Most thermometers I used back in the day were mercury in glass which only required some knowledge about the relative expansion ratios of the 2 substances and some calibration work. Oh, and the assumption that the glass tube internal diameter was consistent.
“around 1 to 4 millionths of a Kelvin per annum.”
The quickest “back-of-the-envelope” calculation is a cooling of ~2000 K (ie from a superhot molten surface to ~300 K, and similar cooling in the interior) during 4 billion years = 2000/4,000,000,000 = 0.5 μK/yr. That is less than half your rate. And the cooling would be quickest early on, so current cooling would be less.
A second “back-of-the-envelope” calculation is P = mc dT/dt. Rough current numbers:
P/A = 0.1 W/m^2
A = 5E14 m^2
m = 6E24 kg
c = 1000 J/kg*K
This gives about 0.3 μK/yr. And it you add in a bit or radiative decay, the actual cooling would be less.
“So far, the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and continues to cool.”
All the numbers are in rough agreement — on the order of 0.000001 K/yr, or 1 K in the next million years! Why should this be of any concern when studying climate, where “noise” is on the order of 1 K/yr and the “signal” is on the order of 0.01 K/yr.
Everyone else>> “We might have to deal with 1 K of warming in the next century!”
Swenson>> “Don’t forget to include the 0.0001 K cooling due to geothermal heat flow.”
Dr spencer says:
“The main problem I have is with the media reporting of these results… What bothers me is the alarmist language attached to (1) such a tiny number, and (2) the likelihood that no one will bother to mention the authors attribute part of the change to a natural climate cycle, the PDO.”
The media report Dr Spencer cites says:
“Theres another factor at play too natural changes to a climate pattern called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Between 2014 and 2019, the pattern was in a warm phase which caused fewer clouds to form. That also meant more heat could be absorbed by the oceans.
More than likely, it’s the combination of climate change with those natural shifts that made such a big difference to Earths energy balance, Loeb says.”
I’m as critical of the news media as anyone, but at least read what you cite.
You mean the paragraph where they ended it with leftist propaganda
THE MAGNITUDE OF THE INCREASE IS UNPRECEDENTED?
I’ll give you UNPRECEDENTED. Try this:
“Tomorrow it’s predicted to hit 108 °F (42 °C) in Seattle. The hottest day ever recorded. It’s only June.
Less than half the homes have air conditioning.
People are likely to die.
This is the climate crisis. This is why we need the American Jobs Plan. When will Congress act?”
https://twitter.com/leahstokes/status/1409293442476216324
“America Works” is a House of Cards plot line
Never forget that Hitler was a vegetarian, Richard.
Invoking Hitler has what relevance to the discussion at hand?
It’s the canonical example of the propter hoc fallacy, Richard.
What has ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’ to do with “America Works”?
The same thing that a fictional slogan has to do with Leah’s tweet.
‘American Jobs’ to ‘America Works’ is hardly a big step
“American Jobs Plan,” Richard, and it’s the connection between Frank Underwood and Leah’s tweet that is the culprit. So that’s two more blunders from you. Let’s only count one.
A primer on how to reason by analogy:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/16/how-to-reason-by-analogy/
Well if you can’t see the link then that is down to you.
To see a connection is one thing, Richard.
To make a valid one is another.
The link is valid. Your mind is limited that’s all.
So valid that you’re only dogwhistling it, egg sucker.
I don’t have a dog.
So said Racehorce Haynes.
That was only his 4th option
His sixth is No U.
s t . v w
That’s the third.
cd, where were you last February when central and south-central states broke 100-year old cold records?
Or, the northeast?
Only report heat records, huh?
When was the last time you reported a heat record, Pup?
Sayeth the frog in a beaker.
barry, the reason we’re so critical of the news media is their agenda is so blatant. We know they’re lying to us.
Would you say that Roy is lying to you because he omitted to mention that the energy imbalance has doubled, Pup?
I would say that you are an incompetent stalker, Willard.
Of course you would, Puppy.
Clint, the only agenda news media have is more profit, and the tactic is obvious – sensationalise.
But don’t let that distract from the fact that Dr Spencer bemoaned the media neglecting that the PDO could be a factor in recent changes, while citing a media article doing exactly that.
Spencer said:
“…no one will bother to mention the authors attribute part of the change to a natural climate cycle, the PDO.”
Pointing out that this is a fatuous remark in the circumstances is quite valid.
barry, the media has more than profit as a motive. Much is dedicated to perverting reality. And, that coincides with the sensationalism you mentioned.
Historically, “perverting reality” has been the leading cause of death and destruction. And again, that coincides wth sensationalism.
“the media has more than profit as a motive. Much is dedicated to perverting reality.”
Horse shit. That’s the symptom, not the motive. Stop contributing to the mountain of baseless crap littering the internet.
barry, maybe you’re not exposed to the mountain of baseless crap we are, here in the US.
Or, maybe you just prefer nonsense over reality….
“maybe you’re not exposed to the mountain of baseless crap we are, here in the US”
Maybe take a break from the keyboard.
BREAKING NEWS IN THE WORLD OF DIRECT MEASUREMENTS
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/lytton-b-c-just-broke-the-record-for-hottest-temperature-ever-recorded-in-canada-1.5487906
And roasted pigeons are falling out of the sky
That would be a good entry to the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest.
BS!
BC, Stephen.
The highest temperatures are being recorded in quite a few communities in Western Canada.
It helps to keep perspective if you look at the length of record. My community has been keeping records only since 1965.
I love perspectives, Ken.
The freshest the bestest:
https://sites.ualberta.ca/~areyes/BertoPage/Publications_files/Geology_Giraffe-Eocene.pdf
Woeful Wee Willy,
“Equilibrium climate response to elevated CO2”?
Or maybe Mars trine Venus in the Third quadrant. Just as valid.
Why do bother posting nonsense pseudoscience? Do you actually believe such nonsense?
I’d suggest you learn physics, but you prefer “silly semantic games”. I remain optimistic that you would prefer your airplanes to be designed and maintained by people who know what they are doing, rather than boasting about their ability to play “silly semantic games”.
But maybe I’m wrong.
You might choose to receive your medical advice from somebody who plays “silly semantic games”, and boasts of their “auditing skillz”, rather than someone who has studied medicine.
You would be an idiot if you didn’t. You appear to be any idiot anyway. It won’t make a difference to you – you reject reality in favour of fantasy. Go with it!
Mike Flynn,
Good morning.
Ken
By July 10th or so, I’ll download the whole GHCN daily after 3 months once again (it’s over 30 GB uncompressed, and 40 % of it are temperature data).
We’ll see how it looks.
J.-P. D.
TMin and TMax for each 24 hour period per station which does rather limit its usefulness.
rlh…”Like Nate claims about the PDO”.
The PDO was discovered in the 1970s and called the Great Pacific Climate Shift, it was not named PDO till the 1990s.
It was first noticed when global temps increased by 0.2C with no explanation. Several luminaries of the day wanted to erase the increase, claiming it must have been a mistake. These days, NOAA and NASA GISS use the same reasoning(??) as they go back in the historical record to re-write temperatures they reasoned(??) must have been wrong.
Here’s an article that includes info on the PDO with a graph showing the unexplained so-called climate shift in 1976 – 1977. I have offered another shift following the 1998 El Nino. In Roy’s graph, on this site, there is an obvious shift upwardly in the global average following the 1998 EN. There may be another following the 2016 EN.
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm
All in all, there may be a 0.5C warming due to these so-called unexplained climate shifts since 1970 that negate warming from GHGs. They are all natural.
ps. note in the same article, with reference to the Arctic, that a 5% reduction in sea ice occurred due to the PDO.
See
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/pdo.jpeg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/shen.jpeg
D’Aleo and Easterbrook on the PDO, AMO and ENSO.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/multidecadal_tendencies.pdf
Same authors, same story on WUWT…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/amopdo-temperature-variation-one-graph-says-it-all/
“A study by Gershunov and Barnett (1998) shows that the PDO has a modulating effect on the climate patterns resulting from ENSO. The climate signal of El Nio is likely to be stronger when the PDO is highly positive; conversely the climate signal of La Nia will be stronger when the PDO is highly negative. This does not mean that the PDO physically controls ENSO, but rather that the resulting climate patterns interact with each other.”
“It does not change the fact that AMO + PDO is well correlated with air temperature.”
rlh…thanks for info re PDO and ENSO. I don’t pretend to understand any of it but it’s obvious the AMO and PDO have a lot to do with varying global temps.
A while back, Roy made a comment about the effect of the AMO on Arctic temperatures. It’s a misconception that the Arctic is warming as a whole, UAH contour maps show a month by month set of hot spots in the Arctic that move around month to month.
If I remember correctly, Roy inferred that the hot spots are related to AMO activity. In may, the hot spot was located over the USSR, possible above Moscow. In March 2021 it was over the North Atlantic. In Match 2020, there were two hotspots, one over Europe and the other over Siberia.
Remember, a hot spot showing +5C above the average in mid-winter, in the Arctic, is likely indicating -45C, or so.
Here’s a link to the contour maps and if you browse through the archives can can see how much these hot spots move around month to month.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
archives..
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/archives.html
I do rather prefer Mollweide projection. Tends to be much more accurate than Mercator
Gordo, Monthly data is rather noisy. Yearly averaging gives a better view of what’s happening, as those regional anomalies average out over time. Not to forget that the sea-ice cycle also integrates the annual energy flows to the surface and the well documented continuing decline in extent and thickness points directly to a warming of the Arctic.
“Until this weekend, the all-time record temperature for Portland, Ore., was 107 degrees. Right now it’s 6 degrees hotter than what had been the historic record…and note that June in Portland tends to be quite bearable. It’s only in July or August that it normally gets hot.”
https://twitter.com/NickKristof/status/1409632454214778885
Who ever heard of a previous record being broken by
6 degrees!?
But, of course, this does not affect the dinosaurs and frogs here.
Unprecedented since 1851.
RLH
I have been reading your comments. I am in somewhat agreement with some of your points.
It is true that the Northwest is having a bad heat wave. I am sure many are very uncomfortable. But I am not sure one could use a weather event to make conclusions about Climate Change and the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes
For the US and territories one year set 13 all time records with 13. The year was 1936 (of 55 locations).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes
The temperatures were similar to what is taking place today in the Northwest.
You can see that the 1930’s were not warm globally yet you have these extreme temperatures in a large area of the US (multiple states).
http://berkeleyearth.org/2019-temperatures/
So we attribute today’s heat waves to a slight global warming yet how does this conclusion explain what took place in the US in the 1930’s?
Heat waves are weather events.
Also, we have a super limited scope of highly precise measurements of temperature. Only about 100 years of good coverage. Past temperatures are fuzzy with proxies. How does one determine if the Portland temperatures are a fingerprint of Global Warming? With such a limited data set if is very premature to make any solid conclusions. I think it is good to be cautious and observant, it could be an arrow pointing to hostile future weather patterns. One cannot access this with such limited data. How is one to know if Portland has these heat waves every few hundred years? Maybe it is a normal pattern if time is stretched out. We measure a few hundred years but that is a most tiny sliver of data to make sweeping conclusions. Even the current rate of warming may or may not be unusual. We do not have precision of data going back centuries, only anecdotal information from reports of people.
Agreed. Unprecedented since is one of the key phrases I look out for in the news. Often comes in cycles I suspect.
sb, last February a 100 year-old cold record was broken by 11 degrees F.
But keep reporting weather for us. It’s one of the troll techniques taught by your cult. You don’t have the science, so you must resort to techniques and tactics. But, you always lose.
You can’t change reality.
You can’t either, Pup.
But you can change socks.
Just as I mentioned “troll techniques”, look who shows up — stalker Willard.
You’re the troll, Pup.
When was the last time you whined about ren or Eben?
Too late again, stalker.
You know the rules.
Appeals to reality and trolling have already been filed, Pup.
Find new material.
Too late, stalker Willard. Quit with the distractions.
You know the rules.
Pup,
You repeat your stuff.
I say you repeat yourself.
There’s only one way for you to make me stop.
Well, there’s also the Pole Dance experiment, so make that two.
Why would I want you to stop, Willard?
Your stalking gives me huge credibility, plus it shows what a loser you are. You just need to respond within 3 minutes, so you won’t be an incompetent stalker.
Sounds to me as if someone is getting hot and bothered.
Understandable.
s,
You are the one that gets bothered by hot.
Doesn’t bother me at all. Let me know when Antarctica gets its flora and fauna back. It has been too cold for too long!
studentb…”Who ever heard of a previous record being broken by 6 degrees!?”
Out of context. I know Portland is considerably inland even though it’s on a river. At the mouth of the same river, in Astoria, Oregon, on the Pacific Ocean, it is currently 22C, some 20C cooler.
Here in Vancouver, Canada 350 miles north of Astoria, it’s 34C at the same time. Meantime, in Abbotsford, BC, about the same distance from Vancouver as Portland is inland from Astoria, it’s 42C, same as Portland.
It’s obvious this heatwave is a local phenomenon around which temperatures range from 22C to 42C. It’s amazing that it’s so located that it does not cover Astoria, on the ocean, but covers Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver.
Not GHG-related.
> Not GHG-related.
How do you know, Gordon?
Gordon Robertson says: Its amazing that its so located that it does not cover Astoria, on the ocean, . . .
KORASTOR133 2021-06-27
willard…”On Sunday, Lytton, B.C. became the first location in Canada ever to record a temperature over 45 degrees Celsius, registering at least 46.1 degrees, according to Environment Canada”.
Once again, Lytton, BC is arguably the hottest part of Canada in summer months. I was camped on the Thompson River circa 2008 one summer, about 15 miles from Lytton, and had to move on due to the heat, which was in excess of 40C. If there had been even a trace of wind it may have been bearable, but the air was so still that all I could sense was the unrelenting solar energy beating down on me.
I had never felt solar intensity like that at this latitude. I do recall one day in Fiji when I got burned sitting in the Sun for 10 minutes but the direct radiation did not feel as hot as the day near Lytton. I am of the opinion that the solar intensity has increased noticeably the past 10 years.
46C in Lytton comes as no surprise to me. Natural variability.
The question that needs to be answered is what is causing this sudden heat wave. Since we are still learning about the various oscillations in the oceans, it is unknown, but it seems obvious the oceans are the source. The notion that GHGs, making up no more than 0.31% of the entire atmosphere, are causing it, strikes me as ludicrous.
Gordon,
Once again, it’s the differential that matters, e.g.:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/jan/08/australia-bush-fires-heatwave-temperature-scale
Frequency also matters.
And impact.
And costs.
All kinds of experiences your long life afforded you.
Pouting never solves anything.
Oh, and you might need to revise your camping story:
https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_1981_2010_e.html?searchType=stnProv&lstProvince=BC&txtCentralLatMin=0&txtCentralLatSec=0&txtCentralLongMin=0&txtCentralLongSec=0&stnID=960&dispBack=0
Another weather report, Whacky Wee Willy?
Due to excessive GHGs, do you think?
Snigger.
I don’t think Gordon’s porkies are caused by excess greenhouse gases, Mike Flynn.
Unless…
“I dont think”
Says it all really.
No U.
–What Are Chinook Winds?–
In the cold winter months of regions east of the Rocky Mountains, a strong, dry, warm wind sometimes blows from the mountains across the land. These winds, known as Chinook winds, can bring quick temperature changes.
Chinook winds are named for the Chinook Native Americans who lived in the coastal regions of Washington and Oregon near the Columbia River, according to Chinook Nation. Winds similar to Chinook occur all over the world and are known by several local names. In the European Alps, they are called föhn winds, wrote Emma Quaile, a British scientist, in a 2001 article in the journal Weather. In central Asia, they are afganet; in the Andes of South America, these winds are called puelche; and in southern California, they are known as the Santa Ana winds.
https://www.livescience.com/58884-chinook-winds.html
In southern California Santa Ana are common in latter part of summer.
Or descending air which is warm. Or in mountains the air doesn’t have to be particularly warm, but can warm a lot when it falls.
Santa Ana wind can be just warm transported a long distance hot dry high deserts {not much elevation change, but also could be coming from inland and going the high mountains.
But also imagine one has UHI effect involved- or temperature reported could not sited correctly- or wouldn’t count as properly measured air temperatures. So, a real weather caused heating event, plus bad reporting.
One needs to consider the potential problems if the Earth’s surface warms too much. It is unknown how it might change weather patterns or long term climates. Only time and more research can determine.
The glaring problem is that renewables will not sustain our civilization in any near future. We have unthinking planners who are investing several billion in renewables without figuring out energy storage systems to make these renewables viable.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186807/worldwide-investment-in-sustainable-energy-since-2004/
Here is the harsh reality of renewables at this time.
https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time–market-data/real-time-displays/
The Miso Energy region (area in graphic, down south to Louisiana up north to North Dakota, a swath of the Midwest region). Pie graph on this link shows the power distribution. The area demand is 89,450 Megawatts. Wind is supplying a paltry 1800 of this number. When the wind blows the potential is over 20,000 but the wind is unreliable and no large scale energy storage systems have been built. If the dream of no fossil fuel use is realized within a few years, then many customers would be sitting in the dark.
I think the renewable energy people need to actually apply some intelligence to their ambition and come up with energy storage systems that are viable. The blind path forward is not a rational one and it is unfortunate the global intelligence has become so dim that vast swaths of the Public follow these blind leaders without the slightest of questions.
“…it is unfortunate the global intelligence has become so dim that vast swaths of the Public follow these blind leaders without the slightest of questions.“
You’re learning about cults, Norman.
” vast swaths of the Public follow these blind leaders”
continuing with the BIG LIE.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/republicans-2020-election-poll-trump-biden
The only way all of this ongoing GHG nonsense is going to end is if either
A) the monstrous agencies which desire to comprehensively tax, enslave, and then destroy every free person on Earth have ultimately succeeded in this mission and moved on to the next, or
B) the prominent human filth which promote this present agenda are sequestered and neutralized long enough for the high-potency marijuana mainstream to sober up and demand justice be served.
In accord with the lessons of history, my money is on A…
Trapped heat no kidding it was 116 in salmon creek near Vancouver wa across the Columbia river from Portland or 113 yesterday 108 day before huge +4 heat dome over region
This is a question to climate alarmistas:
It it well known that the heat capacity of the ocean in any sense is higher than that of the land. The upper mixed layer of the ocean+atmosphere probably has a heat capacity an order of magnitude higher than the land+atmosphere per unit area. The seasonal cycle temperature range of the land reaches 10 to 20K even in the temperatre climates, and can be as high as 100K in NE siberia. Given that, we should as it seems to me expect that the continental climates should adjust very swiftly the the any imposed external forcings. The alleged co2 forcing, without feedbacks is as little as 0.9-1.2K per doubling or 1.8-3K with feedbacks, and with doubling times of several decades, would make me think that the continents should be nearly in-sync with the co2 forcing, trailing a few years behind the equilibrium at best. The oceans with their much higher heat capacities should be expected to react much slower perhaps, probably lagging decades behind. Thus it is natural to expect the continents to warm faster and be at any time closer to their equilibrium temperature for a given levels of co2. In fact, it might be that since oceans are lagging far behid, that the continents actually are at any time *warmer* than the equilibrium temperature.
Question to the alarmisters: if co2 rise instantly arrested, would you expect that as the result, the land-temperaturess would deacrease as the ocean temperatures keep on rising?
One of the unexplained mysteries is that Land temperatures have been rising faster than Ocean ones in most temperature series.
As Land and Ocean are in 30%:70% ratio but quite closely combined this disparity has yet to be successfully explained.
RLH
What about evaporative cooling keeping ocean temperatures down. Whereas evaporative cooling does occur on land perhaps it is to a lesser degree. Possible cloud formations are different. Ocean currents may carry energy density better than air (because of density difference). Some possible explanations
RLH
Also heat capacity. Water requires much more energy to change temperature than many other materials. If there is the same increase in input energy to land or water, the water will heat much slower than the land even though both are gaining the same energy.
I don’t think that that explains the disparity.
RLH, If you had taken a basic heat transfer course, you would understand that the solid land surface acts like an insulator and the daily and annual temperature cycles at the surface are attenuated as one moves deeper underground. For example, where I live, the temperature below about 10 feet is nearly constant and the deeper one digs, the temperature is the result of a longer time of filtering, back to the time when the surface was covered with glaciers. The surface layers of the ocean are deeper and more thoroughly mixed, thus warms more slowly.
Teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
I am well aware that temperatures in ground show a lesser version of air temperatures above ground for quite a way down before the internal core tempo begins to take over..
https://imgur.com/kZPuted
https://imgur.com/xrTJFad
RLH, If you already knew the answer, why did you ask the question?
Which question was that?
Why are Land temperatures in the last couple of decades exceeding the Ocean temperatures whereas before they didn’t?
“One of the unexplained mysteries is that Land temperatures have been rising faster than Ocean ones in most temperature series” presupposes the question as to why has land temps been rising faster than ocean ones in most series.
Is there an echo in here?
Sixth blunder in two days, Richard.
Playing dumb is not exactly a blunder, so you’re lucky.
At least for now.
Can you find your slippers when you get out of bed? Seems unlikely given your performance on here.
I’m a ninja, Richard.
I never sleep.
“I never sleep.”
Lack of sleep sends people mad.
“Lack of sleep can cause a host of mental problems.”
https://www.sleepadvisor.org/sleep-deprivation-psychosis/
No U.
It’s your lack of sleep I am questioning.
You weren’t exactly questioning, Richard.
A real question would be how ninjas manage not to sleep.
Depends on what kind of land. Over tropical rainforests it occurs to a larger degree than over any adjacent oceans.
You are surely kidding?
How can you shamelessly post here exhibiting such ignorance?
You have an explanation for the disparity between Land and Ocean temperatures? Please share.
You actually want me to explain the basics?
An armchair expert demanding to be instructed in the basics!
How typical!
Why not learn something yourself before wasting our time with your ignorant comments.
Here, just this once, is some helpful advice:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-does-land-warm-up-faster-than-the-oceans
You can thank me after you have read it.
Crickets.
So do tell me why the effects are only so visible and dramatic since the 1980s? Did the CO2 concentrations suddenly change then?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
Idiot
chirp chirp chirp
Idiot bird
Have you thought about sending your gotchas to Dr. Michael Byrne, Richard?
@rhl Actually, it seems that the effect of GW are mostly visible since the 2000.
@rhl that’s since when the effects of the GW in hindsight look any distinct from the natural variability of the 150 years b4 that.
Warming or cooling since 1990?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:180/mean:149/mean:116
Regularity since 1470
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/shen.jpeg
Or since 1850
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/pdo.jpeg
If led by confirmation bias.
But if not:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/PDO1000yr.svg/1280px-PDO1000yr.svg.png
Not at all regular back to 1000.
Also I see that Shen does not seem to match the instrumental record 1850-1920.
From which actual data source and with what filter?
Shen is about rainfall records in China. Do you dispute that or that it is correct in that regard?
“Shen does not seem to match the instrumental record 1850-1920.”
Again from what source and about what area?
NOAA has this for the PDO since 1850
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/pdo.jpeg
It would be interesting to know from what source that is actually complied from.
And this from Jisao since 1900
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/jisao-pdo.jpeg
“Shen does not seem to match the instrumental record 1850-1920.
Again from what source and about what area?”
Only one goes to 1850, you posted it.
If you mean the global temperature one, what leads you to believe that the PDO has other than a contributory factor to that?
Also, Shen is about historical rainfall records in China. Do you believe it is incorrect in that regard?
“Not at all regular back to 1000.”
Do you accept that temperature records before the 1800s are likely to be different in periodicity to that after?
“Do you accept that temperature records before the 1800s are likely to be different in periodicity to that after?”
Why? Unless you have some insider info, we can only speculate about the causes of the variation.
“uly 1, 2021 at 6:22 AM
If you mean the global temperature one, what leads you to believe that the PDO has other”
No, we were discussing only PDO records.
s,
How can you shamelessly accuse others of being shameless?
Because you are a climate crackpot, that’s why!
sb, you seem to be all “hot and bothered”.
You didn’t identify who or what perturbs you. Your response appears to be all emotion, and no science.
That’s often how alarmist trolls appear.
My apologies. I forgot there were some engineers in the room.
My advice? Go back to your slide rules and leave science to the experts.
sb, if you’re apologizing for being an uneducated cult follower, then apology accepted.
But I would encourage you to leave your cult, ASAP.
Vintage 2007:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028164
Unexplained, but not unexplainable. I can give you three plausible hypotheses right now.
1) as i noted, simply due to much greater thermal inertia, the oceans might just be lagging behind
2) most continents are located in the northern hemisphere’s temperate and subarctic climates, and the warming (any climate change really) happens faster to a larger degree in the high latitudes
3) The continents are on average much colder, in term or the absolute temperature, than the oceans, perhaps due to being concentrated away from equator and/or the fact that the oceans cannot by definition be colder than around 0C give or take couple of Ks for salinity’s sake, while continents certainly can. And due to the nonlinearity of S/B’s law, the same amount of forcing will cause bigger temperature rise at ower temperature than at the higher temperature. For an absolute black body extra 5W of extra forcing would increase equilibrium Ts by 1K at 0C, 1.36K at -20C, 1.74K at -40c, but only 0.8K at 27C 0.73K at +38C (=100F)
coturnix says:
if co2 rise instantly arrested, would you expect that as the result, the land-temperaturess would deacrease as the ocean temperatures keep on rising?
Your description is essentially consistent with my understanding of theory.
At zero emissions there remains a net planetary radiative imbalance almost entirely because of the ocean thermal inertia. The land temperatures on average would be expected to track downward with exponentially decaying atmospheric GHG concentrations while the oceans would continue to warm until the system reaches net radiative equilibrium. The time constant of GHG decay is primary dependent on ocean turnover and on the scale of centuries, so slow by human time frames.
coturnix says: Question to the alarmisters
As an aside, understanding the tenets of greenhouse gas theory ought to be sufficient qualification to comment on that which follows from theory. It requires a sufficient degree of scientific reasoning ability independent of one’s state of “alarm”, whatever that means.
For example, one could reason consequences from a postulate that global warming is caused by the heat released from under ocean volcanoes without passing judgement on the objective truth of the postulate.
> or 1.8-3K with feedbacks
Question to luckwarmers: why do you keep saying stuff?
Some communication lacks anything of value.
For example, large corporate news which just wants to
control advertising.
An army of contrarian Goblins peddling crap here and there adds value to the reactionary forces that want to sucker electorates.
The effect is only temporary:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity
In the end, Nature bats last.
willard…”While the best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity has stubbornly remained between 1.5C and 4.5C per doubling for nearly three decades,”
Unvalidated models give stupid predictions. They are unvalidated because they use pseudo-science to get the projected and ridiculous warming. For one, they have given CO2 a warming factor of 9% to 25%, which is stupid to the point of idiocy. The Ideal Gas Law gives it a warming factor of 0.04%.
The unvalidated models also use a positive feedback without an amplifier, more idiocy. You cannot get gain without an amplifier unless it’s a rare case of natural resonance. There are no features in the atmosphere that can cause natural resonance or amplification, as required by positive feedback.
Take away the ridiculous CO2 warming factor and the idiotic positive feedback and the catastrophic warming is gone, much as we have observed since 1988 when Hansen put forward his stupid model asinine predictions.
> They are unvalidated because they use pseudo-science
That’s a powerful argument you got there, Gordon.
Since when 3K is ‘lukewarming’????? You people keep shifting the overtone window, its right-out disgusting and infuriating. But luckily, people tony heller keeps an eye on you, so no wrongdoing will go unnoticed ^-^
The consensus range following from theory/modeling, instrument period observations, and paleo data is something like 1.5-4.5K. Stating a narrower range like 1.8-3.0K leaves one open to accusations of undue confidence.
That said, it’s not obvious that the range of climate sensitivity is germane to your original question of what happens to land and ocean surface temperature if GHG emissions were to immediately cease.
Yes I am a sinner and a heretic =) I confess!
But my question was actually even slightly more different. I asked would the land temperatures overshoot and then god down if co2 grows [not emissions!] is *arrested*, stops and remains constant.
> Since when 3K
Luckwarmers are betting on a central estimate under 3.
If your range is 1.8-3, chances are that 3 won’t be your central estimate.
dunno, I always thought and still think that ‘lukewarming’ were betting on an estimate of 0-2K per doubling [wich is btw containing the so-far-observed increases]. Not sure why I thought that, but I still do and your statement didn’t change my opinion. Of course since the official science ™ estimates (which is essentially alarmist estimates) have been high with higher bound even increasing over the years, I can see how you may think that. Overtone’s window it is.
It like the definition of conservative/right wing politics, 200 years ago It meant people rooting for keeping the aristocracy elevated in their rights to rule over other people, and today the same term applies to just the people wanting to keep your taxes a few percent lower.
Ok, maybe possibly 0.5-2.5K, but with average estimate below 2K. If average estimate is above 2K that NOT a lukewarmer position. That’s just ‘warmer’. Not necessarily an alarmist though, some people might like it oe even want it, especially ones living in very cold climates ^-^
> Thats just “warmer.”
So the guy who coined the term would be a “warmer.”
If you check the comment thread of this post:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/lukewarmers-a-follow-up
you should see a trace of where the brand comes from.
Also, to answer your question in the most literal way, people keep saying stuff because it’s an instinct. To want to talk to others. An instinct similar (perhaps, homologous) to birds chirping and apes picking lice. Cheers ^-^
Fair.
“This is a question to climate alarmistas…”
I have a question: when did you stop beating your wife?
Is it wife beating that causes AGW?
Haha, triggered! Why is the word ‘alarmist’ so objectionable to you people? It precisely describes your agenda. you see a potential problem and you develop and maintain alarm about it. I just added extra ‘a’ at the end to make it sound more ‘latin-american’ Sounds funny, kinda like ‘sandinista’ or something =)
“Why is the word ‘alarmist’ so objectionable to you people?”
You talking to me, or “you people?”
I’m just calling your disingenuousness out.
If I asked a question to the ‘deniers’, would you reply?
Possibly. The word ‘denier’ has seriously negative historical connotations, it is NOT an equivalent of ‘alarmist’, it would be an equivalent of ‘climate nazis’, haha. Guess I gonna call you that from bow on 😉 Thanks for the tip!
As for ‘alarmist’, that word while somewhat disrespectful, is not quite as bad. Basically, it just means people that overreact to things, where the reaction itself might actually be good but misplaces and untimely. I mean, do you think fire alarm is bad? Tornado alarm is bad? clock alarm is bad? The only bad things about those is their improper untimely overuse, which diminishes their value. So yeah, I don’t know why you be so offended, climate nazi.
“I dont know why you be so offended, climate nazi.”
You don’t want to engage, just bash people who disagree with you. That’s why you resort to politically charged labels.
There are people who genuinely question the mainstream view, who are interested in facts and figures – not in posturing, and baiting in order to exercise some spleen. A rare species on this board.
Uhm, this is hw you started OUR conversation under thispaticular post:
>>”I have a question: when did you stop beating your wife?”<<
What kind of invitation to engagement other than to bashing is that? And i disagree with lots f people, both alarmista and cooldownista, doesn't mean i can't engage with them. Who i can't engage in conversation with are those who provide no food for thougths.
I resort to polically charged labels because a) the topic IS politically charged, and had been a such way before i got interested in it, and 2) because the label 'alarmist' is true and accurate
To add to the statement, the more equivalent antonym to ‘alarmist’ would be ‘lukewarmer’.
To overreact isn’t the opposite of misrepresenting science.
It could be =) There is very little real science in GW nowdays, its all about the control of the government policies.
Also:
1*C/log2(415/275)=1.7 per doubling, is what observed so far as I understand it. everything else is not science, it is speculations.
> what observed so far
Where?
+willard
on pluto of course =) which is not a planet anymore because poor people are taking golden showers.
Just so we’re clear, I’m not teh Donald.
I see. You don’t know what ‘rick and morty’ is, but are aware of the detail of the bodouire life of the least powerful president of the usa in history.
Perhaps your allusion was too shwifty for me.
Perhaps you’re just an idiot.
It’s so hot by the time you bring home eggs from the supermarket they hatch
https://bit.ly/3jpXTWL
eben…”Its so hot by the time you bring home eggs from the supermarket they hatch”
Thought you were gonna say they’d cooked.
MONSTROUS AGENCIES UPDATE
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/what-record-shattering-heat-is-doing-to-us-cities-2474761
willard…”It is unprecedented to have temperature records in Portland and Seattle repeatedly broken on successive days, said Bob Oravec, a senior branch forecaster with the U.S. Weather Prediction Center in College Park, Maryland. That just doesnt occur.”
***
Well it does now, Bob, and it’s obvious the heat has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. If they were able to radiate as claimed, they’d have dissipated the heat via radiation. As it stands, the heat is due to nitrogen and oxygen which make up 99% of the atmosphere. N2/O2 cannot radiate away the heat therefore it sticks around. This heat barely dissipated at night.
That raises the question as to where the heat came from. As Bob said, that kind of heat is unknown in the Pacific Northwest. Therefore, it had to originate is the Tropics and be transported here without allowed the heated N2/O2 to rise and dissipate the heat.
> If they were able to radiate as claimed, they’d have dissipated the heat via radiation
How do you know that, Gordon?
willard…”> If they were able to radiate as claimed, they’d have dissipated the heat via radiation
How do you know that, Gordon?”
I don’t, and I don’t agree with the statement. GHGs cannot warm or cool the atmosphere. I am simply quoting you alarmists and your ludicrous theories.
It’s obvious that nitrogen and oxygen control the temperature of the atmosphere. It’s equally obvious that the heat dome is a result of trapped N2/O2.
Ren would probably know, ask him.
> I am simply quoting you
Perhaps you were paraphrasing, Gordon. But think about this: you’re suggesting that the AGW theory, even if true, can’t explain what is happening. Which is kinda weird, but OK. I’m starting to get used to your pretzel logic.
A direct quote might still be nice.
Extremely Weird Wee Willy,
The problem is that you can’t actually provide this “AGW theory”.
You can’t even link to such a thing, mainly because it doesn’t exist. Mad assertions, speculations and consensus of climate cultists are not theories.
What is happening is the atmosphere behaving as it does – chaotically.
The maximum theoretical surface temperature achievable due to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun is less than 100 C. If you manage to find a temperature exceeding this, it is unprecedented, and cannot be explained by current theories.
What is you claim cannot be explained without resorting to “AGW theory”?
Nothing, that’s what!
Mike Flynn,
The problem is that you believe I read your comments.
I don’t!
Cheers,
Woeful Wee Willy,
Why would I believe anything you say?
Why would I care what you claim to read or not read?
You are a strange deluded puppy, Wee Willy.
How are your “silly semantic games” and “auditing skillz” working out for you? Have you learnt to spell yet?
Carry on being a self-proclaimed idiot.
Mike Flynn.
That is all.
“you believe I read your comments”
Do you read much else other than your delusions?
No U.
S T . V W
>>Our infrastructure is not prepared for temperatures over 110 degrees, <<
Shall I presume it is prepared for a 105 degree heatwaves?
entropic…”My point was that we weren’t measuring the resistance of R2 directly; we were measuring the length of conducting wire and inducing the unknown resistance from that”.
***
Yes, you were measuring it directly, since E, I and R are directly related by Ohm’s law. The instructor had to give you the ohms/length or you would not know the resistance of the unknown.
Of course, you could work it out given the applied voltage and taking measurements at various points and applying Ohm’s Law. That would defeat the purpose of the Wheatstone Bridge which can show you the resistance directly.
Furthermore, in a Wheatstone Bridge, there are two parallel resistance legs. The top two resistors in each leg are known values. The bottom resistance in the left leg is known as well but adjustable. It normally uses some kind of decade resistance box wherein there are known values of precision resistors. The bottom resistance in the right leg is the unknown.
A galvanometer is connected between the centre nodes between legs, a galvanometer being an ammeter with the needle centred so it can move either way to indicate the current direction. When it is centred, it means the resistances in the two bottom resistors are equal, since there would have to be equal potentials across the bottom resistors in each leg to give a null reading.
In your example, the galvanometer has been incorrectly marked as a voltmeter. A voltmeter would not normally be connected like that because the aim is to get zero volts across those two nodes. When that occurs, the voltmeter would read zero, an unreliable measuring point since it is not calibrated to go below zero. With the galvanometer, you can swing the needs around zero to get an exact null reading.
You could use a voltmeter but you’d have to connect it between the bottom end of the lower resistors and alternately check the potential between them and the top resistors. When the potentials are equal, the bottom resistors are equal. With the variable resistor known, the unknown equals it when the potentials are equal.
In your case, the variable resistance was given as a length of wire with a known resistance per length. Still, I think your instructor was confusing you by giving such a poor demonstration of the Wheatstone Bridge. He was limiting the usefulness of the bridge to very low resistance lengths of wire.
BTW…the Wheatstone principle can also be used to measure the value of inductors and capacitors. When all three are included in one unit, the unit is called an LCR bridge. With capacitors and inductors, an alternating current is used rather than a direct current, for obvious reasons. Also, with L and C, you are interested in impedance rather than resistance, impedance having a frequency dependence.
Ideally, you would have a very high impedance input to the voltmeter so as not to draw appreciable current from the bridge. That means using a modern DVM. The older VOM has such a low input impedance that it acts to add a parallel resistance to the resistance it is measuring.
Another point, in your example, they have current flowing from positive to negative. It does not matter for relative measurements as long as you keep the signs right but this convention is nearly 100 years old and is absolutely wrong. Electrons cannot flow from positive to negative.
entropic…testing…part 1…
“My point was that we weren’t measuring the resistance of R2 directly; we were measuring the length of conducting wire and inducing the unknown resistance from that”.
***
Yes, you were measuring it directly, since E, I and R are directly related by Ohm’s law. The instructor had to give you the ohms/length or you would not know the resistance of the unknown.
Of course, you could work it out given the applied voltage and taking measurements at various points and applying Ohm’s Law. That would defeat the purpose of the Wheatstone Bridge which can show you the resistance directly.
Furthermore, in a Wheatstone Bridge, there are two parallel resistance legs. The top two resistors in each leg are known values. The bottom resistance in the left leg is known as well but adjustable. It normally uses some kind of decade resistance box wherein there are known values of precision resistors. The bottom resistance in the right leg is the unknown.
A galvanometer is connected between the centre nodes between legs, a galvanometer being an ammeter with the needle centred so it can move either way to indicate the current direction. When it is centred, it means the resistances in the two bottom resistors are equal, since there would have to be equal potentials across the bottom resistors in each leg to give a null reading.
testing…part 2…
In your example, the galvanometer has been incorrectly marked as a voltmeter. A voltmeter would not normally be connected like that because the aim is to get zero volts across those two nodes. When that occurs, the voltmeter would read zero, an unreliable measuring point since it is not calibrated to go below zero. With the galvanometer, you can swing the needs around zero to get an exact null reading.
You could use a voltmeter but you’d have to connect it between the bottom end of the lower resistors and alternately check the potential between them and the top resistors. When the potentials are equal, the bottom resistors are equal. With the variable resistor known, the unknown equals it when the potentials are equal.
In your case, the variable resistance was given as a length of wire with a known resistance per length. Still, I think your instructor was confusing you by giving such a poor demonstration of the Wheatstone Bridge. He was limiting the usefulness of the bridge to very low resistance lengths of wire.
BTW…the Wheatstone principle can also be used to measure the value of inductors and capacitors. When all three are included in one unit, the unit is called an LCR bridge. With capacitors and inductors, an alternating current is used rather than a direct current, for obvious reasons. Also, with L and C, you are interested in impedance rather than resistance, impedance having a frequency dependence.
Ideally, you would have a very high impedance input to the voltmeter so as not to draw appreciable current from the bridge. That means using a modern DVM. The older VOM has such a low input impedance that it acts to add a parallel resistance to the resistance it is measuring.
Another point, in your example, they have current flowing from positive to negative. It does not matter for relative measurements as long as you keep the signs right but this convention is nearly 100 years old and is absolutely wrong. Electrons cannot flow from positive to negative.
While I’m enjoying discussing the details of Wheatstone Bridges, my original point has gotten lost.
RLH was complaining that temperature measurements of Earth’s core were indirect and my response was that all measurements are indirect.
Remember that the whole purpose of the Wheatstone Bridge was to deduce the resistance of an unknown and inaccessible resistor Rx by measuring the resistance of an accessible resistor R2 and then calculating
Rx = R3 * R2 / R1
“RLH was complaining that temperature measurements of Earths core were indirect and my response was that all measurements are indirect.”
How indirect are mercury in glass thermometers?
You can get very close to the object you want to measure, if you regard that as a measure of directness.
Otherwise you are still measuring the volume of a blob of mercury and hoping that there is a meaningful correalation between that volume and the temperature.
You only need some knowledge about the relative expansion of glass and mercury and a small amount of calibration.
A regular source of amusement here is the person who prefers satellite temperature series because they are the only direct measurements.
In fact it takes considerable knowledge of sensor technology, orbital mechanics and atmospheric physics; a long and complex chain of reasoning and sophisticated algorithms to take the voltage emitted by an orbiting microwave sensor and turn it into a temperature reading for a particular block of atmosphere.
Much easier to use mercury thermometers. Smile.
https://www.pyrocontrole.com/sites/default/files/documents/calibration_services.pdf
And, of course, there is always that pesky surface boundary layer and its unpredictability.
And not one of them directly measures temperature.
> A regular source of amusement here is the person who prefers satellite temperature series because they are the only direct measurements.
Even more amusing is if that person would also raise concerns about the accuracy of platinum resistance thermometers.
“not one of them directly measures temperature”
Over how big a volume other than right next to them?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
Idiot
> my original point has gotten lost
That often happens with Richard.
Wandering Wee Willy,
Who is Richard? Another of you fantasy obsessions, like Mike Flynn?
At least you admit that he has a point, on occasions.
You, on the other hand, are pointless. Maybe your point is off accompanying your clue, as you are also clueless.
All part of the rich tapestry of you being an idiot troll.
Keep breathing – the world welcomes the additional CO2!
Mike Flynn,
That’s it. That’s the comment.
Mike Flynn.
All reasons and points are lost when Willard joins in.
No U.
s t . v w
Sorry for duplication above. There was no indication that my initial post had gone through. Sometimes I have to wait a few seconds for the message to post and maybe I did not wait long enough. I did check to see if it had shown up but there was no post when I started to post the duplicated message. It showed up later.
swannie…”RLH, If you had taken a basic heat transfer course, you would understand that the solid land surface acts like an insulator and the daily and annual temperature cycles at the surface are attenuated as one moves deeper underground”.
***
It’s little wonder you think heat can be transferred from cold to hot without compensation. As you dig deeper into the Earth, temperatures rise, meaning heat is being transferred from the super-hot core to the surface.
It’s equally obvious that any heating of the surface skin by the Sun does not penetrate far. What you have is a heat source of about 340 w/m^2 (theoretical) at the surface, and another source at the core of about 5000 C. The heat transfer from the surface inwardly will only serve to slightly offset the heat transfer from the core outwardly.
As you suggested to rlh, you need to take some courses in heat transfer. But try to take them from people who understand thermodynamics and the 2nd law.
“What you have is a heat source of about 340 w/m^2 (theoretical) at the surface…”
Careful Gordon, that “340 W/m^2” comes from the AGW nonsense. They divide the solar constant by 4, 1360/4 = 340.
That ain’t science.
No it does not, Pup:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
Too late again, stalker.
You’re not improving, you’re getting worse.
“again”
“worse”
You’re still not cutting it, stalker.
“you’re still not cutting it”
“your stalking gives me huge credibility”
Whereas you’re just an idiot
No U.
s t . v w
Gordo, As a Canadian?, have you ever worked in a permafrost region during the summer? The surface thaws, but it’s still below freezing deeper down. As one digs/drills even deeper, one might see the temperatures begin to increase due to geothermal heating from below, but that’s not the point. A few meters below the surface, the temperature will be the long term average of the surface temperature, which in permafrost areas, is below freezing. Those few meters also represent a much lower thermal mass than the upper layers of the oceans, thus the land surface warms faster as the atmosphere above warms.
ren…what is causing this so-called heat dome on the Pacific coast of Canada and the States?
How can the hot air be trapped and prevented from rising?
Warm dry air is denser than same temperature warm wet air, the warm dry air falls, creating denser air which is warmer than the warm air.
Called in your neck of woods, Chinook Winds.
It’s similar to why Venus is hot.
Except, what warms and rises, will fall.
Or the rather old saying: what goes up, must come down.
You mean a Foehn wind? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind
Yes. And called in Southern California commonly called the Santa Ana winds
Wiki:
“Chinook winds /ʃɪˈnʊk/, or simply Chinooks, are fhn winds[1] in the interior West of North America, where the Canadian Prairies and Great Plains meet various mountain ranges, although the original usage is in reference to wet, warm coastal winds in the Pacific Northwest.[2]
The Blackfoot people term this wind “Snow Eater”;[3] however, the more commonly used term “Chinook” originates from the language spoken by the eponymous people in the region where the usage was first derived (the Chinook people lived near the ocean, along the lower Columbia River).[4] The reference to a wind or weather system, simply “a Chinook”, originally meant[by whom?] a warming wind from the ocean into the interior regions of the Pacific Northwest of the US.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_wind
I rather suspect that Foehn wind has been around longer, or obvious reasons.
If you dont know by now you should stop posting rubbish and go back to playing with your volt meter.
How pathetic! Crying out for that imbecile ren to help him. LOL
DMT,
Why is ren an imbecile? Or is this just your unsupported and worthless opinion?
A simple explanation is “ocean oscillations”.
ENSO 3.4 is transitioning out of a La Niña. Warm water had built up in the Western Pacific. The rising air resulted in high pressure “dome”. The high pressure is steered by the jet stream to the Pacific Northwest.
Temperatures should return to normal soon.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Hmm. See
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
Yes, that animation shows the movement of the warm water very clearly.
It’s interesting, because now there is little surface warmth to form an El Niño. The forecasts are to go back to La Niña this fall. That’s now very possible.
Most forecasts say that it remain below the center, 0, position and then revert lower for this year.
“Temperatures should return to normal soon.”
LOL
That desperate wish sounds so pathetic.
Today’s high in Seattle is already 15 degrees lower than yesterday’s high.
It’s like it just can’t wait to get back to average, huh?
It was 43C yesterday in Seattle, Pup?
No one expects you to be able to convert from C to F, Willard.
You don’t even make a good stalker.
Just as no one would expect a troll to confess using F’s instead of C’s to inflate his bit, Pup.
Have some newsie:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/2-dead-from-heat-exposure-during-record-temperatures-monday-in-king-county/
Move along. Nothing to see.
I’m sure they handled it much better in the 1930’s. Thirty percent of Americans are obese.
Muricans have A/C tho.
And let’s no forget that the continent once lost 90% of its population.
So no biggie.
I don’t think they had much air conditioning in the 30’s. Maybe a few of the rich but I doubt in Seattle.
I grew up in Florida with no A/C. How times have changed.
I was in the Boy Scouts and we’d camp out in the swamp in July in Army pup tents and it would rain and we’d have four inches of rain in our tents with the Sun beating down on us. We had a blast.
6 minutes is not 3 minutes, stalker. But you’re getting closer.
Also lived in Idaho in 83 if I remember correctly and arrived in August when it was 110F and was there in February the next year when it was -50F. Experienced 160 degrees of temperature change.
> if I remember correctly
Cranky uncles acts are tougher since kids have cell phones.
Let the uncles work on that one:
https://www.almanac.com/weather/history/ID
I know I’m pretty close. I remember the Winter vividly. None of the cars would start for two weeks. Everyone had to ride buses. They ran the city diesel buses all night long to keep them from freezing.
I wonder if Bill Gates has A/C? Nah, he wouldn’t.
Good point:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/carbon-engineering-co2-capture-backed-by-bill-gates-oil-companies.html
How about you, Stephen: any investment into rolling coal vehicles? You need to put your money where your mouth is!
Woeful Wee Willy,
Good one! Suck all the CO2 out of the air! Exterminate all plant life! Wipe out all animal life as a result!
Presumably this will “stop climate change”, but nobody will be around to notice.
How much of your own money have you invested in this crackpot scheme? All of it I hope. You may learn a valuable lesson in prudent investing.
Carry on with the humour.
Mike Flynn,
It’s not about sucking all CO2 out of the air.
See?
That is a silly semantic game.
Silly Billy Willy,
Hang on there, partner.
You don’t read comments from Mike Flynn, but you do read comments from Mike Flynn.
You don’t know whether you’re coming or going!
Just go and play with yourself for a while – then you can be certain.
Do you have to practice being an idiot?
So how much CO2 are you going to suck out of the air? You only want to exterminate a portion of humanity? How noble of you.
You don’t intend to invest one penny of your own money, because you know how stupid tha5 would be.
Whose comments are you not reading now?
Mike Flynn,
You’re being silly again.
No need to read past your “You dont read comments” to see that.
Stop being silly.
“And lets no forget that the continent once lost 90% of its population.”
Was that when the Europeans arrived?
Bill’s one whacked-out leftist. Kind of like you, huh Willard?
I’m worse than Bill, Ken.
I’m a ninja.
No. You’re an idiot.
No U
s t . v w
relocating this as a new post since it may interest others.
rlhthanks for info re PDO and ENSO. I dont pretend to understand any of it but its obvious the AMO and PDO have a lot to do with varying global temps.
A while back, Roy made a comment about the effect of the AMO on Arctic temperatures. Its a misconception that the Arctic is warming as a whole, UAH contour maps show a month by month set of hot spots in the Arctic that move around month to month.
If I remember correctly, Roy inferred that the hot spots are related to AMO activity. In May 2021, the hot spot was located over the USSR, possibly above Moscow. In March 2021 it was over the North Atlantic. In Match 2020, there were two hotspots, one over Europe and the other over Siberia.
Remember, a hot spot showing +5C above the average in mid-winter, in the Arctic, is likely indicating -45C, or so.
Heres a link to the contour maps and if you browse through the archives can can see how much these hot spots move around month to month.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
archives..
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/archives.html
“but its obvious the AMO and PDO have a lot to do with varying global temps.”
Is it?
In fact, there is not much certainty on that at all.
“In fact, there is not much certainty on that at all.”
To say that they have no bearing at all would be to stretch credibility to its limits.
AMO and PDO are metrics capturing some aspect of variation in the spatial distribution of surface temperatures. By definition they are related to temperature anomalies in a spatial sense across time.
What is not obvious is the magnitude of their contribution to the progression of the global average temperature anomaly time series. That is, formal attribution studies to date, have not shown AMO and PDO to make a significant contribution to the long term warming pattern.
“To say that they have no bearing at all would be to stretch credibility to its limits.”
Is someone saying that?
The quote was, “its obvious the AMO and PDO have a lot to do with varying global temps.”
That isn’t so. The significance of their impact, if any, is uncertain.
Stories of Mars.
Mars ocean had ocean and it disappeared.
It disappeared by going into space, they have said.
But lately that was an reasonable story because a lot water disappearing into space, doesn’t appear to be actually happening anywhere.
Another story is the water turned into hydrated Mars rock.
There is a lot water in form of hydrated rock, everywhere one looks- there endless amount on Earth and space rocks are suppose to have a lot water in form of hydrated rock. Some space rocks are supposed to have more 25% of mass as water in form of hydrated rock.
And when heat the hydrate rock hot enough, the water become liberated from the rock. Any space rock big enough will become very, very hot, if it hits Earth, Mars, Venus, Mercury, or our Moon. A small space rock doesn’t get very hot if it hits a planet with atmosphere. A small space rock can cold when hit Earth surface, because the atmosphere can slow down a small rock, so only hits ground at around 300 mph. But bigger the rock the less the atmosphere can slow it down. Something 20 meter diameter rock if does explode mid air, will “land” more or less intact at velocity of say 20 km/sec [20 km/sec = 44,640 mph or 72,000 kph]
If large rock explodes mid air, then smaller parts of rock can land at lower velocity [as in about 300 mph- likewise be cold}.
If space rocks hit non air things at high velocity- they become hotter than the sun [they vaporize and look like nuclear bomb explosions]. Hit ground or ocean at high velocity it get very hot and large rock hitting atmosphere can make atmosphere similar hitting something denser. Basically air doesn’t time to get out of way. Or our atmosphere has mass of 10 tons from surface to space per 1 square meter, if space rock coming thru atmosphere at 30 degree angle, an atmosphere which can’t get out the way is 20 tons per square meter. So it’s very similar to space rock hitting wall with mass of 10 tons per square meter or going at 30 degree angle- 20 tons square meter. Or some of the rock vaporize [like nuclear bomb and some of rock could remain cold and fall at slower velocity to earth.
[Mars lacks atmosphere- or smaller rocks vaporize when hitting it’s surface, as compared to Earth.]
When space rock hits earth surface and vaporizes- it’s also vaporizing the earth surface. Or amount rock vaporizing is a lot more than the mass of space rock.
So if space rock with hydrated water of 25% of mass, hits a surface which has hydrated water of 25% mass, the water liberated by impact will be much more than water than within the space rock.
Or more hydrate water Mars makes, the more water will be liberated from Impactors.
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
So the question of what you need to do on Mars is answered: You need to get God to make a firmament and divide the waters which are under the firmament from the waters above the firmament.
I realize there isn’t a lot of engineering details provided. It is my thinking that banging the moon into the earth a couple of times was required to make the firmament thingy happen.
Unfortunately for Mars there was an argument by twits and trulls about whether the moon orbiting Mars rotates or not and so the scientists were distracted during the window of opportunity. The god Mars got annoyed and left. Now there is no hope of Mars ever getting an ocean.
My apology if that gets your firmament into a bunch.
That’s cute, Ken.
On an early Apollo mission, the astronauts read that same passage from Genesis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njpWalYduU4
Also, Mars has two moons, Phobos and Deimos. Unlike our moon, they are pathetically small. Neither rotates about its axis, just as Moon does not rotate about its axis.
NASA begs to differ
“This” NASA isn’t the same as the NASA of Apollo days.
No comparison.
Now they have better computers.
With the existing NASA management and agenda, better computers just provide more “Garbage in, Garbage out”.
You produce WAY more garbage than they ever could,
RLH, you trolled in within 3 minutes! You’re becoming a better stalker than Willard.
Good job.
Chance will do a lot of things. Which will include posting soon after you do.
“A quote might be nice for that”
I think it was only back in April.
April 22nd, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/?mc_cid=98f7be9b02&mc_eid=44e134bf32
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/68-models-vs-obs-1979-2021-oceans-Fig01.jpg
“A quote might be nice for that deflection,” Richard.
Also, “that” refers to this claim:
Finally, a citation isn’t a quote. So what would be a quote from that post that would support your claim? Please make sure you identify “the climate model” properly.
Thanks!
Wily Wee Willy,
Shifting the goalposts again? Deflection? You would be the authority for deflections, wouldn’t you?
Why don’t you try wriggling out of your silliness by playing “silly semantic games”?
Throw in a few extra demands, hoping that nobody realises that you have no power or authority, to compel them to comply! Tell them what they have to “make sure” of.
You are an idiot, Wee Willy. Good for a snigger, if nothing else.
Mike Flynn,
Seems that Richard does not live by your lack of rulz.
Such a shame.
Enjoy your afternoon,
Wee Willy Idiot,
You are starting to accept reality.
Previously you wrote to Mike Flynn –
“Mike Flynn,
The problem is that you believe I read your comments.
I don’t!
Cheers,”
It seems you now accept that I am Swenson, rather than Mike Flynn, as you have replied to me, showing you did, indeed, read Swenson’s (my) comment.
You could progress by abandoning these silly attempts at being gratuitously offensive by pointlessly addressing me as Mike Flynn. Or continue wasting your time by claiming you don’t read Mike Flynn’s comments, at the same time reading mine, while simultaneously claiming I am Mike Flynn.
Here’s a suggestion. Stop reading comments from Mike Flynn, or anyone whom you believe is Mike Flynn pretending he is not Mike Flynn!
Take it further – refuse to read comments from anyone at all, unless they specifically beg you to.
[laughter]
What do you think, Witless Wee Willy? Obviously no reply, because you refuse to read Mike Flynn’s comments, and you believe that I am Mike Flynn! You are not only an idiot, you are an illogical and inconsistent idiot.
Mike Flynn,
There is a point in calling you by your name.
You’re a sock puppet.
Deal with it.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote before –
“Mike Flynn,
The problem is that you believe I read your comments.
I don’t!
Cheers,”
If you truly believe I am Mike Flynn, why do you lie about not reading my comments? Liar, liar, pants on fire!
Where’s you honour, puppy? Do you lack moral rectitude, or just suffer from inability to carry out your intentions?
You are looking more pathetic by the minute, kiddo!
Does it annoy you that Dr Spencer doesn’t reply to your demands? Deal with it, dummy.
Mike Flynn,
You’re playing silly semantic games again.
Worse, it’s the same mistake as the “all CO2.”
I don’t read your comments: I skim them.
In fact I stop skimming as soon as you say one silly thing.
Which means I don’t need to read much.
And if I don’t read your comments in full, can I truly say that I read them?
No.
So I can say that I don’t read your comments.
If only we could suck CO2 the way you suck at semantic games.
Weird Wee Willy,
So you read comments by not reading them? Oh, I see. You “skim” them, by not “reading” them.
Wriggling away, you wrote –
“And if I dont read your comments in full, can I truly say that I read them?” Who cares what you say?
Liar, liar, pants on fire! The art of reading by not reading!
As well as being a wriggly Warmist worm, you are also a slimy lying grub. But, hey, you already knew that, didn’t you?
How is your non-investment in the CO2 sucking scam going? Not well, I would imagine. Suck away, Wee Willy, suck away.
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
You say
“So you read comments by not reading them?”
No need to read the rest of your comment.
More silly semantic games.
Idiot
No U
s t . v w
Can’t live with the rality of what I said was correct. How typical.
What did you say exactly, Richard?
That you are an idiot.
Here’s what you said, Richard:
“the climate model to measurement story”
What’s that?
That measurements of temperature world wide do not support what the majority of the climate models suggest would happen. As well you know.
Now that is a clear claim, Richard.
It’s not what Roy established and it’s a false one:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378
But at least it’s a clear claim, so it’s easier to refute.
Probly why you stick to graphs, irony, and dots.
Want to bet if the UAH is going up or down tomorrow (or the day or so afterwards)?
And you’re still an idiot.
Why should anyone care about UAH, Richard?
And No U.
You post on Roy’s site but don’t care about UAH?
I suppose nothing from you should surprise me.
Yes, Richard. I don’t, and I do.
Now, how about your sorry self: how do you reconcile your concern trolling about thermometers and your sucking up to Roy’s satellite data?
I post about Roy’s data the same ay I do about other sources.
No you don’t, Richard, but that’s irrelevant to what I said.
Idiot
Sanist?
Simple idiot.
No U.
RLH says: June 30, 2021 at 10:20 AM
Want to bet if the UAH is going up or down tomorrow (or the day or so afterwards)?
My expectation is that UAH will be down from May and probably below zero on the 1991-2020 baseline given that the NCAR daily numbers for June are low and that UAH has a lagging correlation with El Nino/La Nina.
Want to bet on the next decade vs the last? I’ll take the over on that one.
“My expectation is that UAH will be down from May and probably below zero on the 1991-2020 baseline given that the NCAR daily numbers for June are low and that UAH has a lagging correlation with El Nino/La Nina.”
Agreed.
“Want to bet on the next decade vs the last? Ill take the over on that one.”
Peak or average? The problem is more ‘how low will it go and for how long’.
Mark B says: My expectation is that UAH will be down from May and probably below zero . . .
From Dr Spencer’s blog post: “The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2021 was -0.01 deg. C, down from the May, 2021 value of +0.08 deg. C.”
Yea me! In truth, my central guesstimate would have been -0.07 C.
RLH says: Peak or average? The problem is more ‘how low will it go and for how long’.
For a climatically relevant betting period, I was thinking a decade average, that is, the average July 2021 through June 2031 will be greater than the average July 2011 through June 2021 using the UAH TLT global data series.
Let’s just start with next year shall we?
Which of the 68 would you like?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/68-models-vs-obs-1979-2021-oceans-Fig01.jpg
A simple quote would do, Richard.
“The 42 years of observations we now have since 1979 (bold black line) shows that warming is occurring much more slowly than the average climate model says it should have.”
That’s better.
Now, observations of what, and climate models projecting what?
Idiot
Wrong answer, Richard.
It’s (a part of) “SST” and “not-SST” (i.e. TAS):
Now, did you notice how Roy switched from “Global Warming” to “Global Ocean” and from “Predict” to “Projections” between his main title and the header I emphasized?
“Wrong answer”
Idiot is the correct answer to anything you say.
Then perhaps you’d prefer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-670932
Want to tell Nick that he’s an idiot, Richard?
You’re the idiot.
No U.
s t . v w
“Want to tell Nick that hes an idiot, Richard?”
Well if you at the post and the 2 lower panes, it is very difficult to tell what the differences are between what he posted and Roy did.
Go tell Nick, Richard.
All you did so far is to suck up to him.
If you call being critical ‘sucking up’
You haven’t been critical, Richard.
You threw him a feature request softball.
Willard says: Want to tell Nick that hes an idiot, Richard?
RLH says: Well if you at the post and the 2 lower panes, it is very difficult to tell what the differences are between what he posted and Roy did.
Stokes goes into detail on the issues and attempts to replicate Spencer’s analysis here, and performs the analysis with more complete data and improved methodology here.
And produces answers that barely differ from what Roy posed. I know. I looked. Without presupposing that either side was correct at first.
You, on the other hand, acknowledge clear bias against Roy. So it is hardly surprising that you come to the deliberately wrong conclusions you do.
Do a side by side comparison with the images I showed and tell me just how much they differ.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/68-models-vs-obs-1979-2021-oceans-Fig01.jpg
and
https://imgur.com/J8adMLl
and
https://imgur.com/51rinuj
They all show that the observations are to the bottom of the models. All they do is reduce the range that the models are wrong by.
The models are still wrong however.
All models are wrong. Some are useful.
Here’s Nick’s takeaway:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2021/04/no-global-warming-is-not-50-of-what.html
Let’s take Richard’s eyeballs for what they are.
RLH says: Do a side by side comparison with the images I showed and tell me just how much they differ.
They all show that the observations are to the bottom of the models. All they do is reduce the range that the models are wrong by.
Here’s a picture of CMIP6 models vs GISS LOTI using the combined model data from Nick Stokes’ second post.
cmip6ModelsVsGissLoti.png
For this I averaged the multiple runs for each of the eight models, applied an annual filter, and baselined to 1951-1980 consistent with the GISS time series.
If I’ve made an error I’d appreciate a correction, but I’m not seeing what you think you’re seeing.
Well as GISS is one on the hottest temperature records around, so what?
At least add in all the other competing temperature records too. Such as UAH.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/giss.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/globe-2.jpeg
“At least add in all the other competing temperature records too. Such as UAH.”
You think Troposphere Temps should be compared to Surface Temp Models?
No no no.
GISS trends differ very little from other surface trends, Had5, Berkeley, etc.
Temperature records inside the turbulent boundary layer such as GISS, Had5, Berkley, etc. tend to differ from TLT as measured from satellite.
Are you surprised?
Not at all, but you seem to be.
“You threw him a feature request softball.”
And pointed out a very simple algorithm for changing a globe into a Molleweide and vice versa. Sometime statisticians WILL insist on doing things the hard way.
“Not at all, but you seem to be.”
I am not. Indeed it would appear that all satellite data produces lower figures, AIRs included.
Sooner or later the ground based data will follow suit.
> Which of the 68 would you like?
There are 13 models, Richard.
There are 68 runs of those 13 models. Idiot.
Model runs of what, again, Richard?
Here:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2021/04/no-global-warming-is-not-50-of-what.html
Please go tell Nick that he’s an idiot.
So all that has been shown is that observations are towards the lower edge of the model runs, CHIP5 or CHIP6. Much as what Roy said.
And you’re still an idiot.
> all that has been shown is that observations are towards the lower edge of the model runs, CHIP5 or CHIP6
No, Richard. That has shown how much you failed. You failed to identify the datasets properly. You failed to identify the models properly.
You now fail to acknowledge the discrepancies in Roy’s story, and to acknowledge that projections are not predictions. Instead you’re backpeddling, now that you realize that what I was saying was based on Nick’s work.
And we have yet to touch the point that what Mike did isn’t even the same thing as what Roy did.
It’s not CHIP, btw.
Now comes the time where you’re supposed to tell me I’m an idiot.
Go ahead. I dare you, old man.
You’re still an idiot
Both the lower panes (not numbered) in Nick’s page show nothing that is significantly different to what Roy posted.
https://imgur.com/J8adMLl
and
https://imgur.com/51rinuj
No U.
s t . v w
“Dozens of people have died in Canada amid an unprecedented heatwave that has smashed temperature records.
More than 230 deaths have been reported in British Columbia since Friday as a historic heat wave brought record-high temperatures, officials said Tuesday.”
I propose that the government make it illegal to promote denialist nonsense. I would even go so far as to accuse them of complicity in heat-related deaths. They are the scum of the planet.
Statistically more people are killed by cold than by hot temperatures.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm
“Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings, published in The Lancet, also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.”
“This study indicates that, in high-emission scenarios, most regions are projected to experience a steep rise in heat-related mortality that will not be equalled by a reduction in cold-related deaths, resulting in a substantial positive net increase in mortality.”
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(17)30156-0/fulltext
So tell me, are the blue dots higher than the red dots in the below diagram drawn from that study?
https://imgur.com/JYrtaUH
“I would even go so far as to accuse them of complicity in heat-related deaths. They are the scum of the planet.”
This is why cults are so dangerous. They’re filled with hate and rage. And the worst part is they believe they are morally right, as they deny reality and accept false beliefs.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C. S. Lewis
DMT
Maybe look at historical data.
Here is a list of yearly all time highest temperatures in Portland. It gets above 1oo F frequently and some record highs did take place in June and even May. It does get hot in summer in this location. This summer had an extreme heat wave but it has been very hot there seems on a yearly basis. This record does not indicate a heat wave or duration of hot weather, it is just the hottest temperature recorded for a given year.
https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/OR/Portland/extreme-annual-portland-high-temperature.php
The NYT posted a graphic displaying the daily data for Portland yesterday. While they included only from 1979, the graph gives one a clear picture of what’s been occurring with this heat wave.
E. Swanson
If you went to the full record you would have much more points closer to the extreme highs of your graph. The list I had was only for the highest temperature. There are many points that are close to these high temperatures for days surrounding the high point.
Here is one example.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/monthly/us/or/portland/KPDX/date/1942-6
and
https://www.wunderground.com/history/monthly/us/or/portland/KPDX/date/1942-7
Also your graphic shows a 40 F variation between the low high and high high (for summer months, some highs in 60’s with some reaching over 100 F). With such a high degree of variability a short term heat wave is not conclusive proof that the future is a furnace. The average high for Portland in July is 80.6 F so nearly every year there are temperatures almost 20 F above the normal.
We are looking at an extremely small sliver of data and drawing some drastic conclusions.
> drawing some drastic conclusions.
Which ones?
> frequently
How frequently?
Idiot
No U.
s t . v w
Willard
In my count I got 51 temperatures in Portland Oregon 100 F or above out of 145 years. That would be more than once every 3rd year.
Norman,
How many events do you have above 110F and 115F can you count?
Max was 112F on Sunday and 116F on Monday.
Willard
There were none in the 145 years of data that reached those high temperatures.
The question to you, even if you only believe the Earth to be 6000 years old, is how much of a sample do we have? If you go with the Biblical Fundamentalist World view of a 6000 year old planet, you only have data covering 2% of this time scale.
This is the point RHL brings up for you to ponder.
With such a tiny data set of these precise measurements, how do we know this is such an abnormality?
The Climate Change panic may be no more than reaction to a much more observed Earth. Now we are aware of every severe weather event all around the world. I am not sure these events have not been happening all the time but not so observed by a global human mind that now sees every corner of this planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heat_waves
You can read some history. If you look at 1936 that was a year of extremes. It was one of the coldest winters then had one of worst heat waves of all time in the summer.
Kind of what happened this year. A very cold winter and record heat waves in the summer. The only difference is the regions affected. In 1936 it was the Midwest, this year it is the Northwest
US winter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%9321_North_American_winter
Norman,
Appealing to ignorance is a bit silly. You should be old enough not to do that. That being said, your constant “it could be worse” is par for the contrarian course:
http://georgiaballauthor.com/2018/01/16/picture-book-spotlight-could-be-worse/
Willard
You are not correct in your assessment of my post. I am not “appealing to ignorance”
I am clearly stating there is not enough data on weather phenomena to make and rational conclusion it is getting worse, better or staying the same.
I am more appealing to your rational logical mind.
Here is what “appeal to ignorance” states.
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-ignorance-fallacy.html
Pointing out the clear and obvious fact that we do not have even close to sufficient data to make determinations of weather events is not an appeal to ignorance. Just making an obvious observation.
> I am not “appealing to ignorance”
Indeed you do, Norman. Here:
And here too:
Here’s how it works:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.136.677&rep=rep1&type=pdf
You presume that you know enough to tell that you do not have enough evidence to tell anything about where the temperatures are going.
That’s clearly unsubstantiated, and in fact the best inference we can make is that you’re wrong. Dumping CO2 in the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow will raise, and things will get worse if we don’t do anything about it.
If you don’t it, read again:
ipcc.ch
Willard
I think you are not just on a different page than I am but a different book.
YOU: “You presume that you know enough to tell that you do not have enough evidence to tell anything about where the temperatures are going.”
I am not making this claim at all. I am talking only about extreme weather phenomena (which are rare by their nature of being extreme, be it extreme heat, cold, rain, wind).
The Evidence suggests strongly, that at this time, the globe is warming. This in no way suggests that extreme weather events are caused by this warming.
I do not really understand what point you are trying to make. It is does not seem remotely connected to what I am claiming.
Like a strawman argument. You are claiming I am saying one thing and you go to destroy that but it is not what I am saying at all.
Frequency of extreme events needs lots and lots of data. NOT JUST 150 years! extreme events are rare by nature. Portland has not had this high of temperature in 150 years. So to really find a frequency of extreme heat you need thousands of years of data.
Norman,
I know you don’t deny that there’s warming. You only minimize it. Minimization is one step away from denial:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com
First you tried “the current wave is a 1 out of 3 years event.” Then you switched to “we do not have have enough evidence.” Now you’re into “we do not have evidence at all.”
I mean, srsly.
Here is what we know. The recent North West heat wave surprised everyone, and first and foremost meteorologists. Not only they’ve never seen something like this, they did not expect anything like this so soon.
But beyond that event, attribution studies have looked into this since a while:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world
We may not know everything, but we sure don’t know nothing.
Wriggle, squirm, deny as much as you like. We are coming for you scum.
The coldest spot on earth today according to Nullschool earth is -67.8C. The Ice Isn’t Melting.
UAH satellite data shows temperature anomaly for May 2021 is pretty close to what it was in 1980.
Clearly global warming isn’t happening.
An extreme hot weather event isn’t an indicator of climate change.
Anyone who thinks otherwise isn’t cognizant of the science.
The sky isn’t falling. See Chicken Little for details.
Ken, if a day in Winter is the same temp as a day in Summer, does that cancel the difference between Summer and Winter?
Climate /= weather
“The coldest spot on earth today according to Nullschool earth is -67.8C.
”
Finding a place with extreme cold weather isnt an indicator of climate change.
Anyone who thinks otherwise isnt cognizant of the science.
“UAH satellite data shows temperature anomaly for May 2021 is pretty close to what it was in 1980.”
A brief cool weather event isn’t an indicator of climate change.
Anyone who thinks otherwise isnt cognizant of the science.
DMT,
About 435 people died from the 1896 heatwave in two states in Australia.
Apparently, no denialists (whatever they are) were prosecuted.
Nature remained unconcerned, and the vagaries of the atmosphere continued. Weather carried on. Floods, droughts, heatwaves, cold snaps, cyclones, tornados, and all the rest.
Some climate crackpots are convinced that can stop the climate from changing.
Not scum of the planet, just sad, deluded, inadequate wannabes.
You are number 1 on my list.
DMT,
Oooooh! How scared should I be – number 1 on a list prepared by a sad, deluded, inadequate, wannabe. Are you as impotent and powerless as Witless Willard, or do you possess the ability to strike me dead with a deadly lightning bolt hurled by your no-doubt muscular arm?
I suppose I should be grateful to be number 1 on an imaginary list in an anonymous idiot’s fantasy, but I remain unmoved.
You protest too much, methinks. The pangs of conscience?
Conscience?
Idiot
Look at you, Richard.
An old man, doing like Kiddo does.
Ageism?
No U.
Ageist idiot
Ableist No U egg sucker.
Idiot then
<3
Speaking of the 1896 heatwave, I’m sure Richard will appreciate:
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-was-the-1896-heatwave-wiped-from-the-record-33742
Temperature records world wide prior to the introduction of the Stevenson Screen were unreliable. Is that news?
Does that make the point measurements taken from then on a faithful representation of the bulk air temperature of the lower atmosphere between stations as well as at stations? No.
Not without considering a whole load of other factors that are used to make up the predicted weather for the next few days/hours at any given spot.
Which is likely to vary with every few hundred yards given the typical size of clouds and every few kms given the typical size of weather systems.
And climate is supposed to be the accumulation of weather.
> Not without considering a whole load of other factors t
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/no-best-practices/
Idiot
No U.
Sudden deaths in Canada.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57654133
Ent, just think how many would die if passenger jets tried to fly sideways and backward, as you believe.
The Clint R/DRsWMT puppet is seriously deranged.
The discussion is about people dying from the unprecedented heat wave in the NW US and Canada, but the troll butts in with it’s eternal Moon rotation Red Herring diversion. Guess what, a “passenger jet”, if somehow placed in orbit, could “fly” sideways or backwards, since there would be (almost) no atmospheric drag. Like any satellite, it would only “fly” straight and level if it were forced to do so by some control system which would maintain it’s orientation, including rotation, wrt the Earth below.
The discussion is about science and reality, and people that avoid both.
Guess what, a passenger jet does NOT fly backwards and sideways when circumnavigating Earth. But, your invalid model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” requires such nonsense.
Let’s make it really simple for you. A rocket put in orbit with the exact speed and altitude to remain in orbit would always have its nose pointing in the direction of its instantaneous linear velocity vector. It would orbit indefinitely with its nose always changing direction, due to gravity. It is NOT rotating about its axis.
You don’t have a clue about orbital motion. But, that’s not unusual for assistant janitors.
“You don’t have a clue about orbital motion.”
Thank god you are not in charge of any orbiting craft.
Clint R/DRsEMT, I don’t claim to be an expert on orbital mechanics, but the company I worked for paid for my tuition at university to learn the basics. You, however, still don’t know how ignorant you are.
We’re two different people, clown.
“A rocket put in orbit with the exact speed and altitude to remain in orbit would always have its nose pointing in the direction of its instantaneous linear velocity vector. “
Only if you VERY carefully set the rotation properly. If you have a rotation sensor on the spaceship and it reads zero, then the rocket will remain pointed in the same direction relative to the ‘fixed stars’ and the ‘nose’ will point backwards after half an orbit.
“It would orbit indefinitely with its nose always changing direction, due to gravity. “
No — not really. There is such a thing as “gravity gradient stabilization” where tidal torques can and do align satellites to remain “vertical” with the “nose” pointing either toward or away from the earth, but not “forward” (where we are assuming the “nose” is at the end of the long axis of the rocket). This is typically achieved by first reducing the rotation rate to about zero, and then letting the tidal torques achieve a rotation rate of 1 revolution per orbit.
https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/APL-V03-N05/APL-03-05-Fischell.pdf
Folkerts and Swanson must have gone to the same janitorial school. Neither knows crap about orbital motion.
In their perverted minds, it’s impossible for something to revolve without rotating (orbit without axial rotation). That’s why they hate the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. It destroys their cult nonsense.
So does the chalk circle on the edge of a revolving platform, or a racehorse on an oval track, or a 20-ft canoe in a 10-ft wide circular moat, or a circumnavigating jet, or ….
DRsEMT/Clint R, Nice of you to pop in for a comment. Looks like your first on this post, which has some 1,521 comments since June 19. What happened, did your Clint R half send you a text message from one side of your sock to the other side? Couldn’t restrain yourself from making a comment, could you?
I won troll.
I win, because I know that we’re two different people.
Be careful DREMT, Swanson may try to hit you with his mop.
> This is typically achieved by first reducing the rotation rate to about zero
I’m sure Dragons have a numerical model establishing when this happened for the Moon somewhere.
“In their perverted minds, it’s impossible for something to revolve without rotating (orbit without axial rotation).”
How in the world did you come to that conclusion??? Of course something can revolve without rotating. The two motions are independent.
In astronomy, “revolving” means “orbiting”. Satellites revolve around planets. Plants revolve around the sun. The solar system revolves around the center of the galaxy.
In pretty much any discipline “rotating” means changing orientation. And it turns out that “absolute rotation” can be determined. In any rotating reference frame, “fictitious forces” exist. To avoid having to deal with fictitious forces, clever people choose to measure rotations relative to non-rotating axes. In such a frame, the moon is indeed rotating one per month. The ISS with one side “down” is rotating once every 90 min. A horse on a merry-go-round is rotating once every time the merry-go-round turns.
If these objects where NOT rotating, then they would not be changing orientation with respect to the ‘fixed stars.
Here’s the kicker. Clint has no answer to what it would mean for a rocket in an elliptical orbit to be “not rotating”.
He just said that non-rotating rocket “would always have its nose pointing in the direction of its instantaneous linear velocity vector”. But guess what? This doesn’t describe a rocket in an elliptical orbit. It doesn’t describe the moon. It is ALSO false that the rocket would ‘keep one side directly toward the earth’.
The accurate description is that the rocket or moon rotates at a constant rate relative to the ‘fixed stars’.
No Tim, a horse on a merry-go-round is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis…same as every other part of the merry-go-round.
> In any rotating reference frame, “fictitious forces” exist.
Just like Dragons do in Climateball.
Folkerts, you can throw out more nonsense than anyone has time to answer. You trolls have nothing else to do. You don’t understand orbital motion, and you don’t even understand basic physics. You just abuse your keyboards, all day, hoping to somehow support your cult beliefs.
You’ve tried “rotation sensors”, “gravity gradient”, “tidal torque”, and “elliptical orbits”, among many other failed efforts. All easily debunked. So then you must resort to blatant falsehoods.
You can’t even answer a simple “yes or no” question!
You can’t come up with a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You’ve got NOTHING.
(Now, provide one of your 500-word, rambling, desperate, irrelevant dissertations.)
“a horse on a merry-go-round”
Tell me, is the Moon rigidly connected top Earth?
Tim brought it up, I just pointed out that it is not rotating on its own axis, rather it is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. Who cares about the moon? A wooden horse on a merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis. Start with that, first.
So what? The discussion is about if the Moon is like something else. Not what something else is or is not.
I am discussing a wooden horse on a merry-go-round. If by “so what?” you are acknowledging that the horse is not rotating on its own axis, then good for you. Discussion over.
RLH seems to always hit the wine about this time: “Tell me, is the Moon rigidly connected top [sic] Earth?”
RLH, you’ve already indicated you know NOTHING about this issue. Asking more stupid questions only makes you look that much more ignorant.
You’re not good at science. You need a new hobby. Have you considered coloring books?
Ball-on-a-string arguments assume rigid (or similar) connections. The Moon is not so connected to Earth. Fact.
More evidence you don’t understand any of this, RLH.
The ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of Moon. It’s a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You’re not good at science. You need a new hobby. Have you considered coloring books?
Have you considered studying science?
“orbital motion without axial rotation” is your fantasy.
E Swanson
Clint R is rather weak on reference frames.
I once described a passenger jet flying West along the Equator at an airspeed of 600 mph while being carried East at 1000mph by the Earth’s rotation.
Pup represents the Coriolis force of this blog.
Speaking of Coriolis force:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/28/ng-s-audit/
And I agree, Clint R is crass.
Ent, if you want to retreat from your passenger jet flying backwards and sideways, what is your model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
If you idiots don’t have a correct model, then you got NOTHING.
“orbital motion without axial rotation”
There is no such thing, except in your own imagination.
Yes RLH, you’ve got NOTHING.
entropic…”Clint R is rather weak on reference frames.
I once described a passenger jet flying West along the Equator at an airspeed of 600 mph while being carried East at 1000mph by the Earths rotation”.
***
You are weak on physics. A jet flying in the atmosphere west, or east, is unaffected by the speed at which the Earth is turning. The jet is not carried by anything other than local winds moving relative to the static atmosphere. If the atmosphere was moving independently of the surface, we’d be blown over by 1000 mph winds, and a jet with a maximum speed of 600 mph would be unable to fly into them.
The jet, like the atmosphere, is attached to the Earth by gravitational force, and since both the jet and the atmosphere are moving in the same reference frame, they are not working against each other.
The general atmosphere is static wrt the surface, it turns with it. A jet’s engines propels it by forcing gases into that static atmosphere, pushing against the atmospheric gases, therefore the jet is moving relative to the static atmosphere and not the surface rotating at 1000 mph. Winds within the atmosphere, which are moving parcels of air within the static atmosphere, will affect the jet, but not the static atmosphere turning at 1000 mph.
A more pertinent question is why a person jogging west is not affected by the Earth rotating under him at 800+ MPH here in Vancouver, Canada. I had asked myself why a person jumping in the air for 2 second does not experience large amounts of the surface move under him while he is in the air. That one is easy, obviously the person is carried along with Earth’s gravitational field, even when he is in the air.
Relativity is far more complicated than the simple equations offered wrt reference frames suggest. For example, the speed of a car, whether traveling N-S or E-W is measured by the rotating of the rear wheel. Actually, it has a gear inserted into the transmission with a gear ratio related to the size of the rear tires. Therefore, the velocity of a car moving west, even though the surface is moving 800+ MPH wrt the stars, is related only to the contact surface between the tires and the surface. It has nothing to do with the fact that the surface is moving at 800+ MPH wrt the stars.
If we are walking west at my latitude,with the Earth rotating at 800+ MPH, gravity is still carrying us along with the surface, whether we have jumped in the air, are walking on the surface, of are in mid-step. That’s why we are unaffected by the speed at which the Earth is rotating. We are being moved at exactly the same speed as the surface due to our gravitational attraction to it, therefore our motion is never relative to it. It may be to someone observing from another planet, but locally, it makes no difference.
You can create all the equations you want to explain the relative motion but they mean nothing unless the physical context is understood and stated.
That’s why Einstein’s claim about time dilation is wrong. He failed to understand that time is a constant by definition. It is based on the rotation of the Earth, which is a relative constant. Ergo, time cannot change in length unless the Earth’s rotation speeds up or slows down.
Although Einstein claimed in a paper on relativity that time is the hands on a clock, he seemed to also reason that time is an independent phenomenon like force or mass. It seems to me he arrived at that conclusion by observing reality via kinematics, which is the study of parameters like acceleration. He ignored the forces and masses involved and focused on the acceleration of bodies.
Acceleration is a real phenomenon that can be observed by the human eye as a change in velocity. However, to quantify it, we introduced the human invention of time. Coupled with the inability of a human observer to follow relative motion accurately that can become a disaster for observation.
If you think time is real, and you think the spacial coordinates introduced by human to define space are real, you end up in a delusion of space-time, hence time dilation.
> That’s why Einstein’s claim about time dilation is wrong.
THE GLOVES ARE OFF!
People need to understand that time and the measurement of time are 2 different things.
“Yes RLH, youve got NOTHING.”
Other than the accurate application of science.
“That one is easy, obviously the person is carried along with Earths gravitational field, even when he is in the air.”
Uffa!
> The Clint R/DRsWMT puppet
Two puppets, one to escape Roy’s ban like Mike Flynn, the other to have “a bit of fun.”
Way late again, stalker.
I was replying to Eric, Pup.
Idiot
<3
“A rocket put in orbit with the exact speed and altitude to remain in orbit would always have its nose pointing in the direction of its instantaneous linear velocity vector.”
Hmm, why are rockets shaped the way they are? Could it be for aerodynamics?
While in the atmosphere the nose must be forward to minimize drag.
Once in space, not so much. In fact most satellites in orbit don’t have a nose anymore.
Which way should their non-existent nose point??
The direction they are going in? : )
ABOVE 100F FREQUENCY UPDATE
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/heat-wave-dome-2021-seattle-portland-weather/
If anyone can find that measure, that’d be great.
Beradelli’s Twitter feed has a hand-wavy statistical argument
here, but the provenance of the statistic isn’t made clear.
No wonder why the Daily Fail is reporting a 1 out of 10K event:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9740487/Deadly-10-000-year-heat-dome-grips-Canada-230-dead-temperatures-climb-record-121F.html
Tracking back it looks like Beradelli picked the idea up from Robert Rhode’s Twitter feed, which states the Portland record as 4.3 standard deviations above the historic mean, presumably from a particular station’s seasonally-adjusted time series.
John Nielsen-Gammon tells me (pers. comm.) that taking the historic annual maximum temperatures for Forks, Washington, he gets 4 standard deviations. At 110F, that’s 33K years; at 109F that’s 13K.
At 111, it would have been 91K.
Willard
I think the actual time for the standard deviation would be days and not years.
The data points are in individual daily measurements. A 4 standard deviation gives a 1 in 15,757 chance. Or you may have one data point with this 110 F reading in 15,757 daily readings.
15757/365 = is 43 years.
I think the standard deviation given in the blog post was 4.3 which would be around 100,000 days or 274 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
Norman,
NG adjusted for years.
I think we can safely say that the Texas State Meteorologist knows about standard deviations.
Which means it has only happened about 120,000 times since mammals.
Don’t sell ourselves shorts, Stephen:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/mar/02/earth-may-have-been-a-water-world-3bn-years-ago-scientists-find
It’s still too cold.
I agree. We can survive warm. Cold we die.
Exactly:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/big-five-extinctions/
If we don’t survive, something else will anyway.
You finally get it. CO2 comes mostly from nature.
CO2 always come from nature, Stephen, even when it’s a byproduct of us dumping fossil fuel in the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow.
So let me get this thread: because people can die of natural cause they can’t die by murder?
An average person only gets to die once.
Willard,
Quip Master extraordinaire! The Artful Dodger! Can I be like you one day? Kamala!
” Which means it has only happened about 120,000 times since mammals. ”
And possibly 2021 is the first time since humanity arrived in North America 30,000 years ago during the last glacial period.
Well we are unlikely to have good records much before the 1830s or so.
“I noted that there was a period of cooling between 1400 (ish) to 1800 (ish) and a warming thereafter.”
Do you dispute that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were real things?
Care to work out what the uncertainty should be for the measurement of Medieval temps throughout their spatial configurations, Richard?
I’ve been told that some Nyquist criteria would be helpful.
“Ive been told that some Nyquist criteria would be helpful.”
Do you even know what they are and how critical they are to both DSP and sampling theorem?
“what the uncertainty should be”
There is no uncertainty that you are an idiot.
No U.
Willard: Read the Article. The statistical analysis is the ‘measure’. Its really a shoddy article trying to conflate the statistics with the climate change claptrap.
Thank you for your concerns, Ken.
willard…”By one measure it is more rare than a once in a 1,000 year event which means that if you could live in this particular spot for 1,000 years, youd likely only experience a heat dome like this once, if ever”.
Proof, absolute, that the warming has nothing to do with anthropogenic sources.
> Proof, absolute, that the warming has nothing to do with anthropogenic sources.
How so, Gordon?
Wayward Wee Willy,
Are you particularly slow today, or just demonstrating your usual inability to comprehend?
Mike Flynn,
Perhaps you could ask Gordon how he makes his inference?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Why should I take any notice of an idiot like you, who claims he doesn’t read my comments?
You seem confused. I am surprised you ask anything of Mike Flynn. Hasn’t he been banned?
Slyly accusing Dr Spencer of incompetence (as you have on more than one occasion), in an effort to have yourself censored so that you can complain loudly on other forums, just makes you look like a snivelling sneak.
If you have managed to read (or skim – your dimwitted attempt at evasion) this far, maybe you could explain to onlookers why you think that that Earth could not cool from its initial molten state.
Or you could just deny, divert, and avoid facing reality.
Mike Flynn,
TL;DR.
Willard
I am not sure how they calculate the “one time in so many years” occurrence for some extreme weather event.
From your Daily Fail link it seems this event has already taken place in less than 100 years.
North Dakota record high is 121 (same as the BC record high). The average temperatures for both locations are just about the same.
https://www.google.com/search?q=average+july+temperature+for+steele+north+dakota&oq=average+july+temperature+for+steele+north+dakota&aqs=chrome..69i57.19261j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
and
https://www.google.com/search?q=average+july+temperature+for+lytton+bc+canada&oq=average+july+temperature+for+lytton+bc+canada&aqs=chrome..69i57.26617j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Norman,
Here you go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-744362
mark b …”The consensus range following from theory/modeling, instrument period observations, and paleo data is something like 1.5-4.5K. Stating a narrower range like 1.8-3.0K leaves one open to accusations of undue confidence”.
***
Theory/modeling sums it up. The theory is wrong hence the modeling is wrong, therefore the sensitivity is wrong. There is no way that instrumentation has anything to do with the IPCC wacko PROJECTED warming of 1.5 – 4.5C. No one can measure the sensitivity of atmospheric warming to CO2 since there is no way to isolate the process to ensure accuracy. In fact, the warming effect attributed to CO2 is based strictly on consensus and wild guesses.
The best we can due outside of natural unknown processes is apply the Ideal Gas Law as if the volume of the atmosphere is pretty well a constant and the number of molecules a constant. Of course, that is complicated by the variation in the number of molecules at various altitudes per unit volume due to changes in the gravitational force with altitude and by the fact that the atmosphere is a dynamic process that is constantly changing its pressure levels.
Still, one can project a steady state situation based on a layered atmosphere, if necessary, while examining one layer to see the effect of CO2 in that layer. With a well-mixed gas, it should be constant, layer to layer.
If we apply PV = nRT to a theorized steady state it gives us a ball-park relationship between CO2 and the other gases in the atmosphere. With V, n, and R constants that reduces the equation to a directly proportional relationship between P and T.
According to Dalton’s Law, the partial pressures of each gas sums to the total pressure of the entire gas. Since P and T are directly proportional, it’s obvious that the temperature of each gas, based on its partial pressure, is roughly proportional to its partial pressure.
Since the partial pressure of each gas is roughly proportional to its mass percent, it becomes glaringly obvious that CO2 with an approximate mass percent of 0.04% is contributing no more than 0.04C per 1C warming in the entire gas. That’s a far cry from the alarmist bs of a 9 – 25% warming factor for CO2, which is programmed into the models.
The models are programmed incorrectly and that’s why they are projecting so much warming in relation to CO2 concentration.
“The models are programmed incorrectly and thats why they are projecting so much warming in relation to CO2 concentration.”
I think it is clear that the models are running hotter than the observations to date.
The only real question is how long will it be before they are outside of the observations.
“I think it is clear that the models are running hotter than the observations to date.”
That turns out not to be the case.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
Oh, but if you take Sea Temps and forget about latency…
Care to work out what the uncertainty should be for the measurement of sea temps throughout the whole column? Some Nyquist criteria would be helpful.
No U.
As usual, no articulate response. Just more idiotic drivel.
<3
rlh…”The only real question is how long will it be before they are outside of the observations”.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you but you seem to be wondering the outcome if we keep warming. That is a likelihood but there’s still no evidence that the cause is anthropogenic. We have only really been watching this with concern since the 1980s, and according to sources like Tony Heller, much of this observation has excluded data prior to 1960, or even 1940, when temps in the US and Canada were as hot as today.
It is being claimed that the warming in the 1930s was local to the US and Canada but was it? How do we verify that since there was no access to the USSR or China and no one really gave a hoot about global warming/climate change.
Why?
The notion of GHG-related warming had been proposed by Arrhenius in the 19th century. Why was no one concerned about global warming in the 1930s?
I have my own opinion and it comes down to Margaret Thatcher. She was having a lot of grief with local coal miners and an advisor suggested she use her degree in chemistry to baffle the UN into thinking coal emissions could lead to global warming. The concern at the time was not climate change.
The UN bought her argument but they had a conflict of interest. Since the 1960’s they had been looking for a way to impose taxes on nations to build a fund for poorer nations. They launched the IPCC to investigate only evidence of anthropogenic warming. It is no coincidence that the first co-chair of the IPCC was John Houghton, a climate modeler, and a protege of Thatcher.
The UN/IPCC has never been interested in alternative causes of warming. In fact, in TAR, they stated that future climate states cannot be predicted. That did not stop them using unvalidated models to predict future climate states anyway. The IPCC has been focused on anthropogenic warming and they have used unvalidated models as a tool to validate it.
They claim their periodic reviews are peer review but they are not. The reviews are run by politically appointed lead authors who are then assigned by Coordinating Lead Authors. Two of the CLAs were partnered, Phil Jones of Had-crut and Kevin Trenberth of NCAR, both being major alarmists. Jones claimed in the Climategate scandal that he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that certain skeptic’s papers would not reach the review stage.
When the review is completed by 2500 reviewers and their report is submitted it is re-written by a paper written previously by lead authors, called the The Summary for Policymakers. Lindzen reported that the statement regarding it being 90% likely that humans are causing global warming was not in the main report by the 2500 reviewers but added by lead authors as an amendment, based on The Summary.
In other words, the IPCC is a political body and corrupt. There model reviews and projections are just as corrupt.
“Maybe I am misunderstanding you but you seem to be wondering the outcome if we keep warming.”
No I am observing that if Roy’s measurements continue on the trajectory they are on now, then they will be below what the models say quite soon.
rlh…”No I am observing that if Roys measurements continue on the trajectory they are on now, then they will be below what the models say quite soon”.
I see, you mean if they keep descending.
I’m not so sure they will. I think Syun Akasofu is onto something with his claim that we are rewarming at 0.5C/century from the Little Ice Age. Depending where you read it, the LIA caused global cooling of 1C to 2C. How high the temps will go before leveling off is unclear. I don’t think any warming will be more than a few tenths C but it may continue to warm.
Personally, I think we may be caught in a long term warming related to the oceanic oscillations. I just hope we get some politicians who can think clearly. Here in Canada, it’s like a Jehovah’s Witness climate convention with politicians quoting climate alarmists verbatim while failing to hear opposing opinions, or even acknowledge them.
You are referring to this?
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).”
I doubt +0.14 C/decade will continue for decades.
And it seems to me, Roy has make a case for it not doing so.
I am looking for what I mean specifically, but while at hear is another thing:
“I have always assumed that we are on track for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (“2XCO2”), if not 3XCO2 or 4XCO2. After all, humanity’s CO2 emissions continue to increase, and even if they stop increasing, won’t atmospheric CO2 continue to rise?
It turns out, the answer is probably “no”.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/will-humanity-ever-reach-2xco2-possibly-not/
But I also have other reasons for also thinking, probably, no.
But back finding what I was specifically referring to regarding my impression, that Roy made a case it not doing so. Here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/half-of-21st-century-warming-due-to-el-nino/
Maybe also other article related- but that too long to find as it was.
But enough about Roy.
My opinion is we are recovering from Little Ice Age- and at some point it seems we will stop recovering from Little Ice Age.
If anyone wants argue this recovery ended 50 or 100 years ago or going end another 50 or 100 years. I am willing listen any reasons given, but tend think somewhere within decade or two. Or perhaps rather just matter of time it’s mostly a matter of an unpredictable event which will occur.
But returning to basics, global cooling or warming is not about changes in the average temperature of tropics. Or specifically there will not be a hot spot, nor has there ever been one.
We are in the cooler part of the Holocene Period- we have past our peak, and I see no reason we will have second peak. I think second peak would be good and I favor anything which could cause it. CO2 levels obviously didn’t cause our past peak, nor should CO2 cause a second peak. I tend to think greening the Sahara Desert could cause more warming than doubling of CO2. There undoubtable correlation between warmer world and green Sahara desert. But other than correlation, it seems wetter Sahara should cause a global increase in surface air temperature.
So not only does global warming, green the Sahara, but a green Sahara causes global warming.
But as far as predicting future it seems, that “soon” Africa will probably unite and have the economic power to green the Sahara Desert. And also, “The Left” will falsely claim all the credit for this happening.
“I see, you mean if they keep descending.”
Well a couple of days now will show what the last month brings. The rest of the year will show what the later half of this year brings.
Any guesses as to what those will be?
–RLH says:
July 1, 2021 at 2:17 AM
“I see, you mean if they keep descending.”–
Well, I mean, global average temperature is the average ocean temperature of 3.5 C.
Which dropped a bit during Little Ice Age, and has since risen a bit over last 100 years or so.
We have not and aren’t currently accurately measuring the ocean temperature.
Nor are currently accurately measuring global average surface air temperature which is which commonly called the global average temperature.
Nor have we melted all the ice gained during the Little Ice Age- but I place average temperature of ocean as main aspect determining global air surface temperature. Or could also call it, the equilibrium surface temperature.
Or average ocean temperature determines when one has higher global temperature during an interglacial period. And determined whether you in an icehouse global climate.
Or if add 10 C to ocean temperature, that determines how close one is to being in a greenhouse global climate.
5 C added would be a normal global average temperature- which we have not had for 34 million years.
Some have said:
–Change over time
More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Recent studies estimate that warming of the upper oceans accounts for about 63 percent of the total increase in the amount of stored heat in the climate system from 1971 to 2010, and warming from 700 meters down to the ocean floor adds about another 30 percent.–
I would agree, but I also say, or I would extent this to:
More than 90 percent of the warming [or cooling] which has happened on Earth has occurred in the ocean.
I would agree that amount of cooling of the ocean is unknown, and the amount of heating of ocean by geothermal heat is also unknown.
Either or both could be major part related to global climate.
Or what causes cooling of ocean which caused the Little Ice Age is
still not known.
How does a warmer interglacial ocean cool, and how does the colder glaciation ocean warm up.
But think our ocean has been cooling for over 5000 years.
I think we all can agree it’s not related to CO2 levels.
Unless you want support the idea that low CO2 levels causes the entire ocean to warm.
I don’t believe lower global CO2 levels causes warming, any who says it does, has not provided me any convincing evidence.
A related topic is cooling effect of CO2 in the upper atmosphere- that seems like more popular idea, but also no one has said how much cooling CO2 does in upper atmosphere.
I would say water vapor {which is greenhouse gas] is involved with a lot cooling in upper atmosphere. But I would say it’s actually water droplets formed from water vapor.
So, if you want to call clouds a greenhouse gas, I don’t disagree or need an explanation of how “greenhouse gases” can cool in upper atmosphere.
> The theory is wrong hence the modeling is wrong,
It would actually be the other way around, Gordon.
I would suspect the models are more likely to be more incorrect than the measurements even though there is a good chance that they too are incorrect in precise detail.
Whacko Wee Willy,
Dimwitted climate cranks have no theory. They have poorly written computer programs which produce, at great expense, nothing of use.
Anybody who believes that the Earth has not cooled from a much hotter state to its present temperature is quite simply not thinking rationally.
If you say “Ah, but CO2 in the atmosphere slowed the rate of cooling, just like a blanket slows the cooling of a corpse . . . “, then I say “Duh!”.
Cooling to a lower temperature is not heating, you incompetent nincompoop.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Ah, Weary Wee Willy,
Retreating into your fantasy can’t hide the fact that your devious attempts to manipulate Dr Spencer to ban me, by insisting I am someone else, don’t seem to be working all that well.
Your nonsense just confirms the fact that you are incompetent as well as impotent.
I suppose you think that your neurotic silliness obscures your inability to deny that the Earth has cooled from a hotter state.
No, Witless Wee Willy, the universe is not influenced by your fantasy.
But carry on as though it is, if it brings you contentment. It doesn’t seem to do any harm to anyone. Just another anonymous nitwit, ignored by most, and derided by others.
Have you changed any physical facts with your “silly semantic games” recently?
Managed to stop the Earth cooling have you?
[Snort]
Mike Flynn,
Anything else?
willard…”> The theory is wrong hence the modeling is wrong,
It would actually be the other way around, Gordon”.
***
Maybe to someone like you, lacking the ability to understand physics and thermodynamics. Or the ability to understand the trash physics programmed into the models.
Gordon,
Models fall down before theories.
That’s just a fact of the scientific life.
Weary Wee Willy,
Climate crackpots like you have no theories.
That’s because you live in a bizarre fantasy, where the Earth refused to cool.
Your’e an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
You were saying?
Weary Wee Willy,
So you are slow, as well as stupid, are you?
Oh well, I try to help those less fortunate than myself, so –
Climate crackpots like you have no theories.
Thats because you live in a bizarre fantasy, where the Earth refused to cool.
Mike Flynn,
Go on.
Gordon,
0.04% * 1 C = 0.0004 C
So it’s even worse than that.
rlh…”orbital motion without axial rotation
There is no such thing, except in your own imagination”.
A guy with your ability should be able to see this no problem. Think of the Moon as a monorail car moving on an elliptical monorail. The car behaves exactly like the Moon re motion but it cannot possible rotate on a local axis. The monorail won’t allow it to rotate.
The Moon’s orbit is strictly translation with no local rotation.
The Moon is in freefall around Earth. It is not fixed to anything. It operates solely under the influence of Gravity.
RLH,
Precisely.
The amazing and beautiful thing is that the Moon is travelling at a speed which is almost exactly that which is needed to ensure that the Moon doesn’t fall on our heads, nor fly off into space.
Not quite exactly, because the Moon is actually moving away from the Earth – very slowly.
Not unusually, the NASA/NOAA explanation involving “transfer of torque” or some similar nonsense, is widely promoted. Brightly coloured pictures and sciency sounding words don’t necessarily reflect reality.
All is well, though. Luckily, Nature can’t be fooled!
Right on:
https://youtu.be/mkjwxmcdb0E
swenson…”Not quite exactly, because the Moon is actually moving away from the Earth very slowly”.
I have seen that written but I am skeptical. You explained the effect of linear momentum well and if the momentum increases, the orbit becomes more elliptical and the Moon will eventually break out of orbit on a parabolic path if linear momentum becomes great enough.
If it loses momentum, and gravity remains as it is, the Moon should move into a more circular orbit. If it loses even more, it should move toward losing orbit and that would be disastrous for us.
I can’t see any good explanation for why the Moon should move further from the Earth based on orbital mechanics theory, provided gravitational force does not weaken. Even then, it’s not clear to me why it would move further away.
I prefer to reason there are mistakes in the measurements that show it moving further from the Earth. Or maybe the Moon is losing mass somehow, reducing its diameter, or maybe shrinking in size. 🙂
swenson…just occurred to me that maybe the Earth is losing momentum and its orbit becoming more circular. That would explain the appearance of it moving away since the radius of a circle would be greater than the flattened ellipse.
“The amazing and beautiful thing is that the Moon is travelling at a speed which is almost exactly that which is needed to ensure that the Moon doesnt fall on our heads, nor fly off into space.”
You ever heard of orbits? You know that magical thing which provides just that effect you are describing.
rlh…”The Moon is in freefall around Earth. It is not fixed to anything. It operates solely under the influence of Gravity.”
I understand that it’s not attached to anything, I meant the monorail analogy only to indicate that the same side of the monorail car always points to the inside of the oval but that the car cannot rotate locally, even though it continually changes orientation.
I don’t agree with the free fall argument even though I have seen it presented. Free fall requires an acceleration and acceleration requires physical movement. You can apply a force to a body, and even though Newton II says F = ma, it is not explained that the force must have the strength to accelerate the mass. If it doesn’t. the mass does not move.
The Moon is a rigid body with only instantaneous linear momentum. There is no angular momentum produced by the Moon itself. However, when gravity acts on the Moon, it does apply a force perpendicular to the instantaneous momentum of the Moon. That causes the Moon’s instantaneous linear momentum to slightly change direction. The total effect of these instantaneous changes in direction produces the orbit.
Newton once described inertia as an internal force that acts to resist the effect of an external force applied to a mass. To me, momentum is similar in that it resists a change in the reduction of velocity of a body. With the same mass, moving at the same velocity, the body also has inertia which resists an increase in velocity. Therefore, if inertia can be described as an internal force, why can’t momentum be described in the same way?
As long as that body flies freely, there is no force represented by momentum. However, if that body crashed into a body with significant mass, its momentum would produce a proportional force on the other body. As I see it, we could calculate the equivalent force produced by the momentum, or the force required to stop the momentum, reducing the velocity to zero, and substitute that force for the Moon’s momentum to calculate a resultant with Earth’s gravitational force.
If you set up a vector diagram using that pseudo-force, you’d have the force at right angles to gravitational force and the resultant would be a tangent line to the orbital path. You can certainly claim their are accelerations involved but do they result in a free fall? In fact, the resultant motion of the Moon is never toward the Earth, it’s at a considerable angle to the vertical.
If you set up that fictitious force again, along with gravitational force, you can see that the effect of the fictitious force, representing lunar linear momentum, is significantly greater than gravitational force, explaining the elliptical orit rather than a circular orbit. You can see that the angle between the fictitious force and the orbital resultant force is much smaller than the angle between the resultant and gravitational force. That means the Moon’s momentum has a lot greater effect than gravity.
GR,
As you say –
“However, when gravity acts on the Moon, it does apply a force perpendicular to the instantaneous momentum of the Moon.”
Resulting in an acceleration towards the Earth of about 1/3600 th of that at the Earth’s surface, in line with the inverse square law.
Theory confirmed by observation.
swenson…”Resulting in an acceleration towards the Earth of about 1/3600 th of that at the Earths surface, in line with the inverse square law”.
Not disagreeing…don’t know enough about it. Here’s how I learned to analyze this stuff in engineering classes. Let me know what you think.
The problem I have is that acceleration is a change in velocity produced by a force, and under the conditions in which the Moon exists that velocity would not be reversible if it was pointed in any way toward Earth. You can’t keep accelerating a body for millions of years and have its momentum or position remain constant.
Acceleration at the surface = g = 9.8m/s^2. That is a vector pointing straight from a body to the Earth’s centre. However, looking at accelerations can be deceiving if you don’t consider the mass and forces involved.
I think the Moon is receiving almost the full force causing the 9.8 m/s^2. It’s a bit lower than 9.8 m/s^2 at the altitude of the Moon. If it was receiving only 1/360th of that acceleration it would mean it was receiving only 1/360th of gravitational force and it would definitely fly off out of orbit in such a case.
Because the Moon also has a tremendous momentum, due to its mass and velocity, it can overcome the effect of Earth’s gravity to the point it ends up following a resultant path that points away from the Earth, along the elliptical orbit. If it is accelerating in any way, it has to be along that resultant vector direction.
If the Moon did have an acceleration toward the Earth, it would need to have a velocity toward the Earth as well, therefore its position toward the Earth would have to change. It doesn’t. It’s position changes in an orbit around the Earth without moving toward the Earth at all.
As I tried to point out to rlh earlier, Newton II can only apply if the f in f = ma, is strong enough to move the mass. I don’t think gravitational force needs to move the Moon toward Earth, all it has to do is divert the linear momentum of the Moon so it follows a resultant path that points away from Earth and along the orbital path.
I have heard that in an elliptical path, the orbiting body does accelerate and decelerate during an orbit but I don’t think that’s the same thing.
GR,
The Earth’s gravitation reduces with the square of the distance from the Earth’s centre. The Moon is about 60 times further away than the surface, so the force of gravity is about 1/3600th that at the surface.
So you need to divide your 9.8 by 2 (v=1/2 at2) by 3600, giving about 1.25 mm/sec2.
So in a second the Moon falls 1.25 mm toward the Earth, but has moved 1.25 mm further away from the Earth, due to its straight line velocity of around 1030 m/sec. Net result – remains the same distance from the Earth, in an elliptical orbit.
Why elliptical? Because Newton’s Law of Gravitation is Universal. Everything in the Universe attracts everything else! Hence, elliptical orbits for stars, planets, moons etc.
Very condensed, left out chaos, and used approximations. So the Moon continuously fall around the Earth, always presenting its heaviest side to the Earth, just like a stopped pendulum. If you think that is rotation, fine, I agree. If not, fine, I agree. If you say “You can’t have it both ways!”, fine, I agree.
“Therefore, if inertia can be described as an internal force, why cant momentum be described in the same way?”
Because it is not correct and obviously leads you to erroneous conclusions.
The freefall observation was about the Moon’s orbital revolution around the Earth.
Its rotation about its axis is governed by rotational inertia. Relative to the fixed stars that is.
“Free fall requires an acceleration”
Not heard of the acceleration of Gravity then?
Is Gravity a force?
Does the continuous application of a force lead to acceleration.
Have you heard to the 3 Laws of Newton?
https://www.britannica.com/science/Newtons-laws-of-motion
Anybody else curious about this fascination with the moon?
It is as if when bad news arrives they all retreat to their happy place. Anything to distract themselves from the hard cruel facts.
dmt…”Anybody else curious about this fascination with the moon?
It is as if when bad news arrives they all retreat to their happy place. Anything to distract themselves from the hard cruel facts.”
Cheer up, we’re only treading water till Roy’s June report is ready., Help’s us skeptics keep a relationship going with the alarmists, none of whom agree that the Moon does not spin on a local axis.
By “us” you must be referring to Moon Dragons, Gordon. There are only three of you. Mike Flynn has yet to commit himself.
That means you’re not only opposed to those who embrace the established view regarding AGW, but also to all the other contrarians at Roy’s.
Moon Dragons are rare. Outside blogs, they don’t exist.
willard…”That means youre not only opposed…”
I didn’t say anything about opposed, I talked about relationship. We compassionate skeptics are merely trying to affectionately point out the errors of your alarmist ways.
Gordon,
Most people here are contrarians that reject anything Dragon-related. Moon stuff, Sky stuff, any other Dragon stuff. You don’t speak for them.
This ain’t your blog. You’re not even playing home.
The main reason why Moon Dragons have appeared here is because Tim, who’s not exactly an alarmist, fell for Pup’s bait. But since it was to cite this document:
https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/APL-V03-N05/APL-03-05-Fischell.pdf
I think it was worth it.
Have you read it?
Silly Billy Wee Willy,
More obscure and cryptic attempts to appear intelligent? Dragon related?
Moon Dragons? Are you sure you don’t mean Unicorns? The Man in the Moon, perhaps?
Maybe you should have a blog of your own. It is quite obvious that you have no power over the contents of this one.
Putting your mad speculations forth as fact, just makes you look irrational. Are all climate crackpots as delusional as you? Or more so – just look at Michael Mann and his claims to a Nobel Prize! He even printed up his own award! What a guy!
Mike Flynn,
Sky Dragon. Moon Dragon. Anything Dragon.
Even you should be able to understand that one.
Folkerts found that link, and young Willard swallowed it whole.
The link is about “gravitational torque”, which is related to the “tidal locking” nonsense. Which is related to the Moon rotation nonsense.
So, here’s a simple problem for Willard, or any of the other idiots:
A barbell is in stable circular orbit around Earth at high enough altitude there is no atmosphere. The bar travels tangent to the orbit, with the heavy end (front) having twice the mass of the other end (rear). Assume ends are point masses, to make calculations easier. The separation of the two masses is 1 meter. The 1-meter bar has so little mass, it can be ignored. Use “g” for the acceleration due to gravity. (No numbers needed, just “g”.)
Find the torque due to gravity on the barbell.
(It’s a simple problem, but watch their contortions as they try to avoid it.)
Please, no help from Non-Spinners.
The Earths gravitational field varies inversely with distance from the Earth, thus the gravitational field varies slightly across a satellites length. This difference in acceleration causes a torque on the satellite. As a first order approximation, this torque is constant along the satellites orbit for an Earth-orientated vehicle and can be approximated as follows:
Tg=3μ2R3|IzIy|sin(2θ)[Nm]Tg=3μ2R3|IzIy|sin(2θ)[Nm]
In here, μμ is Earths gravitational constant (398600km3/s2398600km3/s2) and R is the orbital radius (dependent on the satellites altitude). IzIz and IyIy are the moments of inertia referring to the z- and y-axis. The moments of inertia are highly variable depending on the exact satellite design, to find out how to calculate them, give these different sources a look. Note that IyIy is interchangeable with IzIz, and as we are trying to find the worst-case torque, the moment of inertia which gives the highest torque should be used. ΘΘ is the maximum angle the local vertical makes from the z-axis,
You don’t give enough information to do the calculation for your barbell, so I’ll let you do it.
That’s contortion #1. Thanks, Ent.
Any other Spinners want to play? Folkerts? Swanson? Willard? RLH?
You bend over backwards in order to make science conform to your limited way of thinking. Almost like flat Earthers do.
That’s contortion #2. Thanks RLH.
> no help from Non-Spinners
Who?
That you are the ‘flat earther’ of physics?
Willard, we’re still waiting for you to solve the simple problem.
And where are Swanson and Folkerts?
Ball-on-a-string is made up physics for anything to do with Gravity.
> We’re still waiting
Who’s that We, Pup?
Right after you do the Poll Dance Experiment.
That’s wrong, RLH.
The simple analogy comes from the discoveries of Newton. He was the first to prove how gravity affects an orbiting body. He had to invent calculus to do it. His work revealed that gravity would change the direction of the body. If the body had no axial rotation, the same side would always face the inside of the orbit, just as Moon does.
Do you have another model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” you would like to present?
And, where’s your solution for the simple problem involving “gravitational torque”.
It’s like you’re all talk but no action, all show but no go, all foam but no beer. You’re kinda like just another phony, huh?
“His work revealed that gravity would change the direction of the body. ”
Wrong. He never said that. Ever.
Path and direction are 2 separate things.
RLH, you just keep throwing out nonsense.
Do you have a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” you would like to present?
And, where’s your solution for the simple problem involving “gravitational torque”.
It’s like you’re all talk but no action, all show but no go, all foam but no beer. You’re kinda like just another phony, huh?
“Find the torque due to gravity on the barbell.”
In the circumstances given, the torque is zero.
If you want to impress someone, find the torque at some arbitrary angle. And tells us what non-zero kinetic energy you get for a 1000 kg car parked in my driveway.
Dang, TF got it correct!
And, he didn’t even hedge much. There wasn’t his usual rambling in circles. It’s almost like he knew he had made a fool of himself upthread.
Anyway, here’s the solution:
Step 1 — Find center of mass.
Point masses are “2m” and “m”. Bar connecting masses is 1 meter in length, and has negligible mass.
Let r = distance from 2m to center of mass.
Let (1-r) = distance from m to center of mass.
Then:
2mr = (1-r)m
2r = 1-r
3r = 1
r = 1/3 meter from large mass (front)
Step 2 — Find net torque
2mg(1/3) = 2mg/3 CCW (+) from center of mass
mg(2/3) = 2mg/3 CW (-) from center of mass
Net “gravitational torque” on barbell = 2mg/3 – 2mg/3 = 0.0
Gravity does NOT provide torque.
“Gravity does NOT provide torque.”
This is true in the situation stated. It is true to a first order approximation in other situations, but it is NOT true in general.
If the dumbbell is rotated 45 degrees so that the 2 kg side is closer to the earth, then the corrected equations in this situation are
2mg[2](1/3)cos(45) = (2^0.5)mg[2]/3 CCW (+) from center of mass
mg[1](2/3)cos(45) = (2^0.5)mg[1]/3 CW (-) from center of mass
where g[1] is the gravitational field at the 1 kg mass, and g[2] is the gravitational field at the 2 kg mass. Since the 2kg mass is closer to the earth than the 1 kg mass, g[2] > g[1]. This creates a torque turning the 2kg down toward the earth. This leads to the result that Entropic Man gave and that went right over Clint’s head. If Clint had bothered to read and understand the paper, he would have learned this.
That said, for most practical purposes, we can assume g[1] = g[2] and that this torque can be neglected. But if you intentionally make the satellite ‘long’ with a mass at the end of a long tether, then the torque can become significant. Or if the earth pulls on an elongated moon, it can apply a torque, and eventually ‘tidally lock’ a moon.
“Do you have a model of orbital motion without axial rotation you would like to present?”
There is no such thing as “orbital motion without axial rotation” except in your own deluded mind. Therefore there is no model for it either.
Newton described the path of objects in his famous cannonball thought experiment. He said nothing about its orientation during that flight.
“Its like youre all talk but no action”
It’s like you’re a ‘flat Earth’ idiot.
“But if you intentionally make the satellite long with a mass at the end of a long tether, then the torque can become significant.”
It’s almost like someone had actually created and built a satellite to check this theory and then flown it into orbit to prove that their theory was correct : )
I thought it was strange that we did not get Folkert’s usual rambling in circles. But then he came through for us….
“This is true…but it is NOT true”
Then, he rambled into his confused physics, including an “elongated moon” and torque that will “eventually tidally lock a moon”!
The poor guy is lost in his cult’s anti’science. He can’t understand that “tidal locking” doesn’t work. He tries to make up “special situations”, but even those fail. And he can’t understand why.
You can’t change reality.
“He cant understand that “tidal locking” doesn’t work.”
Whereas just about everybody else in the world thinks that tidal locking is correct and only that only you flat earthers are incorrect
“Just about everybody else in the world” is as uneducated in science as you, RLH. That makes them easily led by corrupt organizations like NASA.
How does it feel to be a sheep?
RLH says: “There is no such thing as ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’.”
I think you need to rethink this. There *is* such a thing! (Although this is just semantics).
You clearly understand “orbital motion” as simply a path due to gravity, since you state “Newton described the path of objects in his famous cannonball thought experiment.”
So “without axial rotation” is simply no rotation of the orbiting object relative to a non-rotating reference frame, ie no rotation relative to the ‘fixed stars’.
[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
TF. yes RLH is spouting nonsense, but you’re still confused about axial rotation.
By your example, a ball-on-a-string would have axial rotation, because you are judging by the “fixed stars”. But, “fixed stars” are the wrong reference frame. If the ball is actually rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it. Since the string is not wrapping, the ball is not rotating. It has no axial rotation.
> “fixed stars” are the wrong reference frame
Here, Pup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_(mathematics)
You need more training. Do the Poll Dance experiment.
Willard, you couldn’t answer the simple problem. In fact, you ran from it.
You’ve got nothing. But, you run fast….
“TF. yes RLH is spouting nonsense …”
RLH is ‘spouting nonsense’ in one limited sense. Clint is spouting nonsense nonstop.
The latest is his simultaneous insistence that:
a) tidal locking ‘doesn’t work’ and gravity exerts no torque.
b) gravity would change the direction of a body, which is achieved by gravity exerting a torque.
The measured change in the moon’s orbit is clear evidence that the earth is exerting a torque on the moon. The lengthening of the day is clear evidence that the moons is exerting a torque on the earth. Earth is losing angular momentum and the moon is gaining angular momentum — and overall angular momentum is conserved. The earth will eventually become tidally locked with the moon, just like like the moon is tidally locked with the earth.
Again, this will almost certainly go over Clint’s head, but others might find it interesting.
TF, you can throw out so much nonsense I don’t have time to address it all. It’s all bunk. So I’ll just debunk one, thereby debunking it all.
You believe: “The measured change in the moon’s orbit is clear evidence that the earth is exerting a torque on the moon.”
That’s so stupid that I can debunk it in two sentences — Gravity causes a change in direction. Torque causes axial rotation.
You might as well just throw one piece of garbage at a time because I only have time for one.
“Gravity causes a change in direction. Torque causes axial rotation.”
Now demonstrate that Gravity causes Torque without asymmetry being involved. Such as in Tidal Locking.
Gravity can NOT create torque on Moon, RLH.
Here’s the solution to the simple problem you couldn’t solve:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-743470
“Gravity can NOT create torque on Moon, RLH.”
Gravity cannot create torque on a sphere. But the Moon is not spherical under the Earth’s gravitational field.
It is shaped in such a way as to create a bulge towards Earth. That will create tidal locking over the millennia.
Tidal locking forces are quite small. Very, very small when compared to the orbital forces, but enough to create the effects we see.
RLH, you were unable to understand the simple problem, and the resulting implications.
You don’t understand any of this. You can’t learn.
Let me know if anything changes.
CLINT says “You believe: “The measured change in the moon’s orbit is clear evidence that the earth is exerting a torque on the moon.” ”
I *believe* it because it is true.
The moon’s orbit is slowly getting larger.
As the radius, r, of the orbit gets larger, the angular momentum gets larger L = mvr.
The only way to increase angular momentum is a torque.
The only torque is caused by the earth and tidal interactions.
This is confirmed by the fact that earth’s spin is slowing and its angular momentum is decreasing by the same amount, as expected from the law of conservation of momentum.
All of this is easily confirmed, and you would know all this already if you had a clue about orbits, gravity, and tides.
Somebody doesn’t know what G to use and insists on using g when he should be using G.
Pancake batter.
TF, you’re abusing your keyboard, devoid of any science, again.
Gravity causes a change in direction. Torque causes axial rotation.
Moon has ZERO angular momentum. Your “L=mvr” is a mathematical construct. It is meaningless. If gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would go into space, with NO axial rotation.
You could calculate an “mvr” for anything, but without understanding physics it may be meaningless. You can walk around a tree and calculate your “mvr”. But it would mean nothing.
You can’t understand physics because you reject reality.
“Your “L=mvr” is a mathematical construct. “
If you want to get philosophical, it is ALL just a mathematical construct — momentum and force and kinetic energy and torque and velocity and angular momentum. We ‘construct’ these ideas because they are useful. Conservation of momentum and conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum prove very useful in describing how the universe behaves. So does force and torque and the rest of physics.
“Moon has ZERO angular momentum. “
No. The moon most definitely has angular momentum. Whether you want to use L = I(omega) or L = mvr, these quantities (I, Omega, m, v, r) are not zero and the moon has angular momentum.
DMT,
What’s the bad news? Apart from the fact that you cannot accept that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature all by itself?
No GHE, no Earth heating up again after cooling to a lower temperature – that would indeed be a miracle!
The only hard cruel facts are that climate crackpots refuse to accept reality. You best put that on your list too.
By the way, you wrote earlier “We are coming for you scum.” Somewhat ambiguous English expression – did you forget to put a comma after “you”, or are there other anonymous “scum” you are coming after? Maybe it was another example of sloppy work by a climate crackpot?
In any case, the fact that you are “coming for” me, as you put it, just shows any rational person that you are delusional. I assess the chance of you “coming for” me as somewhat unlikely, as I am convinced that you are a powerless idiot. Tell me why I should be worried about your intentions, if you wish.
Carry on. Someone might be impressed by another anonymous climate crank.
You sound nervous. And so you should.
DMT,
Why should I be nervous about the impotent ravings of an anonymous climate crank?
DMT: Some people on here think that the Moon’s orbit around the Earth is best described by a ball-on-a-string. Some are more sensible.
RLH, most realize that the ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of Moon’s orbit. It’s only braindead idiots like you that believe it is. The ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Science is not your thing. Have you considered coloring books? Stacking wooden blocks?
“orbital motion without axial rotation” is not a real thing.
Making things up is a good children’s game.
Very good, RLH.
You appear to able to excel at making up things
RLH, a “false accusation” is a troll technique. You can’t identify one time I’ve made up any physics. But, you have attempted to distort reality. You have claimed that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is not a real thing. You deny a ball-on-a-string, a racehorse on an oval track, a circumnavigating jet, a mgr wooden horse, and numerous other clearly observable examples.
You deny reality.
“You cant identify one time Ive made up any physics.”
Ball-on-a-string is made up physics for anything to do with Gravity.
RLH, instead of pontificating randomly, what’s your model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
“orbital motion without axial rotation”
There is no such thing. Therefore there can be no model.
Congratulations RLH. You made a complete circle, again!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-743085
Ball-on-a-string is made up physics for anything to do with Gravity.
RLH, do you believe if you use that line enough it will come true?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-743299
It is true despite your attempts to avoid it.
Clint R,
“The ball-on-a-string is a model of orbital motion without axial rotation.”
Nope, it is easily proven that a ball on a string is a model of orbital motion with axial rotation.
That you don’t understand the proof is on you.
Poor bob, if the ball has axial rotation, then the string would wrap about it.
I predict you can’t understand even something this simple.
Clint R,
No, you poor slobbering idiot.
If you hold the ball so it doesn’t rotate on its axis and revolve it around your hand, the string wraps around the ball or you hand, proving that the ball is spinning when you don’t prevent it from spinning.
Now dear deluded idiot, what part of this do you not understand?
As I predicted, you can’t understand it.
Clint R,
You are evading the question, what did I expect?
How about you address my proof, rather than accuse me of not understanding some physics?
Go back to drooling in your Maypo.
Surprised Roy has not checked in on the heat dome over the Pacific northwest in North America. I’m happy to say it has moved on to bother people further inland.
It’s currently 22C in Vancouver, Canada and dropping to 18C tonight.
Bliss!!!
BTW..Environment Canada is claiming the heat dome is related to global warming. I wrote to the dickheads to tell them what I think of their stupidity.
Can we see your letter, Gordon?
Whacko Wee Willy,
Why should he show it to an idiot? Why do you want to see it?
What will you do if he decides not to waste his time? Cry? Hold your breath until you turn blue?
[snigger}
Just out of curiosity – how old are you Swenson?
DMT,
Just out of curiosity, why do you want to know?
Surely, if you are “coming after” me, you would know all about me, wouldn’t you?
Otherwise, you might look like an incompetent and impotent climate crackpot.
It is just that somebody who sniggers sounds awfully young and immature – contrary to your senile demeanour.
DMT,
“to laugh at someone or something in a silly and often unkind way:”
What particular form of mental deficit would make you think I give a toss for your opinion?
If you are just attempting to be gratuitously offensive, you may not be aware that I generally decline to feel offended or insulted – especially by dimwitted climate crackpots.
[snigger]
By the way, when are you “coming for” me?
[raucous laughter]
You sure make a lot of babbling noise for somebody who claims they don’t care. You wouldn’t be a tad nervous perhaps?
Mike Flynn should be in his fifties, DMT.
Still sniggering at that age? What went wrong?
“A small B.C. village that endured the hottest temperatures ever recorded in Canada for days on end this week was engulfed in flames Wednesday night and residents were forced to flee, many without their belongings. Mayor Jan Polderman says he told everyone to leave Lytton, as a fire rapidly spread into the community of about 250 people. ”
Tell me, scum, are you comfortable with this news?
DMT, it’s fire season in the foothills.
But your cult extremism is very educational. Some still don’t understand how all this nonsense has affected uneducated idiots. You’re such a perfect example of braindead.
This is obviously uncomfortable for you. Go back to your happy place and talk about the moon.
DMT, forest fires have 3 main causes–Lightning, careless humans, or arson.
There was no lightning in the area.
It would be interesting if the fire was started by a DeMenTed Alarmist, huh?
More than uncomfortable judging by that inane comment.
Where were you when the fire started, DMT?
Retribution is at hand!
The New York Times reports that:
“Baltimore is suing major oil and gas companies for spurring the climate crisis and the rising temperatures that have an outsized impact on low-income, urban areas.
In a recent lawsuit, the city argues that fossil fuel companies should be held responsible for such costs because they knowingly contributed to the climate crisis. Baltimores case is one of more than 20 suits brought by a range of other cities, states and counties that are suing the major oil conglomerates for driving the climate crisis and offloading the financial burden onto the American public.”
First the oil companies, then we go after the scum.
DMT wrote earlier –
“First the oil companies, then we go after the scum.”
A feast for the imagination – a raving mob of climate crackpots looking for scum. Dedicated to scum-sucking, one assumes.
Carry on finding and sucking scum!
When you have sucked it all up, what do you do then?
Its hot enough and dry enough to start fires through the lens effect of a broken bottle.
I’m not sure why you would ask anyone if they are comfortable with this news. Are you perhaps suggesting one of us was there playing with matches?
Boreal coniferous forests are tinderbox disasters waiting to happen. Should they dry up just a bit they get set on fire by basically anything, and historically they do get cleansed by the god of fire on a regular basis. That’s might be the reason why you never see all the huge millenia-old trees in them, as compared to the coastal rainforests.
Denier scum here. What does that have to do with gloab warming????? Current global temperature anomaly is asctually close tp zero in a 1979-2000 basis, which is what most middle-aged people today would consider ‘normal. See https://ibb.co/RH3SkkY , nothing special.
If a 10-33K event isn’t special, cot, you should pipe in.
“10-33k” – wut dat mean? is it 10K or 33K or what?
again, according to the website cited (which is not a denier’s cesspool by any means), the global temperature is currently .2K above what most would cpnsider normal. NH is hotter, at .7K, so it adds .7K to the heatwave in question, making it maybe 48K instead of 47K or maybe even 46K. what does the heatwave itself have to do with GW then? Sufe, 46K is better than 48K, but just marginally, barely noticeable.
Here, Cot.
NG’s cool:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/28/ng-s-audit/
Oh, OK. According to BEST, the temperatures in the PNW have risen about 2F since the ‘normal’ of the 70s-80s. Question: will there be 200F heat waves when the temperatures rise 10F above that?
Is it reasonable to conclude that the period from the 1400s to the 1800s and the period from the 1800s to the present day are 2 different temperature regimes?
That is, temperatures were descending from the highs of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ to the lows of the ‘Little Ice age’ in one section and rising from the lows of the ‘Little Ice’ Age’ to the highs of the current day in the other.
“Is it reasonable to conclude that the period from the 1400s to the 1800s and the period from the 1800s to the present day are 2 different temperature regimes? ”
Yes.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
You can see that the cooling trend started 5000 years ago. There’s a flat spot at the MWP and then the LIA continues the cooling trend.
The graph then transitions from slow cooling to rapid warming after the mid-1800s.
I suggest that the Milankovic cycles have been cooling the climate for 5000 years and continue to exert a slow cooling influence. Since 1850 this has been overridden by the rapid warming effect due to human activities.
Ent, it’s your belief that there has been a “rapid warming effect due to human activities”.
That belief is based on another belief that CO2 can cause warming.
Beliefs supported by beliefs ain’t science.
I put forward a hypothesis and some supporting evidence. Feel free to falsify it.
In science, your “hypothesis” cannot avoid reality.
The “33K” is nonsense. You cannot compare Earth to an imaginary object, and then claim it’s “science”.
Earth’s average temperature is 288K. Earth is Earth. It is NOT an imaginary object.
E.M., isn’t strange how people get mad when you use logic on them. They (CR for example) remind me of some of the characters Alice met in Wonderland.
You still have NO science I see, DMT.
Who started the fire?
For once Pup acknowledges anthropogenic contributions.
Success!
> Beliefs supported by beliefs aint science.
How do you know, Pup?
“”Is it reasonable to conclude that the period from the 1400s to the 1800s and the period from the 1800s to the present day are 2 different temperature regimes?”
Yes.”
Then it would also make sense that within those 2 periods, different patterns or sub-patterns will be present in any temperature/climate data.
The Milankovich cycles are actually three cycles beating together. In terms of effect on planetary temperature the dominant cycle at present is the 100,000 year orbital eccentricity cycle, whose warming effect has peaked, and which is now driving cooling.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
There are shorter term cycles on all timescales, but if you want to propose that they can explain the last 5000 years, methinks the onus is on you to show correlations and mechanisms.
The effect of human activity is not cyclic. It is a one-off artificial warming effect.
We are the first global industrial civilization on Earth.
Lunar orbital cycles are also present with periods that range from daily, through 28 days to 60 years and beyond.
As I said, if you think lunar cycles drive climate, then support your hypothesis with evidence, correlations with temperature data and a physical mechanism.
If you believe that Lunar only effects tides in the ocean without also causing similar tides in the atmosphere then you go against all known science.
No problem with atmospheric tides, but do you have a mechanism to explain how they caused 5000 years of slow cooling followed by 140 years of rapid warming?
“Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides”
https://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8321
I rather suspect that the periods between 1400 and 1800 and between 1800 and the present day are likely to present as greater or equal magnitude to periods longer than that.
The Keeling paper describes short term irregular oscillations of +/- 0.1C.
Over multiple cycles these oscillations cancel out and produce no long term temperature trend.
Not enough to cause 0.5C cooling over 5000 years followed by 1.2C warming in 140 years.
“Not enough to cause 0.5C cooling over 5000 years followed by 1.2C warming in 140 years.”
I did not say it did.
I noted that there was a period of cooling between 1400 (ish) to 1800 (ish) and a warming thereafter.
RLH
“I noted that there was a period of cooling between 1400 (ish) to 1800 (ish) and a warming thereafter.'”
I think you’ll find general agreement on that.
The debate tends to centre around what the actual average temperatures were and why we see that pattern.
“The debate tends to centre around what the actual average temperatures were and why we see that pattern.”
I rather suspect that the changes are sufficient to explain different lengths of ‘wriggles’ pre and post the 1800s.
RLH, The Little Ice Age is poorly defined in the record. Those who claim it was a period of continuous cold globally are usually forgetting that the effects of increased volcanic activity in the period resulted in periods of colder than normal conditions over relatively short portions of the time.
Analyzing the data is difficult as the available data is mostly proxy data of various sorts and unequal coverage. The results are heavily influenced by the choice of proxies selected, which results in a mixture of different types with different statistical characteristics. One such analysis was that of Craig Loehle (2007), “A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies”, Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058.
Loehle’s paper was so bad that an immediate correction was published on E & E, which was still deficient, IMHO. I wrote a Letter to the Editor, which was published in Sept 2008. I can’t find a direct link to my letter, which is unsurprising, given the strong bias of the editors at E&E. The corrected version, Loehle (2008), is still a favorite among the denialist camp and is likely the source of your comment about the dates for the Little Ice Age.
Are you saying that temps around the 1800s (normally called the Little Ice age) were not lower than the period beforehand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
RLH, If you read the Wiki post, you will notice that there have been many dates suggested for the period of the Little Ice Age. The dating depends on which set of proxy data one chooses to use. I hope that you read far enough in the Wiki piece to get to the part about volcanoes.
Check out reference #7, which is open source. While volcanoes are a natural forcing, they don’t pop off on a fixed time interval and only a relative few have much impact on climate. The AMOC, a part of the Thermohaline Circulation, may exhibit oscillations or may be influenced by changes in sea-ice resulting from volcanoes or still other influences. Much of the information about the LIA comes from Northern Europe and eastern North America, which would likely be most strongly impacted by changes in the AMOC. there’s lots of other information in the references for the article, if you want to dive deeper into the subject, which I’m not going to do.
I do not accepts that the Little Ice Age can be explained away by the careful use of Volcanoes.
Just as I don’t believe that the ‘wriggles’ in the PDO or the ‘wriggles’ in the AMO can be either.
That excuse has been overworked to death.
RLH, I’m not disputing that there were cold periods during what has been called the Little Ice Age. I think that there were multiple causes and the impacts were different across the Earth. Volcanoes can’t explain things, but also their effects can not be ignored, even though volcanic effects appear to disappear relatively quickly. The problem, as with all our records, is sorting out what causes what amongst the alternatives.
Don’t forget that I actually worked with the same data as Loehle, with different results. HERE’s a better link to my letter. Too bad you may not be able to download the file without paying $35 to E&E.
Loehle provides just one example of it being colder during the period in question though his dates are earlier than most.
The question is ‘does this reasonably mean that different ‘cyclic’ patterns are likely to be observed when in falling temperatures overall than when in rising ones’?
RLH, Loehle didn’t provide “just one example of it being colder during the period in question”. He cherry picked 15 proxy records, each with different statistics and time resolutions, then combined them to provide an view of the Little Ice and MWP as being large natural excursions in temperature, suggesting that the recent upswing in temperature isn’t unusual.
You will have to answer your own question, but I suggest that you be careful not to fall into the same trap.
Swanson, I know you don’t want to miss a chance to show off your knowledge of physics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742926
I don’t discriminate. All idiots, trolls, stalkers, and janitors are welcome to compete.
Best of luck.
swannie…”RLH, The Little Ice Age is poorly defined in the record”.
A comment from the scientifically-challenged. Swannie is adamant that heat can be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot.
It is ingenuous to claim that major expansions of glaciers in Europe were due to local cooling only. A glacier near Chamonix, France, expanded across a valley and wiped out a village. Such a major growth in a glacier cannot be explained by local cooling.
The LIA is well-defined by major studies throughout the world. I don’t go on Wiki nonsense, where climate alarm is their forte. There are countless reference in historical books to the inordinately cold weather in the 18th and 19th centuries and plenty of proxy evidence dating back to 1400. There is evidence the LIA occurred between 1400 and 1850.
Explorers seeking a Northwest Passage between 1600 and 1850 were blocked in summer by impenetrable ice. Today, boats can sail straight through on certain occasions, in summer.
Volcanic activity cannot explain extreme cold over such a lengthy range.
There is evidence from Scotland in the late 17 hundreds that farming became impossible in the Highlands due to the cold weather. Crops simply failed and starvation became a reality. Across the Pond, in Florida and Texas, inordinately cold weather produced freezing weather and subsequent crop failure leading to starvation.
Explorers, expecting to find good weather in the Caribbean, instead, they found rainy, unpleasant weather.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12715-caribbean-forests-thrived-in-little-ice-age/
https://phys.org/news/2010-02-marine-scientist-ice-age-effect.html
Patagonia
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/glacier-recession/shrinking-patagonian-glaciers/
China
http://history.emory.edu/home/documents/endeavors/volume6/endeavors-vlm-vi-anderson.pdf
> heat can be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot
That seems to imply that it would have been impossible to get out of the LIA, Gordon.
Willard, that might be the stupidest comment you’ve ever made.
But, there are so many….
Pup,
Thank you for the kind words.
Ozone hole watch season begins today:
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/SH.html
Imo global temps will remain relatively constant unless ozone levels recover significantly..
stupidb…”The New York Times reports that:
“Baltimore is suing major oil and gas companies for spurring the climate crisis and the rising temperatures that have an outsized impact on low-income, urban areas”.
These are the same idiots, lead by a Black mayor, who want to defund the police. Took a Federal judge’s ruling to calm them down.
https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2021/04/30/federal-judge-overseeing-baltimore-police-cautions-against-defunding-department-for-now/
https://mayor.baltimorecity.gov/
Lunacy is spreading so quickly in the US that a Democrat representative, Ocasio-Cortez, has claimed report of escalating violence in the States is based on hysteria. The situation in Baltimore is similar, in that the city council is scapegoating Black internal issues on fossil fuel companies.
entropic …”The debate tends to centre around what the actual average temperatures were and why we see that pattern”.
What kind of cooling would be required, summer and winter, for a glacier in the French Alps to expand across a valley and wipe out a village?
Page 5 of 15…
https://www.unige.ch/forel/files/1315/8737/1361/Chamonix_Eng4.pdf
Note…there was rapid melting from 1930 – 1970, followed by a plateau from 1970 – 1995.
***
“The history of the Mer de Glace fluctuations has been reconstructed in detail by Nussbaumeretal.(2007). Asshownin Fig.5, glacier growth is very rapid between the years 1550 and 1600, with an advance of approximately 1000m (ca.20m/year). From 1600 to 1850, three main short melting and growth periods are at the origin of 600700m of glacier front changes. After the last maximum in 1852, the glacier tongue collapses by a length of about 1200m within 30 years (40m/year). A rather stable glacier tongue with minor fluctuations is reported from about 1880 to 1930. The next phase of rapid melting between 1930 and 1970 corresponds to a glacial retreat of 800m(20m/year). The following plateau is from about 1970 to 1995. In the current phase of rapid glacier melting,the tongue of Mer de Glace is loosing an average of 35m of length per year. Since the 1820 maximum, thickness reduction of the Mer de Glace in the valley section at the level of the Montenvers railway station is 180m (Fig.4,7)”
***
general info on LIA…
http://www.co2science.org/subject/l/summaries/asialia.php
more on Mer de Glace glacier and it crushing villages and farms during LIA.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/1997/08/13/the-little-ice-age/913e3ed1-8045-4e79-a989-36a44e937afd/
ps. what is the likelihood that such cooling was local and not global?
Gordo, It’s great to see that you are finally taking an interest in the details of climate change. But, as usual, you fly off the handle, concluding:
Yes, there’s lots of evidence of local cooling events in the records. Many of those events can be traced to the effects of volcanic eruptions, such as The Year Without a Summer which strongly impacted New England and Europe in 1816. Other volcanic events included the massive eruption of Kuwae in 1452-3, evidence of which was first found in the Antarctic ice cores before the source location could be identified. Another large event seen as a spike dated at 1259CE was recently attributed to an eruption in Indonesia.
There are many others as well, with varying impacts globally. Glacier advance/retreat is a lagging indicator of climate, influenced by both temperature and precipitation. As your quote noted, the Mer de Glace glacier advanced around 1820, perhaps as the result of increased snow deposition after the Year Without a Summer from Tambora.
The big question is, how do all the known influences fit together and what will happen as humanity continues to change things going forward. The only way to make a projection is thru the use of models incorporating what we know to be facts.
dmt…”A small B.C. village that endured the hottest temperatures ever recorded in Canada for days on end this week was engulfed in flames Wednesday night and residents were forced to flee…”
Tell me, scum, are you comfortable with this news?”
***
Another looney climate alarmist.
Hot weather in that part of the word brings with it violent lightning storms. Fires start easily because the area is very dry and there is plenty of fuel for fires, like dry sagebrush, etc.
It’s pure coincidence that a fire started in Lytton during the heat wave. It was likely caused by some idiot tossing a cigarette butt out the window of a car.
Or, someone running an air conditioner off an extension cord, on a loaded circuit with the breaker bypassed because it was always popping due to overload conditions. Don’t laugh, I have seen that very situation burn out an electrical receptacle and start a fire in a wall.
After shattering Canadian heat records for three consecutive days, the village of Lytton in British Columbia has been almost entirely destroyed by fire.
GR, maybe you and CR should take a course in clear thinking. They will teach you about “red herrings”, “cause and effect”, “attribution”, “risk”, “probability” etc.
“Climate scientists have said nowhere is safe from the kind of extreme heat events that have hit the western US and Canada in recent days and urged governments to dramatically ramp up their efforts to tackle the escalating climate emergency.
The devastating heat dome has caused temperatures to rise to almost 50C in Canada and has been linked to hundreds of deaths, melted power lines, buckled roads and wildfires.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/01/nowhere-is-safe-say-scientists-as-extreme-heat-causes-chaos-in-us-and-canada
DON’T PANIC.
At first I had seen that lightning was not a factor, but now they are hedging.
This link says the investigation is not complete, but it also says there were 29,000 lightning strikes “across B.C.”!
https://www.ashcroftcachecreekjournal.com/news/cause-of-growing-lytton-fire-under-investigation-horgan-commits-to-rebuild/
> At first I had seen that lightning was not a factor, but now they are hedging.
See, Pup?
That is hedging.
“At first I had seen that lightning was not a factor”
Say that again.
“At first I had seen that lightning was not a factor”
You had not seen! Oh dear, a sad case of omniscience. LOL
DMT,
Oh dear! A sad case of a scum-sucker trying to join an idiot in playing “silly semantic games”!
Who won?
Or was it a case of dumb and dumber?
[Derisive chortling}
entropic…”The Earths gravitational field varies inversely with distance from the Earth, thus the gravitational field varies slightly across a satellites length. This difference in acceleration causes a torque on the satellite”.
***
Although gravity is normally shown with a single vector, that is meant to represent only an instantaneous force on an orbiting object. With a uniform spherical rigid body like a satellite, the gravity vector is presumed to act through its COG, which would be the centre of the sphere.
In real life, that is an average. If you want to discuss torques you cannot use the COG, you have to consider the effect of gravitational force on each part of the sat’s surface.
Gravity is, in fact, a field. Therefore, to represent the gravitational effect of the field on a satellite body, you would need to draw vectors from each part of the body to Earth’s centre. That would balance the effect of gravitational force on the satellite, producing no torque.
“That would balance the effect of gravitational force on the satellite, producing no torque.”
Only if you were to presume that the satellite remained as a sphere. Evidence here on Earth shows that even the ‘solid’ land operates as a fluid when dealt with in large enough masses. i.e. there are tides in the Land as well as the Ocean.
It is very unlikely that the land on the Moon is not similarly effected.
Back to your happy place I see. Even so, you are still spouting rubbish.
DMT,
You said you were coming for me, idiot. How’s that working out for you?
Not well, I guess. Maybe you could stomp around looking fierce instead. Ooooh, that might make me nervous, do you think?
You might be impotent, but at least you are an idiot.
[laughs]
We, of the deep state, can easily find where you live.
Be afraid ….be very afraid …. as your time will come.
Gordon says: “Therefore, to represent the gravitational effect of the field on a satellite body, you would need to draw vectors from each part of the body to Earths centre.”
That’s essentially why Newton had to invent calculus. He wanted to understand how gravity affected Moon. How was gravity able to “steer” Moon. He of course discovered that all parts of Moon are “connected” to all parts of Earth. The net affect is on center of masses, but also “tethers” Moon to Earth. The result is that, if there is no axial rotation, one side of Moon will always face the inside of the orbit.
That’s why the ball-on-a-string is such a good model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
“the result is that, if there is no axial rotation, one side of Moon will always face the inside of the orbit.”
Wrong. Newton described the PATH of the Moon around the Earth. He did not describe the orientation of the Moon to the Earth. That would require a rotation of the Moon around its central point on an axis that in turn revolved around the Earth.
No, it’s correct. It’s the same motion as a ball-on-a-string.
Keep reminding me that you don’t understand any of this, RLH. So I don’t forget.
But, if the ball on a string was replaced with a ball on a solid wire, there would be no change in their respective motions but you would describe the whole system as rotating.
Since there is no difference between the moon orbiting the Earth with or without a thin connecting wore – we can legitimately say the Earth-moon system is rotating.
Therefore we can say the moon is rotating. End of story.
pP,
You can say anything you like, obviously.
You can say that the molten Earth could not possibly cool to 288K without the assistance of CO2, if you like.
Are you saying that?
No, Pp said no such thing. Are you hearing voices again – get help.
Replacing the string with a solid wire would not change the motion. The ball would still not be rotating about its axis. Your confusion appears to be with your understanding of “revolving” vs. “rotating”.
That’s the advantage of the ball-on-a-string simple analogy. If the ball is “rotating”, the string would wrap around it.
It’s really quite simple.
“your understanding of revolving vs. rotating”
You have no understanding of the difference between revolving and rotating.
“ball-on-a-string”
has no relevance to anything operating under the effect of Gravity.
Keep reminding me that you don’t understand any of this, RLH. So I don’t forget.
Clint R: I won’t ever stop saying that you are a flat earth idiot.
I know it’s hard to leave your cult, RLH. Reality is so scary for some.
Your cult is very small and self delusional.
RLH,
You might care to look at Newton’s reasoning for his thoughts about orbiting bodies. He described a cannon (smooth bore in those days) firing a cannonball above the atmosphere, and describing what would happen.
The point is that the cannon imparted no end over end rotating or tumbling motion to the ball. A dot painted on the ball visible in the barrel would remain pointed in the direction of travel.
And of course, the bottom of the perpetually falling cannonball would perpetually face the Earth’s surface (as it falls towards that surface). This describes the path and orientation of the Moon. If you want to describe a change of orientation with respect to the fixed stars as rotation, fine.
However you choose to say it, the fact remains that only the force of gravity is needed to describe the motion of the Moon. As to gravity exerting a torque, any torque exerted by gravity can only serve to slow rotation, not increase it. Much to the annoyance of perpetual motion seekers, who believe they can build a perpetual motion machine by harnessing the force of gravity.
Take a rotating vertical wheel with a small imbalance. Gravity will eventually stop the wheel with the heaviest part closest to the Earth. As with a pendulum. As with the Moon.
I’m happy with Newton’s explanation. Seems to explain observations, and has not been contradicted by experiment, as far as I am aware.
I still prefer:
[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
“And of course, the bottom of the perpetually falling cannonball would perpetually face the Earths surface”
Where does the energy of rotation of the mass come from? Magic?
“Im happy with Newtons explanation.”
Except you are making up what Newton said.
“Take a rotating vertical wheel with a small imbalance. Gravity will eventually stop the wheel with the heaviest part closest to the Earth. As with a pendulum. As with the Moon.”
And you perfectly describe tidal locking. Though it is distortions of the spherical Moon rather than creating a heavier part that best describes it.
RLH, the physics is different for Moon and a pendulum. Gravity can produce a torque on a pendulum, because one end is attached. Gravity can NOT produce a torque on Moon, as demonstrated by the simple problem you couldn’t solve.
You can “tidally lock” a pendulum, but not an orbiting object.
I predict you won’t understand any of this.
“You can tidally lock a pendulum, but not an orbiting object.”
So where does the energy come from to distort a spherical body into an oblate spheroid? How does this show up in their motion?
Or more accurately into a lozenge shaped body. The oblate bit comes from internal rotation about an internal axis.
RLH, I correctly predicted you wouldn’t understand any of this.
Thanks for reminding me.
Whereas you understand nothing about science.
Swenson: “Take a rotating vertical wheel with a small imbalance. Gravity will eventually stop the wheel with the heaviest part closest to the Earth. As with a pendulum. As with the Moon.”
Actually, *friction* will stop the wheel. Gravity will just make is move faster on the way down and slower on the way up. Continuing forever.
Clint: “Gravity can NOT produce a torque on Moon, as demonstrated by the simple problem you couldn’t solve.”
Gravity CAN produce a torque on non-symmetric objects, as demonstrated by the simple barbell that has a torque when not perfectly aligned. The not-quite-so-simple problem you could not solve. You missed the fact that g changes with distance from the earth.
RLH says: “Whereas you [Clint] understand nothing about science.”
The problem is that Clint (and many others) know about *this* *much* science (holding fingers an inch apart). They can apply basic ideas , but fail to realize the universe might be more complex and subtle than their freshman physics class years ago. For example, Clint can clearly calculate torque in the simple situation he presented.
But he doesn’t seem to have the curiosity to look further.
* He didn’t recognize that ‘g’ does change (both in magnitude and direction), which can cause a torque on his barbell.
* He didn’t realize that gravity can and does create tides — not only in water, but also in ‘rigid’ objects like moons and planet, which allows torques even on seemingly symmetric objects.
* He can’t seem to look at the world from different perspectives (different frames of reference).
* He won’t consider the implications of elliptical orbits, ie unable/unwilling to accurately describe the orientation of the moon and libration.
Wrong, TF.
Gravity cannot create a torque on the barbell. Gravity cannot create a torque if it is rotated 45 degrees. Gravity cannot create a torque if one end is twice the mass of the other end. Gravity cannot create a torque if one end is ONE THOUSAND TIMES the mass of the other end!
You don’t have a clue about the relevant physics. You seem to believe that if you abuse your keyboard enough you will eventually be able to pervert reality. That makes you an idiot.
Beyond being an idiot, you’re also a liar. I never said gravity can’t create tides. That’s a diversion and misrepresentation because you don’t understand physics. And I most certainly am able and willing to “accurately describe the orientation of the moon and libration”. I’ve done that several times. Again, you misrepresent me, to the point of lying.
The fact that you have to lie and misrepresent tells me you know your beliefs are nonsense.
Do you believe that a gravity field has a gradient within it?
That is, is the attraction of one body with another dependent on the distance between then, reducing as the 2 bodies are further apart? As the square of the distance as is claimed.
If there is a gradient, then a body that is not a sphere will experience different forces on it depending on the direction of asymmetry to the field.
Do you agree with the above so far.
“Gravity cannot create a torque on the barbell. Gravity cannot create a torque if it is rotated 45 degrees. Gravity cannot create a torque if one end is twice the mass of the other end. Gravity cannot create a torque if one end is ONE THOUSAND TIMES the mass of the other end!”
Clint is cherry picking from his physics guru. The full quote ends with:
“I do not like Green Eggs and Ham. I will not eat them anywhere!’
Gordon,
Neither the Earth nor the Moon is a rigid spherical body.
More like near spherical molten lava cakes.
b,
Excellent. We agree.
Now just explain why it is impossible for the surface of such a molten lava cake to cool to 288 K.
You can’t, can you?
That’s because you are a reality rejecting climate crank!
There you go – no GHE necessary for a molten lava cake to cool to 288K – even in full sunlight for four and a half billion years!
Do you agree?
Do you realise that by answering your own questions you may be suffering from schizophrenia? i.e. hearing voices
DMT,
You also reject reality too, do you?
Maybe you could explain why it is impossible for a “molten lava cake”, (the Earth), to cool to 288 K?
Or you could just keep being an idiotic climate crank – making pathetic attempts to be gratuitously offensive. Your problem is that your silliness only works if your audience agrees to be offended.
I don’t, obviously. Who would bother being offended by a dimwitted impotent scum-sucking climate crackpot?
[sniggering, then bursting into full throated laughter!]
Another symptom is laughing at your own so-called jokes. Watching a lunatic at work is both fascinating and sad.
DMT,
I try to be amusing for the benefit of those less fortunate than myself.
I find it diverting, and, obviously, so do you.
Have you figured out that the Earth cooled without the need for GHGs? No?
You are just another climate crank without a clue. Maybe you could ask for guidance from that faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann.
Do you think it would help?
Thank you for mentioning myself and Michael Mann in the same post. It is an honour to be associated with him.
I,
Are you also a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat? Or just a gullible climate crank?
“It is an honour to be associated with him.”
You believe in hockey sticks? And random factors making cyclic patterns?
Why do you hate hockey sticks so much, RLH?
Did a bully hit you with one when you were in 5th grade?
Swenson,
You should look up Newton’s law of cooling and get a calculator and calculate how long it would take for the Earth to cool from it’s alleged molten state to its current temperature.
4 plus billion years, nope.
It would be cooler than 288 K by now, maybe a couple things are keeping it from cooling further.
The Sun is one, but not enough to reach 288 K, maybe something else is helping the Sun keep it at 288 K and maybe making it even warmer.
No we don’t Swenson.
A molten lava cake has the molten part on the inside.
Just like the Earth and the Moon.
Today on the west coast the temperature is 24C, a full 6C lower than the record set in 2015.
Why does this not matter while when it was 6C higher than the record everyone got their firmament into a bunch?
The abysmal level of ignorance on display here is truly astounding.
DMT,
I agree wholeheartedly. Climate crackpots and idiots like you have precisely no idea.
You steadfastly refuse to accept that the Earth cooled without the help of GHGs.
Go away, learn some physics, and come back.
Here’s a clue – you haven’t got one.
Good point, Ken:
Why are abnormal events not normal?
Whickering Wee Willy,
What a stupid diversion. Why are you such a pointless idiot?
Mike Flynn,
I already told you about silly semantic games.
Ken got served.
There’s nothing you can do about it.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You do talk rubbish, don’t you?
Ken “got served”? Why would I care about the irrelevant boasting of a delusional idiot?
Mike Flynn,
There’s no evidence you care about anything.
You certainly don’t care about acting like a sock puppet.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
ken…”Today on the west coast the temperature is 24C, a full 6C lower than the record set in 2015″.
According to climate alarmists, CO2 is a wonder gas which can cause all sorts of climate issues. The Global TV meteorologist in Canada has claimed the recent heat wave in BC is undeniably linked to climate change. That’s a guy with a degree in meteorology.
I wrote to Global TV asking for scientific evidence of his opinion, based on the scientific method. According to this rocket-scientist, CO2 can raise temperatures so high that a heat wave, with temperatures in the 30C range, is proclaimed, then a few days later, drops temperatures to 24C during the day and 18 C at night.
At the same time, earlier in June, the same CO2 drove temperatures so low that a record low temperature was set in British Columbia, Canada for the month of June.
A wonder-gas I say. Now it is causing forest fires. Amazing.
Not again!
Hundreds of firefighters are battling in high heat against several wildfires in the forests of far northern California, where the flames have already forced many communities to evacuate.
Antarctica here I come!
s,
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
You have no intention of going to Antarctica, have you?
Just another nonsensical climate crank, producing CO2 and wasting oxygen.
Carry on.
“Liar, liar, pants on fire!”
This regression towards childish taunts is obviously clear evidence of a descent into dementia and old age. Maybe ProfessorP could comment?
DMT,
Presumably, you have gone scum-sucking somewhere else, and given up “coming for” me.
Oh well, that’s a pity. I was looking forward to it.
Taunts? Don’t you know it’s pointless taunting idiots? They are too dull to appreciate a good taunt. Why would I waste a taunt on a lying fool?
Keep those pathetic ad Homs coming – I suppose it’s all you have.
You certainly have no science to advance!
Carry on being a clueless dimwit. It suits you.
Talk about being a “clueless dimwit”. Did you really think studentb was seriously considering going to Antarctica?
I suppose gullibility is also a sign of dementia and old age.
DMT,
Of course not. Thats why I said “Liar, liar, pants on fire”.
He was lying.
“He was lying.”
No he wasn’t, he was joking!
You are incredibly thick!
DMT, please do not make fun of the disabled.
studentb…”Hundreds of firefighters are battling in high heat against several wildfires in the forests of far northern California, where the flames have already forced many communities to evacuate”.
The same part of the world where arsonists were operating during the recent riots.
Why has nobody made the link between the awful heat waves and the magnificent (but terrible) volcanic eruption by Geldingadalir here in Iceland?
gunther…”Why has nobody made the link between the awful heat waves and the magnificent (but terrible) volcanic eruption by Geldingadalir here in Iceland?”
***
First I have heard of the eruption, but thanks for sharing. I have been asking how molecules of nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere, could be trapped in a heat dome. Maybe your volcano is to blame, somehow.
I wonder if heat from the volcano is somehow creating an upper air warming that is preventing heated atmospheric gases from rising naturally.
During the winter, it’s normal to get a flow of air from the Arctic that is frigid. Why can’t heated air from an Icelandic volcano form a real heat blanket over parts of North America?
I would suspect there would be ash in the air, interfering with solar input. The volcano did cause a heat wave in Iceland, which would be much hotter at its source than the solar-heated surface.
Just a theory, but interesting.
God in heaven! Another RWNJ! They are everywhere!
Gunther Gunthersson
Because volcanoes don’t generate heat waves (these have an amount of energy bypassing that of volcanoes by dimensions).
And if your magnificent (but not so terrible) eruption of Geldingadalir was a really big one, like Laki, Tambora, or even Samalas, it certainly wouldn’t result in any heat wave, but in dramatic cooling instead, due to huge amounts of SO2 reaching the stratosphere.
J.-P. D.
willard…”I still prefer:
[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb”.
***
This statement says nothing about local rotation. Newton is obviously talking about the re-orientation through 360 performed by the Moon in one orbit. He calls that a revolution about its axis.
We have all agreed that revolution is not rotation and that it applies to an orbit. Therefore, Newton is obviously using the Earth as the Moon’s axis.
He also states that the near face will be always NEARLY turned to the upper focus of its orb. The Earth is the upper focus and Newton knew the near face was pointed slightly away from Earth’s centre, enabling libration.
Newton was far too intelligent to miss the fact that the Moon is translating in its orbit, the only explanation for how it could keep the same face always nearly pointed to the Earth.
Willard’s appeal to authority is typical of those dependent on authority. Even though the obvious has been pointed out to him over and over, his inability to reason for himself leaves him dependent on a translation thought out in Old English, translated to Latin, and translated back to modern English.
To end this discussion once and for all watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzgSEb4kW_8
and notice how an object thrown from a trebuchet rotates in the air once it is released. Just as the moon would be seen to rotate if the Earth suddenly released its grip.
Game set and match to me I believe.
We’ve seen this attempted before, pp.
It indicates you don’t understand angular momentum.
And you understand almost nothing about Gravity and Inertial Momentum, angular or otherwise.
RLH, that might mean something if you had been able to solve the simple problem.
You’re all talk, but no action.
Just because your simple mind has constructed a impossible construct does not mean it is valid.
RLH believes a tetherball is an “impossible construct”.
You can’t help stupid.
As tetherball relates to gravity that is.
I’ll remind Clint R that you can push a tetherball around its pole without it rotating on its axis, or as the stupid non-spinner think, you can push a tetherball around its pole such that it rotates clockwise once per revolution thus keeping the same face pointed towards the door to the gym.
You can even put a smiley face sticker on it so you can tell.
bob, you always try to pervert reality, but doing so always makes you an idiot.
Clint R,
Have you done the baseball and basketball experiment yet?
See.
See!
See?
Oh C C rider, look what you have done.
“It indicates you don’t understand angular momentum.”
It indicates you cannot see the plain evidence when it is shoved in front of you.
No pp, I saw the evidence that you don’t understand angular momentum.
Define what you believe angular momentum is.
RLH, pp isn’t going to know.
Just look it up on wiki. It’s easy to understand, for people that can understand….
“Newton is obviously using the Earth as the Moon’s axis.”
And you are obviously wrong in your reading of Newton’s words and thinking.
He, above all, recognized that motion requires energy to set it into action.
The orbital path of the Moon around the Earth is caused by the continuous acceleration caused by gravity meeting with the forward motion of the Moon tangential to it. As Newton described.
Nothing he said was about the rotation of the Moon during this orbital path about anything other than rotation about its own axis.
RLH, you couldn’t solve the simple problem.
You’re all show but no go.
And you’re just a flat earth idiot
RLH, using such personal attacks merely indicates you have NOTHING.
Willard does the same thing.
“RLH, using such personal attacks merely indicates you have NOTHING.”
No it indicates that you are not based in science, although you claim to be. Much the same as flat earthers claim to be sensible.
No, it indicates you’ve got NOTHING.
Nothing about nothing means nothing
Nothin from nothin leaves nothin
you got to have somethin
if you want to be with me
> This statement says nothing about local rotation.
It actually does, Gordon:
“the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb”
“WMO has recognized a new record high temperature for the Antarctic continent of 18.3 Celsius on 6 February 2020 at Argentina Esperanza station. The Antarctic Peninsula is among the fastest warming regions of the planet. ”
Arghh! Beam me up Scotty, this planet is ….ed!
studentb…”WMO has recognized a new record high temperature for the Antarctic continent of 18.3 Celsius on 6 February 2020…”
The Antarctic is currently setting record for cold temperatures, in June 2021. The UAH temperatures for June 2021 are just out and despite all this warming, the global average is still below the baseline.
Willard
” I still prefer:
[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb. ”
*
This is not enough to avoid nonsensical replies, Willard.
You have to add the paragraph in front of it, here in the original Latin text translated by Andrew Motte and Emilie du Châtelet:
” Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56', Mars horis 24. 39'. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56', Sol diebus 25} et Luna diebus 27. 7. hor. 43'. ”
That is, in English:
” Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56'; Mars in 24h.39'; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56'; the Sun in 25½ days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43'. ”
Simply because HERE, no one can hide the fact that Newton uses the word ‘revolves’ in the same sense of ‘rotation about an internal axis’ for Jupiter, Mars, Earth, the Sun AND… the Moon.
If that was not the case, the number for Earth, for example, would be 365 days, and for the Sun it wouldn’t have any sense, as nobody had any idea of Sun’s orbital period at the time Newton wrote Book III of his Principia.
*
It would be interesting, by the way, to obtain an exact translation of the foot note (e), number 76:
https://tinyurl.com/p48swskp
because it might contain relevant additional information.
Unfortunately, Google’s translator is light years away from properly translating such texts :- ((
J.-P. D.
Binny,
Good point!
Here’s a translation I use:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Newton%27s_Principia_(1846).djvu/410
I don’t think it’s possible to prevent nonsensical responses. Just check Gordon’s, Mike Flynn’s, Pup’s, Kiddo’s, or Richard’s.
binny…if you guys are right with your translation, it appears Newton made a huge error in his assumption. Modernists think he was wrong claiming time is absolute but he was actually right about that since we humans defined time as an absolute. Einstein was wrong.
Appears Newton’s error was in thinking the Moon rotates about an axis whereas it is actually translating as if along a straight line.
Gotta love people who use their own understanding as the absolute gauge of what is right and wrong!
Is that why you do that, TF?
Are you seeking to be loved?
Robertson
” Appears Newton’s error was in thinking the Moon rotates about an axis whereas it is actually translating as if along a straight line. ”
As usual, a dumb, stubborn, egocentric claim, based on nothing.
You are really the most illiterate, uneducated person commenting here.
You will never learn anything, because your only goal is to distort, discredit and denigrate all what you would never be able to scientifically disprove.
As one of my former university professors told me in the 1970s:
” Who is not able to scientifically contradict soon will start to polemically discredit. ”
You are the best example of how well he was right.
Stay in your little, stoopid coin corner, Robertson. That’s exactly what you belong to.
J.-P. D.
“no one can hide the fact that Newton uses the word ‘revolves’ in the same sense of rotation about an internal axis for Jupiter, Mars, Earth, the Sun AND the Moon”
Later usage has the word REVOLVES reserved for orbits and ROTATION for about an internal axis.
Makes things much clearer.
rlh…”no one can hide the fact that Newton uses the word revolves in the same sense of rotation about an internal axis…”
In that case, Newton was wrong.
Isn’t the change, .5, closer to 1 part in 500?
rlh…”“And of course, the bottom of the perpetually falling cannonball would perpetually face the Earths surface”
Where does the energy of rotation of the mass come from? Magic?”
***
Methinks you are confusing local rotation with a change in orientation that is natural to an orbiting body performing curvilinear translation.
Newton specified that if the cannon ball reached a certain velocity (I presume with no air friction), it would go into orbit around the planet. An airliner orbiting the planet under power to maintain a constant velocity behaves in the same way as the cannon ball and the Moon. Their orbital paths are caused by gravity.
There is no local rotational energy required. Think of an infinite number of tangential planes along which any of these devices is moving at any one instant. All of them have nothing more than linear momentum and the path of that linear momentum is gradually bent into an orbital path by gravity.
None of these bodies rotate about a local axis, they simply turn very gradually in an instantaneous tangential direction, the same way a car would follow an elliptical oval. Many in this blog have claimed a car turning around an oval is performing local rotation about its COG but that is impossible. If it did, the car would be in a 360 degree skid and at one point it would be facing backwards.
Gordo wrote
For a guy who lives in the Great Frozen North, Gordo should understand that a a driver attempting to travel around an oval covered with ice would likely be hard pressed to “turn” or even follow the path around the oval with summer tires. Such activity is only possible when the tires can provide the lateral forcing to move the CG and rotate the vehicle.
Wrong Swanson.
The friction of the tires provides the centripetal force, replicating gravity. Gravity changes the direction of Moon, but does NOT provide axial rotation.
(When do you get mop certified?)
Clint R/DRsEMT, I take it that you haven’t driven on a ice covered road or, more likely, given your penchant for moronic taunts, are too young to drive.
Well Swanson, as usual, you “take it” wrong.
Seriously, how many more months will you need to be mop certified. Have you learned the difference between the two ends yet?
Clint R/DRsEMT troll, Driving a race car around a typical track (2 straight sections and two curved sections in an oval), how does centripetal force cause the car to rotate as it transitions from straight to rotating in the curves and back again to into the straights with no rotation?
The car is NOT rotating, Swanson.
You don’t understand any of this, and you can’t learn.
You even have trouble learning to use a mop.
Clint R/DRsEMT doesn’t even understand the problem, let alone provide an answer to the question. HINT: NASCAR
Hint: The end of the mop with the strings/sponge goes down.
Crickets…
That’s correct, Swanson. And your crickets are dead. You’ve got NOTHING.
You don’t understand any of this. You couldn’t solve the simple problem about “gravitational torque”. In fact, you ran from it.
And, where’s your model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
You’ve got NOTHING.
Now, get a broom and clean up your dead crickets.
More Crickets…
Well broom them up Swanson. You’re the junior assistant janitor.
If you need to be told what to do, you’ll never make assistant janitor.
Show some initiative.
Clint R/DRsEMt wrote:
I already did. Still nothing from you pups.
No, that was all contrived. Here is the REAL Swanson:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-743307
Run for the door….
Sorry, pups, I’m not going to play in your dumbbell games.
You couldn’t solve the simple problem.
No surprise….
rlh…”He, above all, recognized that motion requires energy to set it into action.
The orbital path of the Moon around the Earth is caused by the continuous acceleration caused by gravity meeting with the forward motion of the Moon tangential to it. As Newton described”.
***
There is only one force involved in the Earth-Moon system and that is gravitational force. Since it acts toward the Earth, if there is an acceleration there would have to be a change of position in the same direction. That would take the Moon out of orbit and crash it into the Earth.
Apply Newton II, F = mg, where g is the acceleration due to F. Since F acts along a radial line toward Earth’s centre then g, as a vector, must act in the same direction. There is no other force acting in any direction, only the momentum of the Moon.
I have explained the correct action. The Moon is a rigid body that possesses only linear momentum. It’s motion is always along a straight line tangential to the F, the force of gravity. Gravity gradually bends that linear momentum vector into successive new directions and the end result is an orbital path.
There is no radial acceleration involved and certainly no free fall as you described earlier. If there was, the Moon could not maintain its orbit and would have spiraled down into a collision with Earth long ago. The moment it descended to an altitude where air resistance was effective, it would spiral even faster, eventually crashing into the Earth with your freefall.
I might add to “Gravity gradually bends that linear momentum vector into successive new directions and the end result is an orbital path”, that the motion is translation without rotation. Translation alone explains the re-orientation you seem to think is local rotation requiring a force.
There is no such force in an angular direction to produce such an angular momentum for rotation.
Gordon: “Since F acts along a radial line toward Earths centre then g [the acceleration], as a vector, must act in the same direction.”
Also Gordon: “There is no radial acceleration ”
You need to clarify. You claim that g, the acceleration due to gravity. is radially inward, but then that there is no radial acceleration.
Gorgon: “If there was [radial acceleration], the Moon could not maintain its orbit and would have spiraled down into a collision with Earth long ago.”
The most basic feature of circular motion is a radial acceleration. Clearly objects can have a radial acceleration and NOT ‘spiral inward’.
TF, there you go again. You prefer semantics and pedantic distractions over physics.
Gordon is clearly talking about radial acceleration if there is no tangential momentum:
“There is no radial acceleration involved and certainly no free fall as you described earlier. If there was, the Moon could not maintain its orbit and would have spiraled down into a collision with Earth long ago.”
If you understood orbital motion, you would understand what he was talking about. But, you don’t, and you can’t learn.
“If you understood orbital motion, you would understand what he was talking about.”
Translation: Don’t read what he actually said about there being no radial acceleration. Use ESP to imagine what he might actually have meant.”
Gordon simple is wrong repeatedly.
The moon most certainly has a radial acceleration. Caused by gravity
This inward acceleration does not cause the moon to spiral in and crash. It causes circular motion (or more generally, elliptical motion).
The moon most definitely is in freefall. Google “freefall” if you don’t know that is means motion with only gravitational forces.
The moon most definitely is not a rigid body. It is close to rigid, but moons and planets do distort due to tidal stresses. Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide.
If you are defending these errors, then you are doubly wrong!
TF, Moon’s orbital motion is the result of TWO vectors. One is due to Earth’s gravity. The other is due to Moon’s linear momentum. The result is the elliptical orbit. The two vectors do NOT result in axial rotation.
I predict you can’t understand any of this.
> The other is due to Moons linear momentum.
Where does it come from, Pup?
You’re too late, stalker.
You know the rules.
Let me fix that for you, Clint
Moon’s orbital motion [ie the path of the center of mass] is the result of [ie can be predicted based on] TWO vectors. One is due to Earth’s gravity. The other is due to Moon’s linear momentum. [The mass of the moon must also be known, or else simply know the velocity, rather than momentum]. The result is the elliptical orbit.
Yep. That is what gravity does. It changes the path. The rotation of the moon is independent of the elliptical orbit. The two vectors you mentioned tell you NOTHING about the rotation of the moon.
The rotation of the moon is a completely separate issue from the orbital path.
TF, you didn’t “fix” anything. You just added blah-blah to my concise and accurate wording.
But, I guess you had to add enough fluff so that you wouldn’t be accused of plagiarism.
However, you appeared to avoid my final point — orbiting does NOT produce axial rotation. So a captured, non-rotating moon would have one side facing the inside of its orbit, just as Moon does.
It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string.
Clint R,
No it’s not, because the ball on a string has been proven to be rotating on its axis.
A proof you didn’t understand, possibly never will.
Braindead bob, if the ball rotates, the string wraps around it.
You can’t understand any of this.
No dear Clint R,
the string is rotating, the ball is rotating and the string doesn’t wrap around the ball.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: a.earth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φ.earth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet……Te……..Tmean…..Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…325,83 K…..340 K
Earth…….255 K….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon…….270,4 Κ…223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……209,91 K…213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
tim…”The moon most certainly has a radial acceleration. Caused by gravity
This inward acceleration does not cause the moon to spiral in and crash. It causes circular motion (or more generally, elliptical motion).”
***
I cannot draw in the vector signs so I’ll mark them with asterisks.
*F* = m(*a*)
That means *a* must represent motion in the direction of *F*. But *F* is pointed in a radial direction at the Earth’s centre, therefore *a* must be in the same direction.
I don’t think there is any acceleration of the Moon by gravity. Acceleration = a = dv/dt, which implies a change of velocity in the direction of a. There is no radial change in the Moon’s velocity, which has only one component, a constant tangential velocity.
Gravity is not a vector along a radial line, it is a field represented by multiple radial lines. When we represent gravity with a single vector, we are representing it at any one instant.
If the Moon is moving at instant 1 with constant tangential velocity, in a circular orbit, while it is acted on by a constant gravitational force, that velocity has not changed by instant 2 or any other instant. The Moon’s velocity never changes in a tangential or a radial direction in a circular orbit. So, where’s the acceleration?
Because the effect of the Moon’s tangential velocity is slightly greater than the effect of gravity, the Moon is able to extend the circular motion into a slight elliptical path. If you increased the momentum enough, the Moon would break orbit and sail off on a parabolic path.
I don’t think F = mg applies here since there is no movement in the radial direction. If you had an airplane orbiting at 35,000 feet with the constant velocity supplied by its motors, it would depend on lift from its airfoils to maintain altitude. That lift would offset gravity, producing an equilibrium condition.
The airline could not move in a straight line, however, since that would break orbit and send it flying away from Earth. That would require an increase in thrust from its motors to break the 35,000 feet orbit. As long as it maintained 35,000 feet with constant tangential momentum, gravity would bend its linear path into a curve.
We are talking here of static equilibrium where the motion is translation without local rotation. The plane cannot rotate about its COG in any direction or it would crash. However, as it orbits, it’s orientations changes constantly wrt the stars due solely to translation along a curved path.
Naturally, in an elliptical orbit, the Moon’s tangential velocity could change slightly and there might be a slight change in tangential acceleration. That’s because gravity is no longer acting along a radial line through the entire orbit.
I explained several times before that the direction of a line perpendicular to the near face of the Moon points slightly away from Earth’s centre as it would with a circular orbit. That means the gravitational force acting on that face is now a sine or cosign component of the full gravitational force. It also explains libration, why we can see around the edge of the near face with an elliptical orbit.
To find the direction of that line radial to an axis from the near face, you draw a line from each focal point to the Moon and bisect the angle. A line drawn perpendicular to that line is tangent to the orbital path. Try it out and see how the components change throughout the orbit.
Note: there is a radial line to any curve representing the radius of a circle where an arc of its circumference could be superimposed on the curve at any point. I just described how to find that radial line for an ellipse.
Gordon!
Please read ANY freshman physics text! They all clearly explain uniform circular motion.
* They all show (both with diagrams and equations) that there is indeed an inward acceleration.
* F = ma does apply.
* Velocity is a VECTOR and does indeed change when direction changes.
tim…”Please read ANY freshman physics text! They all clearly explain uniform circular motion.
* They all show (both with diagrams and equations) that there is indeed an inward acceleration.
* F = ma does apply”.
***
Tim…I think it you who needs to re-read what is written.
Acceleration, at any one instant, is an instantaneous change of velocity wrt time, which is an instantaneous change in position wrt time. During one orbit, if the Moon had any instantaneous change in position along a radial line toward the Earth, during every orbit it would lose altitude at that position.
If you consider each instantaneous orbital position, in a circular orbit, the altitude must remain constant. That means no change of vertical position, which means velocity = 0, hence acceleration = 0.
If there is free fall at any instant, the Moon must lose orbital altitude. However, instant by instant along its orbital path, it loses no altitude that would take it out of orbit. If the orbit was purely circular, at each instant the altitude would be exactly the same. Since the tangential velocity is a constant, there can be no acceleration anywhere in a radial dir4ection in a circular orbit.
You cannot apply f = mg if f does not move the Moon radially toward the Earth. F = mg applies only if f is large enough to move the mass. However, even though f is not moving the Moon in a radial direction it is obviously enough to divert the linear momentum of the Moon into a curve.
If you have two force acting perpendicular to each other on a mass then one force would move the mass one way and the other force the other way so that a resultant direction of motion was created. If the mass was at rest when the forces were applied, there would be an acceleration till a velocity was reached where the forces could not longer change the velocity, or the forces were stopped. Then the mass would keep moving at a constant velocity.
That’s not the case with the Moon. You have a radial (centripetal) force acting toward the Earth and a linear momentum acting tangential to the orbital path, and perpendicular to the radial force. If the radial force caused any kind of acceleration in the radial direction there would have to be a change of position (altitude) along that radial line.
You cannot claim a resultant acceleration at an angle to the radial force since there is no force acting in that direction. In fact, the Moon cannot move in a direction other than along a tangential path to the curve, which is at right angles to the radial force at all times. Somehow that tangential path is re-oriented each instant by the gravitational force, yet a change in acceleration would require a change of the linear velocity of the Moon. There is none.
Gordon, I *know* you need to re-read what is written. Start with any freshman physics textbook.
Start with F=ma. Work your way to the chapter on circular motion.
All of your misconceptions will be addressed in those chapters if you are willing to make the effort.
Gordon,
“If you consider each instantaneous orbital position, in a circular orbit, the altitude must remain constant. That means no change of vertical position, which means velocity = 0, hence acceleration = 0.”
The altitude remains constant, but the velocity changes as the tangent to the axial line changes direction, which means there is a change in velocity, which means there is an acceleration.
So all your base belong to us!
swannie…”a driver attempting to travel around an oval covered with ice would likely be hard pressed to turn or even follow the path around the oval with summer tires. Such activity is only possible when the tires can provide the lateral forcing to move the CG and rotate the vehicle”.
Anyone who as experienced driving on an icy highway without ice tires, and even sometimes with them, understands what happens when the tires lose traction. The entire vehicle begins rotating about its COG. Several times I have spun (rotated) through a full 360, or come to a stop facing the wrong way, that is, facing backwards down the road.
On one occasion, on a water logged freeway, my front wheel drive Honda lost traction and hydroplaned a full 360 degrees so I was facing in the proper direction. After checking my drawers to see if I had crapped myself, I carried on in the same direction. That was rectilinear translation with rotation.
Tires on a dry pavement, on a curve, serve to maintain contact with the road surface. The car wants to move in a straight line and by turning the steering wheel, you are pointing that motion in a new direction. However, the momentum of the car wants to move straight ahead and tire surface resistance serves to resist that motion. If that friction is overcome, the car will continue to move straight ahead and hopefully it’s not over a cliff.
The motion along the straight portion of a track is rectilinear translation. When you hit a curve, it’s still translation but its now along a curve. Along the straightaway, all parts of the car are moving in parallel lines at the same velocity. Same on the curve.
I have tried to explain this several times. Translation on a curve has a different perspective re parallel. On a curve, it’s arc at a certain point can be defined instantaneously by a circle with an arc that can be superimposed on the arc of the curve. The radius of that circle intercepts a tangent line to the curve at right angles.
With a car on a curve or the Moon in its orbit, we are now dealing with a rigid body that has width and not a point mass. The radial line from the circle still passes through the entire width of the body, through the near side of both, through the centre of both, and through the far side of both.
I just described a line perpendicular to the radial line representing the tangent line to the curve along which the centre moves. There are similar tangent line at the near and far side, all describing inner and outer curves, and with the tangent lines all parallel. Therefore all points on the car or Moon are moving in instantaneous parallel (concentric) curves at the same time.
The radial line, being common to all points along it is also moving at the same angular velocity, therefore all points on the car/Moon are moving in parallel with the same velocity.
Ta da, we have translation on a curve fulfilling the requirements of curvilinear translation and no rotation about the COG. And, since all tangent lines representing all possible curves traced out by them are constantly changing orientation (pointing in different directions), we have an explanation for the Moon translating in its orbit without local rotation while the near side always points in a different direction wrt the stars.
Gordo almost got it, but retreated into his delusional physics at the end. Your experience driving on ice and your hydroplane spin outs show the motion of the car’s CG continuing to travel in a straight line while the body of the car, now freed of most traction with the road, rotates.
Ideally, when a car negotiates a curve, the CG is forced to follow the curvature as the body first gains some rate of rotation, then exits the curve and the rotation ceases. To describe this transit, you suggest:
Gordo, Yes, the instantaneous velocities of points along the your radial line are parallel, but the the magnitudes of those velocities are not identical. Averaging those velocities gives the instantaneous velocity of the CG. Subtract the velocity of the CG and you are left with velocities which represent rotation, i.e., they range from a positive on the far surface to a negative on the near surface. The Moon is in an elliptical orbit and thus the instantaneous radius of curvature is constantly changing. But, we view slightly different portions of the Moon (called Librations), depending on where it is along the orbital path.
Your delusional physics would require that the Moon’s rotation would change in such a way that there would be no Librations evident in the East-West direction. This is clearly impossible, due to the Moon’s massive rotational inertia, which requires that the Moon’s tangential velocities WRT the CG are constant in magnitude. It should be obvious that the Moon rotates once an orbit. Please learn some physics.
Swanson, Moon has ZERO rotational inertia. That’s obvious because we only see one side of it. All of your rambling nonsense is just rambling nonsense. You know NOTHING about orbital motion, as demonstrated by your heading for the exit, instead of solving the simple problem:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-743307
Yeah, the dumbfuck says use “g”
Wrong g, use G instead, or be a dumbfuck!
I didn’t expect you to understand, bob.
It involves physics.
Dumbfuck,
What was the last physics course you passed?
I have passed physics beyond the 3 semesters usually required for engineers and other science majors in their first two years in university.
You are putting a object in orbit and then using the g for acceleration due to gravity at the earth’s surface, which isn’t even a constant.
If you want to calculate the torque on a dumbbell, use the gravitational force constant.
DUMBFUCK!
bob, it’s your lack of understanding that gets you so upset.
“G” is the “gravitational constant”. “G” has units of length^3/(mass*time^2).
“g” is the “acceleration due to gravity”. “g” has units of length/time^2.
“G” and “g” are NOT the same.
In my simple problem, that you were unable to solve, I gave you “g”, so you didn’t have to calculate it. No numbers needed. Even Folkerts was able to understand the problem.
So, get as frustrated as you want. Your frustration comes from the fact that you’re an idiot and can’t understand any of this.
“I gave you “g”, so you didn’t have to calculate it. “
Unfortunately, you missed the idea that “g” changes as you get farther from the earth. This means that (when the barbell is not exactly “horizontal”) the torques on the two ends of the barbell are different.
Normally we can ignore this torque because it is quite small. In the case of the barbells, g will differ about about 1 part in 10,000,000 depending on how the barbell is oriented, so the torques will also possibly differ by about 1 part in 10,000,000.
Small, but real. Other than perfectly spherical objects or perfectly aligned objects, there will be a tidal torque.
Bob, I assumed Clint meant the ‘local acceleration of gravity’ when he wrote ‘g’. Rather than the ‘standard value’ of 9.80665 m/s2 that is often used at earth’s surface.
So the the value would be ~ 20% less if you were 10% of the radius of the earth above the surface, or 1/4 as much if you were 1 earth radius above the surface.
He still misses the important concept that g is not constant from one end of the barbell to the other (other than the trivial ‘horizontal’ alignment). So he has a decent ‘freshman’ level answer, but misses subtle but important details. The “upper division” answer would have him calculate the difference in ‘g’ and then find the small torque that results. But this is apparently so far beyond Clint that he can do nothing more than call it a “contortion’.
Wrong Folkerts. I didn’t “miss the idea that ‘g’ changes as you get farther from the earth”. It was not relevant to the problem.
So, once again, either due to your incompetence or your dishonesty, you have misrepresented me.
And gravity can NOT create torque on a body, regardless of its shape. This has been explained to you before. But you can’t face reality.
You’re an idiot.
Now, misrepresent me some more. That’s all you’ve got.
” I didn’t ‘miss the idea that ‘g’ changes as you get farther from the earth’. It was not relevant to the problem.”
It is relevant to the general question of gravity being able to cause a torque, which is the ultimate question here. In the artificially simple problem you laid out of an object that is perfectly horizontal in a perfectly circular orbit around a perfectly uniform planet, then you are correct — there is no torque.
But the general case is that gravity can and does cause torques. They are relatively small torques that take relatively long times to align satellites. But they do exist.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-748091
“And gravity can NOT create torque on a body”
Simply repeating this will not make it true. You can find answers all over the internet. The theory of “tidal locking” is well-known and straightforward.
Well TF, I would recommend you just go with your cult nonsense.
You certainly don’t understand physics, and you can’t accept reality. You can’t even answer a simple “yes or no” question!
So yeah, stick with what you feel comfortable with. Reality can be a bitch.
I will happily stick with the “cult” of physics, as taught by every physics and engineering professor in the world.
You can stick with the “cult of Clint”, as taught by Clint.
If any REAL physicist will talk to you, ask them for their model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
The correct answer, as demonstrated by the ball-on-a-string, is one side always faces the inside of the orbit.
Clint,
If any REAL physicist or physics text says the moon has no angular momentum, I would love to see it.
If any REAL physicist or physics text says tidal locking doesn’t exist, I would love to see it.
If any REAL physicist or physics text says the moon is not rotating on its axis, I would love to see it.
Or … you can stick to the cult of Clint.
TF, are you claiming Moon has angular momentum? (Yes or No.)
Yes dear Clint R,
The Moon has angular momentum.
“TF, are you claiming Moon has angular momentum? (Yes or No.)”
Absolutely yes.
We can get an approximate value using easily found numbers.
m = 7.3E22 kg
v = 1000 m/s
r = 3.8E8 m
L = 3E34 kg m^2 / s
(There are a few refinements we could make, but the moon definitely has a great deal of angular momentum).
If you think “no”, which do you think is zero — the moon’s mass, the moon’s velocity, or the moons orbital speed?
Thanks for the calculation, TF. That was going to be my next question, knowing that you would answer “yes”.
So that’s it. Moon has no other angular momentum.
Clint R,
But the Moon has both kinds of angular momentum, country and western.
Clint,
First, you have to answer a question. Do you think the moon has an angular momentum of …
~ 3E34 kg m^2 /s (my answer)
or
~ 0 kg m^2 /s (your answer — “Moon has ZERO angular momentum”)
I’m not sure the two idiots even realize their problem. Folkerts is no longer claiming Moon has axial rotation!
I’ll let that settle in….
If you want to play the game, Clint, you need to actually answer.
Were you right when you said “Moon has ZERO angular momentum”? Yes or No
Was I right when I said the moon DOES have angular momentum ~ 3E34 kgm^2/s? Yes or No.
Only one of us can be right. Once you admit you were wrong (or double down on your answer that L = 0), THEN we can take the next step.
Yes TF, you correctly avoided the angular momentum due to axial rotation, because Moon has no axial rotation.
Very good.
But, you calculated an “orbital” angular momentum, which means nothing.
Moon has zero angular momentum.
I predict you won’t understand any of this.
Angular momentum is angular momentum.
L = ∫(omega) r^2 dm = ∫ vr dm =
Splitting this into “orbital angular momentum” and “spin angular momentum” is convenient at times, but there is no fundamental difference between the two. (Well, not in classical mechanics anyway.)
If the moon has “orbital angular momentum”, then it has “angular momentum”.
So you were simply wrong to claim the moon has not orbital angular momentum.
********************************************
Let’s look at the bit you thought I overlooked (when in fact, I was at least 2 steps ahead of you).
There is a handy result known as the “parallel axis theorem”. For a ball of radius r at the end of a string moving in a circle of radius R, different parts of the ball are at different radii and different speeds. We could perform the integral above, but there is an easier way. We can first calculate L as if all the mass was at Radius R.
L(o) = (omega) mR^2.
Then we correct this by adding a term equal to the the rotation of the object around its center of mass. This is handy because there are simple tables around for most standard shapes. A sphere has I = 2/5 mr^2.
L(s) = (omega) I = 2/5 (omega) mr^2
The total, corrected angular momentum is
L = L(0) + L(s)
**************************
Yes, the moon has angular momentum
Yes, the moon has “orbital” angular momentum, L(0)
Yes, the moon has “spin” angular momentum, L(S)
PS, the character that didn’t show up properly is an integral sign.
As I predicted, Folkerts still can’t understand angular momentum.
(See comment below, “Angular Momentum, Explained”.
swannie…”Your experience driving on ice and your hydroplane spin outs show the motion of the cars CG continuing to travel in a straight line while the body of the car, now freed of most traction with the road, rotates”.
That’s it, exactly. My car rotated around its COG while the COG performed translation. The Moon’s COG is performing only translates WITHOUT rotation.
If my car had been on an oval with an icy patch, and I had not spun out, I would be translating like the Moon. If I hit the icy patch and did a 360, that would be translation with local rotation.
Why can’t you see that?
Gordo, The translation of a body refers to the motion of the CG. Rotation refers to what happens to the body as the result of the application of torques to the body, causing angular acceleration, which results in changes in angular orientation at some rate WRT an inertial coordinate system fixed at the body’s CG. The same dynamics applies to a car negotiating a turn or spinning on ice and the motions of all satellites, including the Moon.
Swanson, an inertial coordinate system cannot tell the difference between “revolving” (orbiting) and “rotating” (axial rotation). That’s why the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string is so useful.
If the string wraps around the ball, the ball is rotating. If the string doesn’t wrap around the ball, the ball is not rotating.
Wrapping = rotating.
Not wrapping = Not rotating.
It’s so easy even a junior assistant janitor should be able to understand it….
Clint R
You have it backwards you fucking moron.
The string is spinning, so if the ball is spinning it doesn’t wrap around the ball or you hand.
If the ball was not spinning, the string would wrap around your hand or the ball.
Wrong bob. The string is orbiting, not spinning.
You still don’t understand any of this.
You’re not alone….
pups, an inertial coordinate system is the only way to describe the motion of a satellite, whether it’s in low Earth orbit or the Moon. Orbiting, (as in “revolving”), refers to the motion of the CG. “Rotating” refers to the motion of the body wrt the CG.
The pups’ ball-on-a-string BS can’t be used wrt the Moon, since there is no physical connection between the Moon and the Earth, only gravity’s effects. It should be obviously to anyone except the brain dead pups that a rotating body in orbit can’t “wrap up” the gravitational force vector.
The pups have yet to provide any mathematical description of the dynamics involved. Until pups can do that, they have nothing but it’s distorted mental model of reality.
Swanson, thanks for providing yet another example of your incompetence.
The ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of Moon. It is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It demonstrates that such motion always has the same side facing the inside of the orbit. It’s the same as Moon.
You have NOTHING.
Yeah Clint R,
I am not alone, I’ll give a short list of those who agree with me
Newton
Cassini
Einstein
Droege and Droege who famously debunked and confirmed the Pons and Fleishmann cold fusion idea.
Maybe not so famous but they confirmed the excess heat but debunked the fusion, so there you go.
Yes bob, you’re a legend in your own mind.
pups, Your ball-on-a-string can’t model anything but circular motion, therefore, it can’t be used as a model of general “orbital motion”, because orbits are usually elliptical. Of course, actual orbiting bodies have no strings attached and can rotate about any axis, thus your red herring stinks just as badly now as it did when you pups first threw it up on the blog.
Swanson, the ball-on-a-string is quite valid for its purpose. It demonstrates that, with no axial rotation, one side will always face the inside of the orbit.
You’re welcome to provide a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. But, we both know you can’t. You have NOTHING. That’s why you now must resort to immature tactics, calling people “pups”.
pups, The ball-on-a-string model is a useful model for high school physics classes to demonstrate the orbital motion of a body’s CG due to gravity. It does not represent a valid model of the rotational motion of a body in orbit, since the attachment of the string eliminates any free rotation except for that around the axis of the string. As a result, while a viewer holding the string may see the same side of the ball, the apparent “face” (such as that seen on the Moon) can change, which is impossible for the “Man_in_the_Moon” face resulting from the Moon’s rotation.
As you well know by now, the case of “orbiting without axial rotation” for the Moon would present the different sides of the Moon as the Moon orbits. Of course, that doesn’t apply in reality, as the Moon rotates once an orbit.
Lastly, I’m not calling “people” pups, I’m simply using short hand to refer to the ClintR/DRsEMT sock puppet troll, a non-person AIUI.
Swanson, the ball-on-a-string is quite valid for its purpose. It demonstrates that, with no axial rotation, one side will always face the inside of the orbit.
You’re welcome to provide a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. But, we both know you can’t. You have NOTHING. That’s why you now must resort to immature tactics, calling people “pups”.
Clint R,
“Yes bob, youre a legend in your own mind.”
Now that wasn’t a refutation of anything I posted.
swannie…”The ball-on-a-string model is a useful model for high school physics classes to demonstrate the orbital motion of a bodys CG due to gravity. It does not represent a valid model of the rotational motion of a body in orbit…”
No one has claimed it does provide a valid model. The only point being made was that the ball is prevented from turning around its own COG since the string won’t allow it to rotate in that manner.
The same is true of the Moon, but obviously the physical context is quite different. The Moon does not require a human to apply tension to a string to make it move, it has it’s own linear momentum and is moving in an environment that provides no resistance to its motion. It would keep moving in a straight line were it not for gravity pulling it off its course and into an orbital path.
Since the Moon always keeps the same side pointed to Earth, we used several examples of how it is not possible to do that while rotating on a local axis. The ball on the string was one example. We also provided other examples, like a wooden horse bolted to a merry go round. It’s so damned obvious that a horse bolted to the floor of a MGR cannot possibly rotate about its COG.
Another example that is brutally obvious is an airliner orbiting the Earth at 35,000 feet. It MUST keep it’s bottom side pointed to the Earth to maintain a constant altitude and to prevent it crashing. Yet through the orbit, it’s nose-tail axis points in different direction wrt the stars through 360 degrees.
The Moon orbital motion is exactly the same.
If you take a lazy Susan, glue a horsey figurine to it, and tie a string to each of its ears, the other ends of the string tie to the ceiling.
Now rotate the lazy Susan and watch the strings twist up.
Now tell me the little horsey isn’t rotating, on its own axis.
All Ya’ll dumbfucks!
bob, that would be “referencing to the fixed stars”, which is doesn’t work for distinguishing between “revolving” and “rotating”.
This has been explained before. But, you can’t understand. And, we know why….
Clint R,
Yes you have aptly proven that you can’t distinguish between rotating and revolving, and we know why.
All Y’all dumbfucks!
Gordo wrote more crap:
Of course, no one claims that the horsey can rotate since it is a part of the MGR. Mount the horsey onto the MGR with a bearing allowing rotation about a vertical axis and said horsey could easily exhibit different rotations from the MGR. The Moon is NOT bolted to the Earth and centuries of measurements have found that the Moon rotates about a well defined axis once an orbit, which keeps the same side facing us on Earth.
Yes Swanson, if you allow the “horsey” to rotate, then it can rotate. If you somehow provided a torque to Moon, you could cause rotation.
But neither the MGR “horsey”, or Moon, is currently rotating.
You idiots are soooooo desperate.
That’s why this is so much fun.
It certainly is hot where I’ve been but the June UAH temperature set is out, the continental US set a record with a 1.44, overall the globe cooled 0.01c.
Yeah, I was surprised, but it’s like squeezing a balloon.
Down in Australia they are saying “we sure could use some global warming, I’ll I can say is come on up and get some of ours, and take it back with you.
But obviously what we are seeing is unusual temperatures regionally, not global warming.
Ain’t it winter down under?
bob d…”Aint it winter down under?”
D pends where you live and what you call winter.
kazinski…”It certainly is hot where Ive been but the June UAH temperature set is out, the continental US set a record with a 1.44, overall the globe cooled 0.01c.”
Don’t know where you are but you mentioned continental US. The satellites have only been in business since 1979 and the 1930s are known to be hotter in the US and Canada with far more heat waves. NOAA and NASA GISS have retroactively fudged those temps to make it look as if it was cooler back then.
We are currently experiencing a microcosm of the climate history of our planet and to leap to the conclusion that current temps are related to trace gases in the atmosphere is pseudo-science. No proof.
tim…”First, you have to answer a question. Do you think the moon has an angular momentum of …
~ 3E34 kg m^2 /s (my answer)
or
~ 0 kg m^2 /s (your answer — “Moon has ZERO angular momentum”)”
***
The angular momentum L of an object of mass m moving in a circle of radius r, with linear speed p is given by
L = 2pi m r^2 / p
stated as km.m^2/sec
***Note*** linear SPEED, not velocity. Speed in this case is the instantaneous linear speed of the Moon along a tangent line at a particular point on a circular orbit.
http://www.zipcon.net/~swhite/docs/astronomy/Angular_Momentum.html
with Moon…
p = orbital period…say 27.3 days = 27.3 days x 24 hours/day x 60 min/hr x 60 sec/min. Days hours and minutes cancel leaving seconds = 2,358,720 seconds.
orbital r of Moon = 384 x 10^3 km
r^2 = (384 x 10^3)^2 = 147,456,000,000 km^2
2pi = 6.28
mass of Moon = 7.35 x 10^22 kg
L = [6.28(7.35 x 10^22 kg)(147,456,000,000 km^2)]/2,358,720s
approx to reduce size of number…
=[6.28(7.35 x 10^22 kg)1.475 x 10^11 km^2)]/2.359 x 10^6 sec
=68.08 x 10^33/2.359 x 10^6
=28.86 x 10^27 kg.km^2/sec
convert km^2 to m^2….ie. x 10^6
=28.86 x 10^33 kg.m^2/sec
approx. 2.9 x 10^34 kg.m^2/sec
****
That angular momentum is not about the Moon’s axis or COG, it’s the angular momentum about the Earth’s centre.
Clint is correct, the angular momentum about the Moon’s centre/COG = 0
Gordon,
Your calculations look good. I would just add a couple clarifications.
“The angular momentum L of an object of mass m moving in a circle of radius r, with linear speed p is given by
L = 2pi m r^2 / p”
1) You left out a few words. With linear speed v and period p.
2) That calculation is for a point mass where all the mass is exactly a distance ‘r’ from the center – ie for the ‘orbital angular momentum’. For a finite-sized object different parts are different distances from the center moving at different speeds. You need to add an addition ‘spin angular momentum’ based in the object’s moment of inertia and angular velocity to get the correct answer. (Google “parallel axis theorem”).
“Clint is correct, the angular momentum about the Moons centre/COG = 0”
First, Clint never said “about the moon’s COG”. He simply said the angular momentum was zero. This is wrong. If he had meant “about the COG” then he should have said so. We are not mind-readers.
Second, there IS angular momentum about the COG. That is shown in the result above. The simple calculation L = 2pi m r^2 / p does not give the correct angular momentum for a finite object!
tim…”To calculate the angular momentum vector L, you need the cross product of the position vector, r, and momentum vector, p”.
***
The Moon’s orbit is not a good situation for introducing the cross-product. You keep talking a bout a local spin, which does not apply either.
In the problem I linked to, they have clearly defined the problem as the Moon with mass m and radius, r, where r is the distance from the Earth to the Moon. They are clearly talking about angular momentum as being the angular momentum of the Moon around the Earth. There is nothing in the equation about a local spin or rotation.
The cross product is used when you have two vectors in 3-space that produce a third vector perpendicular to the plane in which the two vectors are defined. I have used this to calculate problems involving a magnetic field, a current running through a conductor, while the conductor is moving through the magnetic field.
Depending on whether one is dealing with a generator or a motor, one can apply the right-hand rule or the left-hand rule to determine the direction of the various parameters. The cross product applies in that kind of problem.
In the case of the Moon in its orbit, there is no way to apply a cross-product to the Moon locally since there is only one vector operating that is related to any other vector, and that is the gravitational field vector. I have argued that it may be possible to calculate the force required to stop the Moon’s linear momentum and use that as a pseudo-force vector with the gravity vector to determine a resultant vector pointing in the orbital direction. That is not really a situation where a cross product can be applied.
I think you are trying to apply the cross-product to explain the APPARENT rotation of the Moon as it orbits. We (non-spinners) have already explained that change in orientation as a property of the orbit. It is actually caused by the Moon’s instantaneous linear velocity vector re-orienting due to gravitational force, instant by instant.
You mentioned a point mass and thought a rigid body with width would have different particles moving at different speeds. For one, with a uniform rigid body like the Moon, the COG is always treated as a point mass and no other part of the body is considered. For another, any point on the Moon, along a radial line from the Earth, has an instantaneous velocity vector that is parallel to the velocity vector of every other particle vector along that radial line.
In fact, the radial line does not matter. At any one instant, every particle on the Moon is moving along a line tangent to the orbital path. At the next instant, gravity has pulled the Moon onto another instantaneous tangent line. As gravity pulls the Moon off its tangential course each instant, it does not rotate the Moon around a local axis/COG.
I claim that because the vectors representing each particle’s motion on the Moon always remain parallel to each other and perpendicular to a rotating radial line. For local rotation to occur, every particle vector would have to change angle from the perpendicular with the radial line each instant until, over an orbit, all the vectors would have rotated through 360 degrees about the Moon’s axis/COG.
Swannie pointed out that rectilinear motion requires the COG of a rigid body to move in a straight line, which is true. However, he missed something. Each particle in the rigid body must also move in a parallel direction to the COG. If all the particles are rotating about the COG, the COG is still moving in a straight line while all other particles rotate about it. That is translation with local rotation.
That means all particle in the rigid body are moving in concentric circles at all times, a situation that rules out rotation about a local axis/COG.
Gordon: “The Moons orbit is not a good situation for introducing the cross-product.”
If you are going to talk about torque and angular momentum at anything more than a cursory level, you have to use cross-product.
“I have used this to calculate problems involving a magnetic field, …
In the case of the Moon in its orbit, there is no way to apply a cross-product… ”
I’m glad you know about cross products. Before you got to E&M, you must have covered torques, so you should know how they apply in this arena.
There is most definitely a way to apply this to the moon. At any given instant, there is a vector, r, describing the location of the moon (relative to the barycenter). There is a second vector, m, for the momentum that is in a different direction. This means there is a cross product defining the angular momentum perpendicular to both. For the moon, this vector is up from earth’s north pole (give or take a few degrees).
“For one, with a uniform rigid body like the Moon, the COG is always treated as a point mass and no other part of the body is considered. ”
No. For many simple calculations, rigid bodies can be treated like point masses. For other calculations, the actual size and distribution of mass must be included. And the angular momentum is such an example.
“There is nothing in the equation about a local spin or rotation.”
Yes, there is! You just don’t see it!
Consider the top row in this table of moments of inertia.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys216/workshops/w9b/momi_table.png
The simple point mass has I = mR^2. Now stretch out the mass into a bar where R = 1/2L like in the third diagram. If you were correct, then we would still get I = mR^2 = m(L/2)^2 = 1/4 mL^2. In fact, you have to add an additional 1/12 mL^2 to get the correct value of 1/3 mL^2. And that 1/2 mL^2 is exactly the momentum of inertia for the rod about its center (the 2nd entry in the table).
That should be more than enough to convince oyu that you are once again suffering from misconceptions.
need to restate this…
“***Note*** linear SPEED, not velocity. Speed in this case is the instantaneous linear speed of the Moon along a tangent line at a particular point on a circular orbit”.
Rust!!!
Because the average rate of angular orbital motion is found by dividing the total orbital distance by the time taken to traverse it, the number we are using is the speed, not the velocity, which is a vector quantity. Same in a straight line, Vavg = speed = distance/ time.
If I drive down a perfectly straight freeway, maintaining exactly 100 km/hr, I can use a vector quantity. It’s highly unlikely my speed won’t vary, however, therefore I average my speed by dividing distance traveled by time taken to cover the distance. That is speed, as opposed to velocity.
There is no simple way to use vectors here because the vector direction changes each instant. You’d need to use vector calculus. That’s why I keep on about instantaneous velocity, since any tangential vector applies only at one instant.
This also explains why the Moon APPEARS to rotate about its COG, because the instantaneous vector direction changes. There is no rotation about the COG, each vector representing each particle on the Moon is ALWAYS moving parallel to the vector of any other particle. That is, all particles move in concentric circles.
Also, please note, angular momentum in this case may not be a constant, which is a problem. A change in momentum requires a change in velocity.
“There is no simple way to use vectors here because the vector direction changes each instant.”
And sometimes the right answer is not ‘simple’. If you won’t or can’t do the actual physics with vectors, then maybe you aren’t ready for a discussion that must include vectors.
Angular Momentum, Explained
There’s a lot of confusion about Moon’s “angular momentum”. Maybe a simple example will help.
A large sphere is traveling through space. We are in a space craft, on its left side, so we see it to our right. The sphere is not rotating. We only see one side of it. The sphere has zero angular momentum. It is traveling in a straight line, with no axial rotation. Its linear momentum is “mv”.
We approach a very large planet, and get “captured”. The sphere is now a “moon”. It is in CCW orbit around the planet, with our space craft still on its left. We see the moon is still not rotating. We only see one side of it. The moon STILL has zero angular momentum. It has no axial rotation, and the “mvr” is merely a mathematical construct. Its instantaneous linear momentum is “mv”.
After a few orbits, the planet’s gravity is turned off, and the sphere goes hurling off in a straight line, still not rotating. It still has zero angular momentum. Its linear momentum is still “mv”.
(I predict idiots will not understand any of this.)
pups wrote:
Define “not rotating”.
The ‘Cult of Clint’ strikes again.
“The sphere has zero angular momentum.”
How do you define angular momentum?
To calculate the angular momentum vector L, you need the cross product of the position vector, r, and momentum vector, p. As with kinetic energy, potential energy, and momentum, the calculated value of angular momentum depends on your choice reference frame, since r & p have different values in different reference frames.
For consistency, we could use the center of the planet as a simply, logical origin. But then neither r nor p nor rxp is zero. The sphere has angular momentum!
Either you have your own definition of “angular momentum” different from everyone else, or you are wrong.
[As an aside, Rutherford used conservation of angular momentum in an analogous way. An incoming small object (Clint’s moon or an alpha particle) gets deflected by a large object (Clint’s planet or a gold nucleus), all the while maintaining a constant, non-zero angular momentum. So don’t argue with me — go argue with Rutherford.]
The idiots can’t wait to prove me right!
That’s why this is so much fun.
How do you define angular momentum Clint? What is the equations? IF you can’t even do that, it is clear you are in WAY over your head, subsitituing bluster for any actual contributions.
Folkerts, abuse your keyboard all you want. Until you can face reality, your irresponsible ramblings mean NOTHING.
Until you have a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation, you’ve got NOTHING.
Clint, Until you have an equation for angular momentum, you have nothing.
I do have model (actually all scientists everywhere have a model), and you have heard in many times. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” means motion of the COM of an object around an elliptical path, with no change in orientation of the object relative to the ‘fixed stars’.
* The point on the moon’s surface facing Polaris continues to face Polaris
* The point on the moon’s surface facing Sirius continues to face Sirius
* The point on the moon’s surface facing Betelgeuse continues to face Betelgeuse.
If you can’t think beyond toys, then think a merry-go-round horse mounted on a frictionless pole, so it exerts no torque on the horse. (you know — like you insist gravity exerts no torque on the moon).
* When the merry-goround is stationary and the horse is stationary, neither one is rotating.
* When a torque is applied to the merry-go-round, it will start to rotate. Because no torque is applied to the horse, it does not start to rotate.
Easy-peasy!
Wrong again, TF.
That’s the model of a circumnavigating passenger jet flying sideways and backwards!
And your MGR horse’s frictionless axel is rotating WRT the horse. The model needs to be “without axial rotation”.
You’re welcome to try again, because so far, you’ve got NOTHING.
“And your MGR horse’s frictionless axel is rotating WRT the horse.”
You are thinking too literally. Mathematically, the “axis” is a 1-dimensional line, not a 3-dimensoinal solid bar. By definition, and axis only has one defined direction. Rotation must be defined relative to something BESIDES the axis. You choose to measure relative to the the rotating platform of the merry-go-round. I choose to measure relative to the non-rotating rotating ‘fixed stars’.
This is a CHOICE. Each choice has advantages and disadvantages. However, the advantages of ‘my’ choice are so numerous that every scientist uses this definition.
“That’s the model of a circumnavigating passenger jet flying sideways and backwards!”
Yeah. So what?
Jets are not “orbiting”. Cars on roads are not “orbiting”. Balls on string are not “orbiting.” They each have numerous forces and torques not due to gravity that constantly acting. There is no reason to expect a jet to strictly follow the rules for “orbits”. A satellite in orbit above the atmosphere can travel perfectly well “sideways” or “backwards” or “upside-down.”
“You are thinking too literally.”
Yes Folkerts, it’s called “reality”. You used the word “pole”, so quit trying to weasel out of your own model.
And, passenger jets do NOT fly backwards and sideways. So quit trying to pervert reality.
Your model is a failure. Get one that works, like the ball-on-a-string. Or, just keep abusing your keyboard, hoping you can somehow pervert reality.
“Yes Folkerts, it’s called ‘reality’. ”
So the moon ‘really’ is tied to a string or ‘really’ rotates on a physical axle? Moons ‘really’ have wings and move thru the air?
Your models fail. ALL models and analogies fail at one level or other. (Its just that 1000’s of scientists know your model fails worse than the ‘standard’ model).
And you are STILL avoiding the question of defining “angular momentum.” This whole thread started with you ‘lecturing about angular momentum. Surely you can define the central concept of your ‘lecture’.
Wrong again, Folkerts. The ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of Moon. It’s ONLY a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. This has been explained to you numerous times, but you’re an idiot and can’t learn.
That’s why I don’t get involved with definitions, or semantics, with you. You don’t understand physics, and I can’t teach physics to an idiot.
Still no definition of “angular momentum” by the one trying to lecture about angular momentum.
Earlier you did some calculations for torques. How about for angular momentum?
A uniform 10 kg disk with a radius of 0.5 m rests on a merry-go-round that turns once 2 seconds. What is the angular momentum of that disk (about the center of the merry-go-round) if the distance from the center of the merry-go-round to the center of the disk is …
a) 0 m
b) 0.5 m
c) 4.0 m
TF, you’ve already proven you don’t understand angular momentum. You don’t understand the “concepts”. Just working math problems won’t help you.
You need to learn to face reality. Then, you might have a chance at understanding physics.
As we all expected, Clint either can’t work the problem or perhaps he knows it will prove him wrong. This is something any college freshman engineer or physics major could easily do.
Instead he retreats to bullying and posturing.
Wrong Folkerts.
I’m not retreating, you idiot. Quit trying to pervert reality.
I’ve already shown you that you don’t understand angular momentum. My simple example destroys your beliefs about angular momentum. Now you’re trying to distract with silly math work. Because I don’t fall for your ruse, you believe it’s a “gotcha”.
The reality is you can’t answer a simple question:
“Is the ball-on-a-string rotating about its axis?”
You can’t answer because that simple question destroys your beliefs about Moon. That’s why you must distract.
Reality has “gotcha”.
“Is the ball-on-a-string rotating about its axis?”
This has been asked and answered so many times. Of course, we need to agree what the words means if we are going to agree on an answer. Let’s assume the ball is spinning clockwise (as seen from above) in a horizontal plane for the sake of discussion.
I think we can both agree that “its axis” means a vertical line through the center of the ball. That axis is moving in a circle.
I think we both agree that “rotate” means something like “to move in a circle around an axis”.
So we reach the inescapable conclusion that yes, the ball is rotating about the axis. Pick one point on the ball. At one moment it will be north of the axis. a little later, it will be east of the axis. Then south. Then west. And finally north again. That point on the ball has turned one complete revolution around that axis. Every point on the ball has rotated around that axis. The whole ball has rotated around that axis.
***************************
If we pick a different axis, like the center of the circle, the chosen point on the ball has also gone in a circle around that axis. In fact, we could pick any vertical line anywhere along the string, and the ball is rotating about those axes as well. ALL OF THESE FIT THE DEFINITION EQUALLY WELL.
****************************
Either propose a new definition of “its axis” an/or “rotate”, or accept the inescapable logic. [Or bluster — that is always an option with you, it seems].
That’s just another worthless keyboard exercise, TF.
Swanson was unable to understand. I doubt you can either.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-748023
Clint, So you don’t care for defining terms. You don’t care for math. Science is now about ‘intuition’ apparently.
Only two lines?
What’s the problem, TF? Did you break your keyboard?
Since the pups have refused to respond to my question, I will use the details analogy for an explanation.
It would appear that the sphere and the pups spacecraft are initially moving in the same direction, i.e., along parallel vectors, with the same speed. Those two vectors point to the same point in the celestial sphere and those two parallel vectors define a plane. Given also that the vector between the two doesn’t change, a vector perpendicular to either velocity vector could be used to define a coordinate system, one which is thus fixed in the celestial sphere, i.e., an inertial reference frame.
The pups specify that the sphere is not rotating, which means that a coordinate system fixed in the sphere does not change orientation WRT the inertial reference frame of the two velocity vectors, that is to say, the sphere does not rotate WRT the inertial reference frame. This is a classic definition of the term “not rotating” and when applied to the Moon, leads to the conclusion that the Moon is rotating.
But pups continue, presuming that when the sphere and spacecraft are “captured” by the larger planet that the resulting orbits will remain sort of parallel. But, for this to occur, the spacecraft would need to exhibit a slightly lower velocity than the sphere such that the spacecraft’s orbit would exhibit a slightly lower altitude at perigee than the sphere, the amount equal to the distance between the original parallel vectors, which would not happen. Instead, the two orbits would have the same altitude at perigee (strictly a function of the velocities) and the spacecraft’s orbit would cross that of the sphere at perigee and cross again at apogee. As a result, the view of the non-rotating sphere from the spacecraft would change, with all sides being viewed as the orbits progress.
The pups mental model of orbiting is wrong, as usual.
Wow Swanson, that’s a masterful effort at perversion, especially from someone with no grasp of the physics.
Your major problem is the spacecraft can alter its velocity as needed. It really is not related to the issue under discussion. It’s just an easy way to imagine how the non-rotating sphere can be observed.
You’re welcome to provide a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. But, we both know you can’t. You have NOTHING. That’s why you now must resort to immature tactics, calling people “pups”.
Clint R,
You have been given a model of orbital motion without axial rotation.
Your failure to understand it speaks to your skill in physics.
pups, When you now include maneuvering the spacecraft, you have changed your game, which invalidates your previous mental model posted above.
Using your own definition of the sphere “not rotating” and applying the same definition as I did for the Moon clearly proves that the Moon is rotating WRT the celestial sphere, i.e , WRT an inertial reference frame. As for a model of orbital motion without axial rotation, recall the right side of the picture so often referenced showing the Moon not rotating WRT the Earth.
Swanson, I didn’t “include maneuvering the spacecraft” to change the scenario. I corrected your invalid logic that the spacecraft couldn’t change its velocity. It’s not my fault you’re an idiot.
You’re now back to using an inertial reference frame! You haven’t learned anything.
And we know why you can’t learn….
pups, If you change the spacecraft’s velocity, you will no longer be “flying” with the same relationship to the sphere as you had before. Of course, here one sees your usual approach to a problem, which is to assert something without doing the calculations.
It would appear that you can’t grasp that your original specifications for your sphere/spacecraft system relies on an inertial reference frame to define the non-rotation of the sphere.
Wrong Swanson. All that is necessary is to keep the spacecraft where the sphere can be observed. The exact location is not even critical.
You’re putting WAY too much emphasis on the spacecraft, because you’ve got NOTHING.
pups, It was your hypothetical scenario which prompted my reply above where I simply asked: Define “not rotating”. So far, you have continued this debacle because you realized that your answer would invalidate all your posts claiming that the Moon is not rotating.
The only way in physics to define “non-rotating” is the same way to define “rotating”, which is to compare the motions of a body against a universal standard. That standard is called an inertial reference frame. Measuring the Moon’s motions against that standard proves that the Moon rotates once per orbit.
Swanson, an inertial coordinate system cannot tell the difference between “revolving” (orbiting) and “rotating” (axial rotation). That’s why the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string is so useful.
If the string wraps around the ball, the ball is rotating. If the string doesn’t wrap around the ball, the ball is not rotating.
Wrapping = rotating.
Not wrapping = NOT rotating.
It’s so easy even a junior assistant janitor should be able to understand it….
Clint R,
“an inertial coordinate system cannot tell the difference between revolving (orbiting) and rotating (axial rotation). Thats why the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string is so useful.”
Sorry that’s wrong.
In an inertial coordinate system, if an object traces a path around another object, that’s revolving.
In an inertial coordinate system, if an object remains orientated towards a distant object, it is not rotating. If it does not remain orientated towards a distant object it is rotating.
There, solved that for you.
I have been reticent about billing, that lesson will be 50 bucks, you got paypal?
Bitcoin?
Cash in an unmarked envelope, you can tape it to the FEDEX box south of the two Phillips 66 stations directly across the street from each other, I can take it from there.
That’s why an inertial system doesn’t work for differentiating between “revolving” and “rotating”, bob.
You don’t understand any of this.
Clint R,
If you don’t pay for your lessons you will never learn.
I told you how to discern rotating from revolving using an inertial reference frame.
You just can’t learn.
Maybe start over on your Physics lessons, maybe try a little Astronomy too.
Yes bob, that’s why you can’t used “the stars”.
Clint R,
You still haven’t given a reason why you can’t used the stars.
I am awaiting your sorry assed explanation.
But I am sure one is not coming forthwith.
Wrong again, bob. I’ve stated the reason numerous times. You just can’t understand.
Trying to use “the stars” as a reference for axial rotation will make you an idiot. It will make you believe that a ball-on-a-string is rotating about its axis. It will make you believe that a racehorse on an oval track is rotating about its axis. It will make you believe Moon is rotating about its axis.
You don’t want to be an idiot, do you?
Another non answer from Clint R,
What did I expect.
Well bob, you certainly didn’t expect reality.
But, that’s what you got.
Yeah, Clint R,
I am still waiting on your debunking of my proof that a ball on a string is rotating on its axis.
Will that be coming forthwith, or maybe a little later?
The reality says never, but I’ll try holding my breath.
braindead bob, you know so little about this issue that you have “proved” Earth is not rotating.
“In an inertial coordinate system, if an object remains orientated towards a distant object, it is not rotating.”
Earth’s axis points to the North Star. So, by your daffy definition, Earth is not rotating.
Your brother-idiot Norman did basically the same thing. So, you can console each other at your next cult meeting.
PS You’re a braindead idiot.
Let the profanities begin….
swannie…”pups…”
Swannie appears to be following in the footsteps of his mentor and authority figure, Willard.
“Pup” fits Pup quite well, Gordon.
He’s a sock puppet!
Please try to deny it once more.
Let’s not distract from the fact that braindead bob has “proved” Earth does not rotate.
pups still refuses to completely define what he means when he claims that his sphere is “not rotating”, ignoring the fact that simply observing the sphere’s orientation from a spacecraft moving parallel with identical velocity is actually using a coordinate system fixed in the stars, i.e., an inertial reference.
Pups is either grossly incompetent or knows the truth and is flat out lying for fun and/or profit.
Clint R,
Here we go dumbfuck!
I am sure you have heard that the axis of rotation for the Earth does not stay pointed at Polaris due to precession.
Consider yourself schooled.
That will be another 50 bucks.
Clint R,
And another thing Dumbfuck!
I said object, the Earth’s axis is an imaginary line, so not an object, dumbfuck!
Again, the Moon does not stay orientated towards any distant star, therefore it is rotating, dumbfuck.
But not on its own axis, bob.
DR EMPTY,
Except the Moon does have its own axis that it rotates around and it is pointed in a different direction from the axis it is revolving around.
That’s checkmate, mate.
And libration proves it.
Spinner spinner chicken dinner
You have lost again.
Wrong, bob. If the moon were both rotating about an external axis and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. The best you can argue is that the moon is translating in a circle, whilst rotating on its own axis, but then you do not have an orbital axis.
bob, the North Pole is an “object”.
It”s amazing how little you understand about this issue.
It’s almost as if you’re braindead….
Clint R,
Call it an object if you want, it still like saying if a dog’s tail is a leg then the dog has five legs.
But anyway, it’s still not pointing in a fixed direction so your claim that I proved the Earth isn’t rotating goes up in smoke.
bob, I’m just holding you to your own nonsense:
“In an inertial coordinate system, if an object remains orientated towards a distant object, it is not rotating.”
North Pole points to the North Star. So, by your daffy definition, Earth is not rotating.
Don’t feel too bad, Folkerts, Norman, and Swanson are also clueless about the issues. You’re not alone.
Clint R,
All points, not just the poles.
bob d…”If you take a lazy Susan, glue a horsey figurine to it, and tie a string to each of its ears, the other ends of the string tie to the ceiling.
Now rotate the lazy Susan and watch the strings twist up.
Now tell me the little horsey isnt rotating, on its own axis”.
***
Bob..after a dumb reply like this, I seriously doubt that you have higher education.
Tie the strings anywhere on the Lazy Susan and give it a spin and the strings will twist about each other. Does that mean Every part of the LZ is rotating about itself?
Gordon,
“Does that mean Every part of the LZ is rotating about itself?”
You added the about itself part.
I only said it proves the horse is rotating about its axis and that the axis is moving.
So sorry you don’t understand.
I did graduate from college, did you?
bob d …”I only said it proves the horse is rotating about its axis and that the axis is moving.
So sorry you dont understand.
I did graduate from college, did you?”
***
Show me you graduated from college. Show me the physics which demonstrated how a wooden horse bolted to a wooden floor can rotate about it’s COG/axis. No point claiming you are a grad when you can’t prove that. In fact, it appears you did not get out of high school.
bob doesn’t have much education. Like Norman, he believes Earth doesn’t rotate, but Moon does!
Gordon,
You have to understand what I have said and not ask me to prove something I didn’t claim.
I never claimed the horse was rotating around its center of gravity, only that it was rotating, which is evident because it changes its orientation as the MGR rotates. The MGR is rotating and the horse is bolted to the MGR, therefore the horse is also rotating.
https://alumnilist.scs.illinois.edu/browseby.php?type=name&letter=D
And go fuck yourself
Sure, bob, the MGR horse is rotating. It is just not rotating about its own axis. It is rotating about an axis in the center of the MGR. Same as every other part of the MGR.
DR EMPTY,
and you can do a mathematical transformation on the equation that describes that axis and put that axis through the horse.
But that math is beyond you, you have lost, you are now and will forever be a spinner.
bob, the only way you could describe the horse as rotating on its own axis, mathematically or otherwise, is by claiming its motion is the combination of a translation in a circle, plus a rotation on its own axis. A general plane motion, in other words. But, as those notes from Brown confirmed, you should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation, or a pure translation. Since the motion of the horse can be described as a pure rotation about an external axis, then that is how it should be described.
QED.
DR EMPTY,
“Since the motion of the horse can be described as a pure rotation about an external axis, then that is how it should be described.”
But it can’t you have to describe both axes that the Moon rotates and revolves around.
The motion of the Moon is more complex than what you are calling pure rotation.
A wooden horse on a MGR is not rotating on its own axis. Deal with that reality first, before worrying about the moon.
DR EMTPY,
I have already proved that the horse on the merry go round is rotating on its own axis.
Been there done that.
NEXT!
bob, was they when you “proved” Earth is not rotating?
Clint R,
Nope that was when you totally missed it.
Your lack of understanding don’t confront me.
The whole body must maintain it’s orientation on the fixed stars, not just two points.
bob, I’m just holding you to your own nonsense:
“In an inertial coordinate system, if an object remains orientated towards a distant object, it is not rotating.”
North Pole points to the North Star. So, by your daffy definition, Earth is not rotating.
Clint R,
You ignorant moron, two things
One the Earth’s pole doesn’t maintain orientation towards the north star due to precession.
Second, all the other points on Earth do not maintain an orientation to a fixed point, or slowly moving star, so therefore the Earth is rotating. The whole object maintains an orientation towards a distant slowly moving star for there to be no rotation.
Same goes for the Moon, moron.
So the Moon is rotating.
IOW bob, your daffy definition is WRONG.
Axial rotation of an orbiting object is easily identified by the rotation as seen from inside the orbit. If it is not rotating, as seen from inside the orbit, it is NOT rotating.
It’s the same as Moon, or the ball on a string.
Clint R,
But the Moon is seen to be rotating from the inside of the orbit.
Because it is observed to be facing in different directions as it revolves, so it’s rotating.
Provide a simple definition of rotating, say the one from Madhavi.
But then you have to understand it, that seems to be the hard part for you.
And by the way, I have proved the ball on a string is rotating.
Take a course in geometry and get back to me.
Wrong bob.
The same side of moon always faces the inside of the orbit. It is NOT rotating. It is only orbiting.
You’re so confused you believe Mt. Everest if rotating about its axis!
And, you can’t learn.
Clint R,
There you go with your gobble-de-gook again.
Towards the inside of the orbit is not the same direction, it changes constantly, therefore rotation.
Furthermore, since the orbit is elliptical according to Kepler’s laws, the Moon sweeps out equal areas in equal times, so it orbits faster in some parts of its orbit and slower in other parts of its orbit,
but,
Since it changes its orientation at the same rate
It’s doing two things at the same time, hence it can’t be doing only one thing at a time, hence it can’t be only orbiting.
Shirley you understand?
Gnu?
"Towards the inside of the orbit is not the same direction, it changes constantly, therefore rotation…"
…but not on its own axis.
swannie…”The only way in physics to define non-rotating is the same way to define rotating, which is to compare the motions of a body against a universal standard. That standard is called an inertial reference frame. Measuring the Moons motions against that standard proves that the Moon rotates once per orbit”.
Cut the bs., Swannie. First you come up with a lame experiment claiming to refute the 2nd law of thermodynamics and now you are obfuscating the meaning of rotation.
So take the Earth in a rotating universe. As viewed from a universe rotating at the same speed as the Earth, the Earth no longer rotates. Are you a freaking idiot? Can you nor see the stupidity in such an assumption?
Take your inertial frames and stick them in a dark place. Only the desperate would revert to such a red-herring argument. Anyone who has dealt with rotation in physics knows the meaning of rotation and that is an angular velocity/momentum about an axis.
Our definition is not the physical reality, we created the definition from observing a real, physical rotating body, and that’s what happens in one. Particles making up the body rotate about an axis/COG with an angular velocity/momentum. A wooden horse bolted to the floor of a merry-go-round cannot do that. It is not possible just as according to the 2nd law, heat can never, by its own means, be transferred cold to hot.
The physical reality has nothing whatsoever to do with reference frames, which exist only in human minds. If a body is NOT rotating about its axis/COG it is NOT rotating about its axis/COG in any reference frames.
Gordon,
You need to study the second law and come to an understanding of what the “by its own means” means.
It means the transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the surface does not violate the second law because there are other things going on.
Like the Sun providing the work to allow that transfer.
Like there is energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere at the same time.
Like there is the Sun heating the atmosphere at the same time.
ETC.
The idiots make this same mistake over and over.
You explain to them that an ice cube cannot raise the temperature of a glass of water.
Then, they will say “Yes it can, if Sun is shining on the water!”
And, they have no clue how stupid that is. Sun is the cause of the water warming, not the ice cube.
Idiots!
Clint R
Ice cubes have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, that’s just your made up bullshit strawman argument. Although there are ice cubes in the atmosphere they are not the cause of the greenhouse iffect.
It has no basis in reality.
The CO2 in the atmosphere does not radiate a certain wavelength based on temperature.
Though the amount of radiation is based on the temperature and the concentration of CO2.
Remember dumbfuck, CO2 in the atmosphere does not act as a blackbody, and that misunderstanding on your part has lead you to an erroneous conclusion.
bob, I was merely pointing out how stupid your 2nd Law/Sun comment was.
But, you doubled down on your stupidity.
Good job.
Clint R,
You think it’s stupid, but you don’t understand it.
No thermodynamics understanding from you, you never studied it and it shows.
Try again, crack a textbook for once.
bob, can you raise the temperature of a glass of water with an ice cube?
Clint R,
I don’t know, why do you ask?
You know it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, don’t you?
Oh, I see your problem, you think that it has something to do with the greenhouse effect.
Crack a textbook, don’t take physics lessons from Mikey Flynn, or Swenson.
That’s correct, bob. You don’t know.
This is all WAY over your head.
CLint R,
Well in any case I can heat water with an ice cube.
For one, pure water can be supercooled to below the freezing point, then adding an ice cube at 32 F will warm the supercooled water.
For two, you didn’t specify what kind of water and what kind of ice, I can heat seawater by adding a pure water ice cube.
Don’t fuck with me on science, you are out of your league.
Anyway, this has all to do with your misunderstanding of Wien’s law.
A warm CO2 molecule will emit the same wavelengths as a cold CO2 molecule.
No, I didn’t specify any special conditions. It’s just a simple glass of water, on a simple table, in a simple room, at standard temperature and pressure. The ice cube is just a simple cube of simple frozen water.
I keep my examples simple, for the simple-minded.
That makes them WAY over your head.
Clint R,
So you didn’t specify your conditions, so either you were lazy or imprecise.
Which is it?
Are you lazy?
Are you imprecise?
No conditions necessary. It’s a simple example.
Obviously it wasn’t simple enough….
Clint R,
I gave you two counterexamples to your claim that you can’t heat water with ice.
What’s the matter, too complicated for you?
Wrong bob.
What you attempted was to pervert the simple example.
“No, I didnt specify any special conditions. Its just a simple glass of water, on a simple table, in a simple room, at standard temperature and pressure. “
It is fascinating how Clint chooses his conditions. If the earth were “on a simple table, in a simple room, at standard temperature [273 K] and pressure” with no sunlight shining on it, then no, putting ice around the the glass would not warm the glass; it would indeed cool off the glass. Clint gets this exactly right. Congratulations, Clint!
But these seductively simple conditions are indeed quite “special” and have nothing to do with the real earth, so his conclusion has nothing to do with earth and the greenhouse effect. To ‘fix’ this analogy we need to turn down the temperature of the room from 273 K to 3 K (to represent the surrounding for earth). Then we need to add a spotlight on the glass of water (to represent the sun). The spotlight will warm the glass above 3 K (the actual value depending the strength of the spotlight, of course). Lets imagine the spotlight raises the glass to 255 K.
Hmmmm … now if I surround the glass with ice at 273 K (with a hole for the spotlight) what will happen? The glass will warm up to 273K … and then keep warming above the temperature of the ice! Even if I surround the glass with dry ice (about 200 K), the glass will warm up above 255 K.
Repeating: the addition of dry ice that is COLDER THAN THE GLASS leads to a warming of the glass. No magic. No special conditions. No violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
Folkerts, we know you can pervert reality.
Your mission, should you accept, is to raise the temperature of a glass of water at 22C, in a room at 22C, using ice at 0C. You may use as much ice as you want.
Now pervert away.
Of course, we all knew Clint would not be able to actually address the issues that I brought up. If there was something to say, he would be able to find something specific.
Is there even one specific thing I said you can disagree with?
It’s just your usual attempt to pervert reality, Folkerts.
You’re trying to twist my simple example by changing a glass of water into Earth! How stupid can you be to believe you can get away with such deception?
Your mission, should you accept, is to raise the temperature of a glass of water at 22C, in a room at 22C, using ice at 0C. You may use as much ice as you want.
Now, pervert away.
“You’re trying to twist my simple example … “
No, I already completely agreed with your ‘simple example’. [“Clint gets this exactly right. Congratulations, Clint!”]
What I AM trying to do is to imagine *other* simple examples. So, in my ‘simple example’ there are walls colder than 0 C and a bright light is shining on a glass. Do you think that introducing ice at 0 C could result in the glass becoming warmer than it was?
Yes or no?
OK to your conditions Clint R,
I’ll just use one cube of ice regular size
It will be going 20 kM/sec when it hits the glass of water.
It will then vaporize the water the glass and everything else, I hope you are not watching.
Folkerts, bob did a MUCH better job of perverting reality than you.
You’ve been out-classed!
Gordo wrote more BS:
Allow me to ask you the same question I put to pups referring to it’s scenario of a sphere in deep space moving in a straight line with a spacecraft moving parallel to it:
How do you define “not rotating”?
More directly, what measure of non-rotation would you use to verify your definition and how do you measure angular momentum?
In my “trapped sphere” example, I added the spacecraft so they couldn’t pervert reality. If the sphere were rotating about its axis, it would be observed from the spacecraft. That’s why Swanson was trying to deny the spacecraft. He needs to deny reality.
He not only incompetent, he’s dishonest.
The idiot pups can’t understand that his description of the non-rotation of his sphere as seen from said spacecraft is the same as noting that the sphere is not rotating WRT inertial space.
Pups is either grossly incompetent or knows the truth and is flat out lying for fun and/or profit.
The sphere is not rotating as viewed from either the spacecraft or inertial space.
I’m not sure why that confuses you so, Swanson. It probably has to do with the fact that you don’t understand any of this.
pups wrote:
What’s this? Has pups finally admitted that a body’s “rotation” must be defined WRT inertial space, i.e., the stars?
Or, is pups going to deny that this admission just ends the “debate”? The fact is, the Moon rotates WRT inertial space.
Swanson, Moon “appears” to rotate, as viewed from “the stars”. But, that’s an illusion that idiots like you can’t understand.
Your “horsey” on a MGR also appears to rotate, from “the stars”. But adults know that is an illusion because your “horsey” is attached to the platform and can’t rotate.
There’s just so many things you can’t understand, huh?
pups wrote:
For a while there, I thought you might have actually understood physics. The same visual illusion applies to communication satellites which appear to not be rotating WRT the Earth, but they too rotate WRT the stars. Can’t admit that you are wrong, can you?
It’s also the same with a ball-on-a-string. We know the ball is not really rotating, because the string would wrap around it. But the illusion that it is rotating appears if viewed from “the stars”.
This is too advanced for you Swanson. You can’t understand any of it. Stick with learning about mops. There’s a slight chance that someday you will understand which end to use.
pups, as usual, fails to comprehend that the ball-on-a-string may be a good demonstration for a high school physics class, but it’s useless as a model of the motions of the Moon or a geostationary satellite. It gives one a clear understanding of the trajectory of an orbiting object’s CM, but says nothing about the object’s rotation because the ball’s rotation is restricted by the string.
pups basic failure to understand that the physics is the same for all satellites is clear evidence of his abysmal ignorance of reality. Dunning-Kruger would smile at such moronic stupidity.
Swanson is another idiot that cannot learn.
It has been explained many, many times that the ball-on-a-string is a simple analogy for “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The same side of the ball always faces the inside of the orbit. It’s the same basic motion as a racehorse on an oval track, a circumnavigating jet, or Moon.
I predict Swanson will STILL not be able to learn.
tim…”Rotation must be defined relative to something BESIDES the axis”.
Tim…have you formally studied physics, or are you a student of philosophy?
Rotation is defined relative to an axis or a COG. It is defined as the angular velocity or momentum of a body about an axis. Without angular velocity about an axis there is no rotation.
Wherever did you get the notion that the alleged rotation of the Moon about a local axis/COG is wrt the stars? You are confusing the two methods used to calculate time on Earth, that is sidereal and solar time, with the alleged rotation of the Moon.
Sidereal time is used by astronomers since the Earth is in orbit as well as rotating. Since it is in orbit, each time the Sun appears in the morning, the Earth is located in a different location of space wrt the stars. So, they base time on the stars rather than the position of the Sun in the sky.
Solar time is based strictly on the position of the Sun in the sky. The ancient Egyptians used that method with their sundials. These two methods have nothing to do with the Earth’s rotation about its axis, it rotates whether or not time is based on it. And it never keeps the same face toward the Sun.
Gordon states: “Rotation is defined relative to an axis or a COG”
OK. That is a good start. Let’s pick an axis (a 1-dimensional line) thru the COG of the moon and then thru the ‘poles’ (perpendicular to the plane of the orbit). Does the moon rotate ‘relative to this axis’? Let’s see what else you have to say about this.
“It is defined as the angular velocity or momentum of a body about an axis.”
We just chose an axis. So how do we measure angular velocity relative to that chosen axis? What is your operational definition (a specific, concrete set of operations that leads to a number)? My method is to pick some point on the moon (along the equator somewhere, for example) and pick some other point (a star above the equator, for example). We draw rays from the axis out to each point. If the angle between the two rays changes, the moon has an angular velocity around that axis. Using this rather obvious definition, the moon is indeed rotating at a constant rate around the stated axis. My phone has a built-in rotation sensor. If it were accurate enough and placed on the moon, this is the rotation rate my phone would measure.
What set of steps would you go thru to find the angular velocity? What angle are you measuring so that you can determine the rate of change? (You seem to want to use the barycenter of the earth-moon orbit as the ‘other point’ but then you would find the moon has a positive angular velocity for half the orbit, and a negative angular velocity for half the orbit as the moon moves in an ellipse around the earth.)
Or … how do you propose finding the angular momentum? We could naively just calculate L = rxp, but this will underestimate the angular momentum by an amount I(omega). The correct angular momentum includes the moment of inertia of the moon around its axis and the angular speed of the moon around its axis. (This is the well-known “parallel axis theorem”).
Does the parallel axis theorem also lead you to believe that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis, Tim?
Rather than asking vague questions, why not give your own concrete critique of my statement. I can define an axis (a line) thru Mt Everest’s CoM, running parallel to earth’s axis.
How do you define “rotation’? How in concrete terms would you measure the rotation of an object about a given axis? What does your definition say about whether Mt Everest is rotating about the given axis?
If you can’t give a concrete, operational definition (like I did above) you have no business in a technical discussion about the fundamental meaning of “rotation about an axis”.
Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, not its own axis. Same as every other part of the Earth.
If you can’t even say what “rotation” means or “axis” means, how can you make any conclusions about “rotation about an axis” at all???
Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, not its own axis. Same as every other part of the Earth. The “Soft Spinners” would agree with me. Perhaps you can ask them to define words that already have well-known definitions.
I would love to see the two distinct groups of “Spinners” finally settle their differences, in any case.
tim…”And sometimes the right answer is not simple. If you wont or cant do the actual physics with vectors, then maybe you arent ready for a discussion that must include vectors”.
***
Tim, you have already confused the equation L = 2pi.m.r^2/p with local rotation. When you saw your error you claimed Clint was not talking about local rotation. Then you incorrectly tried to apply the cross product to a 2-D situation. Now you are trying to taunt me into dusting off my vector calculus books so I can supply equations for you.
It’s a waste of time because rotating vectors don’t apply to the Moon. It is clearly not rotating locally and its motion is pure translating along a curve.
A better study might be based on how gravitational force redirects the linear momentum of the Moon. I don’t even think that L = 2pi.m.r^2/p applies here because that momentum refers to a resultant motion between gravitational force and the Moon’s linear momentum.
If the Moon was rotating locally, that equation would not apply anyway. You’d need to add to it the local momentum of the rotating Moon.
Gordon,
Nope, the Moon is not just translating, it is changing its orientation, therefore not translating linear or curvilinear, you can’t understand a simple kinematics text.
Since it changes its orientation, it is rotating.
Simple story, simple fact.
“Since it changes its orientation, it is rotating.”
But not on its own axis.
DR EMPTY,
Then whose axis is it rotating around.
Same old word games.
You are a spinner now, no going back, you have lost again.
It is rotating about an axis passing through the Earth/moon barycenter. No word games, just reality.
DR EMTPY,
It is also rotating around an axis through the Moon, that is pointed in a different direction from the one through the barycenter.
Two axes.
You lose again.
Wrong, bob. If the moon were both rotating about an external axis and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. The best you can argue is that the moon is translating in a circle, whilst rotating on its own axis, but then you do not have an orbital axis.
DR EMPTY,
“If the moon were both rotating about an external axis and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.”
Not that crap again, surely you have something to offer that is better than that.
The Moon is rotating about an internal and an external axis and no we don’t see all sides from Earth.
Visualize it in three dimensions, that is if you can.
But you can’t
bob, your problem is you can’t get away from the reference frame of the “fixed stars”. You cannot understand that the fixed stars can confuse revolving with rotating. That’s why the ball-on-a-string is so useful. If the string does not wrap around the ball, the ball is not rotating about its axis.
It’s easy to understand, except for braindead cult idiots.
Clint R,
Just because you get confused between revolving and rotating due to the fixed stars doesn’t mean I don’t know how to tell them apart.
Revolving is the path, rotating is rotating.
You get them confused because you don’t understand eighth grade science.
That’s why you get the ball on a string so wrong, you don’t understand that if you hold the ball so it doesn’t rotate, and then revolve the ball around your hand, the string wraps around your hand or the ball.
Proving the ball on a string is rotating on its axis.
Too bad you can’t understand the simple science.
“The Moon is rotating about an internal and an external axis”
Incorrect.
Wrong bob. By holding the ball, while revolving it, you are forcing a rotation of the ball. Allowing the ball to swing freely is orbital motion. In orbital motion without axial rotation, one side of the ball always faces the inside of the orbit.
I know this is hard to understand, for you.
Clint R,
Nope, I am holding the ball preventing it from rotating.
What part of that do you not understand?
This is still incorrect
“In orbital motion without axial rotation, one side of the ball always faces the inside of the orbit.”
even after all these years.
bob, if you weren’t an idiot, and if you weren’t an immature child, I could describe an easy experiment to teach you.
But….
Clint R,
No you can’t, because you don’t understand the physics involved.
Do you have a certificate to teach physics?
Don’t think so, likely you don’t have a college degree, unless DeVry institute has offered a degree in internet trolling.
Sorry bob, but the problem is with your inability to learn.
Idiots can’t learn, as you so aptly demonstrate.
Clint R,
Several things.
One: You have to demonstrate an adequate comprehension of the topic before you are qualified to teach.
Two: I know more about physics than you, how can you teach me?
Three: You fail when you claim “your students” lack the ability to learn. Perhaps it is your lack of understanding of the subject matter that prevents you from doing an adequate job of teaching.
Or let me break that down for you.
You are an idiot.
All wrong, bob.
It’s about meeting the prerequisites. For technical courses, prerequisites are required. It’s necessary to filter out the idiots.
You believe Mt Everest is rotating about its axis.
The filter works….
Clint R,
Yes the filter works, I have taken technical courses, I provided evidence that I have.
And I don’t “believe” Mt Everest is rotating about its axis, I know it for a fact.
Argue it out with the "Soft Spinners".
“Now you are trying to taunt me into dusting off my vector calculus books”
Yes. Please do dust off some old text books. It seems you need to go all the way back to F=ma and a=v^2/r.
“I dont even think that L = 2pi.m.r^2/p applies here because that momentum refers to a resultant motion between gravitational force and the Moons linear momentum.”
Then you need to re-think the equation L = 2pi.m.r^2/p.
First this equation does not even have momentum in it, so there is no “that momentum” to reference. “p” is not momentum here, but period. 2pi.r/p = circumference/period – distance/time = speed.
So this equation is simply L = m.r.v = r.p (“p’ meaning the traditional “momentum”). This is the equation for angular momentum for a particle (minus the “sin(theta)” for the angle between r & p).
Second, this equation is a general equation, not one that only applies to momentum that is “a resultant motion between gravitational force and the Moons linear momentum”.
“If the Moon was rotating locally, that equation would not apply anyway. Youd need to add to it the local momentum of the rotating Moon.”
And this is the crux of the whole matter. We DO need to add the local angular momentum L = I(omega). L=rxp = applies to point masses. For non-point-masses (like the moon!) then you indeed need to add the local rotation. Go look up “parallel axis theorem” in those old textbooks of yours!
Does the parallel axis theorem also lead you to believe that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis, Tim?
Let “m” be the mass of Mt Everest.
Let “r” be the distance from earth’s axis to the CoM of Mt Everest.
Let “ω” be the angular speed of the earth’s rotation (relative to the ‘fixed stars’, not relative to the sun!).
What is the angular momentum of Mt Everest about earth’s axis?
Well, the approximate value is L = m×r^2×ω. But this is for a point mass. This would only apply exactly if every bit of Mt Everest were exactly the same distance “r” from earth’s axis. Since different parts are different distances from earth’s axis, we need to correct this value.
Draw an axis parallel to earth’s axis thru Mt Everest’s CoM. Calculate the moment of inertia about this axis, I. Add L = Iω as a correction — ie use the parallel axis theorem. You can use whatever language you want, but Mt Everest indeed has angular momentum relative to this axis.
Alternately, an angle is measured between two rays (and angular velocity is measured as a change of that angle). One ray could be drawn from our axis to a point on Mt Everest. What is the other ray? I would measure from a ray pointing to some distant ‘fixed star’.
Your turn! What second ray will you use to measure the rotation about this axis? Are you going measure rotation relative to a rotating ray pointing from that axis to the center of the earth?
I’m simply going to laugh at you, Tim. Forever.
And we are all just going to quietly know that you can’t engage at the level needed for intelligent discussion.
Folkerts, how many idiotic things have you “proved”?
I wish I had the time to go back and find them all.
That is exactly your problem, Clint. When I ‘prove’ things or simply explain things, you can never point out any specific problem. Instead it is vague ranting and hand waving.
PLEASE. Do go back and find 1 specific thing I said that you think is wrong. Not “anyone can tell you are wrong” or “there are too many to count” or “it all just cult beliefs”. One specific sentence. Explain to us what you think is wrong about it.
You can’t do it. You can’t engage.
The “Spinners” are funny. They always want to argue with the “Non-Spinners” when they don’t actually agree amongst themselves. Some of them think a ball on a string, or wooden horse on a merry-go-round, is rotating on its own axis, whilst some of them understand the truth, that it is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis. But these two groups of “Spinners” – the “Hard Spinners” and the “Soft Spinners” – will never argue it out between themselves!
So “Soft Spinner” Swanson, who at least gets that the wooden horse on a merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis, won’t ever argue with “Hard Spinner” Tim or bobdroege, who stupidly think that something which cannot possibly rotate on its own axis, is nevertheless rotating on its own axis!
Then there are those who believe Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating on its own axis…
☺️
I had forgotten about Mt. Everest, DREMT. That was a funny one!
I think it was bob that came up with that nonsense. And now, he’s “proven” that Earth is not rotating? I wonder how that affects Mt. Everest?
Idiots.
I note dear DR EMPTY,
That you haven’t shown that Mt Everest is not rotating on its axis.
Keep trying dumbfuck!
As Craig T, RLH, Bindidon, Norman and Swanson would agree, bob, Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own axis. You can argue it out with the “Soft Spinners”.
DR EMPTY,
So you agree Mt Everest is rotating, then?
And the motion of the Mt Everest determines the axis of rotation?
So how is it not rotating on its own axis.
Please do your best to explain that and not ask me to argue it out with others.
An object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, moves as per the “moon on the left” in the much-discussed GIF. That motion would be like Mt. Everest around the Earth’s axis.
DR EMPTY,
Nope that is incorrect, the Moon on the right and the Moon on the left giffs are two dimensional and the Moon moves and rotates in three dimensions so that argument is not sufficient to prove your point.
You lose again.
We are talking about Mt. Everest, not the moon, bob. Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis. Just like the wooden horse on the MGR. Deal with that reality first, before worrying about the moon.
DR EMPTY,
I can post and discuss anything I want to.
You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about so it really doesn’t matter now does it?
Yes bob, you can be as stupid as you like. The more you indicate what an idiot you are, the better.
Proceed when you’re ready.
OOH,
Can I be condsidered a Hard Gothic Folk Heavy Lithuanian Death Metal Spinner?
You can be considered a clown.
Sorry,
I see the clown car is full.
…of your intellectual and moral superiors.
Finally back to that are we?
Moral and intellectual superiors?
Just echoing back to you your own attitude towards others.
No you’re not.
It’s just a fact that I have a better grasp of the science than you.
That doesn’t make me superior intellectually.
The term intellectual began as a slur anyway, I wouldn’t claim to be intellectually superior to anyone just for that reason.
“It’s just a fact that I have a better grasp of the science than you.”
See? You prove my point. You are always on about your background and education as well.
Yes DR EMPTY,
Because I have a science degree with course work in thermodynamics which leads me to an understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, because I studied it and was tested on it and passed that course.
And you make a mockery of that, what does that say about your morals?
Keep on proving my point.
What point is that?
That you understand neither Astronomy nor Thermodynamics.
And think you are right when every other person that has studied such subjects will tell you that you are wrong?
The petulant little creep act is getting old.
Yep, keep going. Keep proving me right.
bob d …”You need to study the second law and come to an understanding of what the “by its own means” means.
It means the transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the surface does not violate the second law because there are other things going on…”
***
Clausius explained clearly what is meant by ‘by its own means’. He explained it as the need of the cooler body to be immediately ‘compensated’ for its loss of heat. That cannot be done without external devices to ‘compensate’ for that lost heat.
With an air-conditioning system, it is comprised of a compressor, run by external power, a gas to compress, a condenser, an atomizer, like a spray nozzle, and an evapourator.
The evaporator, a form of radiator in appearance, is the device that extracts the warm air from a room to cool it. It does that by heating an aerosol liquid with room air and allowing it to expand into a low pressure gas. That low pressure gas is drawn into a compressor where it is compressed into a high pressure, high temperature gas. The high pressure gas then goes into a condenser, which is like a radiator as well. The hi P, hi T gas is allowed to condense back to a liquid by losing heat through the radiator fins.
Then the liquid goes through a nozzle where it is converted into a fine liquid mist. As this mist passes through the evapourator, it absorbs heat from the area to be cooled, forming a low pressure gas.
It’s the gas that does the heat transfer. The gas is selected so it will change phase from the gas phase to the liquid phase within a certain temperature range. Freon works and so does butane. So the gas extracts heat from an area as a low pressure, low temperature mist, absorbed heat converts the liquid mist to a low pressure gas, compressor converts the lo P gas to a hi P/hi T gas, loses it heat, and converts back to a liquid, then becomes a mist via an atomizer.
The heat released in the radiator is the heat extracted from the room. The resulting liquid then runs through an atomizer, where it is converted to a fine mist. Then it enters the evapourator, absorbing heat from the room to be cooled and converting to a low pressure gas. The cycle repeats.
Heat could never flow from the cool room to the warmer area by its own means. It can only do that via a compressor and a a gas that can change phase easily. The conversion between phases and the subsequent release of heat from the compressed liquid is what allows the transfer of heat from a cooler region to a warmer region.
There is no such mechanism in the atmosphere. It is impossible for heat to be transferred from a gas at an equal temperature or lower temperature than the surface temperature, let alone heat the surface to a higher temperature. Since AGW theory claims the heat for the GHGs comes from the surface, such a recycling of heat would be perpetual motion.
Gordon,
“There is no such mechanism in the atmosphere.”
Try a Hurricane, it works like a refrigerator, leaving a wake of cold water behind it.
bob d ….”the Moon is not just translating, it is changing its orientation, therefore not translating linear or curvilinear”,
Yes, Bob, it is changing its orientation because it is translating. The basic requirement of translation is that all parts of a rigid body must be moving parallel to all other parts and at the same velocity.
In the case of a curved path, the velocity is the angular velocity of a radial line tracking the plane. Not the individual velocities of each point on the radial line, but the average angular velocity the entire line would have while sweeping through 360 degrees.
I have proved over and over that the Moon meets those requirements and I have used the example of an airliner orbiting the Earth at 30,000 feet to illustrate that. If all parts of the airliner were not moving parallel to each other at all times, the plane would fall apart. And, if the plane rotated about a local axis at any time, It would crash.
However, the plane keeps it’s underside always pointed at the Earth while it’s nose-tail axis constantly changes its orientation wrt the stars.
I don’t see how you can get out of that one without resorting to bafflegab.
Gordon,
You have this part correct,
” The basic requirement of translation is that all parts of a rigid body must be moving parallel to all other parts and at the same velocity.”
They have to move parallel as you say, but in the case of the the Moon, all particles are moving in concentric circles, which is not parallel.
Back to basic geometry with you.
bob d …”all particles are moving in concentric circles, which is not parallel”.
***
Obviously you have not studied calculus if you don’t think concentric circles are parallel.
Meriam-Webster…
definition of parallel…
a : extending in the same direction, everywhere equidistant (see equidistant sense 1), and not meeting
//parallel rows of trees
b : everywhere equally distant
//concentric spheres are parallel
If concentric spheres are parallel it follows that concentric circles are parallel.
However, to understand this at the calculus level we have to understand the equation centred at 0,0…
x^2 + y^2 = r^2.
Take the 1st derivative..
2x + 2y.dy/dx = 0 …since r is a constant.
dy/dx = -2x/2y = -x/y
dy/dx is the instantaneous change of y wrt x, a very small value. And it tells us the value of that tiny change is -x/y. It also gives us the slope of the tangent line to the circle at any point on the circle.
If x and y are +ve, as in quadrant I, the tangent line has a negative slope (right to left), as indicated. If we go to quadrant II where x is -ve and y is +ve, the slope is positive (left to right). Following same logic, slope of tangent line is negative in Quadrant III, and positive in Quadrant IV.
The above applies to both circles in a pair of concentric circles. Therefore, the tangent lines will always be parallel at similar points on either circle.
The equation of the circle defines the circle at each point in the x-y plane and each point has a tangent line that is parallel to any circle concentric to this circle. Therefore, concentric circles are parallel.
It’s imperative to understand that a circle is defined as a series of instantaneous points, as is any curve. The tangent line at any one of those points is parallel to the tangent line at equivalent points on any concentric circle, or curve.
As a point if interest, that could only interest a frustrated student of math like myself, the derivative of a circle is not defined at two points.
If you have a circle of r = 5 centred at 0,0 on the x,y plane, then at x = 5, y = 0, dy/dx = -x/y = -5/0, which is not defined. It means that as y -> 0, dy/dx becomes very large, tending toward infinity.
I recall a means of dealing with this in calculus but the rust is preventing an answer coming out. The interesting thing is the tangent lines are vertical at +x,0 and -x,0 and horizontal at 0,+y and 0,-y. All 4 cases mean the curves, in this case, a circle, as no longer changing in an x or y direction.
There are ways to apply the 2nd derivative to tell if a curve is pointed up at a maximum, like a mountain, or down, at a minimum, like a valley.
Understanding this stuff is very helpful when analyzing the motion of the Moon in its orbit. Obviously, Tesla understood it well, and NASA does not.
Gordon,
In order for things to be parallel, they must be lines.
Circles can not be parallel.
Circles don’t meet the criteria in definition a.
Try using a mathematical definition of parallel.
Yes I have studied calculus, but this ain’t Calculus.
“dy/dx is the instantaneous change of y wrt x, a very small value. ”
Actually, dy/dx can be any value from -infinity to +infinity, so I would hardly call those ‘very small values’!
“The basic requirement of translation is that all parts of a rigid body must be moving parallel to all other parts and at the same velocity.”
That is only a partial description. Every source you might care to google (or any text book you care to look in) will have a statement like this (from Wikipedia):
“In Euclidean geometry, a translation is a geometric transformation that moves every point of a figure or a space by the same distance in a given direction.”
All points must move THE SAME DISTANCE and IN THE SAME DIRECTION. Motion along concentric circles is NOT translation.
No, it’s rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about the center of mass of the object).
Gordon,
Do you remember the parallel alternate interior theorem?
If two lines are parallel, then when a third line is drawn intersecting both of them, then the alternate interior angles are congruent.
And the converse if you draw a line across two other lines, if the alternate interior angles are not congruent, the two line are not parallel.
If you do that to two concentric circles, you will be able to prove concentric circles are not parallel.
As I said, it’s high school geometry.
…and as I said, motion along concentric circles is indicative of rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about the center of mass of the object).
DR EMTPY,
The matter of rotation is irrelevant to the motion of a body around concentric circles.
It may rotate, it may not.
Like the Earth moves along concentric circles as it orbits the Sun.
Sorry for you loss.
The particles making up the Earth do not move in concentric circles around the Sun as it orbits, because the Earth is rotating on its own axis. The orbital paths of the particles criss-cross.
DR EMTPY,
I guess it’s back to the point that points moving along concentric circles move at different speeds therefore can’t be part of the same object, unless that object is rotating, like the Moon.
Why don’t you let me and Gordon have a conversation?
"Why don’t you let me and Gordon have a conversation?"
So stop responding to me then, and wait for Gordon to respond to you.
"…unless that object is rotating, like the Moon."
Exactly, the moon is rotating…but not on its own axis.
DR EMPTY,
Why do you keep butting in like the brutish boor that you are, I thought you said you had higher morals than me?
Any way, if the parts of the Moon move in concentric circles, and necessarily move at different velocities, because they trace smaller or larger ellipses that they trace in the same amount of time. What keeps the Moon together.
Ah, yes, the fact that it rotates on its own axis, as it rotates on an external axis.
YUR DUN
you lost again
No, bob. An object with its particles moving in concentric circles about an external axis is rotating about that external axis, and not its internal axis.
Except Dear DR EMPTY,
The Moon as it revolves around the Earth, it does two things.
One it moves along its path according to Kepler’s laws sweeping equal areas in equal time, so sometimes it moves faster than other times.
Second, it changes its orientation at a constant rate.
So its doing two things at different rates.
So it must be doing something more than rotating around an external axis?
Here’s the 50,000 dollar question.
What is that something else that it is doing?
The moon is not both rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis. If it were, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth. If you want to argue that it is doing two motions, then those two motions would have to be translation in an ellipse plus rotation about an internal axis.
DR EMPTY,
” translation in an ellipse plus rotation about an internal axis.”
That would be an acceptable description of what the Moon is doing.
Would we see all sides of the Moon is it was rotating about an internal axis and translating in an ellipse with the same period?
No.
But, and this is a big but, the motion of the moon can only be correctly described as translating in an ellipse plus rotating on its own internal axis if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the right”.
That’s the Moon that does not keep it’s same face to the center of the orbit.
That is the correct Moon with orbital motion without axial rotation.
But you clowns like to define it differently from every Astronomer practicing his trade.
Apart from all those astronomers who define it as rotation about an external axis (i.e. motion like the "moon on the left")…
DR EMPTY,
All which Astronomers?
Read my previous comment again.
DR EMPTY,
I’m sure you have a cite for an astronomer that says that.
That orbital motion is rotation about an external axis? Yes, as you know.
1. ” If you want to argue that it is doing two motions, then those two motions would have to be translation in an ellipse plus rotation about an internal axis.”
Yes glad you agree. This is a perfect description of what our Moon is doing.
2. “No, bob. An object with its particles moving in concentric circles about an external axis is rotating about that external axis, and not its internal axis.”
Yes glad you agree.
WE ALL KNOW that the Moon’s particles are not moving in concentric about an external axis, SO clearly this is NOT a description of what our Moon is doing.
Why do you then keep insisting it IS DOING #2??
bob d…”f you hold the ball so it doesnt rotate, and then revolve the ball around your hand, the string wraps around your hand or the ball.
Proving the ball on a string is rotating on its axis.
Too bad you cant understand the simple science”.
***
That’s the wackiest science I have ever seen described. Do you understand the principle upon which the ball on a string operates? The way you describe it is like you holding a light bulb in a socket, standing on a chair, while your buddies turn the chair.
This is not about holding onto the ball while revolving it around your hand. It’s about the reality of a ball attached to a string which is being held in someone’s hand and spun around his head.
If that person somehow cut the string while the ball was in orbit, the ball would go flying off on a tangential path. Therefore, the string was applying a tension (force) to the ball in an inward (centripetal) direction. Ergo, the ball could not rotate about its own axis because the string was preventing it turning.
Suppose we consider an event at the Highland games where the athlete throws a cannon ball attached to a rigid stick. That was in the old days before they used a chain. So, the guy has a hold of the stick and he is rotating the ball in an orbit around him before letting go. Are you saying that ball, attached firmly to a stick, is rotating about its local axis?
If so, you have been hanging around with too many sheep, Bruce.
Gordon,
Are you saying the string is not rotating?
because the string is attached to the ball, either both of them are rotating or neither one is rotating.
Which is it?
bob, this is another example of you NOT being able to learn. You can’t understand the difference between “revolving” and “rotating”. Both the ball and the string are “revolving”. Neither is “rotating”.
It must be terribly confusing for idiots. “Orbiting” is just a special case of “revolving”, usually associated with celestial bodies. And, you can also say the ball is “rotating about the other end of the string”, as in the special case of “rotating about an external axis”. But in NO sense, is the ball, or string, rotating about its own axis.
I predict you won’t be able to understand any of this.
Clint R,
For once you are right, I don’t understand it.
Because it’s
Poppycock
Balderdash
Rubbish
Bullshit
Drivel
Tripe
you get the message?
Exactly as I predicted, you don’t understand any of this.
Clint R,
Yep, I don’t understand your bullshit, it’s either incorrect or made up.
Yup, you can’t understand, bob.
Just as I predicted.
Clint R
How is that minor in Physics going?
bob, please stop trolling.
bob d…”Are you saying the string is not rotating?
because the string is attached to the ball, either both of them are rotating or neither one is rotating”.
***
The string is not rotating around the ball, is it? I think we made it clear that both the string and the ball are rotating around the head of the person swinging the string. But the ball cannot rotate about its COG because the string won’t let it turn.
Gordon,
Nope, the string turns the ball.
but not on its own axis.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Go away, troll.
If it turns, it has to turn on its own axis.
It’s impossible to be otherwise.
It can turn about an axis that is external to its body.
DR EMPTY,
that is still its own axis.
Consider the boomerang.
By “its own axis” I am always referring to an axis going through the body of the object in question, as you well know.
If we can agree that a boomerang in flight is rotating.
We should be able to agree that the axis it is rotating around does not go through the body of the boomerang.
“Its own axis”, when referring to the ball on a string, refers to an axis going through the body of the ball itself.
Gordon,
Yeah, the ball on a stick is rotating, after all that is what you just said.
“So, the guy has a hold of the stick and he is rotating the ball in an orbit around him before letting go. Are you saying that ball, attached firmly to a stick, is rotating about its local axis?”
“and he is rotating the ball”
You just said the guy is rotating the ball
I don’t know what you mean by local axis, if you mean a fixed axis that is not moving, then no, but if you mean an axis that is moving with the ball, then yes, the ball is rotating around an axis that is moving.
bob, please stop trolling.
bob d…”There is no such mechanism in the atmosphere.
Try a Hurricane, it works like a refrigerator, leaving a wake of cold water behind it”.
***
Since hurricanes need an ocean temperature around 80F (about 27 C), the direction of heat transfer is always hot to cold. No contradiction of the 2nd law.
Hurricanes cannot transfer heat from cold to hot.
Gordon,
Stick with the argument, which is, there is transfer of energy from cold to hot.
Not heat.
..and since there’s no heat transferred, there is no increase in temperature.
DR EMPTY,
But there is energy transferred, which slows the rate of cooling, and raises the height where the energy in balances the energy out.
So the surface temperature has to increase.
No, bob, increase in temperature means heat has been transferred. We agreed that no heat was transferred, so we know the surface temperature will not increase.
DR EMPTY
“increase in temperature means heat has been transferred”
Well, yes, heat has been transferred, but at a slower rate.
Glad you agree.
Some one will be along to assign you your demerits, maybe assign some extra KP at Sky Dragon School.
bob has to resort to trying to twist my words, meaning he concedes the argument.
DR EMPTY
is lying again
“We agreed that no heat was transferred, so we know the surface temperature will not increase.”
Nope, I never agreed that no heat was transferred.
I only agree there was no neat transfer from cold to hot with out compensation, or work being performed.
bob can now argue with himself:
bob: "Stick with the argument, which is, there is transfer of energy from cold to hot.
Not heat."
Also bob: "Nope, I never agreed that no heat was transferred."
DR EMPTY
And why do you think those two statements contradict each other?
I said there was energy transfer.
I also said that I never said there was no heat transfer.
I did once say there was no heat transfer, but that was a different problem.
I think that the two statements contradict each other because the two statements contradict each other.
DR EMPTY,
Remember energy and heat are different.
In one sentence I was talking about heat and in the other energy.
No, bob. In statement 1) you said there was no heat transfer. Then in statement 2) you said you never agreed that no heat was transferred. You plainly contradicted yourself.
DR EMPTY,
You are only partly quoting me.
When I said there was no heat transferred, I specified that it was from cold to hot, which is the part you are conveniently leaving out.
You are back to your half a quote shenanigans.
I quoted your 12:00 PM comment in full. Only word I left out was you saying “Gordon”.
DR EMPTY
This is what you said I said in my 12pm remark
“1) you said there was no heat transfer.”
This is my 12pm remark
“Gordon,
Stick with the argument, which is, there is transfer of energy from cold to hot.
Not heat.”
What part of that do you not understand?
And why do you accuse me of saying there was no heat transfer?
You do understand I said there was a transfer of energy, and I was specifying from cold to hot.
I did not remark on whether there was heat transfer from hot to cold.
God you’re desperate.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Go away, troll.
DR EMPTY,
You are just trying to attack and slander me, and you are not doing a very good job at it.
Now he pretends to be the victim…
DR EMPTY,
Nope not playing the victim, you are just not doing a very good job attacking me, because you are lying.
“No, bob, increase in temperature means heat has been transferred. We agreed that no heat was transferred, so we know the surface temperature will not increase.”
This is a lie, I never agreed no heat was transferred.
I did say that there was no heat transferred from cold to hot, but that statement doesn’t mean there was no heat transferred from hot to cold.
“bob has to resort to trying to twist my words, meaning he concedes the argument.”
Another lie, you just don’t understand that lowering the rate of heat transfer from a warm object being heated by another source of heat, results in the warm object getting warmer still.
Sorry for your loss
bob, if you meant something other than what you originally said, don’t blame me for your poor communication skills. Sorry for your personality.
DR EMPTY,
Don’t blame me for your lack of reading comprehension.
Because I said there was no transfer of heat from cold to hot.
And there is always heat transfer, except when?
This is a test question, don’t fail it.
I cannot read what you do not write.
DR EMPTY,
It was a simple question of thermodynamics, not of what I wrote.
You can’t answer because you don’t know any thermodynamics.
None.
Answer what?
DR EMPTY,
Don’t you read?
There is always heat transfer, except when?
Hush, child.
bob d…”Stick with the argument, which is, there is transfer of energy from cold to hot”.
Not possible, heat is the only energy that can be transferred hot to cold. Name me the energy that can be transferred cold to hot in a hurricane.
Talking about generic energy is ingenuous. Different energies have very different properties. If I drop a boulder off a cliff, gravitational energy will accelerate it toward the ground. When it strikes the ground it’s kinetic energy will be converted to mechanical energy. However, the bolder cannot lift itself back up onto the cliff ‘by its own means’.
Gordon,
The hurricane example was of compensation, not necessarily the transfer of energy from cold to hot.
Though a hurricane does remove energy from the colder water to the hotter atmosphere, in the case of a hurricane the atmosphere can be warmer than the water it moves over.
Try again.
bob d …”Though a hurricane does remove energy from the colder water to the hotter atmosphere”,
The water starts out warm, that being a precursor for a hurricane. The hurricane removes heat, leaving the water colder.
Conversely, if the water is too cold, the hurricane won’t start.
Gordon,
The Clausius statement
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Dwell on that for a while
bob, please stop trolling.
Swanson, bob, and Folkerts continue to cling to their cult belief that Moon is rotating about its axis. Of course, that is wrong as Moon is only orbiting. The ball-on-a-string is the model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The ball always has the same side facing the inside of the orbit, just as Moon.
The idiots are still not able to come up with a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. They can’t use the correct model, because it destroys their cult belief. But, they can’t come up with an alternate model that works.
They’ve got NOTHING. Except hours and hours of their blah-blah….
Clint, if you could define your terms, then we might be able to proceed. Instead we get vague pontificating and vague references to ‘cult beliefs’ and balls-on-strings.
Two simple questions for you.
1) How do you define “axial rotation”. If I look at something — anything — and want to know if it is undergoing rotation about an axis and at what rate, what measurements would I make?
2) what is your definition of “orbital motion without axial rotation” for an elliptical orbit? You have never been able to state such an answer. 0% of actual orbits are perfect circles, so a model that ONLY works for circles is 0% useful for astronomy.
Well, there’s your problems Folkerts. You don’t understand what “axial rotation” is. No wonder you can’t come up with a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You don’t understand any of this.
Clint deflects. He has no definition. Heck, he could have just googled something, but that would pin him down and he knows his non-existent understanding could be laid bare.
Folkerts, you didn’t know what “axial rotation” is, but now you admit you could easily find out.
That indicates you don’t want to learn. You just want to invent false accusations. For some reason you reject reality, preferring instead to pervert it.
Looks like Clint R couldn’t get a job putting tires on cars, because he doesn’t understand why they put the little lead weights on the rims.
I missed this nonsense yesterday. I don’t have time to see and respond to all the idiots.
Here, poor bob displays his confusion about the issue once again. There’s no need to try to explain to him what’s wrong with his nonsense. He can’t understand physics.
He makes the classic mistake of confusing “mass” with “weight”.
Clint R,
I gave you the chance to explain why they put the weights on automobile wheels.
The way I see it, you wouldn’t answer because that would mean your definition of rotation is wrong.
And my sentence would have been understood if I had used little lead masses instead of little lead weights.
Mass has weight and weight has mass, what part of that do you not understand.
Oh, all of it, I see.
Yes bob, you’re terribly confused. You don’t understand any of this.
Have you ever moved a piano, Pup?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I don’t always have time to answer all of the nonsense the idiots throw out. Several of them troll all day long. I just don’t have that much time. This morning, I will answer the questions Folkerts posed yesterday:
1) How do you define “axial rotation”. If I look at something — anything — and want to know if it is undergoing rotation about an axis and at what rate, what measurements would I make?
“Axial rotation” is simply a body turning about its own center of mass. A simple example is to attach a string to a tennis ball. Hold the loose end of the string at the center of a table, and pull the string taut. Now, twist the tennis ball counter-clockwise. Notice the string wraps around the ball. Twist the ball clockwise and again the string wraps around the ball. That’s “axial rotation”.
2) What is your definition of “orbital motion without axial rotation” for an elliptical orbit? You have never been able to state such an answer. 0% of actual orbits are perfect circles, so a model that ONLY works for circles is 0% useful for astronomy.
The ball-on-a-string is a suitable model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”. To model an elliptical orbit, an elastic string could be used. Or, a toy train on an elliptical track could be used. In both models, the same side of the object (tennis ball or train) would have the same side facing the inside of the orbit, just as we see with Moon. In fact, it would be easy to build a model of Moon’s orbit. The main components would be an elliptical track, slightly tilted, with one motor to move the “moon”.
Both questions are just attempts by Folkerts to pervert reality. I’ve have explained these concepts several times, as have others. He rejects reality because reality destroys his cult beliefs.
Notice that he will spend all day trying to attack my simple examples. Yet, he has NO workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
He has NOTHING.
Clint R
“Axial rotation is simply a body turning about its own center of mass.”
No it’s not.
Try finding the correct definition.
bob, you can’t find the definition?
Folkerts said you could just “google something”.
Found it, Pup:
https://tinyurl.com/k5b6j74v
You’re welcome.
Go away, troll.
No U.
Clint R,
I know the correct definition, you have the wrong one.
That is why I suggested that you look it up.
I can give you the correct definition, but it’s fifty bucks.
Well bob, it took you all day just to find it.
Now, you have to understand it! And, you know what a hard time you have understanding science.
Get back to us in about a year….
Clint R,
You have had the wrong definition for at least two years, in that time you could have gotten that minor in physics you crave so much.
bob, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY,
Please don’t post unless posted too.
Your betters are trying to have a discussion.
#2
bob, please stop trolling.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“The ball-on-a-string is a suitable model … Or, a toy train on an elliptical track …. just as we see with Moon.”
The problem is that these are three different motions!
1) The string keeps one point facing directly inward forward the center (no libration)
2) The train keep one point directly forward along the track (some libration)
3) The moon turns with constant angular speed relative to the stars (more libration)
The first, most important goal of any model must be to accurately predict the behavior of the universe. Your two proposed models both ‘pervert reality’ by giving wrong predictions. They cannot correctly predict libration, so they must be scrapped for a better model.
“Yet, he has NO workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” … ”
Of course I do. The same model used by every scientist in the world. If you need it explained with toys then start with your train model, but the ball representing the moon is mounted on a frictionless axle, rather than bolted to the train car. It’s that simple.
Whether the train is moving or not, “without axial rotation” always means “keeping the same side of the ball facing north”. Whether the ball is spinning or not, “orbit” means “moving along the track”. Each motion is defined clearly and independently.
And this realty is ‘workable’. It works to predict the correct libration of the moon in its elliptical orbit.
Folkerts, you need some new “blah-blah”.
All of that nonsense has been addressed.
I have a model. You have a model.
Mine works. Yours doesn’t.
That pretty much addresses it.
I have a workable model. You have a nonsense model.
Mine works. Yours doesn’t.
Your nonsense model of “…without axial rotation” has “axial rotation”. You don’t understand any of this, and you can’t learn. Youre an idiot.
That pretty much addresses it.
At a slightly more in-depth level …
Your model requires the train car to apply torques to the ball to keep it aligned with the train car as it move at different speeds around tighter and broader curves on the ellipse. As you have pointed out, gravity (the only force involved with the actual moon in its actual orbit) cannot apply such torques. So you yourself know that your model cannot work for a real moon.
My model (aka ‘everyone’s model’) applies no torque to the ball — just like real gravity. This is why it predicts the correct libration.
Folkerts, are you going to be here all day perverting reality?
You can’t deal with one issue at a time. You have to keep dodging and diverting. You don’t have a workable model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
We “non-spinners” do. Deal with it.
Perverting reality, and avoiding learning, make you an idiot.
“Your nonsense model of ‘…without axial rotation’ has ‘axial rotation’ ”
ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION, a tennis ball winding up as you hold the end of the string stationary is axial rotation. So the axis can clearing be moving and still count as axial rotation.
ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION, if I mounted a ball on a frictionless (zero torque) vertical pin and spun it, that would be ‘axial’ rotation. If one face turned from north back to north in 4 seconds, the rotation rate would be 15 RPM.
ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION, the rotation rate would be the same 15 RPM if I were carrying the pin north at 1 m/s. Or southwest at 1 m/s.
ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION, the rotation rate would be the same 15 RPM if I were carrying the pin in a square in 4 sec — N for 1s; E for 1s; S for 1 s; W for 1 s. Or around an octagon in 4 second. Or around an icosagon in 4 second. Or around a circle in 4 seconds.
Your definition is painting you into a corner …
Your first example is based on reality, Folkerts. The others appear to be increasing levels of perversion.
I don’t have time to mess with you idiots today. Present a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, or else, you’ve got NOTHING.
I think you mean “increasing levels of discomfort” and “I don’t have ability to deal.”
You clearly can’t handle ideas that challenge your simplistic thinking. Rather than engage, you run away an somehow imagine that you made a point that 20 generations of scientists simply never thought of.
Folkerts, if you had reality on your side, you wouldn’t have to pervert my comments and make up nonsense.
I don’t have time to mess with you idiots today. Present a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, or else, you’ve got NOTHING.
Clint, if you had reality on your side, physics textbook would agree with you.
Folkerts, if “20 generations of scientists” and all physics textbooks agreed with you then it should be easy for you find a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, huh?
It *is* easy to find — pages and pages of information. Literally pick up any college physics text.
You got NOTHING, Foolerts.
Still no numerical model, Pup.
Enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcL3wJCE1w8
Willard, please stop trolling.
tim…”The moon turns with constant angular speed relative to the stars (more libration)”
Apparently it’s angular speed varies a bit due to the nature of an ellipse. It’s angular velocity won’t change but gravitational force will vary slightly in an ellipse. If the effect of the lunar linear velocity has more effect than gravitational force, the resultant orbital speed could change slightly.
You actually touched on the cause of libration a while back when you talked about the varying eccentricity of elliptical orbits. There can be no libration with a purely circular orbit because the radial line to the Moon from the Earth is the only radial line.
With an ellipse, the radial line defining the Moon’s local orbital curvature is no longer a radial line shared with the Earth. It is calculated by drawing lines from each elliptical focal point to the Moon and bisecting that angle. As the ellipse becomes more eccentric, that radial line will point further from the Earth’s centre, allowing more longitudinal libration.
Of course, that radial line is pointing perpendicular to the near face. Therefore, the gravitational force acting along it will become a sine or cosine component of the gravity vector. The component will be smaller than the full gravity vector, and depending on the eccentricity of the elliptical curve, it will vary throughout the orbit.
We must remember that the orbit is not like a track which a car must follow, or a rail that a train must follow, it is created by the interaction of the Moon’s momentum with Earth’s gravitational force. So, if gravity varies slightly, it will affect the shape of the orbit since the Moon’s momentum is always constant.
There is no way to change the lunar linear momentum without applying a force directly to the Moon in opposite that direction.
Gordon,
“There is no way to change the lunar linear momentum without applying a force directly to the Moon in opposite that direction.”
How about if the force is applied at right angles.
There is just so much you don’t know.
bob, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY,
Please stop talking when your betters are posting.
There are adults in the room, please go back to the nursery.
bob, please stop trolling.
Please stop giving Bob wins, Kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon, you say all this as if you’re discovering some new ideas. In fact, Newton derived that orbits would be ellipses. He knew that gravity does indeed ‘vary slightly’ according to an inverse square law. He knew moons and planets orbit with constant angular momentum (but certainly not constant linear momentum). This can all be found in freshman physics textbooks.
And as for this: “There is no way to change the lunar linear momentum without applying a force directly to the Moon in opposite that direction.”
1) Any force perpendicular to an object’s direction of motion will change the DIRECTION of the linear momentum.
2) Any force parallel to an object’s direction of motion will change the MAGNITUDE of the linear momentum.
So as the moon goes around the elliptical orbit, both the magnitude and direction of the moon’s linear momentum are constantly changing.
tim…”So as the moon goes around the elliptical orbit, both the magnitude and direction of the moon’s linear momentum are constantly changing”.
***
The Moon does not go around an orbital path as if the orbit is a track or railroad track that must be followed. The Moon’s linear momentum helps create the track, however, instant by instant, as it works against gravitational force.
I have already pointed out the direction of the Moon’s tangential velocity changes instant by instant, explaining the illusion you spinners regard as rotation about a local axis. However, it’s linear velocity does not change, a force in opposite direction would be required to do that. Or an accelerating force from behind.
Here we will discuss the real difference between NCERT and CBSE. Have you ever wondered why NCERT textbooks are recommended in CBSE schools? Here you will find all your answers.
Dr Spencer, you said
I believe the climate system has warmed
I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning
I don’t believe that second, because previous warmings have not been due to CO2(CET, Armaugh)and why should now be different? The slope of increase in the CET for 1680-1730 is steeper than anything we’ve seen lately.