The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2021 was +0.20 deg. C, up from the June, 2021 value of -0.01 deg. C.
REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.
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).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 19 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.40 0.52 0.57 -0.22 0.41
2020 02 0.59 0.74 0.45 0.63 0.17 -0.27 0.20
2020 03 0.35 0.42 0.27 0.53 0.81 -0.95 -0.04
2020 04 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.35 -0.70 0.63 0.78
2020 05 0.42 0.43 0.41 0.53 0.07 0.84 -0.20
2020 06 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.54 0.97
2020 07 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.44 0.27 0.26
2020 08 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.24
2020 09 0.40 0.42 0.39 0.29 0.69 0.24 0.64
2020 10 0.38 0.53 0.22 0.24 0.86 0.95 -0.01
2020 11 0.40 0.52 0.27 0.17 1.45 1.09 1.28
2020 12 0.15 0.08 0.21 -0.07 0.29 0.44 0.13
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.65 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.31 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for July, 2021 should be available within the next few days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Only has one job to do.
Report the facts as they are, not as I want them to be.
Always next month I guess.
GH theory says the gap is not vanishingly small. Because of the GHG molecules some of the outgoing surface energy takes a significantly longer random walk before going out into space, longer in both distance and time. Some of the energy even returns to the surface. This wandering about means there is more energy in the system, even if all the incoming energy ultimately leaves.
Greenhouse theory does not say energy is stored. GHGs just briefly increase the average amount of time the energy is in the Earth system. Thus at any given time there is a little more energy wandering around in the system than there would be without the GHGs. This adds an estimated 33 degrees C to the average temperature at the surface.
A crude analog would be that when there are customer lines in the bank there will be more people inside, even though everyone gets served and leaves.
In other words you are claiming that the GHG are heat sources producing their own extra energy.
There are no extra customers inside.
Like the magic infinity hotel the guests coming in are a known number and equal the customers going out.
They might be doing a bit of covid room hopping but they are not splitting into new customers. That would be creation of energy from nothing.
When more crowd into the lobby the lobby gets hotter but that just means there are less guests in the rooms.
When you heat a piece of metal in a fire the atoms in the metal reach a new energy level that lets them radiate infra red.
They do this because they were in a steady state but now have to get rid of the extra energy to return to that basal state.
Previously the fire would have burnt you, now the hot metal does.
Take it outside and it rapidly cools down until all the last of the incoming energy can be dissipated.
This energy is not extra energy or stored energy or energy waiting in lines.
It is the last of the energy that went into it.
At the time you removed it from the fire it was in a steady state at the energy in/energy out.
No energy it cools down.
Not instantaneously because unlike its heat source as it cools down it can only radiate the heat away slowly.
Living on earth we conceive of such a cooling as if night comes on forgetting that the sun is still pumping its millions of hydrogen bombs into the other side of the earth.
In reality no sun , extremely rapid freeze, as that last lots of nuclear energy to enter more slowly leaves. being exactly that last bit of energy to come in.
Your lines of wandering customers make a dash for the exit as that 1360 W/M squared warming the earth returns to space.
GHGs are not heat sources producing their own extra energy.
It is a chimera.
“GHGs are not heat sources producing their own extra energy.
It is a chimera.”
Well, you are right, GHGs are not producing energy or heat. What they do however is to elevate the emission layer which in combination with the atmospheric lapse rate, provides higher temperatures to the surface.
It is a tragedy so few climate scientists have understood the actually pretty simple GHE. But just because they got it wrong, will not mean it would not exist. I hope this brings some clarity to the subject matter..
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/the-tiny-atmosphere-effect
Eben says “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
This seems unlikely since the Sun’s output peaked in the 1960s and has been decreasing since.
I do not blame the sun, at least not with recent warming. Rather I will point to contrails.
Peaked in the 1960s.
The Sun has been shining on us for the last 14 billion years and you know that it peaked in the 1960s and will steadily decrease for some time into the future? Can I try some of that kool-aid?
I have the good fortune not to be an American, so I miss a lot of the more parochial references.
What is kool-aid and what does it have to do with solar output?
Kool-aid is fruit-flavored powdered drink mix concentrate. The idiom is a reference to the .
Kool-aid has to with “electric kool-aid” which is a hallucinogen. LSD or THC based.
Kool-aid has to do with a cult mass suicide at Jonestown by drinking poison in Kool-aid, to make it easier on the kids.
A Congresswoman who was there, witnessed the events, and was shot but survived, recently compared the way the 900 cult members followed their mad leader, Jim Jones, to what is currently happening with the R party members and their leader Donald Trump.
“…what is currently happening with the R party members and their leader Donald Trump.”
With good reason.
“…to what is currently happening with the R party members…”
Cultists always think it is everyone else who has been brainwashed.
always
I am always amused by the “woke again” flock that worships the government as their deity posting that Trump supporters are cultists. That’s like Michael Moore Calling you fat.
“AUBURN, Ala. When I had just moved here six years ago and a lifetime ago I was shopping at Publix, wheeling my cart out to the car. My baby sat in the buggy; I hit a bump and the bottle of sparkling water Id just bought skittered onto the ground, exploding. A young man in a Publix uniform ran up; I anticipated frustration (Id made quite a mess) but instead he apologized for my mistake and ran inside to get another bottle to replace it.
I tell that story to illustrate the extreme, sometimes unbelievable courteousness of the South. Here my neighbors think nothing of building a bridge over the creek in my backyard, so that all our children can play on it.
I love this place. Out of all the places in the world, I feel most comfortable in the South.”
“But as I told a friend a few weeks ago, I didnt know that moving here would mean I would be at a disadvantage in future pandemics. As I write this, JUST 34% OF ELIGIBLE ADULTS HERE IN LEE COUNTY ARE VACCINATED. When I went into Ace Hardware last week, my 6-year-old son and I were the only people in the entire store wearing masks.”
“Because even as parts of the country with higher vaccination rates start to return to something resembling normal, were basically back to where we were last year. Our hospital, East Alabama Medical Center, where my younger son was born three years ago, is again being flooded with Covid patients. The Delta variant is ripping through our community, and people are furious, but their anger is directed at, variously, the pediatricians who are encouraging vaccines for older children, the City Council who appointed the school board who passed the mask mandate and businesses that are not ‘Pro-Freedom.'”
from NYT op-ed By Anton DiSclafani, a novelist and an associate professor of creative writing at Auburn University.
“… the Suns output peaked in the 1960s…”
Not the peak that counts. It’s the area under the curve. That increased in the latter half of the 20th century.
Correct. When you do the integration you find that the sun caused the ocean heat content to increase all the way to 2003, after which time it started to fall. The custodians of the data didn’t like that so they started removing ARGO buoys which showed cooling “because they must be faulty”.
“because they must be faulty”
You think sophisticated equipment always works as designed!
Evidence?
Bart, Can you show us a model that actually produces this very delayed response?
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2165
Yes angech, and even the “33K” is nonsense.
The 33K comes from comparing Earth to an imaginary object. That’s like me claiming I can out run an Olympic track star because I’m faster than a one-legged unicorn.
Speaking of false claims-
Dr. Spencer has indicated he doesnt want to contest the physics of the GHE,
We are still waiting for you to admit you lied.
Test
Q˙
angech
I like your analogy.
The “temperature” of the bank measures the number of customers it contains.
The temperature of Earth’s climate system measures the number of units of heat it contains.
The “temperature” of the bank increases when more customers enter than leave.
The temperature of the Earth system increases when more units of heat enter than leave.
The conventional view explaining the current warming trend is that increasing CO2 is decreasing the number of units of heat leaving, hence the imbalance and the accumulating energy.
If you think that CO2 is not doing this, then something else is causing the imbalance.
Suggestions?
Water vapor. It has been increasing about 1.49% per decade. That is about 43% faster than possible from just temperature increase.
Humans breath out water vapor at body temperature. How does the increase of 1.49% per decade track with human population? Well human population has gone up about 1.1% per year.
But humans are only a small fraction of the total mass of animals on the earth. So we exhale only a small fraction of the H2O from respiration. And respiration is small compared to evaporation.
So nope, not due to more humans breathing.
Animals (including humans) also breath out CO2 as well as water vapor.
I was observing that the human population has a growth rate of 11%/decade or so recently.
Most of that is concentrated in urban locations which have a well know heat concentration. Just as we humans prefer indoor temperatures of approx 20c which will inevitably leak into the surrounding atmosphere over time.
All of this will have some effect on local concentrations of both heat, CO2 and water vapor.
What effect does adding 10%/decade of warm, evaporative swamp to the environment have?
Burning hydrocarbons produces at least two things – H2O, and CO2.
Carbon based animal life also produces at least two things – H20, and CO2.
Luckily, neither of these in the atmosphere have the slightest heating effect. Try and find some SkyGragon GHG cultist silly enough to claim that the GHE can be observed at night, while the temperature is dropping, or winter, or indoors, or in the laboratory, or . . .
Like Trenberth’s missing heat, the GHE cannot actually be found, and to use Trenberth’s words “it’s a travesty”!
No wonder the judge in Mann’s defamation case against Steyn threw out all of Mann’s “expert witnesses”. All form and no substance, and didn’t want to acknowledge the “scientific method”.
What a travesty!
“the GHE can be observed at night, while the temperature is dropping”
FYI for the perpetually ignorant, night is generally cooler than day. Something to do with the lack of sunshine.
About 90% of the extra WV is from increased irrigation.
CO2 is not doing this.
You understand the greenhouse effect raises temperature from -14C to 15C … because the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere decrease direct thermal radiation to space by some 342 Wm-2. That makes out about 1C per 10 Wm-2. About 30 Wm-2 is due to CO2.
According to William Happer article ‘Radiation Transfer’, the Schwarzschild equations closely match the observations. That means Schwarzschild can be used to project what will happen when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled from its current concentration of 400 ppm to 800 ppm. The answer is you get an additional decrease of direct thermal radiation to space by 3Wm-2.
3Wm-2 should result in about 0.3C warming in the next 200 years.
Its not CO2 that is causing the modest 1C warming observed in our climate since 1880. So what is causing the warming? I like Carl Otto Weiss suggestion of cycles. Solar Cycles, major ocean cycles like AMO PDO and ENSO. Since each cycle is different length there are times the net of the cycles are positive and there are times the cycles are negative. That results in cycles of warming and cooling in our climate. The warning comes that we are due for cooling similar to that experienced in the mini ice age.
“So what is causing the warming?” A combination of ocean surface temperature cycles, cloud augmented solar change and mostly (about 2/3) water vapor increase. The water vapor increase, (about 90% from irrigation) can account for all of humanity’s contribution to planet warming. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Measurements in De Bilt (The Netherlands) show an increase in solar irradiance of more than 10 W/m2 since 1980, much more than the theoretical contribution of the additional CO2.
Global relevance?
Got a link.
angech
“Greenhouse theory does not say energy is stored. GHGs just briefly increase the average amount of time the energy is in the Earth system. Thus at any given time there is a little more energy wandering around in the system than there would be without the GHGs. This adds an estimated 33 degrees C to the average temperature at the surface.”
angech, you say
“…This adds an estimated 33 degrees C to the average temperature at the surface.”
I have shown in my site that
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.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech, please also visit Ron Clutz’s Blog
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
Thanks for the link, Christos. Your work is very compelling. The politicians treated Copernicus with disdain too.
The difference between Christos and Copernicus is that Copernicus’ hypothesis was correct.
Have you falsified Christos’ hypothesis? It should be easy.
Here is how Cristos deals with contradictory facts
Opponent:
“The same satellite data you use to benchmark your calculation also shows that Earths atmosphere is highly absorbing in certain ranges of the IR spectrum (see the spectrum here)
https://ibb.co/8NVdj4Q
How do you explain this contradiction?”
Cristos Answer:
“Yes, I visited the Link you provided. There is not a contradiction with the data.
Graph shows the measured Earth emissions in certain ranges of the IR spectrum…
Earth’s atmosphere does not absorb what is shown in the Graph.”
Thus one of the biggest problems is that when Cristos can’t explain observations, he simply denies they are true.
Nate
“Here is how Christos deals with contradictory facts”
Nate
“Thus one of the biggest problems is that when Christos can’t explain observations, he simply denies they are true.”
Christos Vournas
says:
July 29, 2021 at 8:15 AM
Opponent:
“The same satellite data you use to benchmark your calculation also shows that Earth’s atmosphere is highly absorbing in certain ranges of the IR spectrum (see the spectrum here https://ibb.co/8NVdj4Q). How do you explain this contradiction?”
Christos Vournas:
Yes, I visited the Link you provided. There is not a contradiction with the data.
Graph shows the measured Earth emissions in certain ranges of the IR spectrum…
Earth’s atmosphere does not absorb what is shown in the Graph.
It is a product of a mistaken comparison of the measured IR spectrum emitted by the surface with the alleged blackbody emission curve at 288K.
Earth’s surface does not have a uniform surface temperature of 288K. Thus any measured IR emissions cannot be compared with that curve.
Also it is a question what those measured emissions (the so called atmospheric windows) represent. Are they average globe emissions, are they day-time emissions? What they are?
Conclusion
Earth’s atmosphere highly absorbing in certain ranges of the IR spectrum narrative is fictions, because Earth has never emitted those certain ranges of the IR spectrum.
One cannot measure IR radiative emission that is not emitted…
But that does not make it being absorbed by atmosphere. When certain ranges of the IR spectrum are not there… it is a confirmation planet does not emit as a blackbody.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It was simply deduced that those certain ranges of the IR spectrum were absorbed by Earths atmosphere.
It happened so, because it was wrongly compared the Earths actual emission ranges with the blackbody uniform 288K Stefan-Boltzmann emission law curve.
Conclusion
Earths atmosphere highly absorbing in certain ranges of the IR spectrum narrative is fictions, because Earth has never emitted those certain ranges of the IR spectrum.
One cannot measure IR radiative emission that is not emitted
But that does not make it being absorbed by atmosphere. When certain ranges of the IR spectrum are not there it is a confirmation planet does not emit as a blackbody.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“a mistaken comparison of the measured IR spectrum emitted by the surface with the alleged blackbody emission curve at 288K.”
Nope, False. The graph shows no such thing.
The BB spectrum of various temperatures are shown in the background.
These are IRRELEVANT to the large chunks missing from the outgoing Earth spectrum which is shown, that can only have been removed by atmospheric GHG.
This is simply denial of straightforward but inconvenient facts.
Nate
“These are IRRELEVANT to the large chunks missing from the outgoing Earth spectrum which is shown, that can only have been removed by atmospheric GHG.”
Nate, please visit “Earth’s Energy Budget”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:Diagram_showing_the_Earth's_energy_budget,_which_includes_the_greenhouse_effect_(NASA).png
What do you see in the “Earth’s Energy Budget”? Please comment.
“Have you falsified Christos’ hypothesis? It should be easy.”
Yes indeed it is.
Cristos makes several Fundamental errors.
A BIG one is as follows.
He calculates the reflected fraction of incident Solar Radiation to be
“(1 – Φ + Φ*a)S – is the reflected fraction of the incident on the planet solar flux”
R = 1 – phi+ phi*a = 1 – (0.47)+(.47)*(0.3) = 0.67
where phi is ‘radiation accepting factor’, a = planetary albedo ~ 0.3
The incident Flux is S = 1361 W/m^2, which gives a global average incident flux of S/4 = 340 W/m^2.
Cristos predicts the global-average reflected flux will be
0.67*340 W/m^2 = 228 W/m^2
But science calculates the reflected fraction of incident Solar Radiation to be
R = a = 0.3
and predicts the global-average reflected flux will be
0.3*340 W/m^2 = 102 W/m^2
What do measurements find?
Satellite measurements clearly agree (within error) with science’s calculation and disagree with Cristos.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014RG000449
“According to these CERES EBAF data, the global, annual mean all-sky reflected flux
is 99.7 W m−2 (equivalent to a global albedo of 0.293)”
For clarity:
“According to these CERES EBAF data, the global, annual mean all-sky reflected flux
is 99.7 W/m^2 (equivalent to a global albedo of 0.293)”
“What do you see in the “Earths Energy Budget”? Please comment.
What am I supposed to see there?
I see nothing there that helps your argument.
Stephen
“Christos,
You’re saying there’s GHE when 96% of the atmosphere is CO2? Holy crap! GHE is proved!”
Yes, when 96% of the atmosphere is CO2.
Also we know Venus’ atmosphere ground density D = 65 kg/m³.
It is not only the CO₂% content in the Earth’s atmosphere general content that matters, but we have also to consider how many CO₂ molecules are in Earth’s atmosphere in total.
If Earth’s atmosphere was consisted from the actually existing CO₂ molecules only, the atmospheric pressure on the Earth’s surface would have been 0,0004 bar.
–
Planet Earth has a very thin atmosphere…
Yes, that is exactly what we said. Earth’s atmosphere is very thin.
But how? We are accustomed to the opposite opinion.
What it is we believe about Earth’s atmosphere thickness? Does anyone think the Earth has a thick atmosphere? A very thick, maybe?
No, but we think our atmosphere is not thin. It is not very thin.
What we think about the Earth’s atmosphere is that it is just all right. The Earth’s atmosphere is just the way a planet’s atmosphere should be.
The Earth’s atmosphere pressure at the sea level is 1 bar. It consists mainly of 79% N2 and 21% O2, and water vapor 1%, and CO2 0,04% and the other trace gasses.
Let’s compare Earth’s atmosphere with Venus’ atmosphere. Venus is almost the same size planet as Earth is. That is why Venus is called a sister planet.
The Venus’ atmosphere pressure at the ground level is 92 bar. It consists mainly of 96% CO2 and 4% N2, and other trace gasses. And Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect.
For someone living on Venus the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be thin. It appears to be very thin, very-very thin.
Compare the figures:
1 bar with 0.04% CO2 for Earth, and 92 bar with 96% CO2 for Venus.
How much more CO2 Venus has?
Let’s calculate: 92 bar * 96% / 1 bar * 0.04% =
So we shall have
92*96*25 = 220,800 times more CO2 Venus’ atmosphere at ground level has compared to Earth’s.
So what we compare is 1 to 220,800 !
For someone living on Venus the conclusion would be the planet Earth doesn’t have any CO2 in its atmosphere.
–
Earth’s-Without-Atmosphere Surface Mean Temperature Equation Tmean.earth gives:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹ ∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0.306)1,362 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)1.362 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5.67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴]¹∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287.74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures for Earth, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
But when we calculate Venus’-Without-Atmosphere Surface Mean Temperature by the same Equation, using planet Venus’ data we are getting:
Tmean.venus = 259.7 K
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.venus = 737 K, measured by satellites.
Those two temperatures for Venus, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are completely different !
That is why we confirm here that yes, Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect because of its very thick atmosphere, Venus has a very strong greenhouse effect.
The Earth, on the other hand, doesn’t have any measurable greenhouse effect. Earth has only some traces of greenhouse gasses.
Earth has only some tiny traces of greenhouse effect, if to speak scientifically, in full accordance with the physics.
We cannot completely deny Earth having greenhouse effect, how could we… we only compare it being
1 to 220,800 !
And yet you continue to ignore the large chunks removed from the outgoing IR spectrum removed by atm GHG.
You ignore the satellite measurements of reflected solar that totally disagree with your calculation.
As Feynman noted, doesnt matter how much you believe in your theory, if the observations don’t agree with your theory, it’s wrong.
moree that doesnt make sense in Cristos analysis:
“The Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law
Planet Energy Budget:
Solar energy absorbed by a Hemisphere with radius ‘r’ after reflection and dispersion:
Jabs = phi*pi*r^2*S*(1-a) (W)”
Lets find input flux averaged over the sphere, so divide both sides by 4pir^2.
Fin = phi/4*S*(1-a)
= (0.41)/4*1361*(1-0.3)
= 97.6 Watts/m^2
This way lower than the actual measured solar Fin, which is 240 W/m^2.
“Total energy emitted to space from the entire planet:
Jemit = A*sigma*Τmean^4 /(beta*N*cp)^.25 (W)”
the factor in the denominator is 3.5 for Earth. Average outgoing flux is
Fout = Jemit/A = sigma*Τmean^4/3.5
this 3.5 x lower than the SB law requires! Makes no sense.
Arrhg
Correction
Fin = (0.47)/4*1361*(1-0.3)
= 112 W/m2
Again this abs*rbed input is way too small, actually measured to be 240 W/m2
Cristos,
Another hint that something went wrong in your model is that for another Earth spinning faster, say N =16rev/day, its temperature will be doubled to 576 K!
And yet it will emit only half as much radiant flux, 61 W/m^2!
This does not make sense.
Sorry Not 61 W/m2
56 W/m2.
Nate
“August 4, 2021 at 4:22 PM
Christos,
Another hint that something went wrong in your model is that for another Earth spinning faster, say N =16rev/day, its temperature will be doubled to 576 K!
And yet it will emit only half as much radiant flux, 61 W/m^2!
This does not make sense.”
Nate, for another Earth spinning faster, say N =16rev/day, the sixteenth root of N =16rev/day is 1,189
The new mean surface temperature will be 288K * 1,189 = 342,5K
But, according to the Rotational Warming Phenomenon, planet will IR emit the same exactly amount of EM energy.
It is phi*(1-a)So*pr^2 ( W )
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ok you are right, I missed the additional power of 1/4.
And I neglected the T^4 in numerator of Jemit. So Jemit remains constant.
So you agree that the Temp of 16 x faster spinning Earth has warmed from Tmean = 287 K to 342 K, while the emitted radiation remains constant.
The rise would come from the night-side temperature warming up more than the day side temperature cools down. The two sides should equalize with a small net increase in Tmean.
But the current average Earth day-night temperature difference ~ 10 C (remember mostly ocean!). Thus the rise in Tmean should < 10C.
But you calculate a rise in Tmean of 55 C!
How do you make physical sense of that?
You say emitted total Power = " phi*(1-a)So*pr^2 ( W )"
Which gives an Earth average emitted flux = Power/(4pr^2)
Fav = phi*(1-a)*So/4 = (.47) *0.7*1361/4 = 112 W/m^2.
Yes/No?
This still is very far below the measured Fav = 240 W/m^2.
Same goes for your calculated input ab*sor*bed Fin = 112 W/m^2.
Still way below the measured Fin = 240 W/m^2.
So again, your theory does not agree with observations.
It is falsified.
“92*96*25 = 220,800 times more CO2 Venus’ atmosphere at ground level has compared to Earth’s.
So what we compare is 1 to 220,800 !”
Not the correct way to compare GHE on Venus and Earth.
The actual calculation depends on the concentration and the total pressure.
However the GHE on Earth grows proportionally to the ln(Pa)
So a rough calculation with the ratio of Venus to Earth GHE to be ln(220,000) = 12.3.
Your own estimate of the GHE enhancement of T on Venus is ~737-259 ~ 480 C.
So a rough estimate of GHE enhancement of Temperature on Earth is 480 C/12.3 ~ 39 C.
Science has measured the actual GHE enhancement of Earth temperature to be 33 C.
I am not saying planetary surface emits everywhere 112 W/m^2.
Fav = phi*(1-a)*So/4 = (.47) *0.7*1361/4 = 112 W/m^2.
I said it is average value.
Planetary surface does not emit average values, surface emits at the every infinitesimal spot and at every infinitesimal moment differently. Only when integrated the entire planet surface emits at every given instant the 112 W/m^2.
Also, the blackbody effective temperature 255K is by definition a uniform surface temperature.
In the GHE theory they compare the 255K with the Earth’s actual average (mean) surface temperature Tmean = 288K.
It is a huge mistake, because they treat the 288K as Earth’s uniform surface temperature, which is not.
Earth does not emit at the average 288K…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate
“Not the correct way to compare GHE on Venus and Earth”.
Yes, it is not the correct way, it compares the CO2 contents only.
Earth atmosphere has also the greenhouse gas H20 on average 1%.
……………………………
“Science has measured the actual GHE enhancement of Earth temperature to be 33 C.”
It is a mistaken result when comparing different physic terms – the theoretical uniform surface temperature Te = 255K
and the actual average surface temperature Tmean = 288K
Those two temperatures cannot be compared, because they are different physic terms.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Only when integrated the entire planet surface emits at every given instant the 112 W/m^2.”
That is still WAY below the average observed by satellite which is 240 W/m^2.
The observed value is equivalent to a uniform temperature of 255 K, which is quite close to the TOA mean temperature of emission.
It is not consistent with your calculated average temperature of 288 K.
Sorry your result is contradicted by observation. It is wrong!
“‘Not the correct way to compare GHE on Venus and Earth’.
Yes, it is not the correct way, it compares the CO2 contents only.
Earth atmosphere has also the greenhouse gas H20 on average 1%.”
Cristos you cannot make up your own GHE physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
The GHE forcing is proportional to the logarithm of the CO2 pressure.
Plseas do show us evidence that your’s is the correct way to calculate the GHE. Show us a legitimate source that agrees that the GHE is directly proportional to CO2 pressure.
Cristos,
This shows the Net outgoing IR Flux from Earth is measured to be 239.9 W/m^2 on average.
https://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2020/07/ERB-poster-combined-update-8.2019v4.pdf
This is simply not compatible with your theory.
In science that means your theory is wrong or needs major revision.
Nate
“Please do show us evidence that yours is the correct way to calculate the GHE. Show us a legitimate source that agrees that the GHE is directly proportional to CO2 pressure.”
I never said that the GHE is directly proportional to CO2 pressure…
What I said is:
“For someone living on Venus the Earths atmosphere appears to be thin. It appears to be very thin, very-very thin.
Compare the figures:
1 bar with 0.04% CO2 for Earth, and 92 bar with 96% CO2 for Venus.
How much more CO2 Venus has?
Lets calculate: 92 bar * 96% / 1 bar * 0.04% =
So we shall have
92*96*25 = 220,800 times more CO2 Venus atmosphere at ground level has compared to Earths.
So what we compare is 1 to 220,800 !
For someone living on Venus the conclusion would be the planet Earth doesnt have any CO2 in its atmosphere.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate
“Christos,
This shows the Net outgoing IR Flux from Earth is measured to be 239.9 W/m^2 on average.
https://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2020/07/ERB-poster-combined-update-8.2019v4.pdf
This is simply not compatible with your theory.
In science that means your theory is wrong or needs major revision.”
The answer:
It is not measured… it is the 1,361 W/m^2 /4 = 239.9 W/m^2
They wrongly average solar flux over the entire planet surface.
It is the same operation they do when calculating the Te =255K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It is not measured”
FALSE.
Unless you can show alternative data that agrees with you, we will have to go with what has been reported in the science literature.
It has been measured by CERES and other satellites.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/398d1f93-810f-48d2-bccc-c31c861f3f03/jgrd18237-fig-0001.png
red curve is total Outgoing LW radiation. Its mean is ~ 240 W/m^2
from this paper
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD017997
Again, it is your theory, not the observations, that needs revision.
Nate
“Unless you can show alternative data that agrees with you, we will have to go with what has been reported in the science literature.
It has been measured by CERES and other satellites.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/398d1f93-810f-48d2-bccc-c31c861f3f03/jgrd18237-fig-0001.png
red curve is total Outgoing LW radiation. Its mean is ~ 240 W/m^2
from this paper
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD017997
Again, it is your theory, not the observations, that needs revision.”
Nate, can you please tell me which part of my theory needs revision?
The calculations I do for every planet in solar system are very much precisely close to those satellite measured… What other conclusion one could have other than the theory is correct.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Nate, can you please tell me which part of my theory needs revision?”
It needs to match observations for emitted and reflected flux. It currently does not.
Your phi factor is not needed, since Planetary albedo (0.3) already accounts for angular dependent reflection.
It needs to be consistent with SB law emission. It is not currently.
For Earth, except for a small area of arctic and antarctic, the Temps remain close enough to the Mean, thus a uniform approximation and the SB law should get close to the actual integrated flux for actual Earth, as measured.
Your Tmean of 288K is inconsistent with SB law and 240 W/m2 mean emission. We need a GHE to get a match.
Christos, work is very compelling for people who click on all those ‘with this one simple trick’ ads.
Nate,
You pretend to be a man of science, but you’re nothing but a propagandist. You carry water for Marxism.
Stephen, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you explain why his science is better than the standard GHE..other than that it fits your politics?
Nate,
His science explains there is no 33K warming on Earth. Tell him where his math or the NASA temperature measurements are wrong. Also, Berry has shown mathematically in paper #3 that IPCC carbon cycle is wrong (using their own data). You propagandists hate math, don’t you?
Nate,
Isn’t it good Christos has discovered that we can burn all the fossil fuel on the planet and it won’t affect temperature? But, you Marxists will have to find some other way to destroy capitalism. Oh, I’m sure you’ll come up with something.
‘One simple trick’ – like the CO2 story?
“we can burn all the fossil fuel on the planet and it wont affect temperature’
Stephen confirms that his peer-review of blog-science is based on political implications. If it fits his politics, it passes.
Whether the science is valid or bogus, he cannot say. That’s not really important.
Thank you!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
interesting that Ron has found value in your work.
He is a tireless and hardworking commentator.
cristos,
What about Venus?
I don’t see you discussing it much. Does your model account for Venus’s temperature?
The GHE does account for and explain it..
Oh OK, I see it, now.
Basically it appoears you admit that your model cannot explain Venus and it does require a GHE.
Then how is it you can call it a New Universal Law, if it does not work for Venus?
Nate
“Basically it appears you admit that your model cannot explain Venus and it does require a GHE.
Then how is it you can call it a New Universal Law, if it does not work for Venus?”
Nate, I never said there is not GHE. What I have shown is that Earth’s atmosphere is very thin and the greenhouse gases content is very small, it is trace gases in a very thin atmosphere…
I have calculated Venus’ surface temperature theoretically using the New Equation, by adding in the equation the greenhouse gases’ density factor.
The result is very satisfactory. I have also theoretically calculated by the use of the greenhouse gases’ density factor the mean surface temperatures for Earth’s and Titan’s atmosphere and the results were again very much satisfactory.
Please Nate visit the page in my site about Venus’ 735K globally averaged surface temperature.
Thank you Nate for asking about a very important aspect of the theme.
Link to the page:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446364348
Christos,
You’re saying there’s GHE when 96% of the atmosphere is CO2? Holy crap! GHE is proved!
Stephen, I am afraid, I pasted my reply in the wrong place above.
Best regards,
Christos
“Greenhouse theory does not say energy is stored. ”
But Earth’s ocean does store vast amounts of energy.
The potential to store vast amounts of energy. The majority of it is very cold right now.
In terms of coldness we are about mid range in terms a million years of time. Average for interglacial period, but quite a bit cooler than peak ocean temperatures in other interglacial periods in last couple million years.
And in terms of warmer part of our Holocene, as in:
“Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the “middle Holocene,” a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.” And/or: Holocene Climate Optimum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
I suspect, our ocean was not much warmer than about + .5 C during such times more the 5000 years ago.
Or for last 5000 years, it’s been about 3.5 C even during the warmer time periods lasting a century or so. And Little Ice Age was about 3.4 C or cooler. It seems if LIA was cooler than 3.3 C then the warmer periods in last 5000 years could have been perhaps more than .2 C warmer than the Little Ice Age.
A variable seems to me, if we were to green the Sahara desert, we would increase global air temperature without changing ocean temperature, and +5000 years ago, we had a Green Sahara desert.
But I don’t think greening the Sahara desert would have much effect upon polar sea ice or raise our treeline in the Arctic region like it was +5000 year ago. As seems that seem primarily about ocean temperature.
“The potential to store vast amounts of energy. The majority of it is very cold right now.”
Ah, I suppose you might have meant our ocean which has average temperature of 3.5 C doesn’t cause warming to the average surface air temperature of about 15 C.
Or global ocean average surface temperature of about 17 C and Land global average surface temperature of about 10 C.
Or more specifically tropical ocean which is about 40% of entire ocean surface has average surface temperature of 26 C and the rest of ocean [60%] has average surface temperature of about 11 C.
There no doubt that tropical ocean is the world’s engine and does
most of global warming. And the temperature of entire ocean has no effect upon warm slabs of tropical surface waters.
But tropics are really disconnected from what we call global warming or global cooling. Glaciation periods are not stopped or started or effect the tropics. And polar amplification are aspect related to “global warming”.
Or if the polar sea ice doesn’t melt, there is no global warming.
A sign of coming glaciation period is growing polar sea ice.
Btw, all arctic polar sea ice could melt and it could result adding glacial land ice. But liquid water evaporates more than ice. And sun at low angle will warm the top of liquid ocean the top surface water can get quite warm [and evaporate more]. This how you increase “global water vapor”- the tropics can’t do it.
If somehow add more water vapor to tropics, and cool will it self down.
If round to whole numbers, tropics has about 3% water vapor and rest of world has 0 percent- because it’s .3 % or something or around 3000 ppm. So 40% is less than 1/2 of global, it’s the 60% of global which get more water vapor, if you get “global warming”.
So the average ocean of 3.5 C is “only” affecting the 60%.
A warmer planet against a constantly cool space does increase the temperature gradient which increase thermal loss, i.e., a negative feedback. Thermo 101.
But space is a vacuum. Only thermal radiation can be transferred to the constantly cool space.
If there’s an ever increasing concentration of gases accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere, which absorb and re-emit this outgoing radiation, then the equilibrium temperature will increase.
“What they do however is to elevate the emission layer which in combination with the atmospheric lapse rate, provides higher temperatures to the surface.”
Not always. Entirely dependent upon the state of convective overturning.
Duh, that’s called weather.
But on average, globally, it moves higher, which is relevant to Global warming.
As usual the tropospheric temperature is following the temperature of the ocean mixed layer 5-6 months prior. January 2021 was the low point and the oceans then saw several months of warming. I expect to see UAH follow the same pattern.
For those hoping to see UAH go lower, you will be encouraged by the June ocean data which saw a drop. This could be the start of the next La Nina generally forecast for this fall/winter.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend
How do you determine the 5-6 month lag. To me any lag seems variable, but I find the best fit to be a lag of 2 months.
From what I can tell the lag varies dependent on the cause. It takes longer for changes in the tropics to manifest in the data. Since ENSO is often the subject of interest I usually go with 5-6 months.
Arctic changes seems to only lag by 1-2 months. However, they are pretty predictable so not really worth worrying about.
In addition, month to month changes tend to be small so the + or – 0.1 C error can easily mask some of the changes in both the SSTs and the satellite data.
Have you lost the plot dude?
The monthly compilation is the composite satellite temperature of the troposphere. It simply mentions nothing about greenhouse gases at all not seeks to attribute any temperature changes to them.
It does however confirm that C02 has little effect on temperature at the global Satellite AVG continually drops as C02 continues to rise.
“It does however confirm that C02 has little effect on temperature at the global Satellite AVG continually drops as C02 continues to rise.”
I think you mean it confirms what is well understood, that more than one variable affects global temperature.
angech
Have you lost the plot dude?
The monthly compilation is the composite satellite temperature of the troposphere. It simply mentions nothing about greenhouse gases at all nor seeks to attribute any temperature changes to them.
It does however confirm that C02 has little effect on temperature at the global Satellite AVG continually drops as C02 continues to rise.
“global Satellite AVG continually drops as C02 continues to rise.”
What I see is a lot of sort-term random variation, but a long-term increase in global AVG.
Where do you get that the AVG continually drops? Or maybe you simply mean that some months it drops while other months it increases.
Wasn’t expecting this July anomaly to spike +0.2C with all the global ocean cooling going on, but so be it
The NINO3.4 SST is now -0.14C and falling every week which means we’re definitely heading into a back-to-back double La Nina cycle which will soon cause significant global cooling.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
By the middle of next year, the double La Nina cooling will cause UAH6.0 to hit -0.3C or even -0.4C., which will entirely negate the 2015/16 Super El Nino spike.
I too was caught out by this monthly figure but I also agree that it is more than likely that we will see a La Nina at the end of this year/early next year.
How many months that cold do you predict for next year?
It will be surprising to me if we do hit -0.3 often if at all, given there have only been 8 months that cold this century, and none since 2012. The last time UAH dropped below -0.4C was January 2000.
You do need to be careful of base lines and base line changes but I rather suspect that Roy’s 13 month line will fall to -0.3c before it rises.
Colder than 1994, and the biggest drop on record, more than the the drop from after the 1998 spike. That would be impressive.
How long do you think it will take to reach -0.3?
Next year. Probably less than half way into.
“Roy’s 13 month line will fall to -0.3c”
Given that neither of the last two strong La Nina’s in 2008 and the double in 2011-12 produced that level of cooling, that is some serious level wishful thinking.
We will see wont we.
RLH, But, “we” are already seeing warm conditions, such as the continuing loss of sea-ice. Here’s the latest graph, which now includes September:
https://tinyurl.com/ydxc4xn
The last time the trailing 13 month average was -0.3 was in 1994 as the recovery from Pinatubo moved the average upwards from a dip to about -0.45.
Time will tell. I am quite happy to wait.
“Next year. Probably less than half way into.”
Are you hoping the Earth will suddenly remember to jump down to the minimum of the 60 y cycle?
Are you hoping that natural cycles do not exist?
Even if 60 y cycles exist as you propose, they aren’t producing the rapid changes you need to get your prediction to come true in 1 year.
So where is the logic behind your prediction?
Most of the charts I have show that temperatures are dropping (on average). The only question I suspect is how far are they going to go.
https://imgur.com/wzP7Qeh
Already we are back in the same territory as 2002 to 2003.
Achieving 2008 to 2009 is not impossible.
Weve just had a moderate La Nina and the 13 mo. red curve is 0.2. Might reach 0.1.
2002-03 was a moderate El Nino, and the 13 mo red curve reached ~ 0.1
Similar to El Nino 2019-20, when the 13 month red curve reached ~ 0.4
Sorry, the stars cannot all align the way you want them to.
So few months and we will see who is closer to the truth then.
Nate: When was it we saw back to back La Nina years?
The point of this blog is to argue with science and logic, not belief.
Back to back la Ninas in 2010-11, 98-99. Not unusual.
And what were global temperatures doing when that happened?
Dropped by 0.3c or so?
“The point of this blog is to argue with science and logic, not belief.”
And disbelief in what Roy says, obviously.
Roy said what?
My point is to follow science and logic with you prediction, rather than just hope for cooling that has no rationale.
Your rationale should consider current temps (red line 0.2) and recent ENSO conditions (La Nina) , but will require some OTHER significant short term cooling mechanism that you havent described, to get the red line another 0.5 degrees lower.
“Back to back la Ninas in 2010-11, 98-99. Not unusual.”
RLH says:
August 4, 2021 at 2:47 PM
And what were global temperatures doing when that happened?”
The red line has two consecutive minima. In both instances the second minima is not quite as low as the first.
If that pattern holds, I predict the red line will reach a minimum of 0.1 this year and a bit over 0.1 next year.
A lot depends on the strength of the La Nina. I see some predictions for a near record. That could certainly lead to colder UAH anomalies about 5-6 months later.
Keep an eye on the SSTs late this year. That will tell you what to expect early next year from UAH.
NOAA’s August ENSO Projection just came out yesterday which supports a back-to-back La Nina event later this year and early next year:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
The Pacific Equatorial deep water temp anomalies show it’s certain a new La Nina cycle is developing.
It’s just a matter of how strong the coming La Nina cycle will be on how far UAH6 will fall early next year.
looks like a rally forming
could be a short squeeze in the offing
Literally nothing out of the ordinary is happening.
Yep
Yep
Yep.
Well it looks like I was wrong then. Exactly on 0.2c. Who would have guessed that?
These monthly variations are just noise, the effect of short term variations in weather, ENSO, etc.
You need at least a couple of decades of data to say confidently whether or no there is, or is not, a long term trend.
You can see how the short term variation in rate of warming damps out as you go from 5-year trends to 10 years and then the whole 42 years.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:1989/trend/plot/uah6/from:1989/to:2000/trend/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2011/trend/plot/uah6/from:2011/to:2022/trend/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2022/trend/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:1984/trend/plot/uah6/from:1984/to:1990/trend/plot/uah6/from:1990/to:1996/trend/plot/uah6/from:1996/to:2001/trend/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2007/trend/plot/uah6/from:2007/to:2012/trend/plot/uah6/from:2012/to:2018/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/to:2022/trend
Straight lines are of little use in nature. Linear trends are straight lines.
By inspection of the graph I would suspect that the best fit to UAH would be quadratic.
Could you do a quadratic fit to see if the UAH data shows acceleration in the long term warming trend?
Entropic man says: By inspection of the graph I would suspect that the best fit to UAH would be quadratic.
I added a quadratic fit to the code for this plot a few years ago when our host did so, “just for fun”. It’s over fitting now as it was then.
UAHTLT.png
You will be unsurprised by the fact that I prefer the LOWESS (I would use S-G myself and slightly longer base lines). Both are shorter linear least squares fitted to the curve.
“A Savitzky–Golay filter is a digital filter that can be applied to a set of digital data points for the purpose of smoothing the data, that is, to increase the precision of the data without distorting the signal tendency. This is achieved, in a process known as convolution, by fitting successive sub-sets of adjacent data points with a low-degree polynomial by the method of linear least squares. “
An S-G produces a very similar curve to the Gaussian that I use.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uah.jpeg
It just depends on what filter length you use.
Here’s UAH with both a 12 month S-G projection and an 8 year S-G low pass filter.
https://imgur.com/wzP7Qeh
One can have daily trends, monthly trends, yearly trends or decadal trends (or even longer if you wish). Climate is the sum of 30 years worth of data (or more).
A continuous set of changes in the shorter ones leads to a change in the later ones.
The question is which is the optimal one to choose.
Daily and monthly are too short and very variable. Yearly is also pretty volatile. If we have to wait for 30 years worth of data then most of us are unlikely to be able to see that.
“A continuous set of changes in the shorter ones leads to a change in the later ones.”
Yes indeed. But the short-term T change we are currently seeing is a predictable response to ENSO noise, which has historically been oscillatory.
Thus, it makes no sense to look at the current dip below the long-term trend line and conclude that is foretelling a changeover to a long-term cooling trend.
That is simply wishful thinking.
It is also wishful thinking to assume that no long term patterns exist.
“Who would have guessed that?”
My master guessed that – but is too modest to gloat.
Human conceit has no bounds. How can one think that the Earth’s troposphere can accumulate energy when in fact it is extremely thin. Humility characterizes those who observe the Earth from orbit.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2021.png
Hubris is a significant factor in the absolutism that exists in climate science. Hopefully we are about to witness some humility in the coming decades. The science will be the better for it.
4-month sequence of vertical temperature anomaly sections at the equator, Pacific for August 2021
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202108.gif
Does a decrease in UV radiation affect the temperature in the upper stratosphere below the -60th parallel?
Does a decrease in UV radiation affect the temperature in the upper stratosphere below the -60th parallel?
Comparison of UV solar activity in the three most recent solar cycles (SC) 22-24. The thick curves show the Mg II index timeseries twice smoothed with a 55-day boxcar. Dates of minima of solar cycles (YYYYMMDD) were determined from the smoothed Mg II index.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2021.png
Currently no sunspots on the solar disk.
https://i.ibb.co/jycjWsz/AR-CH-20210801.png
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Here is an interesting fact: Atmospheric pressure is the same as a water column of 34 feet. Based on 71% ocean coverage and water having about 4 times the specific heat of air, the first 12 feet of the world’s ocean depth has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere.
Which is why a number of people, including Richard Linzden, have suggested that the best measure of global warming is ocean heat content.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Figure1a_separate_English.png
I agree the ocean is a tremendous heat sink, but that does not necessarily mean it is an effect temperature regulator of either the atmosphere or the land mass.
“I agree the ocean is a tremendous heat sink, but that does not necessarily mean it is an effect temperature regulator of either the atmosphere or the land mass.”
It’s not global average surface air regulator.
But it determine what it is for some period of time.
On the order of thousands of years.
Our average temperature of entire ocean is about 3.5 C.
That 3.5 C temperature is an arrow which says, you are here.
A 5 C temperature is somewhere completely different.
As is a 3 C temperature.
If one could accurately measure the ocean temperature instead just saying it’s about 3.5 C.
So, if you could honestly claim it was say, 3.52 C, then it’s on order hundreds years or decades.
Or ocean has about 1000 times more heat content than atmosphere, so saying ocean is 3.5 C is similar to saying our surface air is about 15 C.
Or 15 C +/- 2 C.
Though I would rather say global average ocean surface air is about 17 C and global average land surface air is about 10 C.
Because that seems to give more information than saying global average surface air temperature about 15 C.
It could gives a clue what global air temperature is, and tells you ocean warms land. Or a lot people might imagine ocean is cooling land.
Ocean does not cool land, but it certainly maintains global air temperature, and moderates {or makes more uniform] land surface temperatures.
And everyone knows our cold ocean is why we are in an Icehouse global climate.
A cooling ocean that some mark as beginning 34 million year ago.
Though it goes up and down, over millions of years and during shorter periods glaciation and interglaciation periods. And within interglacial periods {a little bit in terms temperature but quite a bit in terms amount stored or released oceanic heat. And quite a bit relative to say, a year of energy of the sun reaching Earth.
–Geothermal ocean warming discussion thread
Posted on July 21, 2019 by curryja | 210 Comments
by Judith Curry
The atmosphere bias of climate science makes it impossible for them to see geological forces and therefore, impossible for them to understand the earths climate. Thongchai–
https://judithcurry.com/2019/07/21/geothermal-ocean-warming-discussion-thread/
This was Dr Spencer’s comment.
“The vertical profile of ocean warming (if it can be believed) suggests warming decreasing with depth. Its hard to imagine that the heat is originating from below. Also, we need to distinguish between the average geothermal heat flux versus any increasing in that over time, the latter being forcing. Finally, any increase in geothermal heat flux would probably take centuries to be felt at the surface the ocean abyss has stable stratification, and so must be slowly forced upward on the large scale by convective sinking in certain polar regions.”
The oceans take up 163W/m^2 from above and 0.1W/m^2 from below. The equilibrium temperature is determined almost entirely by the solar input.
Secondly, we know that the Earth system is gaining heat because the rate of heat loss to space has decreased. There is no evidence that the geothermal heat flow has increased. This means that it contributes to the long term equilibrium temperature but is unlikely to be causing the observed increase in OHC.
-Entropic man says:
August 2, 2021 at 4:39 PM
This was Dr Spencers comment.
The vertical profile of ocean warming (if it can be believed) suggests warming decreasing with depth. Its hard to imagine that the heat is originating from below. Also, we need to distinguish between the average geothermal heat flux versus any increasing in that over time, the latter being forcing. Finally, any increase in geothermal heat flux would probably take centuries to be felt at the surface the ocean abyss has stable stratification, and so must be slowly forced upward on the large scale by convective sinking in certain polar regions.–
I don’t see much to disagree with in regards to Dr Spencers
comment.
I would say it’s may not be much about a uniform ocean geothermal heat. Rather global climate variation is about ocean circulation and we don’t know much about “intense” heat flow due to geothermal heat, nor about “intense” cold flows due to cold ocean water falling. Nor even about warm denser salty ocean water falling.
“The oceans take up 163W/m^2 from above and 0.1W/m^2 from below. The equilibrium temperature is determined almost entirely by the solar input.”
Well ocean is cold, because cold water falls.
Cold water falling is warming surface air- no one even counts this warming effect. And no one knows how much it is.
Cold water falling is similar to getting a loan- too much debt makes you bankrupt. Glaciation periods are bankrupt periods.
I also tend to think glaciation periods are when books are balanced and profit is actually made. Or need profits to get out of the bankruptcy. Otherwise you have mythical death of snowball Earth. And I think ocean thermal heat, will stop a Snowball Earth.
Or since always had more ocean than land and always had raging super volcanoes in the sea, we have never had a Snowball Earth.
Or never seen any compelling evident of it.
Heat comes in at the Equator and leaves at the Poles. Mostly.
mostly but not quite, tropics still radiate more on average, as earth poleward heat transport is far from perfect. I wish it were though, want the tertiary polar forests back.
I blame vodka.
there was no wheat back then, therefore not likely
I thought it was made out of potato.
the true vodka is made from grains. In reality however, it is made from any concentrated filtered ethanol (including completely synthetic sources) that has been watered down.
Surprised after all the hysteria in the UK media as they ramp upto Glasgow thst we only see a 0.2 rise.
I would have thought we would have been at least 20 degrees higher.
Mark Wapples
My question to you: how can you compare
– temperatures measured on single, local surface points
with
– the global average of all temperature measurements performed at an altitude of about 5 km?
Are current measurements of 45 C in southern Italy, Greece, Turkey the result of some hysteria?
In Germany, we have no heat wave at all, it’s a bit cold, due to a continuous stream of low pressure areas coming from the Northwest Atlantic.
J.-P. D.
Most of the monthly UAH temperature anomalies since 1979 fall within a +/- 0.4 degree C. range, until 2013.
That change is obviously a climate crisis, emergency. disaster, catastrophe, debacle, apocalypse, armageddon, doomsday, holocaust, or maybe even worse.
Extreme panic is justified.
Everyone should consider moving to Alaska, Canada, Sweden, Iceland or Siberia.
Well said, Richard. You’ve put it all into a sensible perspective.
Dangerous man-made global warming,rebranded as climate change, is surely as Dr Nils-Axel Morner has commented, the greatest lie ever told.
Here we are, just fractionally heading out of La Nina and into ENSO neutral conditions, and yet we immediately get the 5th warmest July in the UAH record. The four Julys that were warmer all occurred as a result of El Nino conditions.
Surely it is not a push, even for some here, to see that the next El Nino, be it even a modest one, will break all previous global temperature records. The globe is warming.
El Nino is still a long way off and the northern hemisphere will get an early and harsh winter.
El Nino is still a long way off and the northern hemisphere will get an early and harsh winter.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20210720.nino_summary_4.png
I also see signs of cooling taking place in different parts of the atmosphere. That can be seen around the Arctic and Greenland as well as at the South Pole…. https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-5.68,85.55,506/loc=15.668,72.783
The globe is warming.
Given we are coming out of one of the coldest periods of the Holocene, that shouldnt even be debated. Of course we have been warming for nearly 200 years as confirmed by uncountable studies on sea level rise and glaciers.
So, the real question is how much AGW and how much natural and internal variability. Everyone is just guessing. Anyone who says they arent guessing, is drunk or shooting up.
roberto…”the real question is how much AGW and how much natural and internal variability”.
***
Already worked that out using the Ideal Gas Law. The warming from each gas in the atmosphere is based on the percent mass of each. CO2 at a percent mass of approximately 0.04% contributes about 0.04C to a 1C overall warming. Nitrogen and oxygen combined at a percent mass of about 99% account for 99% of a 1C warming.
” Everyone is just guessing”
You have a rather dim view of science it seems.
Climate science and meteorology do tons of measurements and use physics based modeling that builds on successful weather models, and can compare a natural only model to one with increasing CO2, and compare to history. Without CO2, we don’t get nearly the warming we’ve had.
This was first done 40 y ago. In that instance the model made sense of the past century with a small contribution from CO2 and the rest natural. Then looked forward 40 y.
It was able to successfully predict (within error) the substantial increase in warming, and its spatial pattern, that actually occurred.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
IMO, this shows that they are doing far better than guessing.
The models are running hot and the establishment is just beginning to admit this. The last 40 years have had internal variability acting as a tail wind. The next 40 years will be a tough slog. Wait for the IPCC6 and how much it will show uncertainties and confidence levels drop from IPCC5.
“The last 40 years have had internal variability acting as a tail wind. ”
How so? Evidence?
I hope you’re not going with the vague, untestable, catch-all theory of the ‘Recovery from the Little Ice Age’?
It is difficult to explain after 200 y or so of no/slow recovery, its strong acceleration 40 y ago.
‘models running hot’
I agree with this assessment:
“Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.”
IOW, we don’t yet know what the future Anthro emissions will be.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
The climate modeling situation today is similar to weather or hurricane forecasting 30 y ago. Forecasts were FAR better than guesses. But they are much improved today, with much better 5 or 7-day Forecasts.
Acceleration of warming and hiatus have been associated with internal variability as well as early 20th Century warming.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5cc8
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818120300394
TFN, you are correct. The oceans have warmed as a result of multiple natural cycles. That energy won’t disappear soon.
There is evidence the globe has warmed. There is no evidence that demonstrates the warming will continue. In fact, the PDO is looking like it could go negative and the AMO is on the downward slope as well.
” Currently no sunspots on the solar disk. ”
The Sun ‘currently’ is definitely not like it was in October 1957, no doubt!
According to Belgium’s SILSO
https://tinyurl.com/4wamabzx
and to Space Weather Canada
https://tinyurl.com/6tvvedeb
it could be in a far worse state than right now:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_tvwCYUBQgWOV1oCaU1fSXHUCg6kw4Da/view
{ Anyone who thinks the graph is wrong is of course invited to offer us one s/he thinks being more correct… n’est-ce pas? }
*
As usual, much depends on what we put behind ‘currently’.
J.-P. D.
For those who think that observing solar spot numbers and measuring the F10.7 cm flux lead to completely different results which cannot be compared, here is a graph comparing them on a percentile basis:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view
Last month’s bet re the July value.
“Agreed. 10 to the RNLI if I am wrong.
Reply
RLH says:
July 6, 2021 at 4:26 PM
So you pay if it less than +0.2 deg.
I pay if it is more than +0.2 deg.
Exactly +0.2 deg we call it a miracle.”
Hey! A miracle!
BTW – my bet was the more heroic since I nominated a value very different to the starting point. In any case, I am still happy to make the donation to the RNLI.
I will keep my latinum strip
“Thank you so much for being part of our lifesaving crew. Your donation will power our lifesavers through the tough times. Thanks to your kind support, we can still answer every call for help this year.”
I know. Exactly on 0.2c is not something I thought was possible. But life has a strange way of doing things.
Bindidon:
I think I have cleared up why the numbers you have are not as expected.
If I do 2 separate passes over the data, first at Monthly and then at Daily the results are different as you will see. This is, I suspect, down to differences caused by rounding in the numbers reported at each value.
Monthly
2009/10 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Monthly Average = 12.8 Count = 1
Daily Average = 12.8 Count = 31
Hourly Average = 12.8 Count = 742
SubHourly Average = 12.8 Count = 8904
Daily
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 6.2 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.6 Count = 288
Moral is, you should not use numbers that may well have been rounded as actual values unless you have large numbers to deal with which will then help to even them out.
Oddly, using the rounded Hourly values in Medians will not cause such errors.
A reply from USCN (who I asked about the discrepancy) may help out here.
“The Daily value is derived from the hours 20091028 0100 to 20091029 0000 (the hour number is the end of the hour it represents).”
So technically
20091028 0100 should be 20091028 0059(59)
and
20091029 0000 should be 20091028 2359(59)
Having corrected for the observations from USCRN I get
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.5 Count = 288
Hello? Bindidon:
Are you about to correct your figures for Daily average temperatures or not?
Are you about to withdraw your incorrect assertations about my access to USCRN data?
Are you about to withdraw your absurd claims that I am incapable of doing basic research?
Are you about to do anything at all?
angtech….”Because of the GHG molecules some of the outgoing surface energy takes a significantly longer random walk before going out into space, longer in both distance and time. Some of the energy even returns to the surface. This wandering about means there is more energy in the system, even if all the incoming energy ultimately leaves”.
***
There’s the old generic energy obfuscation again. Are we talking about thermal energy or electromagnetic energy? It is thermal energy that causes warming, not EM.
Furthermore, you have re-introduced the notion that the Earth cools via radiation to space only. That is an odd theory developed by climate alarmists to support the anthropogenic theory, which is based on increasing levels of CO2. It makes no scientific sense.
Warming of the atmosphere is a very complex process, and the cooling of it just as complex. There is no way that CO2, at 0.04% can be responsible for the theoretical 33C warming claimed by the AGW theory. In fact, R. W. Wood proved that theory wrong circa 1909.
According to Wood, the atmosphere is warmed by nitrogen and oxygen molecules that receive most of their heat directly from the surface via conduction, However, they are unable to radiate the heat away and can only dissipate it by rising to a higher altitude where the heat is dissipated naturally due to gas expansion.
A heat budget based on EM in vs EM out is science fiction. There is obviously a lengthy delay between solar EM input and the time before it is re-emitted. The difference in heat levels in the oceans and atmosphere, due to the delay, is the warming we call the GHE.
The oceans and atmosphere store heat, with most heat being absorbed in the Tropics. Then it is distributed via the atmosphere and oceans.
Tracking EM through the atmosphere is an exercise in futility. EM is not heat, we need to track heat, aka thermal energy. Furthermore, EM radiated from GHGs in the atmosphere to the surface does nothing. EM from cooler gases in the atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the warmer surface that allegedly emitted the EM in the first place. Such a recycling of heat, as claimed by AGW theory, is perpetual motion.
It is very well understood that Earth’s equilibrium temperature is maintained solely via radiation to space. Conduction and convection are practically nonexistent in space.
final nail…”Here we are, just fractionally heading out of La Nina and into ENSO neutral conditions, and yet we immediately get the 5th warmest July in the UAH record”.
***
Warming caused by La Nina action in the south Pacific. Not by a trace gas in the atmosphere.
I was curious whether the recent heat waves over the Pacific Northwest of North America and over Europe would affect the global average. It did, accounting for the 0.2C rise,
Look here…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
See the darkest orange/brown regions in the epicentres…about 3.5C warming. Those regions were stuck in place for a week or more, obviously inflating the global average by 0.2C
The major heating came exactly in those two locations. Surprisingly, there was a small blip between the tip of South America and the Antarctic Peninsula. Don’t know what’s going in that small area but alarmists are sure making a big deal out of it.
Note that the rest of the globe had virtually no warming at all. See all the light blue spots of cooling and the vast amount of white, indicating no warming.
Even though Willard made a big deal over record warming in Australia, the sat data showed Oz cooled for the most part. Surprisingly there was a slight warming area over New Zealand. I wonder if the cheaters at the BOM have seen this? If so, they will be trying to hack UAH to change it.
This cooling pattern is of interest. Note how far up into the Pacific this is reaching…. https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-133.62,-65.77,481/loc=-142.669,-25.103
goldminor…”This cooling pattern is of interest”.
***
Pretty wild alright. Roy’s contour map shows cooling over Antarctic as might be expected in the lower hemisphere winter. There is cooling elsewhere, even in the northern hemisphere.
“Roy’s contour map shows cooling over Antarctic as might be expected in the lower hemisphere winter.”
Roy’s maps are of anomalies. Not absolutes.
lol gordo,
Like when you go to the Dr. and he claims you have a 103* temp you tell him but my feet feel cool Doc so your overall temp is wrong.
Can anyone really be this dense?
Obv gordo can.
lou…”Like when you go to the Dr. and he claims you have a 103* temp you tell him but my feet feel cool Doc so your overall temp is wrong”.
***
Your analogies leave much to be desired. The sat contour maps indicate significant warming in two small areas of the planet not the whole planet. A global average influenced to rise 0.2C by extraordinary warming in two small areas is not much of a global average. It indicates how useless the number is in reality.
A global average tells you nothing about various locales. If you look at the small hot areas on the contour map, they show +3C warming, yet the global average rose by only 0.2C. There was absolutely no warming in most of the planet.
Same thing with the nonsense about climate change. The inference is that all climate are changing. However, climate is a 30 year average of weather and the changes we have experienced in June 2021 have nothing to do with climate.
That does not stop alarmist meteorologists from making stupid claims like the heat waves are a definite sign of climate change.
Are all you alarmists idiots?
“A global average tells you nothing about various locales.”
Well duh gordo.
Darn it all UAH, you don’t do locales in your ‘global average’ so your average must be wrong says dumdum.
“I was curious whether the recent heat waves over the Pacific Northwest of North America and over Europe would affect the global average. It did, accounting for the 0.2C rise,”
It did not.
The SH (+0,39 Deg) and the Tropics (+0,27 deg) counted for the temperature rise.
The NH was up only 0,02 degrees.
Upthread:
“This could be the start of the next La Nina generally forecast for this fall/winter.”
Another one wishing for a la Nina. Let’s see how ‘general’ this forecast is.
“The ENSO Outlook is INACTIVE. This means the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is neutral with little indication that El Niño or La Niña will develop in the coming months, with most ENSO indices at neutral levels. While three of the seven climate models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology suggest there is potential for a La Niña to form in [Southern Hemisphere] spring, the majority maintain neutral conditions until the end of 2021.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
“In conclusion, ENSO neutral conditions are likely to continue until next autumn (70%)”
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
JMA forecast to NH Winter is also favoured neutral.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
But the uncertainty increases further ahead.
“ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere summer and into the fall (51% chance for the August-October season), with La Nina potentially emerging during the September-November season and lasting through the 2021-22 winter (66% chance during November-January).”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
La Nina is forecast for NH Winter if you are very selective in your choice of forecasts rather than general.
barry…quoting the cheaters at BOM is entirely uncool.
Troll.
barry…at least I’m not as asstroll, like you.
66% chance of La Nina is better than even. All forecasts keep the projected figures the lower side of the zero neutral line.
“66% chance of La Nina… ”
Is the odds given by one out of three monitoring sites surveyed. The rest give more likelihood to neutral conditions.
Are you American, RLH, and if so, is that why you are blind to forecasts outside the US?
Good examples, barry. Obviously they don’t have a clue. They all make a guess, then the one that gets closest to actual claims “the science is settled”!
We’ve seen it all before.
Barry, by living in the US I likely see NOAA influenced reports more often. I’ll admit I haven’t taken a worldwide survey.
I think the negative PDO needs to be considered as well. It keeps dropping. This tends to up the probability for a La Nina.
Seeing the HadSST3 June data drop a bit was another factor I was considering.
We shall see ….
Gordon Robertson says:
angtech…. the notion that the Earth cools via radiation to space only. It makes no scientific sense.
Warming of the atmosphere is a very complex process, and the cooling of it just as complex.
A heat budget based on EM in vs EM out is science fiction. There is obviously a lengthy delay between solar EM input and the time before it is re-emitted. The difference in heat levels in the oceans and atmosphere, due to the delay, is the warming we call the GHE.
The oceans and atmosphere store heat, with most heat being absorbed in the Tropics. Then it is distributed via the atmosphere and oceans.
–
Gordon, absolutes are difficult concepts.
There are no doubt some ways that Earth might cool other than radiation to space.
The fact remains that in terms of natural events and science that the usual, main and only way for the earth to cool from incoming radiation is by exiting radiation.
How and why the heat gets to where it exits, despite Willis recent article at WUWT, is immaterial.
The fact is that the heat that exits does match the heat that comes in.
There is no new energy generated by GHG.
Just a redistribution of where the energy gets to in a GHG system.
–
There is no lengthy delay between solar EM input and the time before it is re-emitted.
–
People see a hot atmosphere and a hot ocean and think that it must take months or millennia for the energy to build up.
You talk in terms of storage.
–
There is no store of heat in the atmosphere or the oceans.
Only an illusion because we see the sun working all the time and then seeming to stop at night with a slow drop of energy.
In reality all the suns energy that came in previously has already gone out.
The last millennium, the last year the last minute, the last second.
–
The fact is that the heat that exits does match the heat that comes in.
–
If we turn the sun off,completely bang,gone,evaporated, teleported, what happens.
–
First we have 8 minutes of energy still coming in.
That is an important part.
Next we have nothing in.
No infrared warming the upper GHG layers.
None !
Instantly the upper atmosphere cools markedly as the IR radiated to space is not replaced.
Down below, the surface is still heated for a millisecond but now there is no upper buffer stopping it coming out.
CO2 freezes and drops,
TOA drops rapidly to the surface
Water turns to ice.
Oxygen and Nitrogen freeze.
–
As the surface turns stone cold there is a decay in the release time of the remaining heat as it radiates more slowly as it gets colder.
It would be like placing our hot sword into the depths of outer space. almost instant cooldown.
–
The temperature outside the earth is now nearly 0 Kelvin.
Instantly.
–
All that so called heat storage is a mirage.
A product of the last 8 minutes of radiation.
–
See above
Spencer/GBaikie
The oceans take up 163W/m^2 from above and 0.1W/m^2 from below. The equilibrium temperature is determined almost entirely by the solar input.
Tim: Atmospheric pressure is the same as a water column of 34 feet. Based on 71% ocean coverage and water having about 4 times the specific heat of air, the first 12 feet of the world’s ocean depth has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere.
Now how many Hiroshima bombs hit the Earth surface every second?
Are there enough of them to warm the atmosphere and sea surface as the the energy in the sea surface air and land exists each second.
–
If so then the so called heat storage is a myth.
angech
“The fact remains that in terms of natural events and science that the usual, main and only way for the earth to cool from incoming radiation is by exiting radiation.
How and why the heat gets to where it exits, despite Willis recent article at WUWT, is immaterial.
The fact is that the heat that exits does match the heat that comes in.
There is no new energy generated by GHG.
Just a redistribution of where the energy gets to in a GHG system.”
“There is no lengthy delay between solar EM input and the time before it is re-emitted.”
Exactly, the same amount of solar energy in – the different way of absorbing-emitting process.
It is the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon we observe here…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 1:56 AM
What does your “Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon” tell you about Venus’ 735K globally averaged surface temperature?
TYSON
What does your “Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon” tell you about Venus’ 735K globally averaged surface temperature?
Please TYSON visit the page in my site about Venus’ 735K globally averaged surface temperature:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446364348
Exactly, don’t know if this is relevant enough angech, but I notice when clouds block the sun, especially thick. Wide ones, the earth’s temp around there cools like 15F. To me that seems to also confirm the sun controls on a less rigorous scale the temperature for the average person, and can also help in the naturally changing climate support from your answer.
Exactly, don’t know if this is relevant enough angech, but I notice when clouds block the sun, especially thick. Wide ones, the earth’s temp around there cools like 15F. To me that seems to also confirm the sun controls on a less rigorous scale the temperature for the average person? Although I think your answer is WAY too perfect, it’s why “they have a consensus and are teaching global warming in school, specifically environmental science classes now because they want to ground into people’s heads I guess that “GHG indeed cause global warming when, eh they really don’t.
Exactly, don’t know if this is relevant enough angech, but I notice when clouds block the sun, especially thick. Wide ones, the earth’s temp around there cools like 15F. To me that seems to also confirm the sun controls on a less rigorous scale the temperature for the average person? Although I think your answer is WAY too perfect, it’s why “they have a consensus and are teaching global warming in school, specifically environmental science classes now because they want to ground into people’s heads I guess that “GHG indeed cause noticeable, long term global warming” when, eh they really don’t.
tj…”dont know if this is relevant enough angech, but I notice when clouds block the sun, especially thick. Wide ones, the earths temp around there cools like 15F”.
***
It’s not the air temperature dropping, what you are experiencing is a reduction in the warming effect produced by electromagnetic energy from the Sun as your skin absorbs it and converts it to heat.
Its not the air temperature dropping, what you are experiencing is a reduction in the warming effect produced by electromagnetic energy from the Sun as your skin absorbs it and converts it to heat
-TJ is sitting in a tent out of the sun on a 30 C day and feels warm
A cloud comes over temp drops 15C and he feels cold.
No change in the EM his skin is absorbing from the sun
Why does he feel cold again?
Can we talk about a global temperature trend when winter temperatures in the mid-latitudes depend on the stratosphere?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f000.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/70mb6525.png
ren…”Can we talk about a global temperature trend when winter temperatures in the mid-latitudes depend on the stratosphere?”
***
All I can add is that stratospheric air is very cold when it rushes down to Vancouver, Canada in mid-winter as Arctic air.
We are a lot closer to very cold temperatures vertically than we ever are horizontally.
Space itself is closer than the next town over a large proportion of the worlds surface.
Does the strong decrease in UV radiation in the 25th solar cycle cause a decrease in ozone production in the upper stratosphere?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/01mb9065.png
There is no warming in the southern hemisphere. I remind you that the Earth is farthest from the Sun in orbit in July.
https://i.ibb.co/9cRDjXk/gfs-world-ced-t2anom-1-day.png
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/31/frigid-polar-air-brings-very-rare-snowfall-icy-rains-to-southern-brazil/
nate…”Climate science and meteorology do tons of measurements and use physics based modeling that builds on successful weather models, and can compare a natural only model to one with increasing CO2, and compare to history. Without CO2, we don’t get nearly the warming we’ve had”.
***
You cannot offer a shred of scientific evidence, based on the scientific method, that CO2 is causing any kind of significant warming. Correlation is not causation, you have nothing to link CO2 to warming, only consensus and rash claims.
Forecasts based on models are often guessing. Meteorologists cannot always be certain. One of the honest ones admitted it is not beyond him to call another station to see what is going on there. Although the accumulation of data and historical scenarios available to meteorologists are impressive, they often cannot say for sure what is to come.
As John Christy of UAH confided, and he has a degree in climate science, climate theory is complex, far too complex to be fully understood. I have no problem with a man of integrity and honesty like John, my problem is with idiots running unvalidated climate models who make unwarranted and catastrophic claims about the future.
The models are unvalidated because they are based on unvalidated science that cannot be proved. Modelers have arbitrarily programmed a warming factor for CO2 into the models and they have invented a positive feedback in the atmosphere that cannot possibly exist there. Remove those pseudo-scientific additions to the program and catastrophic warming disappears.
Gordo, The Christy/Spencer UAH data is based on the identical theory and math as is the basis for the Green House Effect. So, is Christy being “honest” by using “unvalidated science that cannot be proved” when presenting their monthly UAH data?
Inquiring minds want to know. Yours appears to lack any effort at real inquiry.
ES,
You wrote –
“The Christy/Spencer UAH data is based on the identical theory and math as is the basis for the Green House Effect.”
Nonsense. You can’t even define the mythical “Green House Effect”! Even NASA have given up, and now refer to it as a “process” which supposedly heats the Earth – but only works in direct sunlight, apparently, unless there is too much (in arid tropical desserts). Or too little.
You are just talking crap. How about some facts, for a change?
Swenson, Why give you facts when you simply ignore them? Perhaps you can tell us how S & C arrived at their UAH v6 equation combining MSU channels 2, 3, and 4 (and for later periods, AMSU 5, 7 and 9).
ES,
Why don’t you read what I wrote, instead of avoiding it?
There is no “Greenhouse Effect”, dummy. Otherwise, someone would have described it by now. Where may it be observed and measured?
You are obviously far too gullible for your own good.
Swenson/Flynn, as expected, you continue to ignore the vast amount of information regarding the (poorly named) Greenhouse Effect. Spectral data for atmospheric IR transmission has been around a long time now, yet you continue to insist that such data is meaningless.
You ask for a description of the Greenhouse Effect, failing to acknowledge that the description is via mathematical models of the atmosphere. Those models require a CO2/Greenhouse Effect to accurately represent the dynamics of the atmosphere and the vast amount of data which has been gathered for decades. HERE’s ONE EXAMPLE.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Does the geomagnetic field affect the circulation during the winter season, especially during periods of weak solar wind magnetic fields?
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Swarm_probes_weakening_of_Earth_s_magnetic_field
The image shows how the strength of the magnetic patch over Canada has weakened and how the position of the north magnetic pole has changed between 1999 and 2019.
https://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2020/05/tug_between_magnetic_blobs/22014897-1-eng-GB/Tug_between_magnetic_blobs_pillars.jpg
angech…”The fact remains that in terms of natural events and science that the usual, main and only way for the earth to cool from incoming radiation is by exiting radiation.
The fact is that the heat that exits does match the heat that comes in”.
***
These are contradictory statements. There is no heat in/heat out, only EM in/EM out. EM, aka electromagnetic energy, is not heat. It’s vital to understand that.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. Heat cannot be transferred through space from the Sun as heat, that would require a mass, such as atoms. The solar wind is such a transport system since it is comprised of electrons and protons but that’s not what reaches the planet since our magnetosphere diverts it.
Heat can exist on the planet only in the form of atoms. Many people use the word molecules, but molecules are simply a fancy name for two or more atomic nucleii bonded by shared electrons (covalent bonds} or shared electron charges (ionic bonds). Therefore, the temperature of the Earth is dependent on the kinetic energy of atoms.
Consider this. The solar EM is most intense at the Equator. If that EM is converted to heat in the ocean, the heated ocean will directly warm N2/O2 molecules in contact with it and that air will rise. If there is cooler air aloft, it will replace that risen air. But what if the air aloft is as warm as the rising air? You have thermal equilibrium and no more heat will be transferred till the Sun’s EM intensity reduces.
This is known with the S-B equation but you don’t see it being taken into account often. S-B was only tested with a radiating body between 700C and 1400C with surrounding air at room temperature. Will it hold as T surrounding approaches T radiating, then exceeds it. Anyone got the answer?
EM from the Sun impinging on the Earth’s mass is converted to heat by atoms in the material affected. Once that heat is created, it is a property of mass. The heat can be dissipated via EM radiation but it can also be stored in atmospheric molecules and ocean water molecules. That’s why the Earth’s global average is around 15C. Without the ability of nitrogen and oxygen to store heat and water molecules in the ocean, all incoming radiation would be immediately re-radiated and Earth’s temperature would be far lower than it is now.
Radiation at terrestrial temperatures is a poor means of dissipating heat. That’s why older homes did not bother with insulation against radiation. The R-rated insulation used in walls is intended only to slow conduction of heat through the walls and ceiling. It has been only recently that homes have included a reflective barrier to resist heat loss by radiation.
According to R. W. Wood, a world-renowned expert on gases like CO2 in his time, he expressed doubt that CO2 could play a significant role in global warming. He reasoned that nitrogen and oxygen gathered heat from the surface and the heated gases rose. Because N2/O2 cannot radiate the heat away, they hang onto it and that alone explains the GHE.
Gases rising into thinner and thinner air will eventually expand. As they expand, they lose heat naturally. Temperature is directly related to pressure in the atmosphere and as the gases rise and become less dense, they have fewer and fewer molecules per unit volume. That means less gas collisions, less kinetic energy, and less heat.
This does not mean that energy delivered by the Sun as EM does not need to be balanced, it means the amount in does not have to equal the amount out in real time. Based on the solar EM intensity at TOA, the EM would only have warmed the planet to a certain temperature, much lower than the current global average. Since the atmosphere and oceans can store this heat, no one knows what global temperature we’d have with solar input alone and no storage.
Put another way, the current solar input is only topping up the current heat levels when converted to heat. I liken it to a house that has been allowed to cool to exterior temperatures in winter. Once the furnace is turned on, it takes a while to heat the infrastructure and the interior air. Once they are heated to room temperature, the furnace is only required intermittently. I see the Sun’s input in the same manner.
What we refer to as GHE warming can be explained by the need of N2/O2 to retain heat. They cannot radiate it away at terrestrial temperatures. So, they have to rise to an altitude where the kinetic energy (aka heat) is low enough that the gas temperature equals the surrounding temperature.
Nothing to do with CO2.
With a high of 19.0°C, yesterday was Kingston’s (Ontario) coldest Aug 1st in more than 90 years, since 1925.
“New record highs in the Yukon and NWT on this 2nd day of August.
The NW winds allowed the usual lake cooling to stay off of Yellowknife, which reached a new all-time high of 32.6°C! (previous 32.5°C Aug 16, 1989)”
https://twitter.com/Pat_wx/status/1422417232836050945
Current temperature anomalies in South America.
https://i.ibb.co/zZ6r6cL/gfs-T2ma-samer-1.png
Current temperature anomalies in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/F5LqgN2/gfs-T2ma-aus-1.png
On that basis, its 0.1C warming in 32 years. Crisis its not.
“climate theory is complex, far too complex to be fully understood.”
As you have so comprehensively demonstrated for the umpteenth time. What a load of cretinous nonsense.
For 30 years, the Sun has maintained high activity, which has encouraged the accumulation of energy by the oceans. The trend was clear, now reversing in the other direction. Those models that relied on data from the previous 30-plus years are now out of date.
https://i.ibb.co/ng8z5Pt/international-sunspot-nu.png
Your DeMenTed hatred of reality is duly noted, troll DMT.
DMT,
Climate is the average of past weather, by definition.
Maybe you don’t know this. I’m still waiting for you to “come for” me, so that when you do, I can teach you about the difference between weather and climate.
Also the difference between heat, energy, temperature, radiation flux – and all those other things that climate crackpots don’t understand.
Why are you so keen on being humiliated? Are all climate cranks also members of the “Whip me, beat me” club?
Swenson, No, climate is the statistics of weather. Average is only one of the statistics, also included is the distribution and the extremes.
Hello. It didn’t take long for good ol Mike to surface. Tell us more about your “Whip me, beat me” club.
(Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others)
Swanson,
Fair enough. Here!s the definition from the World Meteorological Organisation, who seem to know something about it –
“Climate, sometimes understood as the “average weather,” is defined as the measurement of the mean and variability of relevant quantities of certain variables (such as temperature, precipitation or wind) over a period of time, ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.”
Measurements. Past weather. Control nothing, change nothing. Get it?
DMT obviously doesn’t believe it.
So there is no “climate theory”. Climate cranks just make up nonsense, trying to sound intelligent.
Here’s a chance to demonstrate your grasp of the use of climate –
What is the measured climate of California (or the city of Los Angeles, if you prefer)?
What changes have there been in the last 50 years, say? Too complicated for you? You don’t really know what you are talking about, do you?
GR says
“These are contradictory statements. There is no heat in/heat out, only EM in/EM out. EM, aka electromagnetic energy, is not heat. It’s vital to understand that.
–
Then says both
“Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.”
and “energy delivered by the Sun as EM”
and “The heat can be dissipated via EM radiation” *
–
Heat is energy
EM is energy.
–
Most people except nit pickers understand that the words heat and energy are interchangeable in this circumstance, except by nit pickers.
–
Could you reconsider this opinion of yours as well?
–
“If that EM is converted to heat in the ocean, the heated ocean will directly warm N2/O2 molecules in contact with it and that air will rise.”
–
The oceans are releasing heat as IR *.
O2 and N2 are fairly poor at absorbing IR.
How does the ocean then directly warm these molecules?
–
“Most people except nit pickers understand that the words heat and energy are interchangeable in this circumstance “
I have to disagree a bit here, angech.
In colloquial discussions, we can be loose with our choice of words. In technical discussions, it is important to use words carefully and consistently. In thermodynamics, there is an important distinction between:
Q = “heat” = a transfer of thermal energy between thermodynamic systems
U = “internal energy” = microscopic-level energy within a thermodynamic system.
Since this is clearly becoming a technical discussion, then we should use the words carefully.
(Gordon consistently used the word “heat” when he means “U” which is one source of confusion, until you get used to it.)
It is also vital to decide what model you want to use for photons/EM energy. There are two common models:
1) Radiation is Q = “heat”, transferring energy ‘instantly’ from a one system to a different system (for example, from your heated metal rod to a cooler room). This is common in pretty much all engineering settings, where there is basically no need to think about the energy existing for 0.00000 001 second as a photon before being absorbed by something else.
2) Radiation is U = “internal energy” of a photon gas. In this model, the first system would be the rod and the second system is the photons. “Q” would be the transfer of energy from the rod to the photons. This model makes a fair amount of sense when the sun creates photons that exist independently for several minutes before being absorbed by the earth (or for many years before being absorbed elsewhere in the universe).
Tim Folkerts
“Most people except nit pickers understand that the words heat and energy are interchangeable in this circumstance “
I have to disagree a bit here, angech.
In colloquial discussions, we can be loose with our choice of words. In technical discussions, it is important to use words carefully and consistently.
–
You may disagree.
This is however a colloquial discussion site on technical issues, I specified a specific circumstance and commented that my choice of word was one that is commonly and frequently used in such scientific discussions without people getting nit picky.
The meaning was perfectly clear.
If I was to say to you that a fire was hot would you turn around and say “”I have to disagree a bit here, angech.]
You have not specified Q, U, OMEGA or Delta.
Hopefully not.
–
we should use the words carefully.Agreed.
Q = “heat” = a transfer of thermal energy between thermodynamic systems
–
U = “internal energy” = microscopic-level energy within a thermodynamic system.
–
No, it is more than that, It specifically encompasses not only microscopic movement but also chemical bonds, mass and and charges.
–
“The internal energy describes the entire thermodynamic information of a system, and entropy, both cardinal state functions of only extensive state variables.
Thus, its value depends only on the current state of the system and not on the particular choice from the many possible processes by which energy may pass to or from the system.
It is a thermodynamic potential.
Microscopically, the internal energy can be analyzed in terms of the kinetic energy of microscopic motion of the system’s particles from translations, rotations, and vibrations, and of the potential energy associated with microscopic forces, including chemical bonds.”
–
-the heat supplied to the system (Q)
“The flow of heat is a form of energy transfer. Heating is the natural process of moving energy to or from a system other than by work or the transfer of matter”
–
When standard Thermodynamic texts use the words “transfer of heat to a system” in a definition there are no Gordon’s around saying heat cannot be transferred.
Everyone except nit pickers know what they mean.
Nor are there complaints about the correct use of P and Q’s [pardon the pun.
“What we refer to as GHE warming can be explained by the need of N2/O2 to retain heat. They cannot radiate it away at terrestrial temperatures. So, they have to rise to an altitude where the kinetic energy (aka heat) is low enough that the gas temperature equals the surrounding temperature.”
–
Atmospherics is an interesting field.
Your take on it may be biased by your disbelief in CO2 and H2O and other GHG.[or not].
Like me you have to be a bit hypercritical
when your views diverge from the mainstream.
The GHG theories have been around a long time and have a lot of advocates.
The problem with your theory is that temperature is related to height and pressure but there is no one idealized gas. They come in all shapes and sizes with different physical chemical and spectral properties.
I have no issue with people trying different approaches to the same outcome except when they deny the other sides common sense observations.
With that out of the way I would say that for the moment I am prepared to give credence to the idea that GHG make a significant difference.
Feedbacks are another issue entirely.
When your explanation disses GHG You have to come up with some pretty good scientific reasons for your explanation.
Lets start with the possible flaws.
–
“the need of N2/O2 to retain heat”
What does this mean?
Are you saying that N2/O2 are resistant to losing heat unlike all the other molecules/atoms you were talking about?
They have a unique way of taking in energy by gathering heat
[Kinetic energy] from barely moving earth and water surface particles.
and then cannot release it instead getting faster and faster [more kinetic energy] until they fly into the sky where it is cool even though the excited little particle is very hot[lots of kinetic energy as it is not having any collisions to slow itself down?]
– something does not gel with this explanation.
First up kinetic energy is heat.
Temperature is a totally different entity to heat.
You are confusing the heat of the object with the temperature of the mass of kinetic particles.
The atmosphere is cold up high but the kinetic energy of the particles is the heat of the particles.
There is radiation going out which is fairly cool because the GHG are able to release it at these low temperatures from the very large volume and low mass because they are emitting thousands of times a second.
Secondly if your theory was right there would be no outgoing radiation. The O2/N2 would just keep getting hotter and higher ad infinitum.
third how does a thermometer in glass recognise the temperature?
Lots of kinetic particles tapping on the glass which then excites the mercury or EM radiation [not from O2/N2] going through the glass and heating up the mercury?
“they have to rise to an altitude where the kinetic energy (aka heat) is low enough that the gas temperature equals the surrounding temperature.”
Kinetic energy and temperature are different entities.
When the sun hits an atom on a spaceship that atom is hot even though the temperature of the space around it is extremely low.
N2 and O2 rising have to have a lot of heat [energy to rise but where they are as an entity has a low temperature and I presume, could be wrong, that an egg would cook very quickly in direct sunshine at that height so the energy in that cold space is very high It has just not been converted into heat yet.
“Kinetic energy and temperature are different entities.”
But of course (as I assume you know) they are closely related. Temperature is proportional the average KE of the particle.
“When the sun hits an atom on a spaceship that atom is hot even though the temperature of the space around it is extremely low.”
The temperature of the gas in the thermosphere where many spacecraft like the ISS orbit is actually quite hot — over 1000 C. But the gas is so thin that you wouldn’t feel warm.
“Space” itself is indeed cold — 2.7 K for the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Objects in direct sunlight in space can indeed get quite warm. Gaining heat by radiation from the sun; loosing heat by radiation to space, and pretty much unaffected by any tiny amounts of gas that might be around.
“N2 and O2 rising have to have a lot of heat”
What they need is a lower density than the surrounding air. They need a higher temperature than the gas around them (and/or a higher water vapor content).
Kinetic energy and temperature are different entities.
–
“The temperature of the gas in the thermosphere where many spacecraft like the ISS orbit is actually quite hot over 1000 C. But the gas is so thin that you wouldnt feel warm.”
–
I saw this comment at the NASA site.
–
So which would you say is correct?
The egg is freezing cold because very few 1000-2000C particles are hitting it to warm it up?
Or there are billions of particles in the egg being hit by unshielded sunlight that will also turn all the egg components into 1000-2000 C hot particles?
Temperature of a substance is more closely related to the volume and mass [density of an object] times the amount of radiation per second it is receiving.
Being surrounded by a layer at 1000 C does not mean the earths surface is hotter than that does it?
–
Gaining heat by radiation from the sun; loosing heat by radiation to space, and pretty much unaffected by any tiny amounts of gas that might be around.
True.
but movement through it can cause a meteorite to heat up so much that it is destroyed by those same tiny amounts of gas.
“I presume, could be wrong, that an egg would cook very quickly in direct sunshine at that height”
If you mean something like an egg in orbit, then it would reach an average surface temperature of ~ 255 K if is was painted black to absorb sunlight. If you cooked the egg ‘sunny side up’ (one side always toward the sun), then the sunny side could get quite a bit above 255K. but the back side would be quite a bit colder.
(If it were orbiting near the earth, it would be a bit warmer because the IR from earth is warmer than the 2.7 K IR from space. )
Tim,
Good attempt at avoidance.
The surface of the Moon gets up to about 127 C or so.
Maybe you are thinking of mythical climatological eggs. Ordinary ones cook easily in boiling water at 100 C.
You are just being stupid.
Last I checked, 127 C is “quite a bit above 255 K” for the sunlight side.
Last I checked, the moon’s average temperature is below 255 K; also as I predicted.
So I am ‘being stupid’ for coming to exactly the same conclusions as you. 🙂
An egg, not a painted black egg.
The sunny side would be a lot hotter than 255k and would lead to cooking
The earth side with Ir from earth would not be very hot at all
There would be reflected earth shine light and Uv as well which might boost it a little.
Not much as the energy is being dissipated.
A white egg in space that reflected 90% of the sunlight would only absorb about 136 W/m^2 of sunlight. If the emissivity for thermal IR was 0.9 (like many white paints), the lit side would only reach about 135 K (about -140 C). Definitely frozen, not cooked!
A white egg on the ground would be .. about the same temperature as the surroundings. Go take an egg outside and set it on the grass at noon. I guarantee it will not cook!
If you did something like set a black pan under a glass cover at noon on a hot day, then you could certainly cook an egg. But that is because the *black* pan is absorbing sunlight (not the white egg). And because the glass cover reduces convection losses and radiation losses.
The layer of very rare air above the mesosphere is called the thermosphere. High-energy X-rays and UV radiation from the Sun are absorbed in the thermosphere, raising its temperature to hundreds or at times thousands of degrees.
The surface of the Moon gets up to about 127 C
The moon looks white but has an albedo lower that earth’s
An egg looks white [when cooked] but still has an albedo fairly low.
I think it would absorb a lot of energy.
One can see thru egg with bright light. Sunlight is much brighter than bright light.
It seems possible, that if painted an egg black, it could be colder, and glossy black paint might make colder than flat black paint.
It seems crew on ISS should see what would happen. It seems possible it could explode but wouldn’t be dangerous just perhaps messy.
“I think it would absorb a lot of energy.”
You seem to have forgotten what you just wrote about the the thermosphere: “very rare air”. There is just not enough of this hot air to conduct appreciable heat to objects. They can lose it faster by radiation, so they would stay cool (at least when not it direct sunlight.)
–Tim Folkerts says:
August 5, 2021 at 10:05 PM
“I think it would absorb a lot of energy.”
You seem to have forgotten what you just wrote about the the thermosphere: “very rare air”. There is just not enough of this hot air to conduct appreciable heat to objects. They can lose it faster by radiation, so they would stay cool (at least when not it direct sunlight.)–
Well at ISS one has less than 1 hour of sunlight in 90 min orbit.
In terms of explosive possibilities I am thinking of not slowly getting to vacuum from the air pressure of station {1 atm} but rather within a min or so. If was 10 min or longer going from 1 atm to vacuum it’s less likely. But if going from 1 atm to vacuum in a minute, it might not explode- I just think it might possible.
In meantime, I wonder if anyone done it, and I seen videos of people have put eggs in vacuum chamber. Two things, it takes a while to reach vacuum and eggs add water vapor to chamber, which makes even longer to get to low pressure, and secondly not very low pressure. Anyhow the egg shell seems like it’s strong enough.
Anyhow they had lots of fun with it, and if take eggs out shell then can see eggs boil at low temperature.
But back to how warm eggs in space get.
One aspect is in video the eggs got cold due to evaporation, some were forming ice. But need to the gases to leave or build up pressure inside the egg shell to cool. So saw no video adding heat while in vacuum. But even slow out gassing water vapor would be a powerful cooling effect.
It could be a good way to cook a egg. I doubt it cook an egg as fast as boiling them in water, so, might take 3 to 4 times longer.
Tim Folkerts says:
August 5, 2021 at 10:05 PM
“I think it would absorb a lot of energy.”
You seem to have forgotten what you just wrote about the the thermosphere: “very rare air”. There is just not enough of this hot air to conduct appreciable heat to objects. They can lose it faster by radiation, so they would stay cool (at least when not it direct sunlight.)
–
Tim the level of the thermosphere would cook an egg because of the gamma rays x-rays , uv, light and infrared radiation hitting it sunny side up.
–
No one said the atmosphere was heating it up . The atmosphere thin as it is , is at the temperature it is because of all that unobstructed radiation. Put something solid there like an eg to absorb all that heat ( GM) and the egg absorbs a lot of energy and cooks..
Gavin Schmidt on “climate sensitivity models” – “Schmidt says. “You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scaryand wrong.””
Dang! Call the CIA!
Gavin’s been reading my mail – or he’s finally coming to his senses.
A good fraction fo the earth surface is unlivable. The extra bit of GW will make some of the unlivable to be livable, and some of the livable to be unlivable. Philosophical question is, why is anyone or anything obliged to keep it livable for you? No one is. The fact that most of the unlivable earth is currently at the cold end of the climatic spectrum doesn’t mean that it will have to stay this way.
c,
Even better, is that the arid tropical deserts are only sparsely inhabited. Hotter makes little difference. As you say, returning Antarctica to its previous ice-free state, or the frozen plant matter in permafrost to its unfrozen state, would open up new agricultural vistas.
Climate cranks believe that the climate can be prevented from changing! What a pack of bumbling buffoons!
Ask any of these idiots what an unchanging climate would look like, or who would suffer from such a nonsensical proposal, and listen to the illogical nonsense they spout.
Remove CO2 from the atmosphere? Stop burning hydrocarbons, so that we can all freeze to death in the dark? That is, If starvation does not kill us first. Plants need CO2 and H2O to survive. Guess what burning hydrocarbons produce at a minimum – CO2 and H2O,
Duh!
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Europe roasted under one of its worst heat waves in decades on Monday, as scientists and governments prepared to sign off on a major new warning about the severity of climate change.
Temperatures in Greece were forecast to approach Europe’s all-time record of 48 degrees and wildfires raged in Turkey, Greece, Italy and Finland.
While parts of Europe burned, negotiations between governments and scientists over the final wording of a major compilation of the last seven years of climate science were taking place online.
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-fries-in-a-heat-wave-made-more-intense-by-climate-change/
Greetings from the chilly UK, France, Germany and Poland.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/08/03/1700Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-352.33,58.61,745
Needles in the eyes.
Europe burned
Are the lobsters ready yet? They have been boiling in the oceans for decades now. Price of butter should be going through the roof by now.
Language is a social art, Roberto.
Willard, please stop trolling.
In the summer time………
The longer you live the more chance of records you see, hot and cold.
What and where was the hottest temp you read about when you were growing up Willard?
Or the coldest.
Did you ever hope to see a new record set in your life time.
Did you expect to see one?
We will both see what we want to see.
FYI:
“Record highs are occurring more often than record lows due to climate change. In a stable climate, the ratio of new record highs to new record lows is approximately even. However in our warming climate, record highs have begun to outpace record lows, with the imbalance growing for the past three decades.”
s,
Climate is the average of past weather. Stable climate? When was weather stable? Never?
Are you really that stupid, or just pretending?
student:b
“Record highs are occurring more often than record lows due to climate change.
–
No.
Record lows occur more often than record highs with climate change as well.
–
It all depends on which way the climate is changing
–
Swenson is correct.
—
Your comment implying that the climate has only begun warming in the last 3 decades is firstly wrong and secondly well within normal variation.
–
If you take 30 year segments you will find some which get hotter and some which are colder over the last 210 years.
You will find that there is of course a slightly higher chance of cold records in cold decades and hot records in hot decades.
But not in all 30 year spells.
And certainly not in the same locality
You will find cold records set in otherwise cold decades and hot records in otherwise cold decades.
Short term record claiming reeks of desperation.
Mike Flynn is once again irrelevant, Doc.
The concept you are missing, once again, it has been what, ten years now, is AGW.
Willard says:
Mike Flynn is once again [correct, irreverent certainly], irrelevant.[if you believe rather than try to understand AGW]
“The concept you are missing, once again, it has been what, ten years now, is AGW.”
–
The concept of AGW has not been missing anyone, Willard for a lot more than the last 10 years.
–
–
At least one can talk openly here so here are a few pertinent comments.
–
There is no hope of converting you to a different position, your mind was made up years ago and only an extremely unlikely
road of Damascus situation would change that.
–
Your reasoning is based on a lot of sound premises, else you would not be expressing a majority view.
–
Your dedication, once belief has set in is admirable in its strength. That is both praise and caution. Loyola being a prime example.
–
It is a tough gig when people do not agree with something that is so obvious and perfect and right.
–
Some people can be converted, some are stubborn but convertible if you stretch the truth [the means justifies the ends.
Most of the others are ignorant, uneducated or malicious. They could not possibly have rational thoughts yet reach the same conclusions as you.
–
What to do with them when your arguments do not work.
You can block your ears so you do not hear the misguided views.
You can lecture them or you can admonish or berate or belittle them.
Good fun as they do it to you.
–
What you do not do, and cannot allow yourself or others to do is sit back and play the Devil’s advocate role.
There are arguments out there, which if you allowed them and cannot refute them would undercut yours and others beliefs.
–
Play your climateball. this is a good, reasonably well behaved site.
Then go back to the echo chamber and get some pats on the back and recognition.
Beats having to think and argue and explain.
>>were forecast to approach Europe’s all-time record of 48 degrees
I suppose, if without all the extra co2 it would be approaching 46*C that’d make a BIIIG difference!
I suppose that if you had an argument you would not have to rely on sarcasm.
you suppose incorrectly.
So you say.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The AGW nonsense can be debunked in one sentence:
“Atmosphere emitting at 264K cannot raise the temperature of surface at 288K.”
(Now watch the desperate attempts to pervert reality! That’s why this is so much fun.)
I have a little heating pad for my aching muscles. On a cold winter day (240 K) I plug it in outside. The surface happens to warm to 288 K.
The atmosphere warms to 264 K. The surface of the heating pad:
a) stays at 288 K
b) raises in temperature above 288 K.
Only Clint could imagine the answer would be (a).
What is the temperature that the surface is emitting into?
If it is colder than 264K, say 2.7K (outer space in the shade), and as the effective radiation depends on the difference in temperatures (if they were all the same at 288K then nothing much would happen) then, sure, an atmosphere at 264K makes a difference.
The AGW nonsense is based upon Earth’s equilibrium temperature, which because Earth radiate on average about 240 watt per square meter. And in vacuum a blackbody surface temperature of about 255 K [-18 C } radiates around 240 watts.
Earth surface is not in a vacuum.
Earth equilibrium temperature is not -18 C
The Moon is in a vacuum. It’s average temperature is something like
200 K [-73 C]. But it’s not uniformly -73 C. So that doesn’t seem to indicate much. But Moon is not increasing it’s average temperature- but again doesn’t mean much- and we can’t measure the Moon well enough to determine if it’s warming or cooling.
The other thing is we can use a model. An ideal thermal conductive blackbody would have an uniform temperature of about 5 C, and uniformly radiate 340 watts.
No object in vacuum at 1 AU should radiate more than an uniform temperature of about 5 C or more than what is equal to average of 340 watts- unless it has some other energy source other than sunlight from the sun.
Because an ideal blackbody surface emits the most amount of energy.
There is no such thing as ideal blackbody, it’s ideal. It’s a model. It’s in your head. It’s based on various assumption, one is imagining such material can be found or made. Simple carbon soot is regarded as close enough to make a blackbody surface, and you need a material under it, which is highly thermally conductive. The moon lacks such this highly thermally conductive material, the Moon has highly insulative material behind it’s blackbody like surface. So, not surprising the moon is much colder than average temperature of 5 C.
But what work as highly thermally conductive material is a fast spin rate. The moon doesn’t have a fast spin rate. But small space rocks do, and some are around 5 C.
There is no reason to accept AGW nonsense.
It like imagining a bunch of CNN reporters got together and “did some science”.
CNN reporters are idiots.
“But what work as highly thermally conductive material is a fast spin rate.”
Is this official denialist thinking? – that the rate of spin affects the temperature?
C’mon, lets see who agrees with this.
Of course the spin is relevant. The little photons coming from the sun are flung off the surface before they get absorbed. Just like a dog flinging off water by shaking itself vigorously. Believe me – I have seen it with my own eyes.
You lazy sob. Stop playing on your laptop and go and wash the dog.
s,
Seeing that climate crackpots love a good average to confuse the issue, presumably you mean average temperature.
You may be aware of rotisseries, either horizontal or vertical (as used for donor kebabs).
If the rotating stops – disaster! See the difference rotation makes? Same heat source, same meat being heated – just adjust the speed of rotation to get the desired average temperature.
You really don’t know much about the real world, do you?
studentb,
I am one of the chief “anti-denialists” and I will tell you flat out spin rate matters for average temperature. The more uniform the temperature of an object, the warmer the average temperature.
As a simple example, consider a blackbody (made from an excellent thermal insulator) that is eternally lit with 480 W/m^2 on one hemisphere and with 0 W/m^2 on the other henisphere. The lit ‘daytime’ side will be 303 K and the unlit ‘nighttime’ side 0 K (or 3 K if you bother with CMBR). In either case, the average is just over 150 K. (Going to 960 W/m^2 eternally for 1/4 of the surface lowers the average to about 90 K)
But if it is spinning rapidly, the day side never gets as hot as 303 K and the night never gets as cold as 3 K. In the limit of rapid spinning, the whole surface will approach 255 K.
(You can’t get “any” temperature by spinning a rotisserie the right speed, but you can get a wide range of average temperatures.)
“And in vacuum a blackbody surface temperature of about 255 K [-18 C } radiates around 240 watts.”
Let’s stop right there and clarify. A blackbody surface temperature of about 255 K [-18 C] radiates around 240 watts — whether in vacuum or not! That is what blackbodies do.
I suspect that what you meant is something like “In vacuum OF SPACE @ 2.7 K, a blackbody surface temperature of about 255 K [-18 C } radiates A NET AMOUNT OF around 240 watts [per square meter].
“Earth surface is not in a vacuum.
Earth equilibrium temperature is not -18 C”
Again, you need to be clear about what you mean.
When you talk about “earth’s surface” in relation to radiation, that would mean “the layer from which the thermal IR comes”. This is a variable height.
* For some wavelengths it is at the solid/liquid surface.
* for other wavelengths it is high in the atmosphere
* If there are clouds, it can be the top of the clouds.
It turns out that the ‘average temperature’ of these various ‘surfaces’ is indeed around 255 K. And these various surfaces are indeed surrounded by the 2.7 K vacuum of space.
“And in vacuum a blackbody surface temperature of about 255 K [-18 C } radiates around 240 watts.”
Let’s stop right there and clarify. A blackbody surface temperature of about 255 K [-18 C] radiates around 240 watts — whether in vacuum or not! That is what blackbodies do.
I suspect that what you meant is something like “In vacuum OF SPACE @ 2.7 K, a blackbody surface temperature of about 255 K [-18 C } radiates A NET AMOUNT OF around 240 watts [per square meter].—
It not my rules, but I do agree the idea is in regards to outer space.
But since you brought it up, what about a vacuum on Earth, to eliminate convection loss. You don’t need a near perfect vacuum, say 1/10th of earth’s atmosphere.
With 1/10 atm, it seems Earth surface intensity sunlight would heat black body to around 80 C.
Or with 1120 watts of direct and indirect sunlight shining on a sidewalk in 1/10th atm it should easily get hot enough to fry eggs.
Whereas with 1 atm and 15 C air, it’s only get to about 60 C. Or less.
Oh another thing is the sunlight weaken going thru a clear atmosphere. Or in sense you making less intense sunlight. If move an ideal thermally conductive blackbody to distance of where get this lower intensity sunlight, the model will indicate a different result.
Or model is about a specific sunlight intensity
which at 1 AU distance from the Sun in vacuum of outer space.
“Earth surface is not in a vacuum.
Earth equilibrium temperature is not -18 C”
Again, you need to be clear about what you mean.
Not really. But I will help. What kind of Earth would have this equilibrium temperature of -18 C.
There are lot’s of answers, for instance you could claim earth currently has equilibrium temperature of -18 C.
Earth radiates 240 watts on average so it’s has equilibrium temperature of -18 C.
All this tells you is Earth absorbs a lot of energy- as compared to Venus or the Moon {or Mercury or Mars} and is different, mainly because 70% is covered with ocean. But not as much an ideal thermal conductive blackbody 340 watts per square.
Earth only radiate about 70% of total energy emitted as ideal thermal conductive blackbody. Which is quite impressive.
The average ocean surface temperature is 17 C, and average land surface temperature is 10 C.
More precisely, southern hemisphere land including Antarctica is
about 8 C and northern hemisphere average land is 12 C. US is close to this temperature, Europe is about 9 C, China is about 8 C, Canada and Russia are largest and coldest areas, in which Africa in northern hemisphere very large and hot, does heavy lifting bringing it up 12 C. And in terms ocean, southern is a bit cooler than Northern Hemisphere ocean surface temperature.
The hotter ocean is apparently the Indian ocean, which helpful in bringing up southern ocean average temperature. [India average of 24 C and southeast Asia not as big of land mass as Africa are also bringing up the Northern Hemisphere average temperature].
Anyhow oceans dominate global air temperature, and because global air is warmer, it warming the world’s land areas.
And tropical Ocean [mostly Pacific ocean} is the world’s heat engine and warms entire world.
But in terms of Earth’s higher equilibrium temperature it seems to me it’s mostly related to Earth’s ocean, which the other planets, lack.
“Earth radiates 240 watts on average so its has equilibrium temperature of -18 C.”
I would say it has an “effective black body temperature” of -18C. That is a more precise way of expressing the idea.
“All this tells you is Earth absorbs a lot of energy- as compared to Venus or the Moon {or Mercury or Mars} “
How do mean? Moon, Mercury and Mars all have lower albedos, so they absorb a higher percentage. Venus is closer to the sun, so it absorbs a similar flux.
“Earth only radiate about 70% of total energy emitted as ideal thermal conductive blackbody. “
I assume you now are referring to the solid/liquid surface, rather than the ‘effective radiating surface’. And yes, it is quite impressive. It shows how effective the GHE is at keeping the surface warm while only emtting a much smaller amount of IR to space.
–“All this tells you is Earth absorbs a lot of energy- as compared to Venus or the Moon {or Mercury or Mars} “
How do mean? Moon, Mercury and Mars all have lower albedos, so they absorb a higher percentage. Venus is closer to the sun, so it absorbs a similar flux.–
The ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere absorbs the most energy.
At 1 AU distance from our Sun it as a uniform {not average] temperature of about 5 C.
This means in comparison lunar surface when the sun is at zenith has a surface temperature of 120 C, the ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere surface when at zenith has a temperature of 5 C.
It doesn’t get warmer or cooler than 5 C anywhere on it’s surface.
If you spin a sphere you get something similar. If spin a sphere it absorbs more energy. Mars spins and is warmer because it spins as compared Mars not spinning. Mars 24 hour day, but it’s smaller than Earth- it’s surface speed not as fast as Earth.
At Earth’s equator the surface travels at about 1000 mph.
“Thus, the surface of the earth at the equator moves at a speed of 460 meters per second–or roughly 1,000 miles per hour.”
460 meter per second speed may be better way to express it.
“The planet has a rotational speed of 868.22 km/h at the equator. The similarity if the length of the day allows the engineers as NASA to switch their day to a ”Mars day” when they are working with rovers on the planet.”
868.22 km/h is 241.1722 meter per second
If Mars surface traveled at 500 m/s it would absorb more sunlight, it would not warm as much at noon, but it cool less at night and have a higher average temperature.
Any way you can be like a ideal thermally conductive blackbody will absorb more energy. And there many ways to do this. A purpose of such a model is it’s useful. Of course another aspect of model other than absorbing the most, is it also emits the most energy at the lowest temperature. Or it’s not really how to make things hotter, it’s also how to make it colder- it’s pretty good refrigerator at 1 AU, requires no electrical energy and can keep the surface in daylight almost at the temperature of a refrigerator [around 3 C}. So if destroy or alter it, you can wreck this refrigerator- make it so it does not radiate as much energy into space or not absorb as much energy of sunlight could make it colder.
I would say Earth fast rotation is not as important in terms of how much energy Earth absorbs because Earth has an ocean but is more “helpful” because Earth has some land area.
Another factor other it’s ocean, is it’s atmosphere- having atmosphere also replaces the “need” for higher rotational speed to absorbed more sunlight. Mercury would absorb a lot energy if had faster rotation speed. If added atmosphere to Mercury, it would reflect more sunlight, but would absorb more energy from sunlight. If put Mars with it’s rotational speed and thin atmosphere in Mercury’s orbit, it should absorb a lot more energy than Earth.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Since July 27, roughly 9.37 billion tons (8.5 billion metric tons) of ice has been lost per day from the surface of the enormous ice sheet twice its normal average rate of loss during summer, Polar Portal, a Danish site run by Arctic climate researchers, reported. The huge loss comes after temperatures in north Greenland soared to above 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius), which is double the summer average, the Danish Meteorological Institute reported.
High temperatures on July 28 caused the third-largest single-day loss of ice in Greenland since 1950; the second and first biggest single-day losses occurred in 2012 and 2019. Greenlands yearly ice loss began in 1990. In recent years it has accelerated to roughly four times the levels before 2000.
https://www.space.com/greenland-massive-melting-event
Willard
Not much of a vacation.
Speak for yourself.
Witless Wee Willy,
For whom would he speak, if not for himself?
Wake me up when Antarctica is ice-free again, dummy.
Mike Flynn,
Playing dumb again.
Most Facile!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Its irrelevant. 9.37 billion tons sounds like a lot but its not. One hurricane will replace all that lost water content.
The only way you get significant climate altering melting on Greenland is if you have another Hiawatha crater event.
It’s just twice the normal, Kennui.
Willard, please stop trolling.
No U.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Since July 27, roughly 9.37 billion tons (8.5 billion metric tons) of ice has been lost per day from the surface of the enormous ice sheet twice its normal average rate of loss during summer…”
***
It’s weather, Willard, summer weather. All the ice will be back, maybe more, by year’s end.
You see, Willard, when there is no solar input, things freeze and get very cold, down to -70C at time. Ice reforms, Willard.
Do pay attention.
Tell me Willard, does this Danish Polar Portal go out on the Greenland ice sheet and measure every single ton of missing ice? Do they go out mid-winter and measure anything? I seriously doubt it. They use models programmed by alarmists to exaggerate the ice loss. And, they never mention it is melting because it’s summertime.
Duh!!!
These idiots need funding, and they won’t get it if they report there is no problem.
More tin foil, Gordo?
Tell me where you worked as an engineer.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Sun fell asleep momentarily
https://i.postimg.cc/fyrWWMBj/Clipboard01.jpg
https://youtu.be/pDXdFqPEynk
swannie…”The Christy/Spencer UAH data is based on the identical theory and math as is the basis for the Green House Effect”.
***
Up till now I was willing to write you off as cantankerous. Now I am questioning your sanity. The UAH data is collected by advanced telemetry that receives real EM emissions from oxygen molecules in the microwave band. Those emission give very accurate temperatures based on altitude.
What the heck does that have to do with the voodoo science upon which the GHE theory is based? Where are the instruments that measure the alleged warming effect of CO2 on the atmosphere?
Finally, where is the science that provides a causal relationship between CO2 and atmospheric warming? All you have are equations scribbled out by a scientist, Arrhenius, over 100 years ago and allegation he made based on them. No science.
And what math reveals that CO2 is warming the atmosphere like nitrogen and oxygen warm a real greenhouse? Any math used by UAH is well established. There is no math to support the GHE.
studentb…”Is this official denialist thinking? that the rate of spin affects the temperature?
Cmon, lets see who agrees with this”.
***
I do, I do.
Look at the Moon, it doesn’t spin at all and the side facing the Sun rises to 127C and stays there for up to two weeks. That happens when one side of the Moon is facing the Sun.
When that heated side reaches a point in the orbit where it’s on the far side of the Earth from the Sun, and pointed away from the Sun, temperatures plummet to -180C. So, the Moon has about 2 weeks on one face at 127C and about two weeks at -180C.
As the Moon orbits the Earth, it is essentially between the Sun and the Earth for about 14 days and has the Earth between it and the Sun for another 14 days. Although there are periods where it is in-between those two states, the point is that the Sun is shining directly on an exposed face of the Moon for half its orbit.
The Earth, on the other hand, rotates 27 times faster and that gives solar energy less time to heat one face.
With a higher planetary velocity, the global minimum temperature is higher because the cooling time is shorter.
And the maximum temperature is lower because the warming time is shorter.
Are you saying that the average temperature is independent of rate of rotation but faster rotation reduces the variation either side of the average?
Because the cooling time is shorter the temperature across the planet is more even and the average temperature is higher.
The near side always has Earth in the same spot in sky. Earth light goes through phases, and during lunar night on Near side, Earth is full and Moon is New as seen from Earth.
Far side of moon has no Earth light.
Earth light is unlike Moonlight. Earth is bigger and brighter but does not interfere with looking at stars [nor does sunlight interfere with looking at the stars]. Near side has the brightest or Full Earth light during the lunar midnight. And during lunar mid-day the Earth is New and during this time Earth can block the Sun- and then Earth has red ring of light around it
Also Apollo landing were {all??} in lunar morning [easier to land and not as hot] When we go to lunar polar region, it’s always morning or evening whatever you want to call it or Sun is always low on horizon.
So we might get different views of Earth.
gbaikie…”CNN reporters are idiots”.
***
That’s the spirit. Not just idiots…raving idiots. Some are wankers, when they think no one is looking.
For all you spin believers:
At the average Earth-Sun distance the intensity of solar radiation is close to 1360 Watts per square meter.
The Earth presents as a circular disk (radius r) with area Pi R squared square meters.
It therefore intercepts pi R squared times 1360 Watts.
The average intercepted by the Earth as a sphere (with total area 4 pi R squared) is therefore 1360/4 = 240 Watts.
Allowing for reflection, a fraction of this, about 70%, is absorbed by the sphere, which at equilibrium, is emitted as long wave radiation according to the SB Law.
This average emitting temperature T is determined solely by
sigma T**4 = 168 Watts.
Tell me, how does spin enter into the calculation? e.g. does it cause T to be higher or lower?
s,
Try not to appear so stupid. You forget the Earth is hotter than sunlight can account for. More than 99% molten. What should the surface temperature be, then? Measure it, and find out!
You are an idiotic climate crackpot.
The Earth does not present as a circle, it presents as an oblate spheroid, with an orbital obliquity of some 23.5 degrees. The optical qualities of the surface are constantly changing, as is the crust itself. Maybe you are too thick to realise why polar regions exposed to 6 months of continuous sunlight do not warm up appreciably.
Your “average temperature” is a fiction, and about as valid as an “average” family having fractional children.
You really have no idea at all, you? You can’t even figure out why temperatures drop at night, or why the Antarctic Ocean doesn’t freeze.
Got any more stupid and irrelevant calculations?
Fail.
Anybody else ?
s,
If T is temperature, it is measured, dummy. Surface temperatures vary between greater than 1000 C, to -90 C or so.
Your equations are totally pointless and irrelevant – climastrological pseudoscience, dimwit.
How hot is your soup? Try working it out with your “equations”. Don’t wait too long. Your soup might get cold!
Don’t take your fail so personally.
Calm down and you may learn something.
DMT,
What “fail” would that be, dummy?
studentb…”This average emitting temperature T is determined solely by
sigma T**4 = 168 Watts.
Tell me, how does spin enter into the calculation? e.g. does it cause T to be higher or lower?”
***
Note that S-B does not calculate the radiating temperature, it calculates the radiated EM intensity. EM is not heat.
This is what happens when you apply math for a theoretical body to a surface that is rotating and has many different materials with different emissivities. Your equation MIGHT apply to a plate of steel sitting still with an electrical, internal heat source, depending on the temperature of the environment in which it is located..
It does not apply to Earth’s surface at terrestrial temperatures. The S-B constant was derived from an electrically-heated platinum filament wire with temperatures ranging from 700C to 1400C. The constant does not apply at terrestrial temperatures.
Furthermore, the T in your equation is not derived solely from solar energy, nor does it apply to the entire surface. When the Earth rotates so that is is no longer receiving solar input, it begins to cool. Therefore, you have different parts of the planet radiating at different temperatures.
The faster it rotates, the less time it has to warm from solar input and the less time it has to cool. Since the Moon does not rotate at all, it has one hemisphere facing the Sun for about 14 days while the other hemisphere faces cold space for the same time.
“Since the Moon does not rotate at all”
The Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit around Earth. As you then indicate with your comment about 14 day day/night periods.
Wrong RLH, you still don’t understand orbital motions.
Moon’s 14 day/night periods are caused by its orbital motion. It is NOT rotating about its axis. It always faces the inside of its orbit, but presents different faces to Sun due to its orbit around Earth.
Just think of a ball-on-a-string, swinging around you, with a huge spotlight shining on you from one side.
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string will help you understand.
Ball-on-a-string is not a useful analogy for gravitationally connected objects.
It introduces a torque because of the string connected to the ball’s surface. No such force exists under gravity.
RLH, you keep trying to discredit the simple analogy, because it destroys your cult beliefs. The string does NOT introduce a torque!
The ball-on-a-string is a simple-to-understand analogy of orbital motion. It is used throughout academia as an introduction to the science. Here are 3 links for you to deny:
“Orbital Motion is much like a ball whipped around on a string”
https://people.astro.umass.edu/~tripp/a101fall08/lectnotes/a101lect13_f08.pdf
“Sort of like balls on strings, but there are no strings”
https://www.unf.edu/~n00006757/astronomylectures/ECP4e/First%20Lectures/Newton's%20Laws,%20Motion,%20and%20Gravity.pdf
“For Newton’s cannonball, the Earth provided the acceleration. For a ball on a string, the tension in the string provides the acceleration.”
http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/physics/astronomy/astr101/specials/newtscannon.html
As usual, I predict you can’t understand any of this.
(I won’t respond to nonsense.)
“The string does NOT introduce a torque!”
If the string is attached to the surface, what do you call the lever that exists between the surface and the center? Magic?
“much like … ”
“sort of like .. ”
I see. We all see. We all know that those profs would disown your position in a heartbeat.
“much like … ”
“sort of like .. ”
I see.
We all see.
Those page don’t say that the moon is just like a ball on a string.
We all know that those profs would disown your “moon does not rotate” position in a heartbeat.
Clint has sources!
But as unfortunately Clint missed some inconvenient facts from his sources:
https://www.unf.edu/~n00006757/astronomylectures/ECP4e/First%20Lectures/Newton's%20Laws,%20Motion,%20and%20Gravity.pdf
“Over time the Moon’s rotation has slowed so much that it matches its orbital period”
“It is now in synchronous rotation with its orbit”
“it orbits Earth in the same time it takes to spin once around its rotational axis”
Tim, please stop trolling.
another fail.
student b, please stop trolling.
Cooling is close to a straight line. Heating is not.
–This average emitting temperature T is determined solely by
sigma T**4 = 168 Watts.
Tell me, how does spin enter into the calculation? e.g. does it cause T to be higher or lower?–
To make simple, faster in spins increases the amount of sunlight is absorbed.
But in terms of Ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere, it doesn’t make any difference.
One could say spin increases the thermally conductivity of a sphere.
Ideal thermal conductive blackbody sphere model is “infinite thermal conductivity” or ideal or perfect.
One could say an advantage of an Ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere is it allows one to avoid the complexity the thermal conductivity of a planet. All models must ignore various complexities of real world. So in terms of T = 168 watts, spin does not enter into the calculation. Except is sense part the fundamental equation- you dividing by 4. Or dividing 4 is “justifiable” or “more reasonable” because of earth’s existing spin rate.
or it’s not really exactly 4 but Earth spin make closer being sort of right.
[This is how I explain it, one can’t explain insanity but you can give a guess] But rather this heretics view, I give you a somewhat official answer. Here:
Note the ratio of the two areas. Common assumptions for this ratio are 1/4 for a rapidly rotating body and
1/2 for a slowly rotating body, or a tidally locked body on the sunlit side. This ratio would be 1 for the subsolar point, the point on the planet directly below the sun and gives the maximum temperature of the planet — a factor of √2 (1.414) greater than the effective temperature of a rapidly rotating planet.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
And same place:
The Earth has an albedo of about 0.306. The emissivity is dependent on the type of surface and many climate models set the value of the Earth’s emissivity to 1. However, a more realistic value is 0.96. The Earth is a fairly fast rotator so the area ratio can be estimated as 1/4. The other variables are constant. This calculation gives us an effective temperature of the Earth of 252 K (−21 °C). The average temperature of the Earth is 288 K (15 °C). One reason for the difference between the two values is due to the greenhouse effect, which increases the average temperature of the Earth’s surface.”
And of course the “greenhouse effect theory” is based on ideal thermally conductive blackbody with weird addition that it reflects sunlight. And you got to ignore that Earth does not have uniform temperature or that average temperature is about the same thing as uniform temperature.
Cargo cult.
studentb you spin believers:
At the average Earth-Sun distance the intensity of solar radiation is close to 1360 Watts per square m
The Earth presents as a circular disk (radius r) with area Pi R squared square meters.
It therefore intercepts pi R squared times 1360 Watts.
The average intercepted by the Earth as a sphere (with total area 4 pi R squared) is 1360/4 = 240 W
Allowing for reflection 70%, is absorbed by the sphere, which is emitted as long wave radiation
This average emitting temperature T is determined solely by. sigma T**4 = 168 Watts.
how does spin enter into the calculation?
e.g. does it cause T to be higher or lower?
–
Your presentation is a bit too glib.
There are two circular discs.
1 receiving 1360
The other technically getting 0 as no direct sunlight especially if not rotating.
Practically the dark side is not 0 K
Both radiate energy.
–
The result is in part that dark side is also emitting energy to space so you have more energy going out than comes in or need to modify your steps.
The average emission would be higher than 168 W on your argument.
–
Correcting your wrong assumptions is not easy.
–
Secondly due to SB combining two average temperatures of different energy emission levels for similar periods does not give a correct average temperature for an average emitting energy.
Spin does not change the energy going out, you get one point.
However it does change the average of the combined temperatures.
This is not rocket science or consensus, just fact
–
Swenson winning two rounds clearly.
–
Round 3?
A,
Thank you.
The climate nutters obviously believe that continuously repeating nonsense will somehow make it come true. I suppose this is why the undistinguished civil servant Gavin Schmidt claims to be a “climate scientist”, and the university lecturer Michael Mann (faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat), claimed to be a Nobel Laureate – even printing himself a certificate to that effect!
That’s the “woke” world for you.
Fail number 3.
I think I can safely say the whole class has failed.
I can definitely say you are a dimwit.
Is your condition congenital, or did you have to work hard to achieve the levels of ignorance and stupidity that you demonstrate?
Definitely hard work for many years.
Probably in the same Dojo as the Panda.
Impressive once you consider the starting level
The Faster a Planet Rotates, the Warmer its Average Temperature
September 28th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
This is a followup to my post from yesterday where I provided time-dependent model results of the day-night cycle in lunar temperatures.
double fail.
Has nobody here ever heard of the conservation of energy?
If I were you I would question the quality of the educational institutions you attended (if any).
Where do you find problems with the Conservation of Energy, studentb?
Dont play dumb. Look at the post by Mike below.
Nice distraction, DMT.
But, even the times don’t work out for you. Nevermind you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
s,
Thank God you are not me.
Are you one of those idiotic buffoons who claims “energy in” equals “energy out”?
You do realise that the Earth has cooled from the molten state, don’t you?
Show me your “equation” that calculates the rate of cooling, and the present temperature.
You are an incomplete idiot, but keep going and you will achieve your goal of becoming a complete idiot.
Off you go now.
studentb, the issue is not with conservation of energy, but with the T^4 nature of radiation. Imagine 10 m^2 emitting 5000 W. It could be …
* 500 W from each m^2 –> 306 K average
* 1000 W from 5 m^2 and 0 from the other 5 m^2 –> 182 K average
* 2500 from 2 m^2 and 0 from 8 m^2 –> 91 K average
* 5000 from 1 m^2 –> 65 K average.
The same total power can lead to very different average temperatures! The more extreme the variations, the colder the average
A slowly rotating planet has more extreme variations, and hence lower average temperature.
Dont forget we are talking about the average, steady state temperature for a well mixed global atmosphere and ocean.
The rate of spin is irrelevant.
Otherwise, show me the equation which has spin in it.
“Dont forget we are talking about the average, steady state temperature for a well mixed global atmosphere and ocean.”
Actually, the discussion started with the moon, and the fact that its slow spin rate keep the average surface temperature well below the value calculated from (albedo)*P/A = (sigma)(epsilon)(T^4). The sunny side is above this value, but the night side is way below this value. The average is well below T = [(albedo P/A)/(epsilon sigma) ]^(1/4)
If the moon spun faster with the exact same solar input, then its average surface temperature would be closer to value calculated above.
Even for the earth with a faster spin and fairly well-mixed oceans and atmosphere, there is a noticeable different between night and day, and thus the earth’s average temperature — as measured by the radiation emitted to space — will be less than the 255 K calculated as the effective BB temperature.
TF, you are making the common mistake of confusing “orbiting” with “rotating”. Moon only orbits, it does NOT rotate. If it rotated about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
Moon has the same motion as a ball-on-a-string.
“Moon has the same motion as a ball-on-a-string.”
The Moon it NOT the same as a ball-on-a-string. At all.
You sure are a ‘one trick pony’ Clint. Even when the post has nothing to do with your odd personal theory about the moon, you bring it up.
However we describe the motion of the moon, the slower it spins on its axis, the longer the days and nights will be, the more extreme the temperature changes, and the cooler the average temperature. If the moon spun once every 24 hr on its axis, the average temp would be much warmer than it is now. If it spun once every 3 hours, the average would be warmer yet.
Tim, please stop trolling.
You could try looking up Dr Spencers post that I quoted?
Or you could choose not to. Not my loss.
Anyone reading this can look it up and see proof that your contention is wrong.
I dont think so.
studentb, please stop trolling.
I have noticed that denialists shy away from equations. Hand waving seems to be their preferred method of argument.
You reality denialists shy away from most science.
For example “studentb” perverts solar flux:
“The average intercepted by the Earth as a sphere (with total area 4 pi R squared) is therefore 1360/4 = 240 Watts.”
First, flux cannot be averaged, and second, if it could be averaged it would still have units of “flux”.
“This average emitting temperature T is determined solely by sigma T**4 = 168 Watts.”
Then, “studentb” has Earth at about -40F!
Give him an equation he can’t understand, and he’s dangerous.
T is actually 255K.
Which is the average emission temperature of the Earth-Atmosphere system. It is not the surface temperature.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
“T”, for your 168 W/m^2 (NOT 168 “Watts”), would correspond to 233K, young one.
NOT 255K.
I understand that you have no science background.
Well spotted.
255K corresponds to 238 W /m^2 (which is the correct value
for an albedo of 0.3)
However, note that spin does not enter the calculation.
Yes, you were wrong again.
But considering the effect of rotation is a more advanced issue. Emission from a surface is different than conduction within a body..
Learn to get the basics right, and we can move on.
What’s a ‘denialist’, exactly?
If you don’t believe in the holy view that climate change is caused by humans and that there is a looming crisis then you are a ‘denialist’.
Its a weird religion because if you look at salient climate data and still think there is a looming crisis then you really are in denial about the reality of the situation.
‘Denialist’ is a pointless and meaningless description that is in keeping with the rest of the Woke Cancer that is sweeping our culture.
When someone starts bandying about the word ‘denialist’ it is not worth your time to engage because they are dipped-in-the-koolaid believers. You can’t ignore them because there is a real and present danger in their anti-science Marxism.
Denialist:
Old, male, untrained in maths and physics, conservative, probably a Trump supporter, paranoid, bitter, retired, hates everyone, ….sad.
Yes. Yes. No. No. No. No. No. Yes. No. No.
The No’s have it, the No’s have it.
quote Denialist:
Old, male, untrained in maths and physics, conservative, probably a Trump supporter, paranoid, bitter, retired, hates everyone, ….sad. unquote
You mean Pessimist. Optimists (aka denialists) have more fun but pessimists are more often correct. Sad but true.
pP,
Precisely. Climate crackpots deny reality, and believe that fantasy is superior to fact.
They seem to be obsessed with things like “consensus” , “arguments”, “winners”, “losers”.
The scientific method is a foreign concept to climate cranks – just look at their stupid comments.
Who cares what you “noticed”? You can’t even name one of your ilk who cares about what you “noticed”, can you?
That’s sad. Really sad.
[sighs of sympathy]
The so-called scientific method you refer to does not rely on hand waving.
Here is your equation, straight from Einstein
https://i.postimg.cc/mZ3czjfn/einsteinshow.jpg
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
The capital city of the Northwest Territories measured a high temperature of 32.6°C on Aug. 2, 2021, eking out a new place in the records. The previous all-time high temperature for the city was a 32.5°C reading on July 16, 1989.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/it/news/article/extreme-heat-scorches-yellowknifes-all-time-temperature-record-northwest-territories
Woebegone Wee Willy reduced to copying weather reports.
Obviously unaware of difference between weather and climate.
Desperately seeks attention. Instead, becomes object of derision on account of his desperation.
[derisive snorts]
Mike Flynn,
Marvellous Failure.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The capital of the Northwest Territories logged its hottest-ever day on Monday, Aug. 2, edging out the previous record by a hair.
Hottest ever day
Ever? Really? Even during the Holocene Thermal Maximum? Even over the last 1,000 years?
You are making it way too easy for you to be an object of ridicule. Pick up your game. I know you have it in you.
And another:
“Out of control fires everywhere in Greece. Athens is burning. Hundreds of houses are gone. Unimaginable disaster unfolding”
And prove that hasnt been happening all through the Holocene.
Good luck.
Are you saying Athens is regularly destroyed by fire?
And that this is not unusual?
Studentb: wildfires in Greece are nothing new. There’s plenty to read here for example:
https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/BF03400631
Note the reference to the climate of Greece. Nothing new there, either.
Suburbs of Athens, not Athens itself.
Prove that God does not exist, Roberto.
Willard: Which God is that?
Whichever you wish to take, dummy.
Good luck trying to prove that kind of negative existential.
The idiot calling himself studentb has delusions of grandeur.
No doubt he is a legend in his own lunchbox. Just another climate crank, who is in denial of reality.
What an idiot he is!
I forgot to include “boringly repetitious” in my definition of a denialist.
DMT, please stop trolling.
Flood management Chinese style
https://youtu.be/eBmicuwleZI?t=40
For those who have not been dropped from class, the story continues:
“The global average mean surface temperature of the earth is 288 K. Above we deduced that the emission temperature of the Earth is 255K, considerably lower. Why? The atmosphere is rather opaque to IR, so we cannot think of terrestrial radiation as being radiated into space directly from the surface. Much of the radiation emanating from
the surface will be absorbed, primarily by H2O, before passing through the atmosphere. On average, the emission to space will emanate from some level in the atmosphere (typically about 5 km, in fact) such that the region above that level is mostly transparent to IR. It is this region of the atmosphere,
rather than the surface, that must be at the emission temperature. Thus radiation from the atmosphere will be directed downward, as well as upward, and hence the surface will receive not only the net solar radiation, but IR from
the atmosphere as well. Because the surface feels more incoming radiation than if the atmosphere were not present (or were completely transparent to IR) it becomes warmer than Te. This has become known as the greenhouse effect. +
That is indeed the AGW nonsense, in a nutshell, studentb. You have been well indoctrinated.
But, we know from science that back-radiation from the sky does not add. That’s like trying to boil water with ice cubes.
It is well known in ClifF’s universe that you cannot be shot twice because bullets do not add.
Are you just being a silly troll Ent, or it that another attempt to pervert reality?
It’s hard to tell the difference….
Just being satirical so about your mistaken belief that fluxes cannot be added.
No, you’re trying to pervert reality.
If you believe fluxes add, then try boiling water with ice cubes. An ice cube emits about 300 W/m^2. Most of you idiots don’t even understand what that means. You believe that two ice cubes is then emitting 600 W/m^2. Ten ice cubes would be emitting 3000 W/m^2.
So, get a truck load of ice cubes and try boiling water, so you can learn your beliefs ain’t science.
Or, just admit you’re an idiot troll with no understanding of the relevant science.
Your choice.
Laughing stock ClintR muffs it again; the proper belief is that two ice cubes are then emitting 600 W/2m^2. Ten ice cubes would be emitting 3000 W/10m^2.
ClintR can’t add up emitting areas properly and has shown no ability to ever understand climate physics. Carry own ClintR, the entertaining 3 ring circus needs your comedy talents on this blog.
Ball4
You are correct. Clint R cannot understand his flawed thoughts but he keeps posting as if he knows things. Pity the fool. He is blinded by his arrogance and too stupid to know better.
Arrogant stupidity is a curse but it won’t help his even if you tell him about it. Too arrogant to see his own ignorance.
Troll Ent got caught perverting reality. Then trolls Ball4 and Norman jump in to help Ent, using their insults and false accusations.
They’ve got NOTHING of value.
Yes, Norman 8:26pm, if there were actually something false about my physics Clint R would have properly pointed it out but Clint R 3:48am could not do so. I do appreciate the continuing Clint R entertainment act.
“If you believe fluxes add …”
For the umpteenth time…
* Fluxes absorbed BY a surface DO add. Measure the flux arriving at a surface from a light bulb (or from an IR heater or from a block of ice). Then add a second light bulb (or IR heater or block of ice). The flux arriving will be the sum of the two (plus the flux arriving from any other sources around). If one lightbulb (or IR heater or block of ice) provides 20 W/m^2 to a surface, then a second light (or heater or ice with a similar size and location) will also provide 20 W/m^2, for a total of 40 W/m^2.
* Fluxes emitted FROM a surface don’t add. If one block of ice emits 300 W/m^2, then another similar block will also emit 300 W/m^2. Not 600 W/m^2
Everyone seems to get this except you, Clint.
Ball4, Tim, please stop trolling.
A good summary.
Tim,
Except for the fact that the atmosphere absorbs IR In both directions.
And, of course, that during the night, all the heat of the day escapes to space (plus a little of the Earth’s primordial heat).
And, of course, that the Earth has managed to cool all the way to its present temperature.
And, of course, that the hottest places (arid tropical deserts) have the smallest amounts of H2O in the atmosphere above them
Denialist climate cranks can’t admit such facts exist. They just deny reality – that there is no GHE at all!
You are a gullible fool.
Yes, the atmosphere absorbs in both directions. What would make you think I believe otherwise?
No, not all of the day’s energy necessarily escapes. This is not some ‘fixed law of physics. if one day is warmer than the previous, then that area had a small net gain in energy. If one month globally is cooler then that past month then there was a net loss of energy. IF one year is warmer than the past, there was a net gain of energy. The imbalance is thought to be on the order of 1 W/m^2. This swamps the geothermal loses on the order of 0.1 W/m^2. The earth as a whole is GAINING energy lately, despite the geothermal losses!
Yes. No one doubts that the surface was once molten and is not any longer.
Yes, deserts are hot — for a variety of reasons. Yes, arid areas don’t have as much water vapor for greenhouse warming. But as you noted earlier, this also mean less incoming solar energy gets absorbed, so sunlight is more intense. And few clouds, so more sunlight. And no water in the soil, so no evaporative cooling.
You think you understand and can explain, but you are several steps behind.
Tim, please stop trolling.
“For those who have not been dropped from class, the story continues:
“The global average mean surface temperature of the earth is 288 K. Above we deduced that the emission temperature of the Earth is 255K, considerably lower. Why? ”
One could say that Earth is cold and absorbs a lot the sun’s energy and emits as cold planet would, at 255 K the blackbody spectrum.
Now one expect a planet in an ice Age to be cold, but I think even if Earth was in warm period, it would still roughly emits as cold planet which that absorbs a lot of the Sun’s energy.
Now a planet that doesn’t absorb a lot of the sun’s energy is Venus.
And due to the fact that Venus absorbs as much [or less when consider how close Venus is to the Sun] of the sunlight than our moon does, perhaps the Moon and Venus is more similar to each other, like for instance, both lack oceans.
And both have long days.
Venus is also similar to Mercury, which lacks and ocean and also has long day.
And spectrum of Moon and Mercury and Venus though they absorb less of the sunlight emit at much higher blackbody spectrum when in daylight but at much lower blackbody spectrum when at night.
Very similar and none have oceans.
RLH (1 of 3)
Just like my comments about what you wrote were very probably useless for you, most of your remarks about what I wrote were not so terribly useful for me either.
But every rule has its exception. I thank you very much for this one remark
” Just to be clear, you do know the difference between LST_DATE and UTC_DATE don?t you? ”
which was very useful because though having written about that in my informal working spec (even with bold emphasis), I simply forgot it!
Of course I knew this difference. But knowledge is only useful when we apply it.
If one suddenly forgets, e.g. in
” 26563 20210101 0100 20201231 1600 ”
to use positions 4 and 5 instead of positions 2 and 3, many things look nice but nonetheless it’s all plain wrong.
Even if plots and running means undoubtedly look very similar, the differences simply are too big to be ignored.
J.-P. D.
RLH (2 of 3)
The following graphs show this clearly.
1. A single CRN station (NM_Carrizozo_1W), 2009-2014
UTC:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OEs81Q6Cq6S4iAcHYd3VS3Mx0_BfFGU6/view
LST:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_vtCk3qUEYzsCUthpWIHjdBMrFcIDo5G/view
2. All CRN stations, 2002-2021
UTC:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wuby_0CEGOQSrnbaklZVr5KvxvCoXXYP/view
LST:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZygssQsfA1c4e21HV8nCyEg1HjkxewTg/view
Btw, it would be interesting for me, and possibly for you, to find the reason for the accumulations of higher differences, e.g. during the period ‘end of 2013 – begin of 2015’:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZygssQsfA1c4e21HV8nCyEg1HjkxewTg/view
What daily temperature do you calculate for the day and station given?
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.5 Count = 288
RLH (3 of 3)
However, I guess that you might much less appreciate the four following graphs because they probably go, in your opinion, in the ‘wrong’ direction.
3. Comparison of hourly Tmean, Tmedian and Tavg
UTC:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g5nAr4M2z0BXZ9uUZH1711MLpZrsm4m6/view
LST:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1un5XUcoBo58oSKkK4dy379z9eHgnmTb3/view
4. Comparison of the difference between ‘Tavg – Tmean’ and ‘Tavg – Tmedian’
UTC:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vURtK_aCD69tASBt166YNmSBna4Hwxvs/view
LST:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bROlI9vVCBE4ZFEfBhrcEyVaznDbrKtB/view
*
If you can’t prove me wrong, then it becomes evident that this Tmean vs. Tmedian vs. Tavg discussion is moving to a discussion about the sex of angels.
Simply because the absolute value of the mean, for 2002-2021, of all daily differences between Tavg and Tmean not only is lower than the absolute value mean for the differences between Tavg and Tmedian.
It’s value is 0.09 C, i.e. below the precision of the published data (0.1 C).
*
Maybe you have already published your graphs for the average of all available CRN stations since 2002, like I did in (3.) and (4.) ?
If you did, please post here a link to the place where you did. Otherwise, I’ll enjoy you publishing your graphs right here.
J.-P. D.
Did you read anything of what USCRN themselves wrote? The 0000 hour of a day refers to the hour preceding that on the previous day.
Until you apply that correction also, all your calculations are worthless.
I have confirmed that the above is true. Hence my calculation of the average temperature on a given day being the same, regardless if you use the USCRN daily, hourly or sub-hourly dataset.
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.5 Count = 288
Likewise the nn00 minute refers to the previous hour and the nnn0/nnn5 5min refers to the previous 5 minute periods.
To place the values in the correct measurement slot you need to take 1 second off the time as decoded from the text fields.
” Until you apply that correction also, all your calculations are worthless. ”
Stop smalltalking, and publish the result of your work
– for the average of all stations between 2002 and now
– in the same format as I did, by using a similar spreadsheet tool (Excel, Libre Office Calc or the like) and plotting in the same way (lines instead of dots, together with the tool’s running means).
Until then, your condescending words are even less than worthless, RLH.
I know right now: you won’t do that work.
J.-P. D.
Do you agree that the USCRN know their own data best? Or are you arrogant enough to think that what they say doesn’t matter and they you are correct regardless?
What daily temperature do you calculate for the day and station given?
“plotting in the same way (lines instead of dots, together with the tools running means).”
So you magically know what the values are in between the dots do you? Another show or your arrogance.
“I know right now: you wont do that work.”
I know right now that you know better than USCRN do about their own data.
You see, RLH?
While I stay in front of the wall, ready for a fair comparison, you comfortably, cowardly keep behind the wall, keep smalltalking instead of publishing your work, in order to avoid the comparison.
I know right now: you wont do that work.
J.-P. D.
You are an arrogant twat of the highest order. Unless things are done exactly your way under your precise control and direction then nothing is of any value.
“I know right now: you wont do that work.”
I have done the work, again and again. But you wont accept that others do things differently to you and still have questions that require answers rather than presuming that what you have done is the only way things can be done.
Arrogance in the extreme.
What daily temperature do you calculate for the day and station given?
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.5 Count = 288
RLH
Didn’t you understand that this information matters only when you consider UTC time?
”
3 UTC_TIME [4 chars] cols 16 — 19
The UTC time of the observation. Time is the end of the observed
hour, so the 0000 hour is actually the last hour of the previous day’s observation (starting just after 11:00 PM through midnight).
5 LST_TIME [4 chars] cols 30 — 33
The Local Standard Time (LST) time of the observation. Time is the end of the observed hour (see UTC_TIME description). ”
Why do you mention UTC info?
Do YOU, RLH, restrict your computations to LST time?
I hope so! And I hope you know why you should.
J.-P. D.
“Do YOU, RLH, restrict your computations to LST time?”
Yes. And I subtract 1 second to place the measurement within the time period it actually measures. Do you?
What daily temperature do you calculate for the day and station given?
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.5 Count = 288
“Didn’t you understand that this information matters only when you consider UTC time?”
USCRN confirmed for me that the placing of the measurement in the next hour occurs for all times/days regardless if it is UCT or LST.
USCRN confirmed for me that the placing of the measurement in the next hour occurs for all times/days regardless if it is UTC or LST.
“The Daily value is derived from the hours 20091028 0100 to 20091029 0000 (the hour number is the end of the hour it represents). While the data are stored to three decimal places in Degrees Celsius, we did get 5.5 Deg C for the daily average when we calculated using the correct column of data from Hourl02 rounded to one decimal place.”
3 UTC_TIME [4 chars] cols 16 19
The UTC time of the observation. Time is the end of the observed hour, so the 0000 hour is actually the last hour of the previous days observation (starting just after 11:00 PM through midnight).
5 LST_TIME [4 chars] cols 30 33
The Local Standard Time (LST) time of the observation. Time is the end of the observed hour (see UTC_TIME description).
“Didnt you understand that this information matters only when you consider UTC time?”
You going to withdraw that incorrect assertion?
If you can tell me, ahead of time, which particular station will be mean or median as the more ‘accurate’ and by how much, then what you have done is of little use.
If you cannot tell me….
Bindidon: You went from “You cannot retrieve the data like I can” to “You can’t calculate temperatures like I can” to “You can’t draw graphs like I can” to “You can’t figure out dates like I can”.
You are arrogant in the extreme.
What daily temperature do you calculate for the day and station given?
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.5 Count = 288
Direct from CRN daily data: 5.5
24 h avg of CRN hourly data: 5.53 -> 5.5 after rounding
And your count/average of the 5min data gives what? The same 5.5c as mine does?
So you agree that using the Daily average gives the same answer regardless of if you choose Daily/Hourly/5Min data source?
You must also agree that Min, Max and ‘Mean’ produce the same answers if you get the results from either the daily USCRN figures or calculate them yourself.
There are 2 separate claims here which are in danger of getting confused.
1. The ‘mean’ is an inaccurate way of determining true average temperature during a day.
This is reflected in the daily data provided by USCRN with the 2 fields
8 T_DAILY_MEAN [7 chars] cols 55 — 61
Mean air temperature, in degrees C, calculated using the typical historical approach: (T_DAILY_MAX + T_DAILY_MIN) / 2.
9 T_DAILY_AVG [7 chars] cols 63 — 69
Average air temperature, in degrees C.
No calculation is required to distinguish those differences which is what I do.
2. The median is likely to be more accurate than the ‘mean’ in most circumstances.
This I do by taking the hourly data and find the median for a day and plotting that.
Do you dispute that methodology?
Are you two arguing who has a better data slicer/dicer? It’s ok , keep Bidendong occupied so my ankles have a chance to heal
I think that he thinks that command line tools that other wrote are better than things you craft for yourself.
Well, Eben: I think you are the better ankle biter of us here.
Instead of endlessly spitting your useless polemic on me, you’d better try to compile statistics on consecutive sunspot-free days and show us a nice graph about that.
That would be a serious progress compared with your usual Boom Pseudoscience nonsense…
J.-P. D.
RLH
After a long fight with strange things happening in Libre Office Calc (what a pale copy of Microsoft’s superb Excel!), I have now the proof of the correctness of my hourly evaluations of USCRN data, which gives for Tavg a series differing from USCRN’s daily data by less than USCRN data’s precision (0.1 C).
1. NM_Carrizozo_1W
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_vtCk3qUEYzsCUthpWIHjdBMrFcIDo5G/view
2. AK_Kenai_29_ENE
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fNnL7PsaHjYXcibgF8cLBdWnGdV0qC0H/view
3. The graph for the average of all CRN stations
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bROlI9vVCBE4ZFEfBhrcEyVaznDbrKtB/view
shows that Tmean (i.e. (Tmin+Tmax)/2) is nearer to Tavg than is Tmedian.
Do you remember your claim that Tmedian is better because it is closer to Tavg than is Tmean?
This claim is based on a minuscule subset of all 230+ stations, RLH.
*
You may name me an arrogant twath as long as you want.
Better would be to technically contradict me by finally processing the entire USCRN data into one time series.
*
Until now, your claim about Tmean being inaccurate for temperature measurements still is no more than a superficial, proofless claim based on single station analysis.
And that won’t be changed by keeping in the bits of single stations, moving down even to subminute measurements.
*
By the way: where is your version of this difference calculation for all CRN stations (about 2 weeks old in between)?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l1H0v-FOq_mR079g0goPSWEgH4I3uOec/view
I didn’t see much of it until now…
J.-P. D.
Tmean is an inaccurate way of assessing the true average temperature in the day. Do you dispute that?
Statistics tells us that Tmedian is a better choice that Tmean in most cases. Do you dispute that?
Why do you persist in showing graphs that display the actual temperature during a day? It is like using absolute temperatures to try and show anomalies. Useless.
Do you dispute that https://imgur.com/q6KdGTr shows that Tmedian is better than Tmean is this case at least? Far better. Where is your graph (without the distracting actual temperatures) showing that station?
Or https://imgur.com/a5bq96L which shows the same.
Or https://imgur.com/oQYS3p5
This later one is AK_Kenai_29_ENE which is one of your posts.
“proofless claim based on single station analysis.”
Liar.
I have posted various stations which demonstrate the truth of my claims. You have not disputed those individual observations. AT ALL.
“2. AK_Kenai_29_ENE”
How do you still get the daily average temperature to be different when using the daily and hourly averages? When USCRN have said that the figures come out the same? Are you saying that they are wrong?
If not, how come you show them as different?
Pfizer has published their 6-month vaccine study. There is no difference in deaths between the vaccine group and the placebo group. Therefore, Pfizer concludes the vaccine is effective.
Not quite what the study says
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-confirm-high-efficacy-and-no-serious
Anderson
What should we expect from a person writing – on this blog! – that the bloodthursty dictator Pinochet is a ‘leftist’ ?
J.-P. D.
OMG How is it that Stephen always gets things so back-asswards?
“Analysis of 927 confirmed symptomatic cases of COVID-19 demonstrates BNT162b2 is highly effective with 91.3% vaccine efficacy observed against COVID-19, measured seven days through up to six months after the second dose
Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”
None of you leftist morons can read, can you?
We don’t have the ideology-filtering glasses that you wear.
“Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”
I think death from the disease would typically require first having SEVERE DISEASE, which is effectively prevented.
“Science advances one funeral at a time.”
The fact that you’re touting these cases means he was right about the vaccine.
“…died from complications…”
I wonder if the complications involved a motorcycle accident, snake bite, lightning strike, or gunshot?
“Science” is about knowing ALL the facts, not just cherry-picking items that fit beliefs.
Clint R
I wonder if you are stupid? No I know you are.
Quit acting like you know anything about science you phony liar! I have posted links to real science (not your idiot version you post on here like the Moon does not rotate on its axis or the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for heat transfer is bogus) and you are too stupid to understand the content. What is your response? That I do not understand the link. No, my friend, it is you who do not understand the links.
Poor Norma has been reduced to a babbling idiot. He used to attempt physics, which was always humorous. But since his cult beliefs are being shattered, all he can do is hurl insults.
He’s no longer humorous, he’s pathetic.
Probably that’s the end result for all cult idiots.
Clint R
Your post does not make you less stupid. You still are totally clueless of physics and you lack logical thought process.
You can’t understand your ice cube points.
I can help (not you, you are too stupid to understand and lack the needed logic to grasp it).
Ice emits IR at 0 C. If left to itself with no surroundings it would keep cooling until it reached whatever ambient temperature was around. So it keeps cooling. Surrounding an ice cube in a sphere of ice (which is at 0 C) will slow down the cooling of the ice cube.
You can’t understand that it means the cube is losing energy at a reduced rate with the ice sphere around it. You reject logic and science in favor of blatant stupid notions.
Have you walked around a tree yet without rotating your feet?
Norman, when you can boil water with ice cubes, let me know.
(I won’t respond unless you can drop your immature insults and false accusations. Grow up.)
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/04/covid-death-of-sydney-man-in-his-20s-prompts-calls-for-young-people-to-get-vaccinated
“Covid death of Sydney man Aude Alaskar, 27, prompts calls for young people to get vaccinated”
“COVID started out as a virus, but it became an IQ test.”
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/pcr-tests-are-reliable-to-detect-and-monitor-covid-19-infections-which-are-real-and-had-caused-millions-of-deaths-worldwide/
Perhaps it is, what’s it to you? Get vaccinated, put on the mask and wait until your opponents deny themselves to extinction. True, such a thing would be difficult thing to do in teh case of the allegedly deleterious climate change, where the consequences are necessarily being changes to the single shared environment though i till believe you should resort to individual action in the case of the cacc as well, but it is easy in the case of the epidemics. I mean, if vaccines really work, right?
Smallpox and Polio vaccines worked didn’t they?
The defining role of smallpox vaccineis being questioned, thankes to pepel like TmG and such. As for the polio vaccines, which ones? Cause even I know that tyhere were more than one and not all of thom worked.
So you are saying that both Smallpox and Polio vaccines are faulty. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
@RHL no, I’m asking questions (c) south park. I also am pointing that it is the totalitarian frenzied zealots like TmG and people like him that incline all the liberty-minded people question and review the entire concept of vaccination. I didn’t use to be antivaxxer before this scandemics, but i feel like for all the practical purpose i am now.
but, i did say that that some of the polio vaccines might be faulty. Among other reasons also because I happen to have had personal issues with them.
Well I hope you don’t die from your beliefs as so many others have.
“I didnt use to be antivaxxer before this scandemics, but i feel like for all the practical purpose i am now.”
So I see you are now letting your politics guide your medical decisions.
Good luck with that!
@nate actually quite the opposite, now I WON’T let POLITICians make my medical decisions for me, where before this i didn’t really care
@rhl sounds like you believe that if if don’t adhere to the decision that you are wishing to forcibly impose (ur unimpose0 on people, i’d live forever with 100% certainty. It ain’t so,what matters is relative increase of getting killed vs the absolute one. For a person in my age cohort, the all-cause mortality is 1 in 1000 per year (half of it from suicides and dangerous behaviour). Should i care about a virus that kills people with chances comparable or less than that? Perhaps. Should i support totalitarian government because of that? perhaps not. Remember that government is like ratchet or a quick tie, it tightens easily but releasing the grip takes lots of effort and often lots of blood.
I am just hoping you dont die from your beliefs as so many others have already done.
“I WON’T let POLITICians make my medical decisions for me”
I don’t recall ever having to do that.
Give me an example where that happened.
People are now making self-destructive choices, just to troll the left.
Brilliant!
@nate this scvmdemic became political before it even started. In some way it is worse than the GW, which was a real science thing before it got irreversibly politicised in the early 90s. If you fail to see that… well, good for you. Blessed be fools.
@rhl sorry but i can’t say the same thing about you. except that it’s none of your business.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9874201/Vaccine-sceptic-46-dies-Covid-warning-similar-thoughts-jab.html
“Should i support totalitarian government because of that?”
Its odd that you frame it that way given that the vaccines are produced by private companies. Thus far it has only been companies, and universities requiring or incentivizing vaccines for employees.
Coturnix, cannot rationally explain his choices. He is simply following the directives of his tribal leaders.
As one commentator explains it:
“here we are: Trying to limit a deadly pandemic, even via vaccines that convey huge benefits at little risk, has become a deeply partisan issue.
How did that happen? Id tell the story this way: Americas rapid vaccination pace during the spring was very good news for the nation but it was also a success story for the Biden administration. So influential conservatives, for whom owning the libs is always an overriding goal, began throwing up roadblocks to the vaccination program.
This had far-reaching consequences. As Ive written before, the modern G.O.P. is more like an authoritarian political cult than a normal political party, so vaccine obstruction not necessarily denunciation of the vaccines themselves, but opposition to any effort to get shots into peoples arms became a loyalty test, a position you took to prove yourself a loyal Trumpist Republican.”
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus, in many Western countries, there appears to be a considerable share of people questioning the existence and anthropogenic cause of climate change. Climate change disbelief includes the absolute rejection of the existence of anthropogenic climate change (climate change denial) as well as a lack of sureness about the anthropogenic cause of climate change (climate change uncertainty). Although considerable research on this phenomenon has been conducted, the roots of climate change disbelief are not yet fully understood. In this article, data from Round 8 of the European Social Survey are used to study the possible socioeconomic roots of climate change disbelief at the individual, regional, and country level. Results show that climate change denial is a marginal phenomenon among European populations but that a great share of people attributes climate change equally to human influences and natural processes. Thereby, it appears that the level of climate change disbelief varies between countries, and even more so between regions within countries. Results of various three-level multilevel models show that socioeconomic factors can partly explain this variation. Individuals who feel insecure about their economic future are significantly more likely to reject the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Furthermore, climate change denial and uncertainty are more common in more rural and less prosperous regions and in countries more economically dependent on fossil fuels. The results contribute to a deeper understanding of climate change disbelief among the European population and have important implications for climate change mitigation efforts.
https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcab035/6333558
Dud favors dogma over science.
Not a surprise….
Thats science, Pup.
That’s sociology, you idiot.
No science, just opinions, based on wishful.
About as scientific as Political Science.
You are getting desperate, if you post that sort of rubbish claiming it is science!
Sociology is a science, Mustard Fly Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Victory will be achieved when average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science.” –American Petroleum Institute, 1998
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/03/APIquote1998_1.pdf
Today, average citizens are more skeptical of the anthropogenic cause of climate change than are the oil companies.
maguff…”Today, average citizens are more skeptical of the anthropogenic cause of climate change than are the oil companies”.
***
Yes…every time they raise the price of gas, claiming it’s aimed at reducing greenhouse emission, they laugh hysterically, all the way to the bank. It should be noted that governments profit immensely from this since their taxes on gas are vulgar.
Where did you work as an engineer, Gordo?
Dud, what’s your real name and personal information.
Have you ever even had a real job?
When I will brag about being more than a ninja, Pup, you will have a point.
Gordo’s mythomania deserves due diligence.
Willard: You just brag about being an idiot. Which you are.
No U.
‘scientific consensus’
Willard has discovered ‘Oxymoron’.
Try ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusion and the Madness of the Crowd’.
There is no science to be found in climate change claptrap.
See ‘Climate Consensus and Misinformation: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ Legates et al.
K,
He’s not terribly bright, Wee Willy Wanker.
He’s a typical denialist climate crank, with little knowledge of physics. He just refuses to believe that climate is derived from historical weather data – arithmetical calculations doable by a 12 year old.
Try and get one of these idiots to define the climate of any location numerically, and they will rapidly vanish through the nearest door.
Just look at the ever-more pointless and irrelevant comments some of the more rabid climate cranks post!
Mike Flynn,
Mushy Fiddler
Willard, please stop trolling.
Try to use links, Kennui.
You don’t need links. you can do your own searches using the words.
I don’t need to work for your ‘but C13’ squirrel, Kennui.
Funny how your cite elides teh Monktopus.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus, in many Western countries, there appears to be a considerable share of people questioning the existence and anthropogenic cause of climate change”.
***
Scientific consensus??? There’s an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Since when is science about consensus?
Gordo,
Science is a human endeavour and humans are social animals, notwithstanding antisocial cases like Mike Flynn.
Tell me where you practised as an engineer.
Science is applied math. No room for consensus when 1 + 1 = 2 always.
Except when it is 10
Funny that you are using an example of mathematics, Kennui. It’s as if you had no idea what is an empirical science.
But never fear:
https://mobile.twitter.com/andrejbauer/status/1297290895520337928
Willard, please stop trolling.
angech…”Kinetic energy and temperature are different entities”.
***
You and Tim F need to go back and get your fundamentals straight.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. Temperature is a human invention designed to measure the relative levels of KE. SO heat is a real phenomenon and temperature is an invention for measure relative levels of it.
I think it was Boltzmann and Maxwell who came up with the notion that temperature is the average kinetic energy of a gas.
Anders Celsius proposed a centigrade scale circa 1740, more than 100 years before Boltzmann and Maxwell studied gases as statistical units and formulated their theory.
The original centigrade scale was based on the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water. Since the heat related to those two points is based on the kinetic energy of atoms, the centigrade scale is measuring the relative level of the KE of atoms, aka heat.
A few other human inventions…
-density…based on the weight of a cc of water at 4C.
-time…based on a fraction of the Earth’s period of rotation.
-kilometre…fraction of distance from Equator to North Pole.
Gordon get your fundamentals straight.
–
What is this article about then?
–
Energy Education: Concepts and Practices
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Although technically incorrect, the word heat is often used to mean thermal energy. In strict scientific terms, there is a distinct difference between the two. Thermal energy pertains to the kinetic energy of the molecules within an object. Heat is the transfer of energy between two objects. Wherever possible, we have tried to remain true to these distinctions. However, since heat is the more familiar term we often use that to facilitate understanding.
“SO heat is a real phenomenon and temperature is an invention for measure relative levels of it.”
?? Heat is defined by potential and kinetic energy of molecules, which are also inventions!
Science deniers say the darndest things!
rlh…”Covid death of Sydney man Aude Alaskar, 27, prompts calls for young people to get vaccinated”
***
I’m sorry the young guy died. However, there is absolutely no excuse for any medical personal to engage in blatant fear-mongering over it. What they are claiming is bs…no sign of pneumonia, just difficulty breathing.
The tests are fraudulent. A consortium of lawyers in Germany have launched a class-action suit based on the tests, and the leader Dr. Reiner Fuellmich has referred to them as fraudulent. Fuellmich has beaten Volkswagen and the Deutsch bank in court.
They are going after the inventor of the covid RNA-PCR test claiming he mislead people about it. This goes back to the same kind of test for HIV invented in part by Anthony Fauci. The inventor of the PCr method for DNA amplification, the Late Kary Mullis, called Fauci a liar for claiming the tests can identify a virus or infection.
We have all been duped into buying into this pseudo-science by unscrupulous medical personnel who are still preaching that HIV causes AIDS. The scientist credited with discovering HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, admits he has never seen HIV and that it does not cause AIDS. He is now adamant that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system and the data suggests strongly the same is true for covid.
This poor guy in Australia dies where the number of deaths are 925 out of a population of 25.36 million, and creeps use his death as a scare tactic to get people vaccinated. The number of deaths in Oz is 0.036% or about 4/100ths of 1%. Such number don’t even qualify as a pandemic.
Pfizer, who produces one of the vaccines, has already been fined 2.3 billion dollars for lying about their products. They have also received immunity from prosecution.
So, we are to take the word of convicted felons that the vaccine works. Maybe you, mate, not me.
We will see if that wins in court. I suspect that it wont.
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/pcr-tests-are-reliable-to-detect-and-monitor-covid-19-infections-which-are-real-and-had-caused-millions-of-deaths-worldwide/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9874201/Vaccine-sceptic-46-dies-Covid-warning-similar-thoughts-jab.html
maguff…”July, 31st, Glen died from complications due to Covid19″.
***
Prove it. The tests cannot test for a virus or an infection and they could be testing for natural processes in the body. If that’s the case, and it’s quite likely, the vaccinations could be setting people up down the road for serious autoimmune disease. It is not worth taking that chance.
Note that you made no mention of people who have received the vaccine and died shortly afterward. One vaccinated woman is claimed to have died of covid. I can’t accept that because covid has not been physically isolated and no one has it’s genome with which to compare with the deceased.
The genome they claim to have was fabricated on a computer model using a few strands of RNA that were synthesized into a complete genome using an unrelated genetic sequence as a template. No one has isolated a full sequence of RNA for a complete genome.
Same with the variants. They are inferred from the same synthesized RNA sequences. Variants exist on paper only. What is killing people is a mystery. However, only a tiny fraction of 1% of any population has died from whatever the infections may be.
COVID started out as a virus, but it became an IQ test.
Ecce Signum: Gordon Robertson at 12:47 AM
Actually TM, COVID has become another “belief system” for your cult. You question none of the nonsense. You swallow it religiously, with never a doubt.
Here’s what we know:
* The J&J and Astrozeneca vaccines have had dangerous side-effects beyond normal vaccines.
* The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have not had side-effects worse that normal, but their positive effects are limited and reduced with time. Some people may have to be vaccinated several times a year.
* I would never force people to get a vaccine, but your cult is willing to force vaccines on people.
Cults are dangerous.
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/pcr-tests-are-reliable-to-detect-and-monitor-covid-19-infections-which-are-real-and-had-caused-millions-of-deaths-worldwide/
The PCR process was developed as a means of amplifying DNA/RNA for clinical testing. It was never intended to be used as a test for virus. The process involves “cycles”. Too many cycles and ANYONE will test positive for Covid. The current PCR “testing” uses 37 cycles! That’s why there are so many false positives.
When a person “tests” positive, with no symptoms, they just say that person is “asymptomatic”, to cover up the fact that the “test” is so inaccurate. A “test” that will give you any results you want/need, is NOT a valid test.
Those who deny Covid and PCR tests, etc. should talk to those families who have had people die from having had Covid.
RLH, have you been “tested” today? Has it been more than 2 weeks since you “got the jab”?
Better get another shot. You don’t want to take any chances….
Why would I need to get re-vaccinated? I have had 2 already. Perhaps I may need a top-up in the Autumn. The data on that is not clear yet.
Why do you think that a lot of people who have died have regretted not taking a vaccination when it was offered? There are numerous stories to that effect in the press.
“It was never intended to be used as a test for virus.”
“Too many cycles and ANYONE will test positive for Covid. ”
Do you have a source for this information?
Ha ha, who am I kidding? Its Clint.
Clint R at 5:00 AM
My family Physician of 35 years recommended that I take the Covid vaccine and on this, as I do on most health related matters, I listened to him.
That is how these decisions should be made. You must have been raised by wolves and so it’s understandable that you wouldn’t know how human society works.
I have nothing against people following their beliefs. Just don’t force your beliefs on me.
If a vaccine-believer gets vaccinated, then he should have nothing to worry about, if he actually “believes”.
P.s.: Over the years and on my Physician’s advise I’ve also taken the Shingles vaccine as well as the Pneumonia vaccine.
One thing I regret not following his advise on is when, several years ago, he asked me to stop running to preserve my knees. Nowadays I have bad knees and sporadic lower back pain, but I still have the cardio fitness of a teenager; so not many regrets.
“Just dont force your beliefs on me.”
Likewise for your Covid denialist behavior.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9874201/Vaccine-sceptic-46-dies-Covid-warning-similar-thoughts-jab.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9874201/Vaccine-sceptic-46-dies-Covid-warning-similar-thoughts-jab.html
studentb…”Much of the radiation emanating from
the surface will be absorbed, primarily by H2O, before passing through the atmosphere. On average, the emission to space will emanate from some level in the atmosphere (typically about 5 km, in fact) such that the region above that level is mostly transparent to IR. It is this region of the atmosphere”,
***
R. W. Wood, an expert on gases, who was consulted by Neils Bohr on the spectra of sodium, has a different take. He thought all surface radiation would peter out in a few metres due to the inverse square law.
I have offered an example of that in the past. Heat up a 1500 watt ring on an electric stove till it is glowing red. If you hold your finger very close to it, the ring will cook your finger, or at least, blister it badly. However, at 4 feet you can barely feel the effect of the radiation.
The Earth’s surface is not even close to that glowing ring in intensity, and I claim Wood was right. Surface radiation won’t be a factor after a few feet.
With regard to where the radiation occurs to space, consider the fact that it may not have to. As heated gases at the surface rise higher and higher into the atmosphere they grow gradually cooler by the simply action of expansion (loss of pressure plus less molecules per unit volume). Eventually they could lose all heat simply by expanding enough as they rise to an altitude that permits that.
Ask a meteorologist what affects weather more, convection or radiation. Radiation is a minor player that has been over-hyped by dumb climate alarmists. When it comes from a source like the Sun, with an internal temperature close to 1 million C, that’s another matter.
Radiation from the Moon can light up the night but it does nothing to warm you.
“He thought all surface radiation would peter out in a few metres due to the inverse square law.”
Now that is dumb. Energy can’t “peter out”
It can’t be created or destroyed. It has to go somewhere. If it can’t go somewhere it accumulates and temperature rises.
You and Woods are describing a system which violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
“Eventually they could lose all heat simply by expanding enough as they rise to an altitude that permits that. ”
Ditto.
Ent, you don’t understand any of this.
“It [energy] can’t be created or destroyed.”
Flux is reduced by distance, per the Inverse Square Law. The energy is not “destroyed”, it is “dissipated”.
“It [energy] has to go somewhere.”
See “Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation”.
“If it can’t go somewhere it accumulates and temperature rises.”
WRONG! Adding more identical photons has NO effect on temperature. Adding ice to ice will NOT increase the temperature of the ice.
You don’t understand any of this.
“Flux is reduced by distance “
Correct. But going from a radius of 6400 km to 6400 km plus a few meters is not to ‘dissipate’ the flux to any appreciable degree.
“See ‘Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation’.”
CMBR is not light from stars that has dissipated due to the inverse square law.
“Adding more identical photons has NO effect on temperature.
Seriously? If there were two suns creating a second set of ‘identical photons’, you think the earth would be the same temperature as it it now? That is literally what you are claiming here!
Folkerts, you keep twisting my words because you can’t stand reality.
The CMBR is the end result for low-energy photons that can no longer be absorbed.
And two suns cannot raise the temperature above the temperature of the hotter sun.
Now twist away. I may choose not to respond if you get too ridiculous.
“Folkerts, you keep twisting my words because you can’t stand reality.”
No. I keep quoting you exactly. It is up to you to make your case carefully and accurately. You failed here, since I could quote you exactly and find a simple counterexample.
“And two suns cannot raise the temperature above the temperature of the hotter sun.”
Ah this is a completely different issue. And this is quite true. You cannot raise the temperature of an object higher than the temperature of the hottest radiation source available. That is a simple corollary of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
This is not really an issue for the earth and its climate, since we are never talking about raising temps anywhere close to the 5700 K limit set by the temperature of the sun.
******************************
Here is are a series of little thought experiments to explore how objects react to thermal radiation. Consider some small, unheated, spherical, blackbody object floating in the vacuum of space far from any star or planet. Lets suppose it is a good thermal conductor like copper. It will cool asymptotically to a temperature of 2.7 K.
What will the temperature become if we add thermal radiation …
1) from one sun (1360 W/m^2 from a 5700 K source)? [T = 278 K]
2) from two suns? [T = 331 K]
3) from a spherical shell of ice (315 W/m^2 from a 273 K source)? [273 K]
4) from a hemispherical shell of ice? [230 K]
5) from one sun and hemispherical shell of ice? [306 K]
6) from one sun and spherical shell of ice? [328 K]
4->3 shows that more ice warms the object more (but never above the temperature of the hottest source)
4->5 shows that ice + sunlight raises the temperature higher than either source alone (but never above the temperature of the hottest source)
The simple fact is that adding more photons — identical or not! — has a simple and intuitive effect on temperature. More photons = more incoming energy = higher steady-state temperature.
Tim, please stop trolling.
“He thought all surface radiation would peter out in a few metres due to the inverse square law.”
No one anywhere with any knowledge of physics ever tough that. It would be fascinating to know what chain of logic brought you to this conclusion.
From a spherical source, the inverse square law is calculated from the *center*. So if ou went 1 earth radius (6400 km) the radiation would still be 1/4 as large as at the surface.
Perhaps you are thinking about attenuation due to absorp.tion. In the 15 um CO2 absor.ption band, a few meters of atmosphere would be enough to absorb most of the surface radiation.
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planets solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(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 Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ 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)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet..TeTmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury.439,6 K.325,83 K..340 K
Earth255 K287,74 K..288 K
Moon..270,4 Κ..223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars209,91 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 Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earths mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You idiot. There is NO SUCH THING AS A
“Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant”
You must be the stupider than GR and Mike.
Yes, there is. It is β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal.
LOL. That makes 2 idiots.
I have just discovered the universal law constant for denialists:
It is β = IQ*education*(number of friends)/(age*time spent venting their fury on blogs) and is a vanishingly small number.
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earths mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you Stephen!
Cristos, you are not doing science if, when you cant explain observations, you simply deny they are true or ignore them.
Your theory does not agree with observations. And you offer no explanation.
Thus it is falsified.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-783118
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781622
Nate
“Christos, you are not doing science if, when you cant explain observations, you simply deny they are true or ignore them.
Your theory does not agree with observations. And you offer no explanation.
Thus it is falsified.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-783118
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781622”
–
Nate, here is my answer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-784223
It is wrong observations… there is No +33C GHE enhancement on Earth surface.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Also, the blackbody effective temperature 255K is by definition a uniform surface temperature.
In the GHE theory they compare the 255K with the Earths actual average (mean) surface temperature Tmean = 288K.
It is a huge mistake, because they treat the 288K as Earths uniform surface temperature, which is not.
Earth does not emit at the average 288K
Those not knowing that, they do not falsify science, they just do not know
– they are ignorant of things.
I am not falsifying anything, it is so much obvious Earth atmosphere is very thin and transparent… and there are only 400 ppm CO2 in a very thin atmosphere.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, Cristos.
Your theory predicts the outgoing IR radiation from Earth is, on average, less than HALF of the observed value.
Your theory predicts way too much reflected solar, way more than observed.
It is thus simply WRONG.
Now you can act like you care about science facts, or you can double down with continued diversion/denial.
Uniformity is not the issue since the outgoing IR is directly measured via satellite.
Your calculation is crap since it involves two meaningless factors:
Φearth = “surface solar irradiation accepting factor”
and
β= “Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant”
and unnecessarily refers to cp
The correct equation to use is
(Tmean.earth)⁴= (1-a) So /4σ = 255K
which states that the amount of energy emitted by a sphere at temperature T equals the amount of solar energy absorbed at the mean Earth-sun distance.
“The correct equation to use is
(Tmean.earth)⁴= (1-a) So /4σ = 255K”
“which states that the amount of energy emitted by a sphere at temperature T…”
DMT, Cristos is going to invoke the non-uniformity excuse.
But this is a red herring because the Earth’s T is uniform enough that your equation will give quite close to the correct answer.
“it is so much obvious Earth atmosphere is very thin and transparent and there are only 400 ppm CO2 in a very thin atmosphere.”
“There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature”
Uhhh, no its not at all obvious. And you havent demonstrated that.
Nate
“But this is a red herring because the Earth’s T is uniform enough that your equation will give quite close to the correct answer.”
What do you mean, I don’t fully understand.
Also
““There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature”
Uhhh, no its not at all obvious. And you havent demonstrated that.”
It is demonstrated by the New equation planet temperatures calculations results.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It is demonstrated by the New equation planet temperatures calculations results.”
Which is a hypothesis, not in of itself evidence of anything.
And since this hypothesis does not agree with several observations, as discussed, it can be considered falsified.
” T is uniform enough that your equation will give quite close to the correct answer.”
“What do you mean, I dont fully understand.”
I mean that if you find the average temperature by latitude of Earth, such as here
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap16/geo_clim.html
You can find the area fraction of each latitude. That is by multiplying by (1/2)cosine(latitude).
You can then area-weight the temperature at each latitude and average to find the average temperature of the Earth.
You can also find the SB-law emission, sigmaT^4, at each latitude and area-weight it, and average to find the average emission.
It turns out that area-weighted average emission flux is very very close to the value found by using the SB law applied to the average Temperature, sigmaTmean^4
You can try it yourself.
If Tmean =288 K, you will find an average emitted flux of 390 W/m^2.
This is of course way higher than the observed value of 240 W/m^2. Because of the GHE, it is reduced by 150 W/m^2!
Because the GHE reduces emission from the surface. The effective average emission temperature is 255 K at the top of the atmosphere.
Put this into the SB law nd we find 240 W/m^2.
Nate, I have the New theory to explain better…
There is a method I use, which is the comparison method.
In case of the planets surface temperatures it is the “Planets Temperatures Comparison Method”.
The Method lead to discovery of the “Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon”.
It states that planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
And I have demonstrated it in my site, by doing the on various planets the satellite measured mean surface temperatures comparisons, which proved the rightness of the Phenomenon statement.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
OK, you are doubling down on a theory that thoroughly fails to account for Earths radiant emissions.
So you don’t think it is essential that your theory match observations?
Then you are not doing science, are you..
Nate, here is an article:
On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earths atmospheric thermal effect
Den Volokin
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4447774/
“An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 40064_2014_Article_1586_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1
Illustration of Hlders inequality between integrals. Due to a nonlinearity of the SB law and a non-uniform distribution of the incident solar radiation on the surface of a sphere, the equilibrium temperature (Te) computed from a spatially averaged radiation flux is always higher than the arithmetic average temperature (Tm).”
“…the equilibrium temperature (Te) computed from a spatially averaged radiation flux is always higher than the arithmetic average temperature (Tm)”
Christos,
That is an interesting paper.
I don’t see how it helps you. It disagrees with your statement that “There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.”
On the contrary it concludes that the Earth’s GHE may be larger than 33 K.
You still have the problem that your theory does not match observations, and is off by a huge amount.
This is simply not ignorable.
The effect of Holders inequality is shown in the paper to be very large for an airless slowly rotating body like the Moon.
But as I discussed above, it is not very significant for the Earth and the paper does not disagree.
The paper is arguing to compare current Earth temperature to an airless Earth. Thats ok, but it is simply a matter of taste, and not changing any results, and not eliminating the GHE.
Nate
The paper disagrees with yours:
“…area-weight the temperature at each latitude and average to find the average temperature of the Earth.”
It says:
the equilibrium temperature (Te) computed from a spatially averaged radiation flux is always higher than the arithmetic average temperature (Tm)
Nate
“I dont see how it helps you. It disagrees with your statement that There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
On the contrary it concludes that the Earths GHE may be larger than 33 K.”
Nate, I know, the paper says the difference is close to 90C.
I insist on There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
Do you agree with the paper on anything?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“I insist on There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.”
And yet you promote a paper that thoroughly disagrees!
You can insist all you want– in science we need actual evidence.
“The paper disagrees with yours:
‘…area-weight the temperature at each latitude and average to find the average temperature of the Earth.’
That is simply the basic math of finding an average..so no it does not disagree.
The Holder inequality effect is true for the Earth, I found difference between the area-weighted average emitted flux and the average flux calculated using sigma*Tm^4 is ~ 5 W/m^2 out of 390 W/m^2.
It is a small effect because, as I noted, the Earths temperature is uniform enough.
“the equilibrium temperature (Te) computed from a spatially averaged radiation flux is always higher than the arithmetic average temperature (Tm)”
Exactly, I found it is higher by ~ 1 K for Earth.
Nate, the paper disagrees with yours +33C!
Nope. What are you referring to?
Look, This is all a distraction from the fact that your theory still does not agree with observations.
That SHOULD concern you. Why doesnt it?
What may be confusing you is that my calculation was focused on what would be the actual flux for Earth @ 288 K, but ignores the GHE, in order to compare to your calculation.
“If Tmean =288 K, you will find an average emitted flux of 390 W/m^2.
This is of course way higher than the observed value of 240 W/m^2. Because of the GHE, it is reduced by 150 W/m^2!
Because the GHE reduces emission from the surface. The effective average emission temperature is 255 K at the top of the atmosphere.”
Nate
“If Tmean =288 K, you will find an average emitted flux of 390 W/m^2.”
Yes
Jemit = [390 (W/^2) /sigma ]^1/4 = 288 K
The 390 W/m^2 is the flat surface T =288 K IR emission intensity.
But Earth is not a flat surface, Earth is a rotating sphere!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“But Earth is not a flat surface, Earth is a rotating sphere!”
So the sphere part as already discussed, makes a small difference, 1 K.
The spinning also makes a small difference for Earth. The dark side is a bit cooler, the light side a bit warmer, but in the end not very much difference.
CERES shows the actual measured flux is 240 W/m^2.
What I have discovered is the ROTATING PLANET SPHERICAL SURFACE SOLAR IRRADIATION ABSORBING-EMITTING UNIVERSAL LAW
Jemit = 4πrσΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πrΦ*S*(1-a) = 4πrσTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It should show:
Jemit = 4πr^2σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)^1/4 (W)
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πr^2Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr^2σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)^1/4 (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)^1/4 /4σ ]^1/4 (K)
Christos Vournas at 12:33 PM
“What I have discovered is the ROTATING PLANET SPHERICAL SURFACE SOLAR IRRADIATION ABSORBING-EMITTING UNIVERSAL LAW”
No, what you’ve done is plagiarize the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and fudged it to fool the gullible. It’s that simple.
Tyson
“TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
August 7, 2021 at 2:01 PM
Christos Vournas at 12:33 PM
“What I have discovered is the ROTATING PLANET SPHERICAL SURFACE SOLAR IRRADIATION ABSORBING-EMITTING UNIVERSAL LAW”
No, what you’ve done is plagiarize the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and fudged it to fool the gullible. It’s that simple.”
–
In short
The Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law
–
Here it is the planet surface IR emittance Universal Law
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
–
The solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) does not emit as a flat surface in accordance to the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
4πr²σΤmean⁴ (W)
No, the solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) emits as a rotating planet in accordance to both, the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law and the Newly discovered Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
–
Let’s continue…
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tyson
“No, what youve done is plagiarize the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and fudged it to fool the gullible. Its that simple.
Nate?
“the solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) emits as a rotating planet in accordance to both, the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law”
No it obviously does not emit in accordance with the SB law.
You find the Earth emits ave 112 W/m^2.
According to SB law. much much higher, ~ 387 W for an airless sphere with Earths actual T distribution.
The atmosphere and GHE reduces that to 240 W/m^2.
Your continued denial of these flaws just makes you look more and more foolish.
Nate
“You find the Earth emits ave 112 W/m^2.”
I calculated it in comparison with 240 W/m^2…
I never said Earth* surface emits uniformly at the uniform emission temperature of 288K.
On the other, if you consider Earth as a uniform IR emitter at the uniform emission temperature of 255 K it will emit 240 W/m^2… as a flat surface according to the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“I never said Earth* surface emits uniformly”
Nor did I ever say you did!
You keep playing the non uniformity card but never show it how it actually solves your problems. It doesnt.
I calculated the SB emission from an airless planet with Earth’s actual Temp distribution. Try it yourself! It is not anything close to 112 W/m^2.
That is a real problem. You need to fix it, or start over from scratch.
Nate
“I calculated the SB emission from an airless planet with Earths actual Temp distribution. Try it yourself! It is not anything close to 112 W/m^2.”
Nate, please, copy-paste here your calculations with Earth’s actual Temp distribution. I am interested.
lat (deg) lat(rad) A(lat)/R^2 T(lat) flux(lat)*A(lat) T(lat)*A(lat)/R^2
90 1.570796327 1.20917E-17 238.08 2.20274E-15 2.8788E-15
88.2 1.5393804 0.006200235 239.628 1.159154922 1.485749989
86.4 1.507964474 0.012394352 241.176 2.377624286 2.98922018
84.6 1.476548547 0.018576236 242.724 3.655877808 4.50889842
first few lines
A(lat)/R^2 = 2p*cos(lat)*delta-lat(rad)
flux(lat) = sigmaT(lat)^4
Then find sum(T*A)/4pi = 287.32 K
Find sum(flux(lat)*A(lat)/R^2)/4pi = 391.8 K
Find (flux/sigma)^.25 = 288.3237918
T(lat) from here
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap16/geo_clim.html
First line correction
lat (deg) lat(rad) A(lat)/R^2 T(lat) flux(lat)*A(lat)/R^2
Thank you Nate.
I will study it more tomorrow, because it is becoming late in Athens-Greece.
“Find sum(flux(lat)*A(lat)/R^2)/4pi = 391.8 K”
I think you meant = 391.8 W/m^2.
I will study it more tomorrow…
Thank you again,
Christos
Right..
Nate, you have calculated the SB emission from an airless planet with Earths actual Temp distribution:
Jemit = 391,8 W/m^2
I have calculated Earth*s energy in:
phi(1-a)So = 112 W/m^2
The postulate
energy in = energy out
should be necessarily met.
The difference between the yours Jemit = 391,8 W/m^2
And the mine Jemit = 112 W/m^2
is that you consider in your calculation a planet having the classical blackbody surface properties…
The planet average surface temperature 288 K is not capable of emitting Jemit = 391 W/m^2 because it is not a blackbody, but a kind of a grey body.
Thus, for the same 288 K the grey body planet surface emits less.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Thus, for the same 288 K the grey body planet surface emits less.”
Yes, a grey body will have emissivity less than 1. You are claiming the average emissivity must be ~ 112/390 = 0.287.
Ocean and land typically have emissivity > 0.9. The Moon’s surface has similar values.
You seem to think that your theory will stand on its own, without ever needing it to agree with observations. That is not how science works.
Do you know of any measurements that agree with your claim?
Nate
“Yes, a grey body will have emissivity less than 1. You are claiming the average emissivity must be ~ 112/390 = 0.287.”
The average emissivity must be
~ (112/390)^0.25 = (0.287)^0.25 = 0,7319
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nope, not Correct.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Eq 2
q/A = Flux = e sigma T^4, where e is emissivity
e = Flux/(sigmaT^4)
Nate
“q/A = Flux = e sigma T^4, where e is emissivity
e = Flux/(sigmaT^4)”
Yes, you are right!
Jemit = sigma T^4
and
Jemit.grey = e*sigma Tgrey^4
For the same emission Flux
sigma T^4 = e*sigma Tgrey^4
e = sigma T^4 /sigma Tgrey^4
e = (T /Tgrey)^4
Tgrey = (1/e)^1/4 T
–
Τ = 288Κ
T1 = (Flux1 /sigma)^1/4 = (390 /sigma)^1/4 = 288K
T2 = (Flux2 /sigma)^1/4 =
= (112 /sigma)^1/4 = 210 K
and
T1 = [(Flux2 (beta*N*cp)^1/4 /sigma]^1/4 =
= [112 (150*1*1)^1/4 /sigma ]^1/4 = (112 *3.5 /sigma)^1/4 =
= (390 /sigma)^1/4 = 288K
3.5^1/4 = 1.368
1 /1.368 = 0,7311
T1 = 1,368*T2
–
For Earth (beta*N*cp)^1/4 = 3,5
(beta*N*cp) = 150
Thus, the 1/3,5 = 0.287
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“e = Flux/(sigmaT^4)”
Yes, you are right!”
Ok, now simply plug in T =288, Flux = 112
e = 112/((5.67e-8 *288^4)
= 0.287. You are agreeing with this result!
Your work that follows does not agree. So youve done something wrong.
It is not my job to find all your algebra errors. CHECK YOUR WORK BEFORE POSTING!
I see. What youve done is departed from the SB law, and reality when you you introduced Beta.
Youve lost what the discussion was about, and are using circular logic.
The point is your result MUST be consistent with the SB law, which is established physics, AND observations.
It is consistent with neither!
112 W/m^2 emission is not consistent with observations (240 W/m^2)
It is not consistent with SB Law unless e = 0.287, which is very inconsistent with observations.
You cannot introduce new parameters in order evade established laws of physics and established facts!
Nate
“112 W/m^2 emission is not consistent with observations (240 W/m^2)”
Yes, exactly and it should not be consistent, because those are different physic terms.
(240 W/m^2) is not an observation, it a result of averaging solar flux (flux cannot be averaged), thus 240 W/m2 is an impossible, it does not exist.
The 112 W/m^2 doesn’t exist either, it is also a calculation, it cannot be observed.
112 W/m^2 = 390 W/m^2 /(β*N*cp)^1/4 = 390 W/m^2 /(150*1*1)^1/4 =
= 390 W/m^2 /3,5 = 112 W/m^2
Nate, you compare two different physic terms, which do not exist, and which cannot be observed.
https://www,cristos-vournas.com
“(240 W/m^2) is not an observation, it a result of averaging solar flux (flux cannot be averaged), thus 240 W/m2 is an impossible, it does not exist.”
Nope. I showed you a link to observations by CERES of 240 W/m^2.
As I noted from the very beginning, this is how you seem to deal with observations that don’t agree with your theory. You deny they exist!
“The 112 W/m^2 doesnt exist either, it is also a calculation, it cannot be observed.”
BS.
It was a prediction of YOUR theory for Earth. If it cannot be observed then your theory is wrong. Its that simple.
Lets’s be clear Christos, you are not doing science, nor being honest.
Nate, have you considered the
Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
It states, planets mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products* sixteenth root.
I have demonstrated by comparison of different planets and moons in solar system, I have those comparisons posted in my site.
Nate, it is an observed evidence, that the Planet Rotational Warming indeed exists!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
You are in deep deep denial of reality.
Nate
“Nope. I showed you a link to observations by CERES of 240 W/m^2.”
Also
Solar flux on top of the atmosphere (TOA) So =1,361 W/m^2
(1-a)So /4 = (1-0.3)1,361 W/m^2 /4 = 240 W/m^2
Those two values are identical.
But planet does not emit uniformly, because planet does not have uniform surface temperature even close!
Also
Solar flux cannot be averaged over the entire planet surface…
And
Planet does not have albedo at nighttime hours!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate
“DMT, Cristos is going to invoke the non-uniformity excuse.
But this is a red herring because the Earth’s T is uniform enough that your equation will give quite close to the correct answer.”
Nate, please have a closer look to the Graph below. You have used the Graph when calculating the average Jemit = 390 W/m^2
Graph clearly shows Earth’s surface does not have uniform surface temperature… Not even close!
Earth*s latitudinal average temperature gradient is 0.86 K/Lat
see below article and Graph.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap16/geo_clim.html
Christos,
You are just going in circles. All this has been discussed. You do not pay attention.
” I think that he thinks that command line tools that other wrote are better than things you craft for yourself. ”
Ha ha haaah. Wonderful.
Of course: data like
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l1H0v-FOq_mR079g0goPSWEgH4I3uOec/view
(deprecated in between)
of course was not generated by own software! It would be sheer nonsense to exactly reproduce what you can easily do by using powerful text processors like e.g. awk.
But how could we ever generate, for example, departures of temperature measurements, snow cover or sea levels wrt a reference period, without using a sophisticated software written in a language supporting OOP, objects, methods, classes?
No idea.
It seems that some people think that by just having learned C#, they stay above the rest.
Simula67? Adele’s message passing Smalltalk? C++? Symbolics’ Flavors? CLOS? Python? Eifel?
How does one implement a fully object oriented software connecting a data driven HTML/JavaScript generator with an SQL database, by using ‘command line tools’ only?
No idea.
J.-P. D.
Do you think that general command line tools and things other people wrote are better than creating coded examples that demonstrate specific examples?
“It seems that some people think that by just having learned C#, they stay above the rest.”
I started using Assembler. I graduated through Fortran, C, Pascal, etc. to C#.
“How does one implement a fully object oriented software connecting a data driven HTML/JavaScript generator with an SQL database, by using command line tools only?”
I don’t know. Perhaps putting the whole of the USCRN stations and Monthly data into a SQL database might help.
You cant even get the daily average temperature to be the same if using the daily, hourly and sub-hourly data sets from USCRN. I can.
Why would anyone believe anything else you say.
I bothered to check with USCRN for any discrepancy and they provided information which removed them. Did you?
On one hand you say that you accept the accuracy of USCRN and on the other you manage to find differences in their output. Logical or not?
P.S. I can get the monthly average figures to be the same, starting from the monthly, daily, hourly and sub-hourly data sets. Can you?
Of course I could if that had sense for me.
But it doesn’t have any sense.
What DOES have sense for me is
– to generate monthly anomalies wrt 1991-2020 out of all CRN stations having sufficient data
and
– to compare the result with UAH6.0’s “usa48” series.
Can YOU?
Yes. But what proof do you have that an average of USCRN temperatures provides for meaningful statistics?
Would not range and distribution be more useful? Have you done that?
And then you post
“2. AK_Kenai_29_ENE
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fNnL7PsaHjYXcibgF8cLBdWnGdV0qC0H/view”
Which demonstrates that daily temps are apparently different depending on if you use daily or hourly data.
So how come the 2 traces for daily average differ? Is USCRN wrong or are you?
select T_MONTHLY_AVG-T_MONTHLY_MEAN AS TDIFF from monthly where T_MONTHLY_AVG > -99 AND T_MONTHLY_MEAN > -99 order by TDIFF
ranges in output from -1.2c to 2.3c.
Do you dispute that?
“Yes.”
So you CAN, RLH? Really?
Then show us something like
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nIMDGEXuDv7KpO5j5g2olHg_–v_05dS/view
using of course the original CRN data (I used that CRN data stored as daily TMIn and TMAX stuff in the GHCN daily data set):
https://tinyurl.com/w2umyj7x
I’m sure you will give us wonderful results, very soon.
” But what proof do you have that an average of USCRN temperatures provides for meaningful statistics? ”
1. What proof do you have for the contrary?
Why do people like you, doubting about X, always expect proofs for that X, instead of providing them themselves a proof contradicting it?
” So how come the 2 traces for daily average differ? Is USCRN wrong or are you? ”
Why do you compare me with USCRN, RLH, while conveniently keeping your results behind the wall?
Publish
– a graph comparing, for Carrizozo, Kenai and for the average of all stations, your daily average of USCRN’s hourly data with their own daily data;
– in a pdf file, your daily time series of hourly averaging out of which you made your graphs.
Please spare us your teenie thumbnail dot plots and your low filter passes, and manage to publish your three graphs in the same way as I did:
– thin lines for the series plots;
– medium lines for the 365 day running means.
After all, you have Excel ‘on board’, don’t you?
Why do you avoid that comparison all the time, RLH?
“Why do you compare me with USCRN, RLH?”
Because you wont admit that you’ve got it wrong.
Either USCRN can calculate the same answers for daily average and the average of hourly averages in any given day and come up with the same answer or they can’t.
You say they can’t. You have even published a graph which purports to show that differences exist between those 2 figures.
You even said that the hours worth of data being published in the next hour after the reading only held for UTC when on reading the USCRN notes it is apparent that it holds for both UTC and LST.
Now is the time for either you to admit you are wrong or conclude that you know better than USCRN about their own data. As if.
2009/10/25 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 10.8 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 10.8 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 10.8 Count = 288
2009/10/26 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.7 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.7 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.7 Count = 288
2009/10/27 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 10.2 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 10.2 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 10.2 Count = 288
Do you need more?
2009/10/28 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.5 Count = 288
2009/10/29 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = -0.3 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -0.3 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -0.3 Count = 288
2009/10/30 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 1.9 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 1.9 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 1.9 Count = 288
More still?
2009/10/31 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 5.2 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 5.2 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 5.2 Count = 288
2009/11/01 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 7.6 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 7.6 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 7.6 Count = 288
2009/11/02 CRND0103-2009-NM_Carrizozo_1_W
Daily Average = 11.2 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 11.2 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 11.2 Count = 288
Oh, look. It seems like I was correct. USCRN does know what it is doing and the figures are the same no matter which dataset is used.
And just in case you think that is station related
2015/11/02 CRND0103-2015-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -1.1 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -1.1 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -1.1 Count = 288
2015/11/03 CRND0103-2015-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -2.6 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -2.6 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -2.6 Count = 288
2015/11/04 CRND0103-2015-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -5.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -5.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -5.5 Count = 288
Just the same.
2015/11/05 CRND0103-2015-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = 1.0 Count = 1
Hourly Average = 1.0 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = 1.0 Count = 288
2015/11/06 CRND0103-2015-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -0.3 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -0.3 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -0.3 Count = 288
2015/11/07 CRND0103-2015-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -2.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -2.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -2.5 Count = 288
Still all the same
“without using a sophisticated software written in a language supporting OOP, objects, methods, classes?”
Which language would that be then?
Pick one from the list above.
Although if necessary I write objects and methods using ANSI C :- )
C is not natively an OOP language.
Self taught no doubt.
https://www.codementor.io/learn-programming/what-skills-do-self-taught-programmers-commonly-lack
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
New Zealand has just experienced its warmest June and July since records began in 1909 and with one month to go – is on track for its second successive warmest winter on record.
https://niwa.co.nz/news/record-warmth-so-far-this-winter
“Sea temperatures around the coast have also been warmer than average, modifying colder air masses tracking towards New Zealand.”
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
It’s the sea what done it.
Should I add the sea to the Contrarian Matrix, dummy?
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/lots-of-theories/
You are an idiot who can do whatever an idiot wants to do.
You would need to come up with a theory of how the sea causes global warming, dummy.
Local warming as we are talking about NZ.
There’s nothing special about NZ, dummy.
Scientific explanations ought to work everywhere, as long as you stick to a similar scale.
Things can and will warm locally. They may or may not be in-sync with warming (or cooling) elsewhere. Idiot.
When you say that the sea done it, you do not spell out what warmed the sea, dummy.
ENSO has caused warm water to concentrate around NZ currently. What causes ENSO? Is it cyclic (or semi-cyclic)?
You are still JAQing off, dummy, and EM already countered that one.
You are an idiot.
Here, dummy:
Entropic man says:
August 5, 2021 at 7:14 AM
New Zealand tends to be warmer than average during La Ninas.
The last La Nina finished six months ago.
You need to find something else.
Are you saying that the warm water round NZ is not due to the ENSO recently?
No U, dummy.
Stop putting words in my mouth, dummy.
An idiot thinks I speak for him. I don’t.
Here, dummy:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-784307
Another instance.
Still an idiot I see.
No U.
“Its the sea what done it. ”
Quite.
Now please explain the chain of causation which led to the sea being warmer than average.
ENSO, at least around NZ recently.
New Zealand tends to be warmer than average during La Ninas.
The last La Nina finished six months ago.
You need to find something else.
Why would you expect anything else from our dummy than irony, rhetorical questions, handwaving or pure bragging, EM?
EM: Did you look at the url? It shows that the waters around NZ are warmer than usual. Even now.
Now please explain the chain of causation which led to the sea being warmer than average, dummy.
RLH
What is The chain of causation?
Willard describes record N Z Winter temperatures linked to above average (record?) sea temperatures.
Now what caused the high sea temperatures? The timing and effect is wrong for ENSO.
Perhaps it is global warming?
Perhaps it is long term behaviors. Do you accept that ENSO/PDO has long term cyclic (or semi-cyclic) behaviors?
The evidence for the long term cycles you mention is very thin.
You haven’t yet made a good case for their existance, let alone their link to global warming.
And before you put up for graphs from your pattern seeking software, remember that correlation is only the first step towards causation. You need a clearly understood mechanism as well.
“The evidence for the long term cycles you mention is very thin.”
Do you accept that both ENSO and PDO have long term cyclic or semi-cyclic behaviors in them? The people who publish that data do.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/nino34-2.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/jisao-pdo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/shen.jpeg
“graphs from your pattern seeking software”
Low pass filters are NOT pattern seeking. No matter what your attempts to claim otherwise.
You might as well claim that running means are pattern seeking on that basis.
Keep arm waving to your ignorance, dummy.
Keep being an idiot who thinks that running means are pattern seeking.
Running means are just a tool, dummy.
Youre the cycle nut.
So you agree that running means are not pattern seeking then. Just as all other forms of low pass filtering are not likewise.
You are the pattern-seeking tool of the cycle nut kind, dummy.
You are an idiot.
No U.
Here’s a graph from some pattern seeking software for you to chew on:
nzt7_tmean_hist_1909-2020.png
https://niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/styles/full_screen_feature/public/nzt7_tmean_hist_1909-2020.png
Linear trends are the ultimate in low pass filters. They produce straight lines which never occur in nature.
RLH says: Linear trends are the ultimate in low pass filters. They produce straight lines which never occur in nature.
Are you saying that the net trend of NZ annual temperature anomaly over the last 110 years is “not natural”?
Are you saying that a straight line is natural?
Are you saying that your low-pass filter is more natural because it wobbles?
Are you still saying that a straight line is natural?
Are you saying that data points are natural?
You are still saying that a straight line is natural?
Stop putting words in my mouth, dummy.
I’m just asking for an answer.
In this context, a straight line is one possible choice of statistical model, commonly used to evaluate whether a time series is stationary in the mean.
The relevance, in the context of climate-related time series, is that non-stationarity is literally climate change, whatever the cause, and these statistical tools allow for objective estimation of the magnitude and confidence in the various metrics.
If you have a preferred objective analytic approach, feel free to present it. To date what you’ve shown is some signal manipulations without objective analysis, statistics of questionable relevance, and a very large dose of evasive rhetoric.
Willardo
Do you ever wake up with a knot in your stomach realizing you bet on the wrong horse. You display all the signs of someone totally, and hopelessly brainwashed in the CAGW meme. Its not too early to get on the right side of history.
But CAGW is the central square of the ClimateBall Bingo, Roberto.
Wait until you get more than 3% to appeal to your bandwagon,
Willard, please stop trolling.
Dickinson City councilman dies days after testing positive for COVID-19 Thursday, August 5, 2021 5:44AM
GALVESTON COUNTY, Texas (KTRK) — The Galveston County community is grieving the loss of Dickinson City council member H Scott Apley. The 45-year-old died Wednesday morning, just days after testing positive for COVID-19.
…
Apley leaves behind his wife and 5-month-old son, who both tested positive for COVID-19. According to a GoFundMe set up for the family, Apley’s wife has not been admitted to the hospital.
…
It is unclear whether Apley and his family were vaccinated, though he was known for multiple social media posts against the practice.
Science advances one funeral at a time.
Keep with that same nonsense of reporting deaths and claiming it “advances” science.
You believe you’re promoting your cult religion, but you’re revealing yourself as just another extremist — irrational and unscientific.
Why do you hate science?
You’re confused.
What I LIKE is debunking anti-science cultists.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Your own cult is very small and closely resembles flat earthers. They too do not believe that science does not believe them.
Clint R at 8:37 AM
Nah, that’s not it. You just hate science. Why?
Well, the trolls are out today!
RLH and TYSON are making false accusations because they have NOTHING else.
RLH couldn’t solve the easy problem on “gravitational torque”. Later on, he indicated he doesn’t even understand what “torque” is. Of course, he has no model for “orbital motion without axial rotation. He’s as incompetent as Norman.
TYSON has resorted to using deaths to somehow support his perverted beliefs. He’s beyond incompetent, he’s sick!
Clint R at 3:05 PM
If you’re triggered bruh? It may be time to change your name again back to JD Huff-n-Puff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lockhart/courses/Physics111F9%20L22.pdf
TYSON sounds a lot like E. Swanson. He’s making up names because he has NO science.
And RLH continues to copy Norman, providing links to things he doesn’t understand.
Clint R: You have no answer to real observations but persist in your twisted belief that a ball-on-a-string somehow represents a gravitational connected system. It doesn’t and never will.
RLH,
Newton accurately describes the Moon’s motion, using his Laws of Motion, and his Law of Universal Gravitation.
One force, exerted between the COG of the Moon, and the COG of the Earth. The “heaviest” part of the Moon lies along this line, gravity having slowed any previous rotation of the Moon around its axis.
Just as a pendulum or out-of-balance wheel freely rotating perpendicular to the surface will eventually stop, with its heaviest part closest to the Earth’s COG.
If you agree, then you are just disputing Clint R’s form of words.
Mind you, the “string” is stretching, and allowing the Moon to move away – oh so slowly. Or, put another way, the gravitational attraction between the two bodies is just slightly less than is required to keep the Moon from eventually escaping the Earth’s gravitational field.
“Newton accurately describes the Moon’s motion, using his Laws of Motion, and his Law of Universal Gravitation.”
Newton accurately describes the Moon’s orbit, using his Laws of Motion, and his Law of Universal Gravitation.
He says nothing about its rotation which is tidal locked to its orbit as NASA (amongst others) have claimed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
We need to ask Tyson what is so appealing about Marxism? Did Capitalism just kick his ass?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/xrays-show-difference-of-covid-s-effect-on-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-patients-b1896155.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chef-francis-goncalves-covid-vaccine-b1899900.html
A request for Dr. Spencer: I would like to find the value of the “baseline temperature” that is used to generate the “temperature anomaly” that is used in all temperature anomaly vs. years graphs. I would like to be able to get temperatures in Kelvin units as a function of years in order to do some thermodynamic calculations, the first sep of which would be to remove the baseline temperature bias. Can you direct me to a source. Thanks…
You’ll need to email Dr Spencer directly for an exact figure. By comparison with other datasets I would estimate his 1991-2020 baseline as 14.4-14.5C.
GISS data is based on a 1951-1880 baseline of 14.0C.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
The normals that Roy uses are monthly figures and for a grid based system. He reduce that to a global figure because people kept asking for it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
and
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0beta5
This is for the previous normal period and will need updating to the current one.
“We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010.”
This was discussed in last month’s UAH update here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/
Perhaps the most authoritative answer is that the current monthly gridded baseline is available here:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
If one goes up through that file structure, the documentation describes the file format.
Link to post in previous thread should be: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-769134
If I’ve done this correctly, the values using the current baseline are as below. I used simple cosine weighting for latitude rather than a WGS84 which would make a small difference, but this looks reasonable relative to Dr Spencer’s post for the previous baseline period.
Month 1 : 263.179
Month 2 : 263.268
Month 3 : 263.427
Month 4 : 263.843
Month 5 : 264.448
Month 6 : 265.099
Month 7 : 265.418
Month 8 : 265.233
Month 9 : 264.637
Month 10 : 263.945
Month 11 : 263.406
Month 12 : 263.191
Fixed link
href=”https://southstcafe.neocities.org/UahTltDecBaseTempGrid.png”>UahTltDecBaseTempGrid.png
Bother . . .
UahTltDecBaseTempGrid.png
Mark B
” If Ive done this correctly… ”
Yes you did!
We have the same numbers, with one supertiny difference for February, for which I obtained 263.269 K.
Thats is a horrible difference, isn’t it?
Congratulations
J.-P. D.
Mark B
” I used simple cosine weighting for latitude… ”
That’s what I started with, due to many hints on several blogs.
But only the global land+ocean average was correct when using that simple weighting model.
All other latitudinal subsets (especially NH/SH Extratropics, dunno why) were not correct.
I found a bit later a hint to a satisfying formula:
Tlat[i:j] =
forall (x in i:j) sum (Tlat[x]*cos(lat x) / sum (cos(lat x))
That gave for all subsets, from NoPol to SoPol, series sufficiently near to Mr Spencer’s values.
It should not be used for single latitude bands because the cosine correction disappears in this case.
J.-P. D.
Temperature map for December UAH TLT baseline grid:
href=”https://southstcafe.neocities.org/UahTltDecBaseTempGrid.png”>UahTltDecBaseTempGrid.png
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/UahTltDecBaseTempGrid.png
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
BRUSSELS, Aug 5 (Reuters) – Final month was one of many world’s hottest Julys on document, behind solely 2019 and 2016, with unusually excessive temperatures seen in areas from Finland to the USA, EU scientists stated on Thursday.
It’s the newest milestone in a long-term warming development that noticed the final seven years rank because the world’s hottest on document, as emissions of greenhouse gases change the planet’s local weather. read more
“After we take a look at international temperatures, there are swings from yr to yr and even month to month,” Freja Vamborg, senior scientist on the European Union’s Copernicus Local weather Change Service, advised Reuters.
“However in the end, the underlying factor we see is a warming development globally, and in most areas of the world.”
http://www.kapinews.com/2021/08/05/last-month-was-worlds-third-hottest-july-on-record-eu-scientists/
Global anomalies drop for the last 6 months or more and yet we still get ‘Global Warming’ outcomes. Nothing stands in the way of it. Must be logical.
The cooling in the center of Antarctica might take a while to reach Yellowknife, dummy.
Idiot.
Here, dummy:
Australias tropical north recorded its highest day by day most temperature final month, whereas temperatures over Northern Africa have been increased than regular virtually in all places, Copernicus stated.
Some areas have been barely colder than common, together with Germany and elements of Russia.
Ralf Toumi, co-director of Grantham Institute on local weather change at Imperial Faculty London, stated the latest bursts of record-breaking warmth are not any shock, given the long-term sample of rising temperatures.
This can be a fixed on line casino were taking part in, and were simply selecting the excessive numbers time and again, he stated.
Climate change group determines that climate is changing.
The climate is warming, dummy.
Has been warming since the little ice age. It cooled to that from the medieval warm period.
Prove it, dummy.
Proof is easy.
Roman’s grew grapes in the North of England with which to make wine.
Vikings grew barley on Greenland with which to make beer.
It is too cold to do either since the onset of the mini ice age.
Battle Thermopylae was fought over a strip of land 100 meters wide Persians vs Spartans. That strip of land is now 1 km wide mainly due to falling sea levels that indicate the earth is cooler now than it was then.
Three strikes, you’re out.
Willard: The proof of both the little ice age and the medieval warm period is well established. Prove that it isn’t.
Grapes are not thermometers and there is still agriculture in Greenland, Kennui.
You are still trying to reverse the burden of proof, dummy.
So I have to prove things but you don’t. Idiot.
Easy peasy, dummy:
ipcc.ch
Willard: The proof of both the little ice age and the medieval warm period is well established.
The claim you forgot to support is that the MWP is warmer than today, dummy.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah.jpeg
A low-pass filter is a filter that passes signals with a frequency lower than a selected cutoff frequency and attenuates signals with frequencies higher than the cutoff frequency.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-pass_filter
So you agree that a running mean is a form of low pass filter then.
here, dummy::
However, the ideal filter is impossible to realize without also having signals of infinite extent in time, and so generally needs to be approximated for real ongoing signals, because the sinc function’s support region extends to all past and future times.
So you agree that a running mean is a form of low pass filter?
Nuts will always find a way to smooth signals to detect cycles.
Sometimes they even appeal to six-month spurious trends.
So you do agree that a running mean is a form of low pass filter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving
https://www.quora.com/Are-running-means-low-pass-filters
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squirrel_(debate)
Idiot.
Why is your 8 year LP filtered data able to reach to this year? It should end 4 years ago.
Are you inventing 4 years of future data??.
Have you not heard of SavitzkyGolay filters?
As the caption quite clearly states. (Shortened to S-G).
They are much like LOWESS in stats.
“A SavitzkyGolay filter is a digital filter that can be applied to a set of digital data points for the purpose of smoothing the data, that is, to increase the precision of the data without distorting the signal tendency. This is achieved, in a process known as convolution, by fitting successive sub-sets of adjacent data points with a low-degree polynomial by the method of linear least squares.”
Nate says: Are you inventing 4 years of future data??.
Yes, in a sense. Also 6 months of the 12 month filter.
SG is a class of filters that do a polynomial fit at each data point to determine smoothed value at that point. The specific filter is specified by the width of the window and the order of the polynomial. A 12 month moving average filter is a degenerate case of the SG filter with a window length of 12 and a polynomial of order 0, that is, a simple average.
Software libraries that implement SG generally have an option to select the method for treating endpoints past where the centered filter runs out of data. RLH appears to have selected the option (or taken the default) of computing end values using the last fit of the polynomial.
The effect of this endpoint treatment is apparent in the “S-G 12 month projection” curve which doesn’t reflect the apparent bottoming out of UAH monthly anomaly in the most recent months.
Because smoothed data points are so much more natural…
Willard: “A SavitzkyGolay filter is a digital filter that can be applied to a set of digital data points for the purpose of smoothing the data, that is, to increase the precision of the data without distorting the signal tendency.”
“which doesnt reflect the apparent bottoming out of UAH monthly anomaly in the most recent months.”
So
2021 03 -0.01
2021 04 -0.05
2021 05 0.08
2021 06 -0.01
2021 07 0.20
is bottoming out?
Next month going to be higher than 0.20 is it?
And no, I didn’t choose to add in extra data, the library function I use continues the fit right up until the last data point (as it should).
I don’t see you restricting LOWESS to the same requirement of a shorter window.
Strange how this months is spot on.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-1.jpeg
And no, I didnt choose to add in extra data, the library function I use continues the fit right up until the last data point (as it should).
Regardless, the ends of the filtered are handled differently than the interior points by whatever library you’re using. If you didn’t make an explicit choice for endpoint handling, the default appears to extrapolate using the polynomial from the last defined point as I said.
Actually I have the source code for the function I use. It treats all points as exactly the same. That is, creates a ‘fit’ for them all.
As I say, LOWESS is used a lot in statistics and no-one complains there that it should not ‘run to the ends’.
One rule for statisticians, one rule for the rest.
Indeed if you were to create a LOWESS at around 20% it would follow almost exactly the plot I derived.
Richard: appeal to naturalness as much as you like, a filter is a filter is a filter.
OK, so it is a FIT of the last 4 years.
Clearly when the actual next 4 years of data come in, the last couple of years of filtered T will change, whereas T from > 4 years ago will be stable.
“OK, so it is a FIT of the last 4 years.”
In the same way a LOWESS over the same period would be.
“a filter is a filter”
And your point was?
“no one complains there that it should not run to the ends”
I am complaining right now, and I quite sure that others have done so depending on the application.
My complaint is that in this case it is fitting noise.
I recall you previously showed us a (15 y?) LP T plot ending in ~ 2014 that was curving distinctly downward at the end.
Of course once the later years were added that turned out to have been quite misleading.
But if being misled makes you happier then go right ahead.
“I am complaining right now, and I quite sure that others have done so depending on the application.”
So you would complain if a LOWESS was used instead? I think not. In fact I can find it used all over the place. My people who I rather suspect you agree with.
“My complaint is that in this case it is fitting noise.”
The ‘noise’ is data, just like the rest. Fitting a curve to those points is just like the rest.
“I recall you previously showed us a (15 y?) LP T plot ending in ~ 2014 that was curving distinctly downward at the end.”
That’s why I call it a projection not a prediction.
Your linear trend likewise is inaccurate. The points to follow later in time may or may not ‘fit’ the line you draw.
I note you do not complain that the 365 day running average on https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2021-08-07.gif should be applied to a point 6 months prior to the right hand edge.
P.S. As I mentioned at the time
“Currently shows that we are over a local peak and headed downwards! That may well change so’Caution Will Robinson’.”
I understand about uncertainty. Do you?
P.S. As I mentioned at the time
“Currently shows that we are over a local peak and headed downwards! That may well change so…’Caution Will Robinson’.”
I understand about uncertainty. Do you?
“should be applied to a point 6 months prior to the right hand edge.”
I’m aware of that and can visually shift it where it belongs. That IMO, is different from you filtering to the very end.
I dont have any preference for LOWESS.
When I say ‘fitting noise’ I am talking about that fact that we KNOW that there is short-term variation (ENSO, etc) contributing to whatever the underlying trend is, which is what is of interest for climate science.
A curve FIT that is intended to reveal the underlying climate trend should not be unduly influenced by short-term noise.
> And your point was?
That your appeal to the naturalness of your filter was overly silly.
Now, your turn: what’s the point of posting a graph without commenting on it, if not to create a false sense of plausible deniability?
“I don’t have any preference for LOWESS.”
But you do agree that it usually used to display all points to the end of the graph. And you don’t complain about that.
“That your appeal to the naturalness of your filter was overly silly.”
My point was that a straight line is not normal. The rest is you trying to wriggle around that.
“Im aware of that and can visually shift it where it belongs.”
So you agree that the line will continue to fall for another 6 months or so.
So what is your assessment for the next 6 months of its trajectory?
> My point was that a straight line is not normal.
As opposed to what?
“So what is your assessment for the next 6 months of its trajectory?”
On the gfs? Looks flat to slightly rising.
On the CFSR
So take the 365 day moving average and move it back 6 months to where it should be. Then look ahead for the rest of the year and decide if the data points to come are above or below that point.
“As opposed to what?”
Something other than a straight line.
Nate: Tell me also if you agree that, so far this month, the data points are lower than they were at the same time in last month?
> Something other than a straight line.
All lines are mathematical representations, dummy.
What you have to do is look at August 2020 daily or monthly data, compare to current values. If current values are higher, then the 12 mo average will be rising. If current values are lower, 12 mo ave will be falling.
Nate says: What you have to do is look at August 2020 daily or monthly data, . . .
In so far as one can project UAH from El Nino indicators we probably won’t see anomalies as high as the last months of 2020 this year, so the annual trailing average probably goes down. Effectively this is just saying that 2021 is a cooler year than was 2020 which is common knowledge.
I expect also that we’ll see UAH anomalies in the 0.0-0.2 range for the rest of 2021. If the La Nina projections come true, I’d expect a second dip in early 2022. Current projections suggest a weaker dip, but time will tell.
uahTltVsOni.png
While projecting annual fluctuations is an amusing pass time, on climatically relevant timescales the global anomaly will continue to climb.
“All lines are mathematical representations”
What other parts of nature produce straight lines?
In our case, the line is not meant to represent nature, but to convey a trend.
So it’s not how natural it looks that matters here, but how representative it is of the underlying process.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2021-08-08.gif
I’ll ask again. Are this months figures higher or lower than last months so far?
If you move the 365 day average back 6 months, are the data points to come (on average) above or below the end point.
> I’ll ask again.
Your graphs should be followed by claims you make, dummy, not silly leading questions.
“In our case, the line is not meant to represent nature, but to convey a trend.”
Least squares produce a trend, true. The only question is how big a window do you wish that to operate over. The whole record? The last 7 years? The last 12 months?
And is a single straight line over the whole record the best way to represent that? Or is a LOWESS/S-G a better way and why?
“Your graphs should be followed by claims you make”
The claim is that LOWESS/S-G makes for a better representation than a straight line.
The residuals are smaller for sure.
> The claim is that LOWESS/S-G makes for a better representation than a straight line.
A representation of what: a trend between just a few data points? And why exactly: it’s more “natural” because it wobbles like a wave?
You’re kidding yourself in both cases.
Willard decides that the whole of science and statistics is not very useful.
I’m not the one who decides how real scientists support their claims, dummy.
But here you go:
https://www.statisticshowto.com/lowess-smoothing/
If you really want to show that one method M1 is better than another M2, here’s how you should do it:
1. Present a family F of problems;
2. Decide on a set of criterias C;
2. Apply M1 and M2 to F and present your results;
4. Discuss them according to your C;
5. Disclose the limitations of your approach.
Alternatively, continue to act like a Climateball rookie.
If you think that a straight line is a better fit than a least squares fitted curve then I await your presentation of the residuals.
I’m not the one who claims that “LOWESS/S-G makes for a better representation than a straight line,” dummy.
“Ill ask again. Are this months figures higher or lower than last months so far?
If you move the 365 day average back 6 months, are the data points to come (on average) above or below the end point.”
The question makes no sense.
If we assume current months are tracking 4 months delayed NINO 3.4, then we expect continued rising for another 3 months or so, then turning down.
If these months are higher than the same ones in 2020, then the 12 mo running mean will keep rising.
Based on that, I think ozcaster 12 mo running mean will rise a bit over next few months.
But there is always weather unpredictability.
“LOWESS/S-G makes for a better representation than a straight line”
Everybody who uses them, and there are quite a lot, does that in the expectation that LOWESS/S-G makes for a better representation than a straight line. But you can always disagree with all of them of course.
“The question makes no sense.”
You already admitted that placing the output of the 365 day filter at the right hand edge is wrong. How can observing that its output should be at half that be wrong?
Does your question have a point? What is it?
Then you are just trolling.
The point is that despite your claim to be able to move the output point back 6 months, you are then unable to ‘see’ what data will then follow and thus make an observation about the likely path it will follow.
“you are then unable to see what data will then follow ”
Ive explained the rationale for my predictions. Youve ignored it.
What is it you think I am unable to ‘see’? Be specific.
“despite your claim to be able to move the output point back 6 months, you are then unable to see what data will then follow”
Moving the endpoint of the 12 mo curve back 6 months doesnt change anything, except where it shows up on the x-axis.
The data that goes into the 12 mo curve, is still all of the data up the present values.
It doesnt change my predictions nor should it change yours.
And his 4th graph shows the 12 month and 3 month running means in correct location.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2021-08-10.gif
Notice that in addition to ENSO, there is an annual cycle present, with a dip in spring-summer and rise in fall-winter.
And of course the 12 mo running mean eliminates this. IOW it does not follow the spring-summer dip.
Is the data to the right of the end of the green trace higher or lower than it?
“there is an annual cycle present, with a dip in spring-summer and rise in fall-winter”
Interesting as the Northern Hemisphere is supposed to be ‘warmer’ than the Southern Hemisphere in Summer.
“The northern hemisphere has much more land mass which loses its heat quickly. … The heat retained in the southern hemisphere oceans makes the average temperature of the Earth a few degrees higher in July when Earth is furthest from the Sun than it is in January when it is its closest”
You are forgetting these are anomalies.
“Is the data to the right of the end of the green trace higher or lower than it?”
Lower. Now look at the same month in 2020, 2019, 2018,etc
The data (blue curve) to the right of the end of the green curve is Lower in all these years.
And did the green curve then follow the blue curve in the summer months after, in those years?
No.
Because as I said, the 12 mo running mean removes the annual cycle.
“You are forgetting these are anomalies.”
So you are saying that recently the hemispheres are reversed?
“the 12 mo running mean removes the annual cycle.”
Badly. Running means add all sort of artifacts to the output. At the expense of slightly more delay, a Gaussian produces a more accurate picture.
Have you seen the frequency response curve for running means/averages?
https://ptolemy.berkeley.edu/eecs20/week12/freqResponseRA.html
The inaccuracy comes from ‘beating’ a square wave sampling methodology with the data.
If the data at the right hand edge is lower than that at the left hand edge, the curve will go lower, and vice versa.
Now tell me what you see.
The left hand edge being 365 days earlier.
“The left hand edge being 365 days earlier.”
What I have been saying. You dont pay attention.
“Badly. Running means add all sort of artifacts to the output. ”
Broken record. Change of subject. Booooring!
“What I have been saying.”
So based on that, do you expect the line to go up or down for the next few months?
“Booooring!”
The truth will out despite your attempts to conceal it.
Produce the “artifacts,” dummy.
Should be easy – you’re the new Engineer in town.
“attempts to conceal it.”
Og puleeez..
Ive seen your promotion of your favorite filter 47 times by now! Im officially bored with it.
And it has nothing to do with the point being discussed.
You have been saying over and over and over ‘LOOK at the 12 mo running mean’ ‘WHAT do you think it will do?’ etc etc etc
So I told you. There is an annual cycle in the anomaly for interesting reasons. The 12 month running mean effectively removes that.
So there is NO reason to expect the 12 mo running mean to ‘follow’ the annual cycle. It has been removed.
Now suddenly the 12 mo running mean has ‘artifacts’ that you want to highlight! We shouldnt be looking at th 12 mo running mean!
Those flaws will not change the fact that ANY 12 mo filter should remove an annual cycle.
And once again, your hyperfocus on short term noise and what it will do in the next couple of months may be exciting for you, but it has nothing to do with climate change.
“I’ve seen your promotion of your favorite filter 47 times by now! I’m officially bored with it.”
Accuracy requires repetition.
“So there is NO reason to expect the 12 mo running mean to follow the annual cycle. It has been removed.
…
Those flaws will not change the fact that ANY 12 mo filter should remove an annual cycle.”
Apparently not as you then claim that there is still an annual cycle left in the anomalies! Make up your mind.
As I observed earlier, there should be not signal of a yearly nature left in the results. Yet there is.
“Produce the ‘artifacts'”
I did already.
Did you not see the frequency response curve above? Oh, I forgot. You don’t do facts.
Idiot.
RLH says: As I observed earlier, there should be not signal of a yearly nature left in the results. Yet there is.
So is your hypothesis that there ‘should not be an annual cycle’ incorrect or is the apparent annual cycle not significant?
This particular case is interesting because someone with the skills and inclination plausibly has sufficient data available to test the hypothesis.
“Apparently not as you then claim that there is still an annual cycle left in the anomalies! Make up your mind.”
There is an annual cycle in the unfiltered monthly data. A 12 mo filter removes it.
Are you a moron, or just trolling?
“As I observed earlier, there should be not signal of a yearly nature left in the results. Yet there is.”
Why?
That means you think the amount of GW in the last 3 decades must have no seasonality?
The GW in Winter and Summer must be the same?!
OR Do you STILL NOT GET what an anomaly means?
Anomaly means compared to history (over a given time period).
So you are saying that recent years are showing differences to the comparison period that exhibits a seasonal related outcome?
“There is an annual cycle in the unfiltered monthly data. A 12 mo filter removes it.”
That would be true of raw data but, unless something recent has changed, should not be true of anomalies.
For instance, Roy’s data after treating with both a running mean and a 12 month filter, shows no such seasonal outcomes.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-2.jpeg
“So you are saying that recent years are showing differences to the comparison period that exhibits a seasonal related outcome?”
Yes.
‘There is an annual cycle in the unfiltered monthly data. A 12 mo filter removes it.’
“That would be true of raw data but, unless something recent has changed, should not be true of anomalies.”
You STILL fail to understand what anomalies do!
Anomaly for January measures how much January has warmed over last few decades.
Anomaly for July measures how much July has warmed over last few decades.
You erroneously assume that January and July must warm by the same amount!
They havent. And there is no logical reason to make such an assumption.
“Roys data after treating with both a running mean and a 12 month filter, shows no such seasonal outcomes.”
OMG
You removed the annual cycle it with your Filter!
UAH decadal trend (degrees C/decade) annually and seasonally by region:
Region J-D DJF MAM JJA SON
Globe 0.136 0.147 0.121 0.121 0.154
Land 0.182 0.182 0.189 0.159 0.197
Ocean 0.118 0.133 0.095 0.107 0.137
NH 0.161 0.176 0.172 0.136 0.159
Land.1 0.191 0.208 0.221 0.151 0.181
Ocean.1 0.142 0.155 0.142 0.127 0.144
SH 0.110 0.118 0.070 0.106 0.149
Land.2 0.160 0.122 0.118 0.175 0.232
Ocean.2 0.100 0.117 0.061 0.091 0.131
Trpcs 0.127 0.122 0.096 0.148 0.143
Land.3 0.160 0.155 0.116 0.189 0.183
Ocean.3 0.117 0.112 0.091 0.136 0.131
NoExt 0.183 0.201 0.213 0.142 0.174
Land.4 0.203 0.215 0.249 0.156 0.188
Ocean.4 0.166 0.190 0.180 0.128 0.161
SoExt 0.098 0.118 0.057 0.072 0.144
Land.5 0.149 0.122 0.116 0.117 0.247
Ocean.5 0.088 0.118 0.046 0.065 0.126
NoPol 0.248 0.253 0.288 0.194 0.255
Land.6 0.227 0.204 0.280 0.218 0.207
Ocean.6 0.272 0.308 0.299 0.167 0.311
SoPol 0.020 0.074 0.017 -0.120 0.104
Land.7 0.090 0.115 0.089 -0.101 0.257
Ocean.7 -0.014 0.055 -0.017 -0.129 0.031
USA48 0.170 0.174 0.185 0.104 0.215
USA49 0.177 0.173 0.194 0.109 0.231
AUST 0.183 0.123 0.148 0.263 0.205
“You removed the annual cycle it with your Filter!”
But you claim that the anomalies on https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/ still have an annual signal in them. You have said it more than once. So do the anomalies contains an annual signal and, if so, why are they different to their reference period in an annual way?
“UAH decadal trend”
UAH decadal linear trend.
Care to do a LOWESS trend (of say 20%) instead?
Here’s the trick of our One-Trick Pony:
1. Almost suggest something;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. Feeble try at insulting
That covers it.
Idiot. Still.
3.
You have said it more than once. So do the anomalies contains an annual signal”
Yes, I’ve said it because obviously they do.
,”Why are they different to their reference period in an annual way?”
Why should GW in winter and summer be the same?
Lots going on.
I know the Arctic ocean winter anomaly is very high, while the summer anomaly is practically zero. In summer with sea ice and open ocean, the air temperature is pinned to 0 C.
“Why should GW in winter and summer be the same?”
Why would this winter and this summer be different to those in the reference period?
2.
Willard = idiot.
The point, RLH, is that you have erroneously declared that there should not be an annual cycle in the anomaly. But the reality is that it has one.
Because the fact is that GW has a seasonality to it.
And, as usual, you offer no logical reason why it cannot. But that never seems to keep you from declaring it anyway.
Do a little investigation if you need to know the details.
“The point, RLH, is that you have erroneously declared that there should not be an annual cycle in the anomaly. But the reality is that it has one.”
How can this January be different to 30 years of previous data for January for instance? That is what an anomaly is. Likewise for July.
Unless something has changed in the between then and now of course. Care to say what that is?
“How can this January be different to 30 years of previous data for January for instance? That is what an anomaly is.”
You mean how can there have global warming?
Are you saying that GW has developed a season signal in the last few decades? If so, what is your mechanism and reasoning?
“Are you saying that GW has developed a season signal in the last few decades?”
Asked and answered several times. WTF is your problem?
“If so, what is your mechanism and reasoning?”
Its a fact, just as GW is a fact.
You have claimed it should not happen. What is your logic behind that? You never answer.
Answer a question before asking anything else!
RLH wrote:
What a long winded batch of comments without any understanding. It’s long been predicted from model studies that there would be seasonal changes in warming, for example, greater warming in NH Fall months, such as Nov and Dec.
It’s evident in the UAH data when comparing the earlier base period of 1981-2010 with the latest base period data of 1991-2020. Here are the average monthly differences for the LT NoPolar after adding the annual average difference:
Jan -0.086
Feb -0.030
Mar 0.024
April -0.140
May -0.061
Jun -0.005
Jul 0.131
Aug 0.088
Sept 0.024
Oct -0.025
Nov -0.028
Dec 0.107
Annual difference -0.261
Shifting the base period removed some apparent warming from the latest data, effectively understating the warming.
I think I will do a month on month comparison to see how this plays out on all of the temperature series.
Thus Jan compared to Jan a year ago, etc.
This will remove the yearly signal without impacting the seasonal differences.
Should be interesting.
“Asked and answered several times.”
You have said it occurs. You have not said why. Other than the rather general opinion that GW is not equally laid out during the year.
Why and how is not covered. Does CO2 go to sleep and only wake up when it is prodded?
“You have claimed it should not happen. What is your logic behind that?”
If CO2 is behind GW, why should it occur more prevalent only in recent years and only in some seasons?
When it is Summer in the North it is Winter in the South and vice
versa. Globally speaking that is.
> If CO2 is behind GW, why should it occur more prevalent only in recent years and only in some seasons?
Step 2 again.
***
> When it is Summer in the North it is Winter in the South and vice versa.
Back to step 1.
Month on Month a Year ago for UAH Global.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
No seasonal pattern there.
“No seasonal pattern there.”
Use your noodle, RLH!
You removed the seasonality.
“If CO2 is behind GW, why should it occur more prevalent only in recent years and only in some seasons?”
Typical. You don’t know why it happens, and this leads you to claim that it should NOT happen.
“When it is Summer in the North it is Winter in the South and vice
versa. Globally speaking that is.”
The Earth and its climate is complex.
Winter and Summer are clearly quite different in their weather patterns.
Winter atmosphere is colder and has less water vapor, but has the same amount of CO2.
NH and SH are obviously quite different (most land in NH, Arctic is ocean, Antarctic is Land).
I already mentioned that in summer the mixture of open ocean and sea-ice in the Arctic ocean pins the air temperature over it to 0 degrees C. The GHE heat melts ice, but doesnt raise the air temperature.
While in winter with no exposed ocean, the T can vary, but the GHE produces increased T relative to the past.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2021.png
“You removed the seasonality.”
Nope. It shows that year on year, month on month, the seasons have up and downs. No continuous trend in either direction.
“Winter and Summer are clearly quite different in their weather patterns”
You don’t say.
None of that explains why winters and summers now are different to the reference periods.
“‘You removed the seasonality.’
Nope. It shows that year on year, month on month, the seasons have up and downs. ”
You’re hopelessly confused.
“None of that explains why”
Then by your rules, it can’t happen?
Don’t like my answer, figure it out yourself.
“shows that year on year, month on month, the seasons have up and downs. No continuous trend in either direction”
You have calculated the derivative of temperature. It doesn’t have much of a trend…
One of the ways idiots avoid reality is to try to discredit the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. RLH, Norman. and Bindidon have all done this. Here’s RLH with his latest attempt:
“You have no answer to real observations but persist in your twisted belief that a ball-on-a-string somehow represents a gravitational connected system. It doesn’t and never will.”
Of course RLH is completely WRONG, as are Bindidon and Norman. Just a quick search found 3 “.edu” sites proving how uneducated the idiots are:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
Clint R: It is you who are in the vanishingly small minority who do not accept what science has determined about the moon’s orbit and rotation. Much like ‘flat earthers’ do not accept the globe.
Wrong again, RLH.
“Science” did not determine Moon was rotating. That came from astrology, and has never been corrected. It hasn’t been corrected because it doesn’t matter to anyone but cultists.
You reject the ball-on-a-string, but now you find out it is a valid analogy for “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It’s the same motion as Moon.
Your rejection of reality has been confirmed numerous times. You have NOTHING, except false accusations like calling people “flat earthers”.
I won’t respond to anymore of your trolling.
Orbital motion without axial rotation means that one face always points towards a fixed star.
Absolutely wrong.
Absolutely correct.
The animations in the following link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Make it clear that in “orbital motion without axial rotation” the same side of the object always faces towards the inside of the orbit rather than towards a distant star.
“Make it clear that in orbital motion without axial rotation the same side of the object always faces towards the inside of the orbit rather than towards a distant star.”
The cannonball is not rotating in that diagram. The red vector that points to the center is not attached to the cannonball. The purple vector is showing orbital path. It too is not attached to the cannonball.
Correct, the cannonball is not rotating on its own axis. It is fired without spin, so it orbits without spin…the bottom of the cannonball always facing towards the Earth whilst it completes the orbit. The same side of the cannonball is not always facing towards some fixed star whilst it orbits. In order for that to happen, the cannonball would have to start rotating on its own axis…
DREMT
I take a cannon floating in space and point it at Sirius. I paint a spot on the front face of the cannonball and fire it at Sirius. The cannonball flies in a straight line and the spot continues to face Sirius. No rotation.
I take a Newton’s cannon on Earth’s surface and point it towards Sirius. I paint a spot on the front face of the cannonball and fire it at Sirius. The cannonball flies in an orbital curve due to Earth’s gravity and the spot continues to face Sirius. No rotation because gravity does not cause a torque on the cannonball.
I am correct, as explained.
Ent, the cannonball would fall back to Earth. And the “spot” points in the direction of motion.
You understand none of this.
“And the spot points in the direction of motion. ”
Why?
” It is fired without spin, so it orbits without spinthe bottom of the cannonball always facing towards the Earth whilst it completes the orbit.”
What causes it to rotate wrt the fixed stars? That energy has to come from somewhere. And, no, gravity cannot act on a smooth cannonball.
It is not rotating on its own axis “wrt the fixed stars”. It just appears to be. No torque required about the cannonball’s own axis because the cannonball is not rotating about its own axis. It is fired without spin, and thus orbits the Earth without spin. And, naturally, that means it keeps the same face always oriented towards the Earth whilst it does so. Just look at the animations, and open your mind.
EM,
You wrote –
“I take a Newton’s cannon on Earth’s surface and point it towards Sirius. I paint a spot on the front face of the cannonball and fire it at Sirius. The cannonball flies in an orbital curve due to Earth’s gravity and the spot continues to face Sirius.”
No, it doesn’t. What’s more, pointing the cannon towards Sirius (or other “fixed” star), may result in you shooting yourself in the face or the foot, as the cannon’s muzzle’s orientation WRT you will be constantly changing.
A spot on the front face of the ball will continue to be at right angles to the force of gravity, as the ball falls. Likewise, a spot on the “bottom” of the ball will continue to face the COG of the Earth.
As occurs with the Moon. Not rotating about an axis through the Moon itself. Just perpetually falling, like a giant cannonball fired from a giant smooth bore cannon, initially parallel to the Earth’s surface.
Newton”s explanation is good enough for me.
“A spot on the front face of the ball will continue to be at right angles to the force of gravity, as the ball falls.”
Wrong. There is no force operating on the ball which would impart rotation to it. Only create an orbit.
“It is fired without spin, and thus orbits the Earth without spin.”
If it is orbiting without spin then it is always pointing at a fixed star.
Wrong, as explained. Scroll up, re-read, look at the animations again. Open your mind. Try not to just restate your conclusion as a premise.
Wrong as explained by many. many people. Including NASA which tried to explain the differences between orbits and revolutions.
Which you and your clique try to ignore.
You are the one insisting on your delusions. The rest of the world understands that the Moon rotates once per orbit.
Please do elaborate on the “differences between orbits and revolutions”.
An orbit is a revolution around another body. A rotation is around an axis of a body.
Wrong as explained by many. many people. Including NASA which tried to explain the differences between orbits/revolutions and rotations.
That was already understood. What I asked you to elaborate on was what you originally said, which was “the differences between orbits and revolutions”.
So you agree with NASA then?
No. I understand the difference between revolution and rotation. Which is why I disagree with NASA on the matter of the moon’s (lack of) axial rotation.
So you agree that the Moon rotates wrt the fixed stars (and the Sun) once per orbital revolution round the Earth.
No.
You would ne wrong then.
No, I would not “ne wrong”.
RLH,
As to all sides of the Moon being seen at different times from a particular “fixed star”, this appears to be your understanding of the Moon “rotating”.
However, this occurrence can only occur from “fixed stars” which are in the plane of the Moon”s orbit.
Take, for example, the view from a “fixed star” which is more or less normal to the Moon’s orbital plane. This view will show one hemisphere or the other, with the point on that hemisphere closest to the Earth permanently pointing to the centre of the Earth.
I assume your definition of the Moon rotating about its axis does not change depending on viewpoint. What do you find contradictory about Newton’s description of Moons, apples, cannonballs and other things obeying the law of gravitation? I prefer it to definitions of rotation which depend on imaginary viewpoints.
The Moon’s path/orbit around Earth and its orientation to Earth are 2 separate things.
The Moon orbits around the Earth in 27(ish) days. The Moon rotates around it axis once in those 27 days.
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html#:~:text=The%20moon%20orbits%20the%20Earth,Scientists%20call%20this%20synchronous%20rotation.
Swenson
You’ve confused the movement of a cannonball in orbit with an arrow flying through the air.
The arrow has a definite front and back. Flights at the back interact with the airflow to keep the arrow pointed in its direction of motion.
A cannonball in orbit is spherically symmetrical with no front, back, top of bottom. It has no flights to align it and no airflow for them to interact with. The cannonball’s rotation is completely independent of its orbital motion.
The painted spot is purely a reference point to help describe rotation. It has no physical effect.
“Newton’s explanation is good enough for me.”
Newton, never discussed a spot on the cannon ball always pointing to the Earth. He didnt discuss its orientation at all.
Nor would he have had any explanation for that, and you don’t either.
So this is pure fantasy.
“You’ve confused the movement of a cannonball in orbit with an arrow flying through the air.”
Look at the animations. As far as I am concerned it is clear from them exactly why a point on the bottom of the cannonball remains oriented towards the Earth whilst it orbits. I cannot understand anyone’s perspective who looks at them and thinks otherwise.
“Look at the animations.”
I have and do not see what you see. Mind you, I have an understanding of mass, inertia, gravity, etc.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html
Look here at the Earth and the moon. Turn on the Gravity Force and Velocity vectors.
You somehow have come to the conclusion that NASA (amongst others) is wrong about orbits and rotations. They are not.
“I’m right because NASA say I’m right”, says RLH, whilst carefully avoiding addressing the point being made.
DREMT accepts nothing other than his own twisted viewpoint.
RLH is a boring “last word-er” troll.
DREMT is a troll who calls other people trolls.
Whatever you say, RLH.
“cannonball always facing towards the Earth whilst it completes the orbit. ”
Newton’s cannonball does no such thing. Newton did not discuss the cannonballs rotation or orientation AT ALL. There are no markings on Newton’s cannonball.
So this seems to a figment of DREMTs vivid imagination.
Or, more likely he is simply lying.
“much like … ”
“sort of like .. “
Clint, Even your own sources clearly state that a ball on a string is only a rough analogy. And you know that the profs who wrote those pages would laugh at your notion that the moon does not rotate on its axis.
No surprise that Folkerts rejects reality. Since he has no workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, he looks even more desperate and pathetic.
Orbital motion without axial rotation means always having your forward face pointing at a fixed star.
Incorrect, as explained above.
Correct as everybody except your small clique agrees.
Until recently you were in denial that “orbital motion without axial rotation” even existed. Now you apparently not only agree that it exists but believe there is a “consensus” that it is motion in which one face remains pointing at a fixed star. A remarkable turnaround.
I have always disagreed with your characterization of Orbital motion without axial rotation. If they rotate at all then they will show different faces to the stars, including the Sun. Which the Moon does for sure.
You just completely side-stepped my comment. Try again.
RLH is as incompetent with logic as he is with science.
But, he excels at trolling.
Everyone should be good at something.
You and your clique can continue all you like. It wont change what the rest of the world understands one jot. The the Moon rotates once per orbit.
Try again.
2. You and your clique can continue all you like. It wont change what the rest of the world understands one jot. The the Moon rotates once per orbit.
No, I meant try again and actually respond this time to the point I made in my 5:19 PM comment.
3. You and your clique can continue all you like. It wont change what the rest of the world understands one jot. That the Moon rotates once per orbit.
This is a clear statement as regards your fallacious claim that the Moon rotates wrt the fixed stars but does not rotate at all.
You are not even coherent.
You are not even sensible.
What is your response to my 5:19 PM comment?
Ultimately, it is quite simple.
Relativity says there is no such think as ‘absolute motion’. There is no way to know if something is “not translating”; no way to know it is not moving.
Rotation is different. There is such a think as “absolute rotation.
There IS a way to know if something is “not rotating” to know is is not spinning.
So “without rotation” can be absolutely defined. It means keeping the same orient relative to the ‘rest of the universe’. it doesn’t matter if the object is “orbiting” or “zig-zagging” or “driving along a winding mountain road.” “Without rotation” always means the same thing.
“What is your response to my 5:19 PM comment?”
That you are wrong and the rest of science is correct.
Sure, Tim, but “orbital motion without axial rotation” is still rotation (revolution) about the barycenter. So “orbital motion without axial rotation” still involves the object changing its orientation.
“orbital motion without axial rotation is still rotation (revolution) about the barycenter.”
No it isn’t. That would be WITH rotation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
“A rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point. That common point lies within the axis of that motion. The axis is 90 degrees perpendicular to the plane of the motion. If the axis of the rotation lies external of the body in question then the body is said to orbit. There is no fundamental difference between a “rotation” and an “orbit” and or "spin". The key distinction is simply where the axis of the rotation lies, either within or outside of a body in question. This distinction can be demonstrated for both “rigid” and “non rigid” bodies.”
You are incorrect if you believe that the Moon does not rotate on its own axis once per orbit of the Earth.
More dodging of the point from RLH.
“but ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is still rotation (revolution) about the barycenter. “
This would almost be a compelling argument if moons actually rotated (moved in a circle) around the barycenter. This would be at best a shaky argument if there was no liberation. But there is.
“Rotation about the barycenter with no axial rotation” simply fails to predict the correct motion. “Translation about the barycenter with uniform axial rotation” *does* predict the correct rotation.
More idiocy from DREMT.
Then edit Wikipedia, Tim.
“In astronomy, rotation is a commonly observed phenomenon. Stars, planets and similar bodies all spin around on their axes.”
“While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis. Moons revolve around their planet, planets revolve about their star (such as the Earth around the Sun); and stars slowly revolve about their galaxial center. “
Indeed. None of which contradicts the parts I quoted.
You missed out the part where an orbit is independent of the objects rotation about its axis (if any).
…and I agree with that. So?
Say the Moon spun on its axis twice as fast as it currently does. Nothing would change about its orbit.
The moon does not currently rotate on its own axis. It only orbits.
The Earth both orbits and rotates on its own axis.
The Moon rotates about its own axis about once every 27 days. It also orbits the Erath at the same rate.
That is what you believe, yes.
I believe it because it is correct. Many other people also believe that it is true.
That’s all you’ve got, really.
What? That by far the majority of people agree that I am right about the Moon’s orbit and rotation and that you are wrong?
Argumentum ad populum.
Better than your two favorites:
Argument by Assertion
and
Argument from Fallacy.
arguement per scientiam
Oh dear.
“In mathematics, an isometry (or congruence, or congruent transformation) is a distance-preserving transformation between metric spaces, usually assumed to be bijective.”
They should get Chuckie Schumer to present.
Reminder: Member Comment Period: Revised APS Statement
“{the} Earths climate is changing”.
Yup.
RLH
Watch the Channel 4 news for an upcoming report on the social effects of sea level rise in Miami.
“We found that most of the city of Miami Beach is stable except for several pockets that show subsidence at a rate of 1-3 millimeters per year. Most of the subsidence occurred in the western side of the city. However, we found one localized area of subsidence in the area of the Champlain tower. That area subsided at a rate of 2 millimeters per year between 1993 and 1999. Subsidence is a common, very slow movement of the ground that cannot be seen by human eyes but is detectable from space by InSAR.”
So is it the sea rising or the land sinking?
Both.
But in what ratio?
Your own source has answered your question.
We found that most of the city of Miami Beach is stable”
If Miami is not subsiding, then the increased rate of fair weather flooding is due to increasing sea level.
“Most of the subsidence occurred in the western side of the city.”
maguff…”The proposed revisions update the statement and provide supporting evidence that Earths climate is changing, referencing new data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.
***
What is ‘Earth’s climate”? Why do these idiots keep writing propaganda and trying to pass it off as science?
Gordon Robertson at 6:45 PM
Since you’re obviously not a member, you need not concern yourself with this notice. Go back to sleep.
maguff…”The Working Group 1 report, which summarizes the latest physical science, is now due to be published on Monday”.
***
Presumably you are a member and if so, it is incumbent on you to get the facts straight. Working Groups DO NOT do summaries, they offer reports on papers submitted for review by Coordinating Lead Authors. The only summary is the Summary for Policymakers and it is written by 50 Lead Authors who are politically appointed.
Any comments you offer will be summarily dismissed if they don’t support the Summary.
Why are you so frigging naive?
Gordon Robertson at 8:39 PM
By responding to the wrong sub-thread you are only confirming what I said before: your reading comprehension has gone from bad to worse.
Now, about the APS, if you were a member you would have commented on the proposed changes to APS Statement 15.3 Earth’s Changing Climate rather than bloviating about it on some obscure corner of the internet.
And yes, I am a member of APS.
“And yes, I am a member of APS”
Poor Tyson doesn’t realize that any idiot can join the cult — just pay the membership fee!
https://www.aps.org/membership/join.cfm
It takes a real idiot to create and sustain a small clique who disagrees with by far the majority of those people who have an opinion about the Moon’s orbit and orientation, who agree that the Moon orbits Earth once in approx. 27 days and rotates on its axis once per orbit.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Today the Thermopylae Pass is no longer a narrow pass between the land and the sea. The depositional process of the Sperchios River has filled a considerable part of the basin with alluvial sediments, resulting in the delta’s prolongation and the transformation of the narrow pass to a margin between the foothills of the mountainous terrain and the alluvial plain. The distance between the ancient battle terrain and the present shoreline is more than 5 km (Fig. 2) while the absolute elevations on the deltaic plain close to Thermopylae range between 2 – 1.5m asl. Also, the morphology of the ancient pass changed drastically due to the debris of small torrents forming alluvial fans along the edges of Mount Kallidromo and the Sperchios River plain.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3166/ga.23.241-253
I suppose I should But Thermopylae to my But Historical Times page.
Rivers create sediment. Who knew?
Kennui did not, dummy.
Idiot.
No U.
And Chefio, for that matter.
Wonky We Willy,
You could put “But Thermopylae” anywhere you like, of course.
As you seem obsessed with “buts” you could even consider jamming you nonsense up your own.
By the way, in your case, the word is spelled “butt”.
On a more serious note, you seem to be unaware that marine fossils are found at altitudes in excess of 6000 m. Do you really think that sea levels dropped by this amount in the past?
The crust is in constant motion in three dimensions. Measuring the level of water in a container with constantly changing volume is an exercise in futility. A favourite exercise of climate crackpots.
Got the picture, dummy?
Global mean sea level has risen about 89 inches (2124 centimeters) since 1880, with about a third of that coming in just the last two and a half decades. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of meltwater from glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater as it warms. In 2019, global mean sea level was 3.4 inches (87.6 millimeters) above the 1993 averagethe highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). From 2018 to 2019, global sea level rose 0.24 inches (6.1 millimeters).
8 – 9 inches (21 – 24 centimeters)
s,
You don’t understand, do you?
The basins containing the oceans are constantly changing in volume. Anybody who believes that the volume of surface water on the Earth is measurably increasing is just stupid.
Burning hydrocarbons release H20. Plants sequester it. It freezes. It melts.
Climate cranks are delusional. You sound like a climate crank.
Mike Flynn,
You will never guess what the calculus of variations is for.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Major Failure.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Do you think he cares for your opinion?
I certainly don’t.
Can you name anyone who does? No?
I thought so, dummy.
Mike Flynn,
Mysterious Fallacy
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Today the Thermopylae Pass is no longer a narrow pass between the land and the sea”.
***
Wee willy Wonky, named by a skeptic-sage, has gone right over the edge. Now he is claiming that alluvial plains are related to global warming/climate change. Anyone who has studied geology knows that alluvial plains are determined by the flow of a river, or rivers upstream. If human mess with the depth or direction of a river, or dam it or divert it for purposes of irrigation, the alluvial plain is affected.
Besides, Willard, it weather…summer weather.
Gordo,
I made no such claim.
Read the paper. An engineer like you might learn something.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If the subsidence is 2 mm per year and the sea level is rising 1.8 mm per year, as measured at stations on stable land and have been recording for a hundred years or more, the the ratio is obviously 50/50.
Except there are parts of the world where sea levels have not changed at all or very little.
https://earthobservatory.sg/faq-on-earth-sciences/why-will-sea-level-rise-not-be-same-everywhere
“Even though the oceans are all connected, sea level does not rise or fall uniformly over the planet. The map above shows where average sea level in 2011 was above or below the long-term average. Places where sea level rose up to 8 inches higher than the 1993-2011 average are dark blue, average levels are white, and places where sea level fell below average are brown. “
rlh…”Even though the oceans are all connected, sea level does not rise or fall uniformly over the planet”.
***
Furthermore, ENSO causes differences in ocean levels between the west coast of South America and Australia.
https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/el-nino
“Currents and tides influence topography, as does temperature. Water expands as it gets warmer, and the lack of cold water dependent nutrients make it less dense. This expanded, less dense water results in a rise in sea level, observable from space. Ocean surface height may rise as much as 6 to 13 inches above normal in some ocean regions during an El Niño”.
How about La Nina? How about the PDO, AMO and AO? What is the overall effect on ocean levels?
Even simple air pressure makes for meters of difference.
“A rough guide is that a change in pressure of one hectoPascal (one millibar in days gone by) will change the sea level by one centimetre. Tide tables assume a standard pressure of 1013 hPa. This means that a pressure of 1040 hPa, pretty high but not abnormally so, could give a sea level lower by nearly 30 cm than expected. That could make the difference between crossing the sill and ignominiously hitting it.
The lowest pressure recorded around the British Isles is about 925 hPa which would give sea levels nearly a metre above tide table predictions.”
maguff…”The Working Group 1 report, which summarizes the latest physical science, is now due to be published on Monday”.
***
You or someone is confused. Working Group 1 does not do summaries, that is the job of 50 lead authors who put out the Summary for Policymakers, before the Working Groups have a chance to publish their reviews.
The working group reviews are then subjected to the Summary and amended to reflect the views of the Summary. Since the 50 Lead Authors are all political appointees, they are reflecting the views of their masters.
There have been a few courageous Lead Authors with integrity over the years, like John Christy of UAH. Of course, due to his integrity, objectivity, and scientific skepticism, he would not have been included in the fraudulent group who put out the Summary.
Lindzen revealed that when the iconic statement was released, that it was 90% likely humans are causing global warming, the statement came from the Summary via the 50 lead authors. The general consensus from the Working Groups was to wait and see. They were overruled by the 50 fraudsters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm
from an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT…
https://www.cpp.edu/~zywang/lindzen.pdf
Gordon Robertson at 6:55 PM
Your reading comprehension has gone from bad to worse. Time for you to hang it up; you’re only emberrassing yourself.
Gordon Robertson at 6:55 PM
embarrassing
maguff…”Your reading comprehension has gone from bad to worse. Time for you to hang it up; you’re only emberrassing yourself”.
***
Nothing to do with me embarrassing myself, everything to do with you failing to understand reality. You are so hung up on an appeal to authority you have lost all objectivity and the ability to think for yourself.
When you claimed to be a mentor to engineering students you failed to reveal they are railway engineers, the kind who drive choo choo trains.
Gordon Robertson at 8:29 PM
When you claimed to be a mentor to engineering students you failed to reveal they are railway engineers, the kind who drive choo choo trains.
Every engineer has the obligation to mentor young engineers; except you though. If your are truly an engineering graduate, which I very much doubt based on the content of every one of your posts, you cannot be left unsupervised; you are the rare eternal intern.
“I am, and ever will be, a white-socks, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer.” Commander Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11
Tyson, please stop trolling.
rlh…”I have always disagreed with your characterization of Orbital motion without axial rotation. If they rotate at all then they will show different faces to the stars, including the Sun. Which the Moon does for sure”.
***
I expected better from you RLH, a man with a masters degree. You are building a case for me that many people with degrees got them by simply regurgitating what their profs taught them.
Silly me for expecting anything.
PLEASE TRY TO THINK WITH A CHOICELESS AWARENESS. Dismiss what you ‘know’ and ‘look’ objectively.
The Moon displays different faces to the stars and the Sun because it is translating around the Earth. I have already demonstrated that using an airliner. However, to the Earth’s centre it ALWAYS displays the same face, as does the airliner. Those facts alone should alert you to the fact that the Moon is not rotating about a local axis because, if the airliner rotated it would crash.
What do I have to do? I have laid it out for you in several different ways, one of them with absolute mathematical proof, yet you refuse to look. You have offered no scientific rebuttal to what I have presented yet you cling to a myth based on a paradigm from authority figures.
Are you incapable of skepticism? Are you too smug to look, do you feel it’s below you to offer a rebuttal?
The Moon’s orbit/path and its orientation wrt Earth and the stars (including the Sun) are 2 separate things.
You don’t believe that is true, RLH, because you think “orbital motion without axial rotation” involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards the same fixed star. So orbit and orientation are not two separate things in either the “Spinners” or the “Non-Spinners” perspective.
I am not alone in that belief. Just about everybody who has an opinion on the Moon’s orbit and orientation agrees that the Moon orbits or revolves about the Earth in approx. 27 days and rotates once about its axis per orbit.
Apart from your own little deluded clique that is. Who somehow think you alone know best.
RLH dodges the point again.
DREMT ignores facts and goes on with his delusions.
You never actually tackle the point being made. You just dodge, as you are still doing.
You never apply any science. Just your rather stupid claim that “orbital motion without axial rotation” means that one face of the Moon always points towards Earth.
No-one else (sensible) agrees.
You initially said that orbit and orientation are two separate things. I showed that you do not really believe that.
Orbits requires gravity and linear motion.
Rotations require rotational motion. No gravity in sight.
Another dodge.
As usual, DREMT has nothing useful to say.
More dodging. You cannot refute my point so you just dodge it.
There is no point to refute. You claim something to be true which which is false.
An orbit does not dictate the orientation of 1 object with another.
You are just arguing with yourself. Funny to watch. You argued that “orbital motion without axial rotation” was movement in which one side of the object remains oriented towards a fixed star. Now you try to assert that orbital motion and orientation of the object are two separate things! Make your mind up.
And you are just an idiot. A body will continue to point a face towards a fixed star unless something causes it to rotate. Whether it orbits another body or not.
Your notion of “orbital motion without axial rotation” includes the orientation of the object throughout. Thus you actually agree with me that orientation is not separate from orbital motion. It is a part of it.
“Your notion of orbital motion without axial rotation includes the orientation of the object throughout.”
The 2 things are separate as I said. Orbit and orientation.
Keep on arguing with yourself.
You just argue with the rest of the Universe.
No, not at all.
Yes, most certainly.
No, not at all. I’m mostly just arguing with you. There is one other person butting in without invitation further up-thread, but that is just an old stalker of mine who I no longer respond to.
And NASA. And everybody else who thinks that science is right and you are wrong.
Ah, I see. You’re back to your argumentum ad populum again.
tim f…”Clint, Even your own sources clearly state that a ball on a string is only a rough analogy. And you know that the profs who wrote those pages would laugh at your notion that the moon does not rotate on its axis”.
***
The ball on the string was a simple demonstration that a rigid body could orbit, while keeping the same face to its axis at the other end of the string, yet not rotate about a local axis. The reason it cant not rotate about a local axis is that it is constrained from local rotation by the tension on the string.
Why do you fail to comprehend that simple fact? If the ball rotated about its COG/local axis, it would have to wrap itself up in the string.
You spinners have tried to get around this by changing reference frames, failing to understand that a ball constrained so it cannot rotate about its COG in one reference frame cannot rotate in any reference frame.
Reference frames hold no magical properties, they are constructs of the human imagination and must always reside in the human mind. They don’t even exist.
We went into an example of a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a rotating MGR floor yet you still insisted the horse was rotating about its COG.
I have told this story before and I wish you’d pay attention to the point of it. I was at an awareness seminar and I got in a philosophical argument with the leader of the seminar. We were discussing truth and reality and he pounded the side of his fist on a brick wall and asked me if it was real. He said, ‘if it’s not, then let’s see you walk through it’.
I waffled, asking, perhaps correctly, what he meant by real. I projected that perhaps if I could fit the atoms in my body through the atomic spaces in the wall, then maybe I could.
Can you see what I was doing? I did not get it till I was driving home that night. It suddenly struck me that I was wasting my life in an imaginary world in which anything was possible.
There comes a time when you have to admit to yourself that a wall is real. Despite valid argument that it is made up of atoms, humans cannot walk through concrete walls. The wall is a reality to humans, even though to a theoretical physicist it may appear to be an abstraction.
Same with the ball on a string. There is a real attachment between the ball and the string and the string is under tension. It is physically impossible for the ball to rotate about its own axis while the string is under tension and rotating.
Take it a step further, weld a steel ball to a rod and have the rod attached to an axle so both can rotate about the axle. It is utterly impossible for that ball to rotate about it axis because it is welded to the rod.
The ball-on-the-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
You are still wrong.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Findings useful for Singapore’s coastal defence plan against rising sea levels
The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal The Holocene on 4 June 2021, also found the first conclusive evidence that mangroves only existed in the Marina South area for around 300 years before succumbing to flooding associated with rising sea level at the time.
At a depth of 20 m below modern sea level, researchers found abundant mangrove pollen indicating that a mangrove shoreline existed in southern Singapore almost 10,000 years ago. The NTU findings reveal that sea-level rise during that time was as high as 10 — 15 mm per year which likely led to the mangrove’s demise.
The findings provide Singapore with useful insights for current and future adaption methods as the island nation looks to go beyond engineering solutions and to incorporate natural methods to safeguard the country’s coastlines.
Despite its adaptability and effectiveness as a coastal defence, the study highlights the limitations of mangroves in the event of rapid sea-level rise. This confirms an earlier study co-authored by NTU showing that mangroves will not survive if sea-level rise goes beyond 7 mm per year under a high carbon emissions scenario.
Co-author of the study, Professor Benjamin Horton, Director of EOS, said, “Sea-level rise is a potentially disastrous outcome of climate change, as rising temperatures melt ice sheets and warm ocean waters. Scenarios of future rise are dependent upon understanding the response of sea level to climate changes. Accurate estimates of past sea-level variability in Singapore provide a context for such projections.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/06/210604083807.htm
willard…”Findings useful for Singapores coastal defence plan against rising sea levels”
***
You mean, propaganda passed of as science to get funding.
Willard’s the Propaganda Poster Boy. Capitalism kicked his ass.
Nature bats last, Troglodyte.
More tin foil, Gordo?
Pray tell more war stories.
Willard, please stop trolling.
No U, Kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earth absorbs 70% of the total sunlight reaching it as compared to the ideal thermally conducting blackbody sphere {a model} absorbs 100% of total sunlight reaching it.
Why does Earth absorb such a high percent of sunlight reaching it?
No other known planet or moon absorbs this amount of energy from Sunlight. Now one could say we have shortage of planets.
Can anyone design a planet which does?
I could do it.
It rather easy, give a planet a ocean of water.
Now, I said Venus at Earth distance would be colder than Earth.
Some have agree with me. But considering the number posters who seem
to think Venus was like Earth, it’s odd someone hasn’t disagreed.
There is a simple answer, Venus reflects more sunlight, and if at Earth distance, it would continue to reflect as much sunlight.
I also have said, if add water to Venus, you can cool it. There has been a bit disagreement about that. But if instead I said, if one make Venus reflect more sunlight, then I am guessing I would get no disagreement.
So Venus absorbs less sunlight than Earth, and Venus gets twice as much sunlight. If Venus got same amount of sunlight as Earth it absorbs a lot sunlight then is currently.
As said this simple, but I believe it missing the moral of the story, and I am a bit of moralist.
I believe the simple answer of give a planet an ocean, also lack moral fiber.
I think you should know why.
But I do like simple.
rlh…”An orbit is a revolution around another body. A rotation is around an axis of a body”.
***
You seem to be well-informed on statistical theory but have you formally studied calculus and/or physics? If you have studied physics, you will know that a body rotating about a local axis requires an angular velocity about that axis.
That means the Moon must rotate through 360 degrees about that axis while completing one orbit. Explain how it does that while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth?
I know you think you understand this but you don’t. I know that because I supplied you with proof based on basic calculus theory for a curve and you failed to understand what I was talking about. I know you failed to understand because you could not offer a rebuttal. All you offered was an appeal to authority.
There is no rebuttal because the calculus and the conditions show it cannot be done. In order for the the Moon to keep the same face pointed at the Earth, it means a tangent line on that surface must ALWAYS be perpendicular to a radial line from the Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre. That presumes a circular orbit.
The same is true for any point along the radial line where it intercept any point of the Moon along that line. Therefore all tangent lines are parallel, forming an infinite series of concentric circle.
Show me how all points on the Moon, moving along concentric orbits, can possibly rotate arounf the Moon’s COG at the same time.
Even NASA did not argue that point. They offered a lame explanation that they consider lunar rotation wrt the stars.
Wrong!!! If the Moon is not rotating about its own axis in its orbit it is not rotating wrt the stars either. Until you can prove otherwise, I must regard your mythical theory as being based only on an appeal to authority.
I know that you THINK you are smarter than everyone else in the world. But you are not. You claim people should ‘formally study physics’ — but everyone who does comes to the conclusion that the moon really does revolve on its axis. Your ‘proof’ is flawed in obvious ways that you simply miss.
tim…”Your proof is flawed in obvious ways that you simply miss”.
***
Where’s your proof, Tim? Show me where my proof is flawed.
Gordon, you downplay reference frames, and yet your entire argument rests on choosing one particular reference frame — with the origin at the barycenter and one of the axes rotating so that it always points to some specific moving moon. You are free to chose that frame. We are free to choose a different frame.
Your choice works pretty well for actual rigid body motion, like a horse bolted to a merry-go-round. It works OK for a moon in a perfectly circular orbit.
But it fails for actual moons in actual elliptical orbits. Everything you argue is only for perfectly circular orbits. Point on a real moon in a real elliptical orbit do not move in ‘concentric ellipses’, nor do they move tangent to the direction of motion (ie a car on an elliptical road is NOT a good model for a moon’s motion).
Tim, please stop trolling.
The Moon’s orbit and the Moon’s orientation are 2 separate things.
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html#:~:text=The%20moon%20orbits%20the%20Earth,Scientists%20call%20this%20synchronous%20rotation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-785667
You are wrong.
No.
Yes you are. Name any reputable scientists who agrees with your point of view. Actually agrees, not you miss-interpreting their words.
I linked to a comment about a specific point. I am correct about that point.
No you are not.
Yes, I am.
On no you’re not.
Orbit and orientation of an object are not two separate things. You are contradicting your earlier comments when you suggest that they are.
“Orbit and orientation of an object are not two separate things.”
They ARE 2 separate things. An object can orbit another with or without a change in orientation wrt the fixed stars.
You are just arguing with yourself. Funny to watch. You argued that “orbital motion without axial rotation” was movement in which one side of the object remains oriented towards a fixed star. Now you try to assert that orbital motion and orientation of the object are two separate things! Make your mind up.
“You argued that orbital motion without axial rotation was movement in which one side of the object remains oriented towards a fixed star.”
They are 2 independent motions. Unless otherwise disturbed an object will continue to face a fixed star even as it orbits another body.
Your notion of “orbital motion without axial rotation” includes the orientation of the object throughout. Thus you actually agree with me that orientation is not separate from orbital motion. It is a part of it.
You want orientation towards the Earth to be part of the Moon’s orbit around the Earth. It is not. It is a separate thing.
You agree that orientation is a part of "orbital motion without axial rotation". It’s just for you that orientation is: one side always facing a distant star.
For "Non-Spinners" it is: one side always facing the inside of the orbit.
What causes the Moon to ‘face inwards’ and how does it occur? Show how the Moon could rotate on its own axis twice as fast as it does and still retain the same orbital distance and velocity.
What would cause one side to always face a distant star? Where would the torque come from to initiate the necessary axial rotation required to keep one side of the object oriented always towards a distant star?
“What would cause one side to always face a distant star? ”
Inertia.
“Where would the torque come from to initiate the necessary axial rotation required to keep one side of the object oriented always towards a distant star?”
There is no torque required to keep things as they are already. i.e. Not rotating wrt the fixed stars.
Exactly. Each “side” of this debate thinks that their version of “orbital motion without axial rotation” is correct and that therefore torque is required to cause axial rotation in addition to this motion. So my answer to your question “what causes the moon to ‘face inwards’ and how does it occur?” should have been obvious to you. From the “Non-Spinner” perspective, nothing needs to occur for the moon to be oriented as it is.
And DREMT has it wrong as usual. There can be no force which operates to alter an objects orientation wrt the fixed stars unless some energy is input to do so.
From the “Non-Spinners” perspective, an object that is “orbiting without axial rotation” is rotating about the barycenter, and not on its own axis. Therefore it is changing orientation wrt the fixed stars due to that rotation about the barycenter, and not due to any axial rotation (rotation about the center of mass of the object itself).
You fail to address the real question. Why does revolving around a barycenter cause an object to ‘face inwards’. But only for some (the Moon) and not for others (the Earth).
The Earth does not keep one face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit because it is also rotating on its own axis. The moon is only orbiting, and "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion in which one face remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit. As to why that is, I refer you again to the "Newton’s Cannonball" animations, and discussion, further up-thread.
The moon is only orbiting, and “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion observed from the object (an object such as our moon, ball on string, toy train, horse on mgr, cannonball in animation) in which one face remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
“I refer you again to the “Newtons Cannonball” animations”
That shows forces, not orientations.
The orientation is obvious. I am not sure what you people are looking at when you come to the conclusion that one face of the cannonball would remain pointing towards a distant star.
Then you are delusional, as there is no orientation of the cannonball shown!
maguff…in a moment of sheer dementia states…
“What is the reference frame for those vectors? Since the velocity vector is the first Time derivative of the position vector, its value depends on which reference frame its defined in. If it is defined in the rotating frame of the Moon it is zero; if defined in the inertial frame of the fixed stars its greater than zero. Do you know how to take the derivative of a vector?”
***
One it’s not a time derivative, it’s a derivative wrt time.
Two..if the velocity vector is zero…the Moon is sitting there and not moving. What do you think would happen with gravity acting on it?
Three, the derivative has nothing whatsoever to with a frame of reference. The Moon is moving with a linear velocity in space, not in a reference frame. The derivative, that is the tangent line, is related to the curve (orbit)at any one point on the curve, and determines the rate of change of the curve at that point.
There is no application her for reference frames. There is no relative motion to consider with the Earth/Moon orbit, unless you are a demented philosopher who likes living in his mind. Observing the Moon’s orbital dynamics, from another reference frame is just plain silly.
The tangent line in question is the tangent line to the curve (orbit) traced out by the face that always points to the Earth. In other words, that side forms a pseudo-orbit wherein the tangent line at any point of the pseudo-orbit is perpendicular to a radial line from Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre.
As the radial line rotates with the Moon the tangent line naturally points in every direction of the compass. It’s that motion you spinners are mistaking for rotation about the Moon’s axis. The actual motion is translation.
With regard to rotating vectors, that does not apply here. The vector is not rotating, it is performing translation along the orbital path. It is doing that because gravity is nudging it gradually into an orbital path.
You should know that a vector is comprised of two parts…an arrow indicating direction and a scalar indicating quantity. Which part do you think would be operated on by a derivative operator?
Would this help everyone?
–
According to Einstein we all have an inertial frame of reference.
Yours and mine and everything on the surface of the earth at rest have an inertial frame of reference directed at the centre of the earth at an acceleration of 9.8 M/2 sq.
That is why everything falls towards the centre of the earth.
–
Not taking sides and do not really care but it would seem that if the moon has a face that is permanently pointing towards the earth this is because it to is falling directly towards the earth.
If it is falling directly towards a centre while orbiting and its position does not alter in regard to the direction it is falling in, then I would say, on the balance of reasonable possibilities, that it is not rotating, at least with reference to the earth it is falling towards.
–
angech…”According to Einstein we all have an inertial frame of reference. Yours and mine and everything on the surface of the earth at rest have an inertial frame of reference..”
***
Problem is, personal observation becomes skewed by one’s conditioning. We humans do tend to see the world based on an in-built reference frame but that can be overcomes with awareness. For example, if a person sees the Sun in the early morning and claims it is rising, and I counter that it’s the horizon moving down the way, wrt to reference frames we are both right. However, in reality, the Sun is not moving wrt the Earth. Rather the Earth is moving relative to the Sun both in it’s rotation and in its orbit.
You have to be careful not to confuse reality (actuality) with mind distortions like reference frames. I am not claiming there are no uses for reference frames I am simply advising that they can produce distortions of reality when applied incorrectly.
Your other point, that the Moon is falling, has problems. Falling suggests an acceleration or velocity toward the Earth, and that is not the case. The Moon has only a linear velocity perpendicular to a radial line from the Earth’s centre, meaning it is always trying to move in a straight line. The gravitational field acts on it to bend that linear velocity vector slightly at each instant. The summation of all those bends is the orbit.
The Moon never moves toward the Earth because it has no velocity or acceleration in that direction. It is always trying to move away from the Earth in a lateral direction.
GR,
I agree with Angech.
The Moon is accelerating towards the centre of the Earth at about 1/20 inch per second per second.
This is about 1/3600 of the 32 ft/sec2 on the Earth’s surface, because the Moon is about 60 times further away, and the force of gravity naturally decreases as the square of the distance.
One could say that it is a cosmic coincidence that the velocity of the Moon is such that it results in an almost exactly stable orbit around the Earth. Alas, not quite. Continuing to move ever so slightly further from the Earth with every orbit. That’s Nature for you!
What causes it to move further away?
RLH,
Is your question a gotcha, disguised as a request for education?
Have you looked it up already, or are you asking me as an authority? The NASA answer is nonsense, and depends on magical physics. Newtonian physics suffices.
What do you think might be the reason?
I am asking where you believe the energy comes from for the Moon’s orbit to change.
RLH,
Sorry. Not with you.
The Earth!s gravity attracts the Moon. It falls towards the Earth. The Moon’s velocity is such that it never reaches the Earth.
In fact, it is very slightly greater than that necessary to keep the Moon in an unvarying orbit.
Hence, the Moon recedes. No “energy” needed. Try another gotcha.
Or believe some of the nonsense promoted by some dills talking about energy dissipated by tides on Earth “forcing” the Moon away!
Nearly as daft as “climate science”!
Swenson says: “[The Moons velocity] is very slightly greater than that necessary to keep the Moon in an unvarying orbit.”
No. the moon’s velocity increases and decreases every orbit as it moves around the ellipse. As KE increases, the PE decreases (and vice versa) keeping the total energy constant [almost exactly].
“Hence, the Moon recedes. No ‘energy’ needed. ”
Again, no. The moon would remain in an ‘unvarying ellipse’ if the energy stayed constant.
For the ellipse to get larger, energy must indeed be added! Energy IS being slowly, continuously added and the orbit is getting larger.
Now that you know the correct orbital mechanics, you could now back and think about where the energy comes from.
“For the ellipse to get larger, energy must indeed be added!”
Indeed. Nothing is for free.
“Falling suggests an acceleration or velocity toward the Earth, and that is not the case. ”
The Moon does accelerate and decelerate, because the moon is in an elliptical orbit with Earth {Though likewise also with Sun}.
Or one could say Moon falls faster and slower.
So at perigee it starts to fall slower, and at apogee, starts to fall faster which ends when at perigee.
“Mean orbital velocity (km/s) 1.022
Max. orbital velocity (km/s) 1.082
Min. orbital velocity (km/s) 0.970”
So, max is at perigee, min at apogee.
Both Earth and Moon are falling to towards the Sun and falling towards each other.
Though everything fall towards everything, but one can more or less ignore the small stuff.
Falling toward the galaxy is big stuff but it’s also a big space and if not travelling to stars or something, it can be also ignored.
Not sure if known exactly where we falling towards in the galaxy, all stars near us are not falling together as pack- our neighborhood has changed and is changing.
Max. orbital velocity (km/s) 1.082 and if minus Min. orbital velocity (km/s) 0.970 = 0.112 km/sec
0.112 km/sec is 403.2 kph or 249.98 mph.
I wondering now if Sol is accelerating or decelerating:
“In the Gaia EDR3 science verification paper “Gaia Early Data Release 3: Acceleration of the solar system from Gaia astrometry” it was found that the amplitude of the pattern is about 5 micro-arcsecond per year which corresponds to an acceleration of about 0.23 nanometer/s2 towards the point with celestial coordinates (alpha ~ 269.1 deg, delta ~ -31.6 deg), within a few degrees from the Galactic Centre.
In one second of time, this tiny acceleration causes a deflection of the solar systems trajectory of about 0.1 nanometer towards the galactic centre, some 26,000 light years away. Not to be forgotten here is that the solar system barycentre is moving around the galactic centre with a velocity of about 220 km/s, and that the combination of a large velocity with a pull from the galactic centre results in an orbit. To put things into perspective: the acceleration of the Sun towards the barycenter of the solar system is up to 250 nanometer/s2 (so ~1000 times bigger).”
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/edr3-acceleration-solar-system
Well that is not particularly useful to me- but as long as they happy with it.
It answered my question. We are accelerating
They seems know, until such time as they are corrected. Which might related to when we get bigger and better telescopes- which is probably is going to happen fairly soon.
“The Moon never moves toward the Earth because it has no velocity or acceleration in that direction.”
Gordon, you are referring to the “resultant” of vectors acting on Moon. “Acceleration” toward Earth due to gravity is one of the two vectors acting on Moon. So, Moon definitely has “acceleration in that direction”.
“Gordon, you are referring to the ‘resultant’ of vectors acting on Moon.”
No, the “resultant” is the vector sum of two (or more) vectors, which requires they have the same units. You simply cannot have the “resultant” of an acceleration and a velocity.
“Falling suggests an acceleration or velocity toward the Earth, and that is not the case.”
The moon IS accelerating toward the earth! This is basic freshman physics. Circular motion has a centripetal acceleration of
a(c) = v^2/r.
“If it is falling directly towards a centre while orbiting and its position does not alter in regard to the direction it is falling in, then I would say, on the balance of reasonable possibilities, that it is not rotating, at least with reference to the earth it is falling towards.”
It seems center [or centre] would be Earth/Moon barycentre rather than center of Earth.
Can two objects of equal mass {And barycentre at mid-point} be tidally locked?
If by magic lunar mass increased by 80 times or if Earth became 1/80th of it’s mass, would the moon remain tidally locked?
One could change Earth/Moon barycentre.
It seems a lunar space elevator would move it by some {small} amount. Is there some point where it causes problems.
So rather moving it by about 150,000 km, you moved it by just 1000 km?
“Can two objects of equal mass {And barycentre at mid-point} be tidally locked?”
Yes. Orbits and orientation wrt to each other are 2 separate things.
–RLH says:
August 7, 2021 at 4:26 AM
“Can two objects of equal mass {And barycentre at mid-point} be tidally locked?”
Yes. Orbits and orientation wrt to each other are 2 separate things.–
Tidal = gravity gradient. Difference of a force of gravity over distance of an object.
“Can two objects of equal mass {And barycentre at mid-point} be tidally locked?”
I am not sure they can even be in orbit. And if they of equal mass and equal density, I am more, not sure of the stability of orbit.
So I didn’t limit it, equal mass and equal density. Maybe unequal
density “helps” two equal masses to be in orbit- though maybe it makes orbit more instable to have same mass with different density.
But what asking about was if barycentre was mid point can either be tidally lock.
A simpler question is can two earth’s be in orbit. So replace our Moon with another Earth. Or one can replace Earth with another Moon, two moon orbiting each other.
If have two Moons, one can ask is the current difference of distance between Earth and Moon, too big of a distance.
The hill sphere of Earth is “While the radius of Earth’s Hill Sphere is ~1.5 million km, the radius of Bennu’s is ~29.5 km.”
So Moon is well within Earth’s hill sphere and the Moon hill sphere is a lot smaller. Google it:
“The moon’s Hill sphere has a radius of 60,000 kilometres, about one-sixth of the distance between it and Earth. However, the Hill sphere isn’t an exclusion zone, as every body in the universe tugs on every other body.”
So answer is no. Two moon should be about say, 40,000 km apart. Though two Moons will make a bigger hill sphere, so maybe they can be say 60,000 km apart from center of each Moon.
So got Moon A and Moon B. Where are their L-points.
Moon’s current L-1 to Sun is around 60,000 km towards [and L-2 is away from Sun]. Hmm, Earth has two sets of L points: Earth/Sun and Earth/Moon. If Moon was all alone, what would it’s L-1 be with the Sun?
This seems to require me to do math. Let’s try two Earth’s
Two earths could have there distance from center to center, 400,000 km apart. Each would have two sets of L-points. Right??
Earth A L-1 would be less than 1.5 million km from the barycentre and the other L-1 less than 1.5 million from Earth A.
Is it going to have 3 sets of L-points? Or each of Earth’s have two and share another.
Let’s defining this better, Earth’s barycentre has two sets, one with Sun and one with the Moon. So with 2 earths. The two earth’s barycentre has one with Sun and two for it’s moons. So 3.
So, this long post is why I wanted to ask a simple question.
Oh, I think the answer is none of two moon’s can become tidally lock to empty point in space.
But whether Two of Earth 400,000 km apart at 1 AU distance from the Sun is stable {or possible} is not a question I answered.
Oh, crap. How is Mercury in a quasi tidal locked situation- the Sun’s barycentre is a “empty point in space”.
Just when I thought I had some clue.
Oh, it’s not about orbit, it’s tidal. What should have said is
an empty point in space has no tidal forces. But big mass of Sun has tidal forces.
So the two earth’s masses have tidal forces, so question remains:
Can two objects of equal mass {And barycentre at mid-point} be tidally locked?
Well, they are going cause tide on each other. So it’s a question of amount time involved. If they stay in orbit for enough time, both should become tidally locked.
And whether tidally locked, or not they still cause tides.
The Moon is slowing down Earth’s spin. If Earth’s spin stops, and Moon is still around, then the Moon still causes tides.
Were the Moon still around when Earth stops spinning, does Earth always have one side facing the Moon? If so, Earth has no lunar tides. But lunar orbit location combines with Sun so still giving some tides on Earth.
So Earth tides are daily as Earth spins and there is monthly variation due to lunar orbit gravity sun, and they remain.
The size of tide, is interesting, as rise and fall over longer time period. Or like slow floods than hourly tides.
It seems center would be Earth/Moon barycenter rather than center of Earth.
Interesting point. Barycentre is the common centre of mass but I think in a 2 body problem for two objects the gravity works on each others centre of mass, not the barycentre. . Not relevant here because the barycentre is under the earth’s surface anyway?
If by magic lunar mass increased by 80 times or if Earth became 1/80th of its mass, would the moon remain tidally locked?
This is where concepts go out the window.
–
Imagine
If the moon was rotating so that we saw all of it over 27 days
I guess people here would say no it is not rotating because they can see it is rotating so it must be still.
–
Genuinely funny.
There is rotation by definition for you rather than observation.
Note from the moon the earth is rotating but not moving in the sky.
–
Ken, I agree.
“Imagine If the moon was rotating so that we saw all of it over 27 days I guess people here would say no it is not rotating because they can see it is rotating so it must be still.”
Imagine if the moon was rotating so that alien scientists in another solar system saw all of it over 27 days. Would they say it is rotating? Why only consider the universe from an outdated geocentric perspective?
Tim, please stop trolling.
“Synchronous rotation is when the time of rotation equals the time of the orbit, resulting in a situation where the same side of a body is pointing inward like in the moon.”
–
I see the problem better now and why there is such dissension.
–
Synchronous rotation is a term applied to describe orbiting satellites like the moon of a larger body.
Purely a term.
–
It has nothing to do with whether the satellite is actually rotating or not.
It is purely a convention, a term adopted to describe the behaviour of the satellite in a completely artificial situation.
Holding the central body still.
Placing the orbiting body in different orientations
over the time of its orbit.
Looking at an amalgam of such changes where the body is now depicted at being sideways or upside down.
Removing the earth from the pictures and saying this body appears to revolve around its axis.
–
Describing this effect a a synchronous rotation instead of the appearance of a rotation when reduced to a cartoon is the problem.
–
According to convention the moon can be said to have a rotation because it is said to have a rotation, not because it does have one.
Impeccable circular logic.
Backed up by WIKI and NASA..
–
Hence both sides are right and can duke it out forever as there are two answers.
–
Observations.
Satellites in a geosynchronous orbit
are also said to be tidally locked because they do not appear to rotate.
It is also called a geostationary orbit.
Both the terms locked and stationary would imply to most thinking people that rotation is therefore excluded.
Secondly when fired into space into orbit no spin as such is applied to the vehicle.
This is not to say that corrections are not made from time to time if the satellite does start to rotate 9 they have to stop it] or if it drifts out of orbit with or without imparting rotation.
–
It is hard to imagine how a body naturally knows that it has to develop a 24 hour rotation and exactly balance it to the earths rotation at geosynchronous orbit when all it had was a forwards thruster to put it there.
–
Just as the moon knows that as it is in a 27 day cycle it has to develop a 27 day spin..
–
Much simpler for a scientist to define any body in geosynchronous orbit of having a pseudo rotation defined as that of the orbital period to describe a perfectly natural phenomenon in reference to a picture on a sheet of paper for schoolkids.
–
GR you are wrong definitionally and right practically [disagree with you on nearly everything else]
Others, you are right definitionally but wrong practically and in real life.
–
Please explain which reference frame or object you are linking the moon rotation to.
If it is the moon itself which seems likely when giving it a centre of mass and making it the central reference point then this is sadly not logical science.
Just like putting earth at the centre of the solar system. Not wrong, just very blinkerfied.
Each gravitational separate body can be considered to be its own reference frame. As Newton and others have agreed.
“Please explain which reference frame or object you are linking the moon rotation to.”
The question is often stated as something like “does the moon rotate about its own axis?” That very question implies that the reference frame is linked to ITS OWN AXIS! So, start from the moon’s axis.
Then relative to that axis, is the moon rotating — ie, is it changing orientation. Well, it is changing orientation with respect to the ‘fixed stars’, so it is rotating with respect to the only frame that is really worth considering. (Even if you chose a frame oriented with the barycenter, you still have to say the moon is rotating slightly forward and back to create libration!)
***********************
A fun ‘stumper’ question. If the earth became tidally locked to the moon, would it be rotating on its own axis?
No, Tim. It would be rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
So would the Earth be facing the barycenter as well as the Moon?
Relative to the fixed stars, what then would be the rotations of the Moon and the Earth?
Relative to the fixed stars, the Earth and moon would be rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on their own axes.
As the Earth rotates on its axis about 27 times faster than the Moon orbits I think you have something wrong there.
I was discussing a hypothetical scenario in which the Earth had become tidally locked with the moon. Try to keep up.
Like Pluto and Charon?
Yes, exactly.
But the Earth is rotating about 27 times faster than the Moon is about its axis.
But in the hypothetical scenario it would not be. Sheesh you are slow.
It is hypothetical to observe that the Moon could rotate twice as fast on its own axis without in any way altering its orbit around Earth.
OK, RLH.
But DREMT,
The earth is orbiting the sun. Like the moon is orbiting the earth.
If (in your view) the moon is not ‘rotating on its axis’ when it is always facing the EARTH, then the earth is not ‘rotating on its axis’ when it is always facing the SUN.
But you just said a non-rotating earth must always face the MOON.
And thus we reach the paradox (or at least, ‘a paradox’) of this view. “Not rotating on its axis” means two different things! A planet that is “not rotating on its axis” must simultaneously keep one toward its star and one side toward its moon.
What if there were two moons? Or 20? Which moon would a ‘non-rotating’ planet face then?
No paradox, Tim. Pluto is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the Pluto/Charon barycenter. And, because it is rotating about the Pluto/Charon barycenter, it presents different faces to the Sun over time.
If a planet had no moons, and was always presenting the same face to the Sun, then that planet would be not rotating on its own axis.
Yeah, I know about Pluto. That doesn’t solve your dilemma!
“If a planet had no moons, and was always presenting the same face to the Sun, then that planet would be not rotating on its own axis.”
You are just making stuff up as you go to try to make it fit!
Ummm … A planet is not rotating on its axis if it always faces the sun. Well … Unless it has a moon. Then it is not rotating on its axis if it is facing its moon. Errrrr … unless it has two moons. Then it is not rotating on its axis if it is facing, what, the heavier moon? closer moon? The prettier moon? Pluto has 5 moons — which one must it be locked to to be “not rotating on its axis”?
There is simply no self-consistent definition for “Object A is not rotating on its axis when one side is always facing Object ________” that involves other moving objects. The ONLY self-consistent answer is to universally use ‘the fixed stars’ as the reference for ‘not rotating on its axis’.
What is *the* rotation rate of the earth on its axis?
Once per 24 hours (relative to the sun)?
Once per 23:56 hours (relative to the stars)?
Once per 24:50 hours (relative to the moon)?
Other???
Surely there must be *one* correct rotation rate of the earth on its axis!
Tim loses it completely in a desperate attempt to make some kind of point.
I am not making up anything as I go, and there is no dilemma. On which of Pluto’s moons do you believe you would be able to observe Pluto “rotating on its own axis”?
I understand your position, DREMT. I just find it unnecessarily complicated – like the old epicycle theory. And it still fails for elliptical orbits.
One side of the moon does NOT directly face the earth. Until ‘your’ theory can precisely predict libration, it is useless. ‘My’ theory easily and naturally predicts the correct libration. A tidally locked moon like in the image below will face “up” on this diagram (not either of the diagonly left directions) at position “D” because it is rotating once on its axis every orbit. It does not remain “facing the planet” because it is ‘rotating around the barycenter’.
https://i.ibb.co/KhD88PR/Moon-Orientation.jpg
It’s not complicated at all. A celestial body is rotating on its own axis until it becomes tidally-locked to another body. At which point it is rotating about the barycenter, and not on its own axis.
At which point it is rotating about the barycenter, and inertially once its own axis per orbit.
-or-
At which point it is rotating about the barycenter, and not on its own axis as observed from the accelerated frame attached to the celestial object.
If I had meant that, I would have said that.
“A celestial body is rotating on its own axis until it becomes tidally-locked to another body. At which point it is rotating about the barycenter, and not on its own axis.”
All orbits, regardless of if the bodies are tidally locked or not, revolve around the barycenter. Newton said as much. (3rd Law)
I love it when you think you are contradicting me.
One last pair of comments.
1) Smarter people than us have discussed this for centuries. It takes a lot of chutzpah on the part of people like Clint or DREMT to somehow imagine that everyone else who calculates orbits for a living was wrong. To imagine that the standard equations for angular momentum are wrong.
2) If you define “rotate” as “to move in a circular path about an axis” then it is reasonable to say a MGR horse “rotates” about the center of the MGR, but it is NOT reasonable to say a moon “rotates” about the barycenter. Moons travel in ellipses, not perfect circles.
If you define “rotate” as “to move in some generally round/oval/elliptical path” then moons do “rotate”. But this is pretty meaningless. It has no value for predicting anything. This is what people do when they say things like “sometimes ‘rotate’ is used as a synonym for ‘revolve’ and sometimes ‘revolve’ is used as a synonym for ‘orbit’, so a moon that is ‘orbiting’ around the barycenter must also be ‘rotating’ around the barycenter.”
Still on about rotation having to occur in a circle…
1) Edit the Wikipedia article on rotation then, which clearly states orbits are a rotation about an external axis, despite the authors being well aware that orbits are typically elliptical.
2) Edit Desmos, so that it is no longer programmable to show rotation about an external axis occurring in an elliptical shape.
Still basing your scientific understanding on a single wikipedia page?
Read other sources and do some critical thinking.
You are in denial, Tim.
“You are in denial, Tim.”
Quite pot-kettle there.
Tim is not the one changing the standard definitions of ‘rotate’ and ‘orbit’ to suit his erroneous beliefs.
The Moon never moves toward the Earth because it has no velocity or acceleration in that direction.
–
Consider gravity.
The apple falls to earth Newton.
The moon falls towards earth Newton.
–
So you are saying Newton is wrong.
Gravity does not exist.
Heavens above.
Personal observation becomes skewed by ones conditioning.
–
I did a small talk for the seniour citizens club the other day
The biggest stumbling block was explaining why gravity does not exist in Einstein’s theory as opposed to Newtons.
The combination of the two is difficult.
–
I picked and dropped a ball from a table and said what is taking this to the centre of the earth is that its inertial frame with respect to the earth is at 9.8 m/2 sq.
Similar to the moon.
Slightly less G, the moon definitely always trying to move away from the Earth in a lateral direction.
Nonetheless both vectors exist and are important.
–
Everyone said the table stopped the ball falling towards the earth and gravity was pulling it.
No table out in space.
Always next year.
For everyone.
“The biggest stumbling block was explaining why gravity does not exist in Einsteins theory as opposed to Newtons.”
Well, gravity ‘exists’. But it exists as a warping of space-time, rather than as a force between two masses.
Tim,
No, there is a measurable force between two masses.
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation specifies this force in terms of mass, distance, and a gravitational constant.
Whether you accept it or not makes no difference. An apple falls. The Moon falls. Every particle in the universe falls towards every other particle. Why? Nobody knows for certain. Why is the gravitational constant what it is? No one knows at all. It just is.
There is evidence to support predictions made by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. For the moment, Newton’s Laws (rather than theories) have been accepted, and seem to be valid at the macro scale. No exceptions found to date.
Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation do not create a rotational force/motion relative to the fixed stars though.
“No exceptions found to date.”
Newton’s theory fails to explain …
* gravitational bending of massless light
* gravitational redshift of light
* the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
* gravity waves
Einstein’s theory about “warping space” is indeed better at predicting “gravity” than Newton’s “action at a distance”.
1. Photons can be considered to both be massless and have mass. In the same way as they are both waves and particles.
2. No account is taken of the gas lens/atmospheres that forms around all massive objects.
3. The distance observed by light/gravity from the Sun to Mercury is the time it takes light/gravity to reach between them. It is not the shorter orbital distance when that light/gravity arrives.
4. Newton did not know that light and gravity were transmitted at the same velocity.
1) No. photons can’t be considered to have mass.
2) Yes, people do take into consideration “atmosphere”. That is not the cause of gravitational redshift.
3) Newton’ Laws fail. Einstein’s Laws succeed.
4) you are acknowledging that Newon was insufficient, and Einstein is better.
To all you (expletive deleted) lunatics. This page is about temperature anomaly as it pertains to the subject of global warming.
Please take your stupid lunar discussions elsewhere.
Why are you only complaining about this lunar discussion?
Why not about trolling people too who misuse this site to claim viruses don’t exist, or that Newton and/or Einstein are wrong, or that Trump lost the election to fraud?
Etc etc… the list is long.
J.-P. D.
Ken, Dr. Spencer even posts about other topics on his blog than “temperature anomaly as it pertains to the subject of global warming”. So to be correct, this blog is about science.
The reason the Moon issue is so relevant is that it clearly proves that people with absolutely no knowledge of the subject will nevertheless “lie, cheat, and steal” to support their cult’s anti-science. The techniques and tactics the cultists use for the Moon issue are the same as they use for the AGW nonsense.
Just because you appear to have no interest in science does not matter, except to you.
Why are you opposed to learning?
“The reason the Moon issue is so relevant is that it clearly proves that people with absolutely no knowledge of the subject will nevertheless lie, cheat, and steal to support their cults anti-science.”
You are the one with the ‘anti-science’ meme. The science believes that the Moon orbits the Earth and rotates on its axis once per orbit.
Wrong RLH. The Moon nonsense originated with astrology, centuries ago. It has never been corrected because it affects nothing. But we have learned that NASA is now backing away from it.
What makes it so much fun is you idiots that deny reality keep supporting it, with NOTHING!
You couldn’t solve the simple problem. You have no model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”. You have no foundation in the relevant science. You have NOTHING. You’re just another useless troll.
Wrong Clint R. The Moon nonsense originates with your claim that the Moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Your devotion to your cult is impressive, RLH.
That’s probably why you’re such an idiot.
Only someone who is dedicated to the cult of non-science like you could make such a claim.
Name me one actual scientists who has agreed with your points. Actually agreed, not you claiming they have by miss-quoting their words.
RLH,
Anybody who says “the science believes . . .” is either a fraud or a fool.
Maybe you expressed yourself incorrectly. As to anti-science, I assume you really mean to say that you don’t like people who disagree with you, but you have no facts to support your opinion.
Science supports the idea that the Moon orbits the Earth and rotates once on its axis per orbit. As many have pointed out.
RLH,
Saying “. . . science supports the idea . . .” Is just meaningless nonsense.
Ideas are more numerous than anal sphincters.
Scientists (who can be identified) may support ideas. Any fool can support an idea, and many do.
If you want to believe the Moon rotates about its axis once per orbit, feel free. A pendulum at rest will have its bob closet to the COG of the Earth. On the equator, it is orbiting the center of the Earth, and, I suppose, would have to be supposedly rotating on its axis, just as the Moon is supposedly doing, orbiting the COG of the Earth, with its heaviest part closest to the COG.
Now provide the pendulum with the Moon’s velocity, and place it in the Moon’s orbit. It has moved further from the Earth, but the bob still points to the Earth’s COG. The force of gravity is about 3600 times weaker, but stil applies.
If you believe a stationary pendulum rotated about the axis normal to its orbit without the application of additional force, good for you! It won’t affect anything physical at all, will it?
I don’t, of course. Newton’s Laws of Motion stil operate, as far as I can see.
Newton’s Laws of motion and Inertia do indeed operate just as expected. Nothing he said supports the idea that the Moon would face ‘inwards’ as it orbits.
RLH,
Yes it does. Reread “Newton’s cannonball”, if you feel like it.
Smooth bore. No air resistance no tumbling. Falling. Falling body “bottom” is that which faces the surface.
As does the Moon. That is why an observer beneath only sees the “bottom”. An observer to the side sees a bit of the side – that is libration, an apparent, but not physical, movement.
Seems consistent to me.
What imparts the rotational motion that you claim then?
wrt the fixed stars that is.
Its not hard to find factual science about the moon. There is no rational way to describe the discussion here as being about science.
The only thing I’m learning is that there are a lot of people posting here who should be suing their high school for allowing them to graduate.
The temperature anomaly this month is down from the .14 C Average global increase per decade.
When is it going return to a .13 C average global increase per decade.
And later than that, lower than that??
Maybe by Christmas, and then below .13 C by time we land some woman in the lunar polar region?
What does Ken say?
I say we wait till Christmas to find out. Climate is going to do what it always has done; change, and we may as well just relax and get used to it.
For those who do not seem to be well informed in puncto sea levels
Subsidence and its counterparts, e.g. the glacial isostatic rebound, are an important component of sea level evaluation.
On the one hand, you have the tide gauges, whose data is centralized in the PSMSL directory:
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
On the other hand, you have corrections for vertical land movement (up or down), e.g. in the SONEL directory:
https://www.sonel.org/-Vertical-land-movement-estimate-.html?lang=en
SONEL is the “Système d'Observations du Niveau des Eaux Littorales”.
Neither are complete, but at least you can obtain worldwide numerous gauges for which a valuable VLM correction is applicalble.
For Miami, what is known to me is a tide gauge
363; 25.768333; -80.131667; MIAMI BEACH
and VLM data for this corner can be found at
https://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=maregraphe&idStation=2749
This is also explained in
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/ellipsoid.php
J.-P. D.
One problem is the “reference ellipsoid”.
This a notional surface, which continuously varies from the real geoid, as the geoid changes constantly
SONEL land movements are “best guesses”, at best.
As to satellites. From NASA –
“From a vantage point 1336 kilometers (830 miles) above the Earth, the US/European ocean altimeter satellites measure the height of the ocean surface directly underneath the satellite with an accuracy of 4-5 centimeters (better than 2 inches).”
Then, through the miracle of climate science “averages”, 4 – 5 cm becomes better than 0.1 mm (about the thickness of a human hair). All completely worthless in any case, as the ocean basins are constantly changing their volume due to tectonic plate movements etc.
I’m sure all this nonsense appeals to you, and you believe you can predict the future by looking at an uncertain past, and an unknown present.
You are exceptionally gullible, Binny. Nobody has seen the GHE, and nobody has seen God. Many people have faith. Good for them! Accord me the same privilege – let me believe as I wish.
Even simple air pressure makes for meters of difference.
A rough guide is that a change in pressure of one hectoPascal (one millibar in days gone by) will change the sea level by one centimetre. Tide tables assume a standard pressure of 1013 hPa. This means that a pressure of 1040 hPa, pretty high but not abnormally so, could give a sea level lower by nearly 30 cm than expected. That could make the difference between crossing the sill and ignominiously hitting it.
The lowest pressure recorded around the British Isles is about 925 hPa which would give sea levels nearly a metre above tide table predictions.
IIRC the classic example of low pressure assisted flooding were the 1953 North Sea floods.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953
Since then sea level at Sheerness has risen about 100mm. (For Americans that’s 4 inches).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sea-level-rise-at-selected-uk-sites
For most coastal communities the problem is not the gradual increase in mean sea level, it’s the increase in damage from higher storm surges.
Storm surges (usually meaning wind driven sea levels) need to be added to air pressure changes.
Indeed. The worst storm surges tend to be ropadopes. A combination of spring tide, onshore wind, low pressure and, lately, rising sea level.
The later is in mm. The rest are in meters.
Flynnson
You are exceptionally uneducated, and pretty arrogant.
You know nothing, but write such a blah blah.
Boring.
Binny,
Why do you think anybody cares whether you choose to be bored?
If you don’t care, what is the point of your stupid comment, dummy?
Not a mathematician, Swenson?
The precision of a mean is the measurement accuracy*1/√sample size.
For satellite sea level measurement the accuracy is +/- 50mm.
For 100 samples the precision of the mean is 50*1/√100= 5mm.
For 10,000 samples it is 50*1√10000=0.5mm.
Assuming one measurement per second and 70% ocean a daily average is based on 13,000 measurements and gives a precision of +/- 0.44mm.
A monthly average is based on 400,000 measurements and gives a precision of +/- 0.08mm.
An annual average is based on 4.8 million measurements and gives a precision of +/- 0.02mm.
“For satellite sea level measurement the accuracy is +/- 50mm.”
How do the satellites know the air pressure? The changes that air pressure alone brings (let alone ocean tides caused by Moon/Sun et al) amounts to a meter or more.
Pressure?
Ask the Met Office. They can pull it from the nearest barometer of our of their weather model.
In terms of global average sea level the air pressure doesn’t matter. Both the oceans and the atmosphere have a more or less constant mass and volume.
Sea level rise in one location due to low atmospheric pressure will be counterbalanced by sea level drop due to high pressure elsewhere.
Ditto tides.
If they can get it to within hectoPascal, which will change the sea level by one centimeter/100mm, over what ever point the satellite is checking then I am very impressed.
Ditto tides. As a sailor I can tell you that close is the best you can expect to be about tide heights, never accurate to within 100mm.
If they can get it to within a hectoPascal, which will change the sea level by one centimeter/10mm, over what ever point the satellite is checking then I am very impressed.
And don’t forget waves (which can be meters in height at some times/places).
EM,
Not a realist?
As I mentioned, the sea surface is in constant motion. Tides, waves, all that sort of thing. RLH alluded to tides, which most people don’t realise are actually “best guesses” based on past records.
The number of tides per day varies. For example “Around the UK, there are mostly two high tides and two low tides each day: this is called a semi-diurnal regime. Other parts of the world have a diurnal tidal regime with only one high tide and one low tide each day.” – National Tidal and Sea Level Facility.
Some locations have no discernible tidal range at all – no tides!
Additionally, the shape of the ocean basins is constantly changing, as is the geoid, against which notional sea level is measured.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Your arithmetic is both correct – and totally meaningless.
Accept reality. No GHE. No increase in temperature due to CO2.
Europe is burning
California is burning
Siberia is burning
etc.
etc.
Now is the time to declare that the alarmists were absolutely correct.
It is also time to decide what we do with the denialists who are directly responsible for failure to take action and therefore are responsible for the death and destruction we are witnessing.
What punishments should we impose? I don’t favour the guillotine, but suggestions are welcome.
Confine them for the rest of their lives to beachfront houses in Miami Beach.
I!ll volunteer. You will provide a suitable property, fully maintained, I suppose.
A few acres, servants – I might be able to cope.
When do I move in?
I had in mind somewhere 3 feet above mean sea level and abandoned by the previous owner because it floods on every king tide.
Its Time To Stick A Fork In Miami Beach Mayor Dan Gelber. Hes Done.
https://communitynewspapers.com/miami-beach-news/its-time-to-stick-a-fork-in-miami-beach-mayor-dan-gelber-hes-done/
Hmm, Dan seems like a typical pol, maybe better average. He is neck deep in Dem Machine. As article indicates his office can’t do much, but he take credit for not doing anything. So, that would be slightly annoying, the it’s corruption he floating on, which the problem.
So, it does seems like a good form of torture.
But why be so mean?
How nice isolated experimental low income ocean settlement- say 5 km
off Miami Beach? The experiment low income ocean settlement includes a surfing area.
DMT,
Oh dear! “What punishments should we impose?”
Take your pick, dummy!
You are impotent and powerless. Here’s a suggestion – if you believe CO2 is going to fry the human race – do your bit. Stop breathing. Exterminate all your denialist idiotic climate crackpot mates first. They are probably too stupid to organise their own permanent CO2 reduction strategies. Help them out, why don’t you?
What a pretentious dimwit you are.
Carry on. I enjoy a good derisive laugh at your expense.
“pretentious”?
Moi?
DMT, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson says: at 10:48 PM
Replying to my question posed to you in last month’s thread (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-780022), without context, seems disingenuous, but true to form for you.
Never mind the diversion about time derivative vs a derivative wrt time; you asked for a “scientific rebuttal,” so, learn the language then.
When you say: “if the velocity vector is zero…the Moon is sitting there and not moving. What do you think would happen with gravity acting on it?” Are you serious? You said: “However, if you consider a vector at each point perpendicular to the radial line, each vector represents the instantaneous tangential velocity of that vector moving around a circle.” You’ve described a position vector between two fixed points on the surface and its time derivative is the velocity by definition.
I asked if you knew how to take the derivative of a vector, and the answer is no by the sound of this:
“Three, the derivative has nothing whatsoever to with a frame of reference.”
Obviously you don’t know about vector spaces and their unit vectors;
r=rxi + ryj + rzk where dr/dt= velocity. Because the unit vectors (i, j, k) are anchored on the reference frame, if fixed their time derivative is 0; if rotating,their time derivative is >0.
This next part takes the cake:
“You should know that a vector is comprised of two parts…an arrow indicating direction and a scalar indicating quantity. Which part do you think would be operated on by a derivative operator?”
You should know that two vectors are equal if they have the same direction and magnitude. If either direction or magnitude is changing in time, then the vector is changing.
As I said, scientific rebuttals are wasted on you
Tyson, please stop trolling.
You use the word cult a lot and I’ve always dismissed it as the rantings of a lunatic, but now I see that you include Physics in this cult.
Now I’m curious, do you believe all of science is a cult? Is it just Physics? What about Chemistry?
P.s.: What about Physical Chemistry?
. . . I’ve always dismissed it as the rantings of a lunatic,. . .
I’ve not followed the moon rotation topic closely, but the difference seems largely to be the choice of reference frame with Clint R taking a moon-centric reference frame. Which makes the tag ‘lunatic‘ apropos and maybe even non-pejorative.
It is very simple.
Clint R sees himself as the centre of the universe and the universe revolves around Clint R. His personal frame of reference is the only one he will accept.
Mark B, it’s really simple. If the ball-on-a-string is rotating, the string wraps around it. If the ball is not rotating, the string does not wrap about it. “Inertial reference frame” confuses “orbiting” with “rotating”.
It’s so simple, but yet the cultists still reject reality.
That’s why this is so much fun.
If it was a ball-on-a-string then, as the Earth rotates about 27 times faster than the Moon orbits, the pairs lifetime would be short indeed.
No, the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” positions transcends reference frames, “Mark B” aka bdgwx.
The “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right” in the below gif. The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the left”.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The Moon on the left rotates about its own axis. The Moon on the right does not. (It helps if you isolate just the Moon).
That is the “Spinner” perspective, RLH. It is childishly simple to see it that way. What is more difficult to see is the “Non-Spinner” perspective.
Here, the “moon on the left” is not rotating on its own axis and the “moon on the right” is rotating on its own axis, clockwise, once per counter-clockwise orbit. Do you have the mental capacity to see it that way?
Now isolate the 2 Moons and see which rotates.
I repeat my previous comment.
And I repeat that you are wrong in your assessment as just about everybody else agrees.
The spinner/non-spinner debate is spreading. There are three letters discussing the subject in the back pages of this week’s New Scientist magazine.
Yes Ent, I suspect that even some REAL engineers at NASA are starting to get uncomfortable. Spencer’s blog gets a lot of attention. REAL engineers and scientists don’t want to be associated with anti-science, as in the new NASA — “National Anti-Science Administration”.
REAL engineers and scientists dont want to be associated with anti-science like your claim that the Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
Shhhhh.
No sensible reply as usual.
Nothing sensible to reply to.
DREMT is unable to come up with anything sensible. As usual.
There is nothing sensible to reply to.
DREMT is not sensible. Who knew?
Hush.
“Do you have the mental capacity to see it that way?”
“Shhhh”
These guys use argument by ad-hom at will, censor others, but don’t have to back up their claims with true facts, and don’t even have to make sense.
They are just here to troll.
Troll Nate presents a valid characterization of trolls.
Clint R at 5:25 AM
I have a follow up question: who do you believe leads this cult of science? Any of the following?
Inquiring minds want to know!
TM, you have a list that are REAL scientists, with the exception of Darwin and Hawking. The Moon nonsense came out of astrology, centuries ago. It was made infamous by Cassini.
You don’t even know who is REAL, and who isn’t.
Maybe you should send more money to your cult?
The Moon nonsense came out of your claims that the Moon does not rotate on its own axis, as just about everybody else accepts.
There is only one infamous person here, Clint R, and that is YOU.
You discredit and denigrate persons whose work you never would have been able to do, especially that of Cassini.
No one here understands your and Robertson’s sheer hatred against such people.
J.-P. D.
“TM, you have a list that are REAL scientists …
who all understand that the moon really does rotate. ☻
@rhl, clitr
i dunno why u still keep talking about this nonsense, I don’t follow this most pointless conversation I ever witnessed. Still, I just wanna add this: taking about any motion is pointless without specifying the frame of reference. If you frame of reference is rotating with the moon, then the moon is not rotating about its own or any other axis in that particular FoR, if ypou choose aa FoR that rotates differently then in that particular one the moon does rotate. It’s that simple, pretty sure you both understand it.
” I dont follow this most pointless conversation I ever witnessed. ”
Yeah. That is plain visible, and makes your ‘addendum’ simply redundant.
If you would have followed that boring discussion since its beginning, you would have seen that most spin deniers think that a frame of reference is an ill-born concept used by ‘spinners’ to manipulate the others.
J.-P. D.
@bidindon
hm, ok. I mean, spin/rotation doesn’t make any sense from the purely kinematic POV without first specifying a frame of reference, does it not? the situation is different dynamics-wise, as even empty space can be endowed with a reference frame that defines absolute rotation, unless you’re a machianian ^-^ but i don’t know/understand that much about that topic.
In the RF that is still with respect to remote stars and the earth but w/earth rotating (disregarding that the earth itself orbits the sun), the moon presuming it being a solid body indeed ‘rotates about’ ‘not it’s own’ axis, as the instantaneous point/axis of rotation of the moon in that particular FoR does not pass through the moon let alone its center of gravity, but rather ‘dances about’ somewhere far away, likely in the vicinity of the earth a the lunar orbit is pretty round. That of course doesn’t mean that it somehow doesn’t spin.
All I take from this most nonsensical discussion ever, is that one can produce sh!fttonnes of pseudoscientific flood of comments on any topic so long as one doesn’t use proper terminology and tries to fit the entire topic into a restricted set of ill-defined every-day human words. Actually, that’s a pretty valuable observation, as I observe that so many unending discussions on so many topics spring out purely because of the lack and/or ill-definedness of the terminology used. Gut it will add to my collection of such conversation topics.
I agree. Which is why I choose a reference frame of the fixed stars where possible.
It you want a trippy night. Go out when the sky is clear of clouds somewhere where light pollution is not a thing. Lie down with the milk way visible and make it your ‘horizon’. Hold it still in your vision.
Watch then as the Earth falls though the Universe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ28OXLwFl4
cot, you obviously don’t understand the issue, or anything about orbital motion. Your only interest appears to be in shutting down the discussion. But the discussion reveals a lot about false beliefs and the incompetence of many that comment here.
Nice video!
Just an example of choosing a reference frame. In this case the fixed stars/Milky Way.
Clint R
Cassini was into astrology as a youth but gave it up in favor of science. He had many valuable contributions to astronomy based upon actual observation.
Maybe read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Domenico_Cassini
“Attracted to the heavens in his youth, his first interest was in astrology. While young he read widely on the subject of astrology, and soon was very knowledgeable about it; this extensive knowledge of astrology led to his first appointment as an astronomer. Later in life he focused almost exclusively on astronomy and all but denounced astrology as he became increasingly involved in the Scientific Revolution.”
Norman, did you find another link you can’t understand?
Cassini served for decades as astrologer to Louis XIV. That was the time when he came up with the false belief that Moon is rotating about its axis.
Every astronomer was also doing astrology back then. Paid the bills.
And Tesla was talking to the dead via radio waves when he suggested the Moon doesn’t spin.
TM, my use of “cult” is reserved for those that reject reality.
For example, there are cult members here that actually believe a MGR wooden horse is rotating about its center of mass axis!
There are cult members here that actually believe two ice cubes can make something hotter than the ice!
That’s just two examples….
“my use of cult is reserved for those that reject reality.”
Mine too. Let me know when any serious scientist accepts your point of view. Actual acceptance, not just your claim that they think like you do.
The ball-on-a-string analogy is incomplete.
The string is attached to the Moon at one end, and stops the Moon rotating.
But what is it attached to at the other end? It must be attached to the Earth because the Moon does not fly off at a tangent.
If it is attached to the Earth, either the string will wrap around the Earth or the Earth will stop rotating relative to the Moon.
Why does the Earth not present one face to the Moon as the Moon presents one face to the Earth?
Why are Earth and Moon not like Pluto and Charon?
Pluto and Charon revolve around a common centre like two balls on a string every 6.4 days and neither rotates relative to the other.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OHNvp6QJ_Eo
EM: Agreed. If the ball-on-a-string were useful, then the Moon/Earth pairing would only last a very short time. Only until the Earth had wrapped the string around it.
IIRC the Earth’s circumference is 25,000 miles and the Moon is 250,000miles away.
They would collide after ten days.
Yup.
There really is no simpler, easier-to-understand analogy of orbital motion than a ball-on-a-string.
Yet Entropic man and RLH cannot understand the simple analogy.
And, being idiots, they can’t learn.
“There really is no simpler, easier-to-understand analogy of orbital motion than a ball-on-a-string.”
For ball-on-a-string the analogy may be useful. For anything else it is useless. It certainly does not represent orbital motion.
A string would have to thicker to lift the weight of the string for tens of km.
One focus on the string but most the way it would be rope or steel.
Or you could use pipe, and then you can send stuff down, inside a pipe. A something like this is what you call a lunar space elevator.
A lunar space elevator doesn’t need to get very close to Earth. It can dangle for say 1/3 to 1/2 the way to Earth down to surface of lunar surface.
And what this straight line coming up from lunar surface would point towards is the Earth/Moon barycentre.
Where ever the Moon is at zenith on Earth surface would above {and in middle] of the barycentre.
So goggle where is moon at zenith, now.
Hmm:
” Moon symbol = The Moon’s position at its zenith in relation to an observer (Moon phase is not shown).” And:
“Moon phase
The Moon is so close to the Sun that it is probably impossible to see from earth
Fraction of moon illuminated: 0%
Previous phase Third Quarter Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 1:15 pm ” So click that:
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/light.html?iso=20210731T131559
So it shows for july 31, 2021
I guess after Moon not is New, it shows it:
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/light.html
It’s funny to watch Ent and RLH frolic here.
Neither has a clue about orbital motions or physics. They can’t even understand the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string!
Clueless.
It is you who are clueless. About orbits, inertia, motion and a lot of other things.
Clint R at 5:25 AM
So, no answers, just more unhinged rantings.
At least now we know you believe science is cult. That explains a lot about your comments. Sounds like a personal problem though!
Tyson
We do not discuss Clint D’s personal problem. One should not mock the afflicted.
Entropic man at 9:17 AM
Fair enough.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-785789
You are in a ‘cult’ of ‘flat earthers’ for sure.
The trolls were out in full force this morning. Unfortuneately, I don’t have time for all the nonsense, so I’ll just address the funnier ones.
Folkerts indicates how confused he is about orbital motions:
“A fun ‘stumper’ question. If the earth became tidally locked to the moon, would it be rotating on its own axis?
They can’t think for themselves. If they can’t find an answer on the web, they’re stumped.
RLH comes up with another of his classics:
“If it was a ball-on-a-string then, as the Earth rotates about 27 times faster than the Moon orbits, the pairs lifetime would be short indeed.”
Obviously RLH is confused about something, but it’s anyone’s guess as to what. He tried for a long time to discredit the ball-on-a-string. But then I linked him to three different “.edu” sites that used the simple analogy. I usually just ignore his nonsense, unless it’s especially revealing like this one. The idiot has no clue.
TM decides to copy Bindidon, by listing a group of scientists believing in the “appeal to authority”. But, he doesn’t realize that the majority of those named would NOT support the Moon nonsense.
Entropic man chimes in with his immature attempts to insult. He’s the one that couldn’t solve the easy problem. After his rambling, he ended with:
“You don’t give enough information to do the calculation for your barbell, so I’ll let you do it.
Translation: Ent has no clue about the relevant science.
So, another 245 words and you still will not answer my question:
do you believe all of science is a cult? Is it just Physics? What about Chemistry?
P.s.:What about Physical Chemistry?
One can have cult about anything {and humans are trying everything]
so you have cult about Jesus Christ. It says nothing about Jesus Christ. The real thing it says is that Jesus Christ is famous.
The landing on the Moon was also famous, and there various cults regarding that.
There seemed to be cult {not fully formed] about Governor of New York State. So even lying politicans could have cults. But I would say, Andrew M. Cuomo deserves/earned such horrible people as as drooling “followers”. And there are few people would deserve it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-785789
?They cant think for themselves.
It was a stumper for you, Clint, not for me. I know the answer.
“TM … listing a group of scientists…”
Yes, fifteen centuries of this thing you call a cult.
You’re welcome!
“He tried for a long time to discredit the ball-on-a-string.”
He didn’t have to discredit ball-on-a-string, you do that all by yourself.
Tyson, Tim, please stop trolling.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
UAH latest month with Land & Ocean added
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-2.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-tropics.jpeg
Southern areas
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-southern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-south-pole.jpeg
Northern areas
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-northern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-north-pole.jpeg
With added SavitzkyGolay filters.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-1.jpeg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming
“U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming”
“But as climate scientists face this alarming reality, the climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist. Many of the worlds leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models, which in other respects are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors, into useful guidance for policymakers. Its become clear over the last year or so that we cant avoid this, says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
rlh…”Its become clear over the last year or so that we cant avoid this, says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
***
The same Gavin Schmidt who helped declare 2014 ‘the hottest yeah eveh’ based on a 38% probability. Glad to see Schmidt getting his butt kicked. Guess Willard will have to wear a bag over his head since Schmidt is one of his authority figures.
old news:
–BEIJING More than 300 people died in recent flooding in central China, authorities said Monday, three times the previously announced toll.
The Henan provincial government said 302 people died and 50 remain missing. The vast majority of the victims were in Zhengzhou, the provincial capital, where 292 died and 47 are missing. Ten others died in three other cities, officials said at a news conference in Zhengzhou.–
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/03/1024205144/china-flooding-higher-death-toll
Does this mean it’s more dangerous to live in a provincial capital
or that they count the ones in provincial capitals?
?!lamron ot
kcab og ot
stnaw ohW
?he ,egnahc etamilc ,spahreP .erom yna neppah t’nseod siht yhw rednow I .]yadot neve ro neht kcab anihc ni )?era(erew ereht elpoep ynam woh swonk yllaer eno on sseug i[ elpoep 0000073 dna 000004 etamitse eht neewteb dellik anihc ni sdoolf ]!enoyreve ,keew a ni gnimoc ni yrasrevinna sraey 09[ 1391 fo tsugua ni :swen redlo neve nI
[read this with an evil doll voice] !enigne golb cinomed ylurt emos tog s’recnepS rD .sdrawkcab ti tsop ot elba yllanif saw i ,looC
coturnix
That was an interesting read. Yes I had read about the terrible floods in China. The problem with the Media reporting on severe weather events is they have zero context or desire to research past extremes.
i had to write like that. The human speech didn’t pass the cray-zee filter of the blog engine, and since i could not figure which word(s) were triggering it (or otherwise why would it be triggered, as my comment was tame and on topic), i tried something entirely new to pass and it worked!
cotrurnix…I think Norman is likely to find your writing very easy to read. He just can’t read text in textbooks.
coturnix…I think Norman is likely to find your writing very easy to read. He just can’t read text in textbooks.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Cities on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River will face nearly $2 billion in damages from climate change through 2025, according to a new survey of municipalities in the basin.
That’s on top of nearly $880 million spent since 2019 as the world’s largest freshwater system experiences more extreme weather events, unpredictable swings in lake levels, and changes in precipitation and evaporation rates, officials said.
“High water levels, paired with severe storm events and wave action, are leading to greater erosion and flooding that threaten public and private properties, critical infrastructure, and recreation and tourism amenities in shoreline communities,” said Walter Sendzik, chair of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative and mayor of St. Catharines, Ontario.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cities-along-the-great-lakes-face-rising-water-and-costs/
Just wait till the ice is a mile thick over Toronto. Then there will really be bleating and beating of breasts.
Yeah, I don’t know if the orbital forcing can win over the alleged GHE, the highest point of the reglaciation was supposed to have been passed like a millenium ago and the ice sheet still isn’t there. I suppose there is still time and if the pause really is due to the co2 and/or land use and if we the humen manage to curb it within a few hundreds of years – perhaps the reglaciation would still commence/resume. I’d like to see that for sure, though mostly for the sake of curiosity, living in the frozen wasteland ain’t easy; just compare how many people live saudi arabia where the climte is already supposedly unbearably hot (34 million; example, in mecca, mat=+31C, mwmt=+36C, city p0pultion=2 million), and say north-west territories where climate is on the other end of the extreme (45 thousands, almost half of them in yellowknife where mat=-4C, mwmt=+17C, a city on the warmer side of the territory).
An ice age is nothing compared to an alien invasion, cot.
one will trigger the other: all the aliens will vite democratic, who will switch to the renewable energy sources, crash the economy (for good) and thus restart the ice age.
IT’S A BIG ICE CONSPIRACY
@slick willlie
extra co2 is the only thing that keeps us from the imminent reglaciation, do you agree?
Cot, cot, cot,
CO2 poisoning is a thing.
Do you agree?
yes, as is water poisoning, oxygen poisoning and even nitrogen poisoning! It’s hard to believe, but out of these substances, co2 has some of the largest range of acceptable concentrations! technically, it is slightly behind water, but otherwise quite close to it. Do you agree?
So, cot cot cot, do you know the optimal level of CO2 for life on Earth?
Asking for a Doc friend at Judy’s.
oops, posyed to a wrong thread, see a few comments below
Willard, please stop trolling.
No U, Kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
No U
@slick willie
anything between 200 and 8000ppm would work. A 40-fold range, try changing oygen, nitrogen or water by half of that “and then this happened”…
note, that different part of the ecosystem would prefers different levels. Forests would want more, like 600-800 and up, while grasslands may feel *relatively* better off at 200 or 300, and so on.
That range is too big to be an optimal range
Reaching 8000 ppm might change the climate in a way that would be unfavorable to many species.
Do you agree?
@slick willie
u’r right, that’s not an optimal range, that’s the physiologically acceptable range. I don’t know what the optimal range is, let alone whether it exists. As i had pointed out, different ecosystems and different organisms strive for different ranges. Forests definitely would prefer much higher than today, and everyone loves forests, right? ironically, not me though ^-^. Unless they are gallery forests, parklands or open savanna; closed-canopy forests depress me. So, for forests, something like between 1000-2000ppm would be optimal, but i’d probably would not want to go above 1200ppm for the reasons stated above, and for me, given that i like a balance between forests and grasslands, ideal would be around 600-700ppm since above that grasslands begin to progressively lose competition to the forests. However, from the purely scientific pov, I’d really like to see what happens to the earth climate for various values in the range of 600 to 1200 ppm.
Interestingly, if you take geometric mean of 200 (roughly lowest tolerable co2 by most forest ecosystems) and 8000 (highest long-term tolerable by humans and other such animals) you get 1265ppm. I’d say it is a good compromise, and looks like what perfect value is… unfortunately, unfavourable to the grasslands.
>>Reaching 8000 ppm might change the climate in a way that would be unfavorable to many species.—
I agree, unfavorable to some, favorable to others. Within the last 300-400 ma since dry-land-terrestrial ecosystems evolved, it is likely from all i read that co2 never went over 4000ppm long-term (eg, long enough to be registered in the proxy records), so perhaps we should be extra cautious before going over that number. But either way, it is a looong way away from now. If we;re adding 2.5 ppm per year, it would take us around 70 years to get to 600ppm (actually, much sooner than it feels), 150 to get to 800ppm, and 340 years to get 1265. Now, getting to the first threshold of 2000ppm would take 630 years, and to 4000ppm – 1430 years. The absolute ‘no-crossing’ limit thus is around 3000 years away… although it is probably closer given that teh co2 emission might increase even furthjer, and/or natural uptake may decrease. The point is this: while we’re influencing nature and changing it in a way we might like or not, we’re still pretty far away from the absolute catastrophee. If in a 1000 years humenkind doesn’t invent any kind of adequate alternative to the fossil fuels, i’d say we surely deserve any catasrophee coming our way ^-^. but i’m pretty sure someone will do that… probably not me, but there are lots smart people out there and if the socialists don’t interfere in the creation process with their unreasonable resource management (as they are constantly trying, fools), someone will eventually come up with something. just keep trying until something works. Cheerz.
Thanks, cot.
Here’s how I solved Doc’s problem:
> Suppose he offers you to play Russian roulette. The only reason why youd bother to calculate the odds would be if youd accept. Once you refuse to play, no need to determine optimal strategy.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/09/ipcc-ar6-wg1-discussion-thread/#comment-957400
Yeah, life is like that. Climate is like that. Warming climate is RR, cooling climate is RR, UNCHANGING climate is RR as has been demonstrated by the history countless times. The only way out of this game is not to play by climate’s rules, but make climate play by your rules. And the only way to do it is to move forward, not backward, upwards not forwards, and always perfecting and increasing our energy consumption, trying to wean away as from the environmentally sensitive energy sources dependent on that evil climate. That includes pretty much all the sources we use today with the exception of nucular (though it sucks in the form it exists today), including wind, hydro, fossil fuels, and as long as we are on earth – the solar as well.
@slick willie
the easiest and fastest way to go zero carbon today is not to rplace coal and oil but to fix co2 into carbonates in the ocean by increasing its alkalinity though dumping crushed mafic rocks into it. And doesn’t even require the eponymous ‘collective action. Can be done by any NGO big enough to buy and run a fleet of rotary bucket excavateurs.
In other words, stop b*tching and start digging ^-^
No U
@slick willie
yeah ok, point taken. carbon-neutral (is what i proposed here) is not the same as zero-carbon. I think your best chance of going zero-carbon-zero is to devise a virus that would kill or sterilize humanity. But as the black death had shown, even the best virus is powerless to stop hums, just temporarily retard hums’ progress. because face it, all other alternatives are about just unrealistic as a safe and effective cold fusion. I want cold fusion. Not because it is carbon-free (see above, i don’t mind some co2), but despite it. because, with carbon hums can’t really achieve much more than we already achieved. We can’t even properly go to the moon! or build cheap and effective skiing lounges/tanning salons at the south pole. Coal and oil need to b replaced not because they are bad, but because they are not good enough. That’s what the REAL progressivism is about.Which means, it is pointless to replace it with the deeply inferior, obsolete or unscalable energy sources such as wind, hydro, or demiurge forbids, geothermal or biomass. Those are third grade, low quality and low quantity energy sources that are only good for managing the energy starvation in the most desperate scenarios…. the failing scenarios, and if you plan for failure that’s what you’re gonna get. Solar and nuclear are the only two currently fathomable energy sources that are worth developing, but due to both technological and more importantly – political limitations, neither of them seems to be ready for mass deployment. hums learned it the hard way about nuclear, and will learn that about the solar soon. Hence, no alternative to burning carbon for now, hence – one has t either put up with co2 rise and try to make the best of the situation, or offset it with carbon capture, of which i suggest dumping massive amounts of magnesium/calcium silicates into oceans would be some of the eaasiest and the funnies =). You don’t want either, which makes you what? a foolish dreamer at best, the enemy of the hums at worst.
Well, cot, wiping off humanity might not be quite consistent with going Carbon Zero, which is to save humanity for dire consequences.
I’ll try to remember your line of argument for that underappreciated Bingo Square:
https://climateball.net/but-accelerate/
Unless you’d settle for education? Hans Rosling told us that educating women was the best contraceptive.
>>Well, cot, wiping off humanity might not be quite consistent with going Carbon Zero, which is to save humanity for dire consequences.—
With current or even near-future tech, that would be Victoire la Pyrrhus, an unacceptable outcome. Therefore, going zero carbon now is a dick move. I’d rather play russia roulette, particularly as up here in a borderline subarctic climate i don’t feel like i’m losing. Too bad for those people in pakistan, they should move to canada. Oh wait, they aready do. Perhaps, they should move to russia then, it’s closer and less of a cultural shock probably. Or up into tibet. Or perhaps appreciate the idea, that 40C with AC might still be a better option than 35C without one. I mean, in their climate perhaps even solar would be worthwhile in offsetting AC power draw.
>> Unless youd settle for education? Hans Rosling told us that educating women was the best contraceptive.—
oh yeah, I so forgot about that option. It would work at least in reining-in the growth, but I would warrant you from drawing the easy cause-effect relationship from the observed data. All we know is that there is correlation, it is not outright clear what the mechanism of causation is. It might be trickier that one may expect.
If it’s not realistic to go Carbon Zero now, cot, chances are that it’s not as soon as possible.
Btw, more on the optimal co2. The thing about the current co2 increase, presuming it is fully due to humans, is that is will necessarily be transient.The natural sources of co2 are such, that even though they look dwarfed compared to what we allegedly emit, they’re actually pretty big, and ALL o the co2 present in mobile reservoirs at the surface, in which i include obviously atmosphere, biosphere, soils and peatlands, and the ocean with all its dissolved and suspended carbon – are completely turned over in half-a-million years or less, and that’s at the low volcanic activity that we have today. So yeah, on the timescales between 100 and 1000 thousand years, surficial co2 stops being an independent reservoir and becomes a dependent flow. dependent on what? I dunno, i suppose (paleo)geography mostly, the length of the ridges, the brightness of the sun, the galactic rays, axial tilt and other orbital parameters, temperature of the ocean in the arctic regions etc. So basically, the system now is tuned to keeping the low co2, and ourgeologically tiny injection will not make a long-term difference even if it produces short term spike into the 1000ths of ppm – that spike will be gone in a few to few dozens of millenia. and the meso/cenozoic trend of decreasing co2 towards extinction of the forests will resume. Haha, maybe i’d like that. Unless of course hums keep pumping co2 in the controllable fashion for millions of years, which is not very likely for us to exist that long, let alone stick to the such a long-lasting program of controllling the co2 by keeping it at a sweet spot of 800-1200ppm.
willard…”Cities on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River will face nearly $2 billion in damages from climate change through 2025, according to a new survey of municipalities in the basin”.
***
We have some seriously sick people running this planet. Naive and gullible as all git out. Most of them just shut down the planet over a virus that harms a tiny fraction of 1% of any population. Now they are bleating over a theory which has absolutely no scientific proof to back it.
Gordo,
It might still be time to join forces with the Pillow Guy and lead an insurrection to reestablish teh Donald for perpetuity.
Will you bring your engineering skills?
Willard, please stop trolling.
No U, Kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wriggly Wee Willy,
From your comment –
” . . .unpredictable swings in lake levels, . . .”
Powerful stuff, this CO2!
Causes high lake levels, and low lake levels. One minor problem, though, they are unpredictable. No problem for climate buffoons – even though they can’t say when, where, or how much levels will change – this just shows how scary climate change is! Unpredictable!
What a pack of dummies, just like you.
Face reality – all your peering into the future is completely useless.
If you are worried about CO2 – stop breathing. Every little bit helps, according to climate cultists.
You may be an idiot, but at least you are stupid.
Mike Flynn,
Mortuary Farce.
Willard, please stop trolling.
No U, Kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
maguff…”Those who have opposed climate sciences conclusions…”
***
Scott Johnson, the author of this propaganda, can’t tell the difference between climate science and the pseudo-science of climate models. John Christy of UAH has a degree in climate science, and Roy has a degree in meteorology, an equivalent. The science to which Johnson refers exists only in his myopic mind.
Gordon Robertson at 7:34 PM
It pleases me to see that this article https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/a-look-back-at-very-bad-predictions-of-global-cooling/ struck a nerve, it hit a vain!
vein
Tyson, please stop trolling.
rlh…”EM: Agreed. If the ball-on-a-string were useful, then the Moon/Earth pairing would only last a very short time. Only until the Earth had wrapped the string around it”.
***
So, set up your string/rope and attach it to the near side of the Moon, the side that always faces the Earth. To allow the rope to turn, we must create a slit in the Earth so it’s like a yo yo (aka spinner/climate alarmist).
The slit is aligned with the orbital plane so the Moon can orbit while being held in place by the rope. Can you see it now??? The near side must always face the Earth and the Moon orbits fine without rotating on its axis.
Why is this so difficult for you? The Moon cannot possibly rotate because the tension on the rope prevents it from turning on its axis.
Come on, this is seriously simple physics. Forget the idiocy of reference frames, just LOOK at the problem. You’d flunk 1st year engineering physics if you could not visualize this as a prerequisite to solving the problem (free body diagram).
Of course, the profs would not allow you to get away with straight visualization, they’d require deeper proof, like the radial lines and tangent lines I provided for you.
I fail to understand how anyone with a Masters degree cannot follow the radial/tangent line example I provided, along with the airliner.
ps. obviously the Earth is rotating but for this problem ignore that. We are testing the string/ball theory.
“To allow the rope to turn, we must create a slit in the Earth so its like a yo yo (aka spinner/climate alarmist).”
So what is sauce for the goose….
Now make a corresponding slit in the Moon and tie the string off at its central point too. Make the tie points frictionless.
What then makes the Moon (and not the Earth) face inwards?
“Come on, this is seriously simple physics. “
Centripetal acceleration is also seriously simple physics. Even simpler than what you are trying to describe here.
If you don’t grasp a = v^2/r, do you suppose that just maybe, the fault here is with you, and not with 100’s of textbooks and 1,000’s of trained scientists and engineers?
Tim, please stop trolling.
coturnix…”..taking about any motion is pointless without specifying the frame of reference. If you frame of reference is rotating with the moon, then the moon is not rotating about its own or any other axis in that particular FoR, if ypou choose aa FoR that rotates differently then in that particular one the moon does rotate”.
***
So if I see a car moving toward someone and I don’t specify a reference frame, it’s pointless to call out to warn the person? Or if I fall off something, I’m not really falling unless I specify a reference frame?
We are talking about local rotation of a rigid body. It is either turning about its axis/COG or it is not, despite viewing it from any reference frame. Local rotation is not defined by a reference frame, it is defined based on an angular velocity/momentum about an axis.
I studied many problems related to motion in my engineering physics class and not once did were we required to specify a reference frame. A reference frame has significance only when relative motion is involved. Other than that we don’t need one.
A good example is Coriolis force. There is no such thing and such a force is referred to as a fictitious force. That means a force APPEARS to be acting but there is no force present. It is fictitious. The human mind screws up reality, in other words.
Picture yourself standing on the roof of a carousel that is turning CW. A person inside the carousel throws a ball straight out from the carousel…no curve on the ball. To you, as observer, the ball appears to have a curved path, as if a lateral force is acting on it. That’s because you are moving relative to the ball and the ball appears to be curving to the left instead.
Not sure if this would work visually, you may need to track the ball and plot its instantaneous points on a graph. However, if the person on the carousel shot a flare straight out, its illuminated path would appear curved to you, especially at night. The degree of curvature would depend on how fast the carousel was turning.
There are myths that Coriolis force on the Earth causes railroad track to wear more on one track than the other. Or that it causes bathwater to turn in a certain direction as it flows down a drain. All bs. There is no force acting.
ps. forgot to add that the issues related to reference frames are necessary only for humans. Human minds are notorious for distorting what is seen and they are incapable of following complex relative motion.
Because a human sees the Moon as rotating from a certain reference frame has nothing to do with whether it is rotating in reality. If it is not rotating physically, with an angular momentum, it is not rotating in any reference frame despite what the distorted human mind sees.
It is impossible for the Moon to keep the same side facing the Earth and still rotate through 360 degrees about a local axis. That should be readily apparent, and if it’s not, the observer needs to take a closer look.
Gordon
“Because a human sees the Moon as rotating from a certain reference frame has nothing to do with whether it is rotating in reality. If it is not rotating physically, with an angular momentum, it is not rotating in any reference frame despite what the distorted human mind sees.”
Exactly!
Also human cannot see atmosphere is very thin and therefore atmosphere does not warm Earth.
Human feel comfortable at the sea level pressure. But only few km above it is impossible to survive without oxygen masks.
It is kind of reference frame for human mind too!
“It is either turning about its axis/COG or it is not, despite viewing it from any reference frame.”
Yes. That is the core of the whole issue. The problem is that you insist on viewing from your own preferred reference frame. One that is itself rotating to track the orbit of the moon.
The thing is, there are many ways to measure whether an object is turning. For example, a Foucault Pendulum changes orientation because the earth is turning — ie because it is rotating on its axis. If you could stop the earth from rotating on its axis (relative to the stars — not relative to the moon or the sun) then the Foucault pendulum would swing straight back and forth.
Same for the moon. A Foucault Pendulum at the North POle of the moon would very slowly change orientation relative to the surface — a complete 360 degrees every 27 days. A “fictitious force” would make it look like it was turning, but in fact it would keep the same orientation relative to the ‘fixed stars’.
Only by stopping the moon from rotating on its axis (ie, keeping the same orientation relative to the stars) would the fictitious force disappear and the pendulum would swing straight back over the same line on the moon.
TF, a Foucault Pendulum is something else you don’t understand. Like “the stars”, the pendulum cannot tell the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”.
You understand very little of this issue.
Your permanent answer to any question that you cannot answer is that the other person understand very little/nothing about the issue.
Just shows that you are deficient, not then.
Them not then. Damn fingers.
Troll RLH, you couldn’t solve the easy problem. You know nothing, and you can’t learn.
But, you troll really, really well.
The easy part is in observing you are wrong. The difficult part is in getting you to see your own errors. Even if the rest of science is in agreement with me.
You would have some credibility RLH, if you had been able to solve the simple problem. You would have some credibility if you had been able to face reality about the simple analogy.
But, you ended up with no credibility.
(I won’t respond to your nonsense.)
The only way to ‘solve the simple problem’ is to admit you were right. As you aren’t that is impossible.
“Like ‘the stars’, the pendulum cannot tell the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”.”
The pendulum cares not a whit about the words you want to use. The pendulum only reacts to rotation. “Orbiting” is immaterial. If the pendulum is a in a rotating frame, it changes orientation relative to that frame (but maintains) its orientation relative to a non-rotating frame
This is just one of many ways to measure rotation. We could use a gyroscope or the sensor on my phone or other even more sensitive sensors. All give the same answer — moon IS rotating. It has angular momentum about its axis.
TF, a Foucault Pendulum is something else you don’t understand. The pendulum cannot tell the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”.
You understand very little of this issue.
Yeah, just keep repeating. That will convince people.
Clint R just keeps on repeating his view. Without realizing that it is garbage.
When dealing with cultists, the first problem is the “deprogramming”. Cultists immediately discard anything that challenges their belief system. Then, they resort to tactics like “appeal to authority”, insults, and false accusations.
They just keep chanting their indoctrination like: “All give the same answer — moon IS rotating. It has angular momentum about its axis.”
They don’t accept reality, so they can’t learn.
You are the cultist here.
Cultists immediately discard anything that challenges their belief system. Then, they resort to tactics like “appeal to authority”, insults, and false accusations.
You are describing yourself.
“I studied many problems related to motion in my engineering physics class and not once did were we required to specify a reference frame. ”
Actually, you were required. As an obvious example, calculating the speed of an airplane RELAVIVE TO THE GROUND or REALTIVE TO THE MOVING AIR is explicitly specifying a reference frame. Or from the frame of the driver, there is an outward “centrifugal” force, but from the frame of a person standing on the ground, there is an inward “centripetal force.”
Other problems had an implicit frame of reference. Every time you say “a car starts at x=0”, you are defining a frame of reference!
tim…”As an obvious example, calculating the speed of an airplane RELAVIVE TO THE GROUND or REALTIVE TO THE MOVING AIR is explicitly specifying a reference frame”.
***
Tim…my point is that you can solve those problems without specifying a reference frame. You can solve our Earth-Moon orbital problem without specifying a reference frame.
If I mark off a quarter mile track, and set my car up at the start line, rev my motor, burn some rubber, and someone measures the amount of time it takes me to get to the quarter mile mark, I don’t need to make reference to a reference frame.
If a math-based philosopher comes along and says, “Ah, but what is your relative speed as seen from Mars”?, no one cares. We don’t care that we are traveling through space at about 17,000 miles an hour, we are interested only in our quarter mile time.
With our Earth-Moon problem we are not concerned with what the Moon looks like it is doing from a distant star, we want to know what it is doing locally, with no reference frame involved. We want to know if it is rotating about its axis, which would require an angular velocity about that axis. Any vector representing the lunar surface rotating about the lunar axis is obviously wrt the axis. We know that, it does not require a statement to that fact.
I am asking how it is possible for the Moon to have an angular velocity about its axis when it always keeps the same face pointed at the Earth? So, I have drawn a form of freebody diagram in which a radial line is drawn from Earth’s centre right through the Moon’s centre.
To represent the face always pointed at Earth, I have drawn a line perpendicular to that radial line where the radial line pierces the near face. Again, it is obvious that the radial line is rotating wrt the Earth’s core because it is tracking the Moon which is orbiting wrt the same core.
None of that has to be stated with a reference frame, it is obvious. I base that line on the fact that the near side represents a tangential plane perpendicular to the radial line. Therefore the perpendicular line is a tangential line as well of the orbit traced out by the near side. So, the inner face traces out a circle if one presumes a circular orbit.
It should be obvious from that alone that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate about its axis if its inner face is moving in a circle about the Earth.
Such a tangent line represents the instantaneous rate of change of the orbital path of the near face. I realize, with a rigid body, that the COG is where the orbital path is normally located but the near face supplies a convenient orbital path for my example. If you want, you can draw a tangent line, perpendicular to the radial line, to represent an orbital circle for the COG.
Therefore, that tangential line, representing the near face, is always perpendicular to the radial line. That means, as the radial line turns with the Moon that the tangent line will continually point in all directions of the compass during one orbit. You don’t need to view it wrt the stars, the tangent line of the orbital curve itself demonstrates clearly why the Moon continually re-orients during one orbit.
If you draw a similar tangent line to represent the far face, that tangent line represents an outer concentric circle. Including the COG circular orbit, you now have three concentric circles representing the motion of the near side, the COG, and the far side.
This is poof positive that the Moon cannot rotate about its axis and you have no way of refuting it, whether or not you employ every possible reference frame imaginable.
Why is it you never trying to rebut my mathematical analysis? Neither did NASA, they just mumbled something about the perspective of the stars and shut up. I know why, they don’t have a rebuttal.
“If I mark off a quarter mile track, and set my car up at the start line, rev my motor, burn some rubber, and someone measures the amount of time it takes me to get to the quarter mile mark, I dont need to make reference to a reference frame.”
The start and finish lines at a quarter of a mile are your reference frame.
If you look at the stars (or the Sun) from the Moon, they move in a rotation about the Moon’s axis. That motion will continue regardless if the Earth is present or not.
The fact that you did not understand what NASA said is your fault, not theirs.
“If I mark off a quarter mile track, and set my car up at the start line, rev my motor, burn some rubber, and someone measures the amount of time it takes me to get to the quarter mile mark, I dont need to make reference to a reference frame.”
But you just explicitly defined your reference frame — one co-moving with the earth!
“If a math-based philosopher comes along and says, Ah, but what is your relative speed as seen from Mars?, no one cares. “
Exactly! So why should anyone care about “Ah, but what is your relative rotation rate as seen by someone rotating once every 27.3 days?”
“So, I have drawn a form of freebody diagram in which a radial line is drawn from Earths centre right through the Moons centre.”
And again, you just explicitly defined your reference frame — with the origin at the earth’s center and co-rotating with a vector from the earth to the moon.
“the tangent line of the orbital curve itself demonstrates clearly why the Moon continually re-orients during one orbit.”
Yes! “Continually reorienting” = rotating! That is the definition!
“This is poof positive …
I could pick three random points on a merry-go-round. They would also draw three concentric circles. It seems that using your exact logic, I now have ‘proof positive’ that a spinning merry-go-round is not rotating! If not, what specifically makes one set of concentric circles “rotating” but another set “not rotating”?
Tim, please stop trolling.
The Russians
Chilingar,,Sorokhitin Khilyuk,And Liu [2014 ”Adiabatic Theory as to the Cooling of Planet Earth’s Atmosphere ]
Their science points out that ”Extra CO2 may even cause cooling.
I sent a copy of their papers to Dr. Jock Allison to Review for me .
He came to the same conclusion .Those Russians ? Sound science
William Partridge
By Thomas Sumner
December 10, 2015 at 7:00 am
–“We’re not saying the greenhouse effect is rubbish,” says Justus Notholt. He is an atmospheric physicist at the University of Bremen in Germany. It’s just that “in Antarctica, the situation is different.–
“Greenhouse gases prevent some of the sun’s energy from escaping back into space. But human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, have increased the amount of these gases in the atmosphere. As a result, temperatures have risen most everywhere.
Except central Antarctica.”
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/carbon-dioxide-has-unexpected-effect-antarctica
And:
“Those surfaces reflect sunlight. But, as in other places around the world, carbon dioxide in the stratosphere over Antarctica soaks in heat. And that sends infrared radiation pinballing in different directions. That siphons some heat into space that might otherwise remain near Earth.
Elsewhere, this effect is normally overshadowed by the trapping of heat from the ground. But in Antarctica, so little heat comes from the ground that the loss becomes significant. What results is an overall cooling.”
Hmm.
There are some places in Russia that can also get cold.
But idea that very very trace C02 far up in the thin stratosphere
are going to warm or cool anything is just silly.
Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will definitely result in cooling. Although the cooling will not be drastic because CO2 emits so little energy.
Clint R
Time to “man-up”! Do you have any measured values to support your assertion?
YOU: “Although the cooling will not be drastic because CO2 emits so little energy.”
What amount is it, let us know.
Also CO2 emission will cool the Stratosphere but not the other layers. You have to develop more than one direction to come up with a valid hypothesis. CO2 emits up but also down. So how much is emitting up and how much down? Do you have any values for each of these?
“Man-up”??? Sexism doesn’t go with your cross-dressing, Norma.
Atmospheric CO2 emits mainly the 15μ photon. That photon has very little energy, but once it leaves Earth, it is gone. Earth cools by that insignificant amount. But, if more CO2 is added, more energy leaks to space. The end result might even be a few tenths of a degree, for a doubling of CO2. We could try to double atmospheric CO2 and see if we can detect the reduction in temperature.
Also Norman, are you willing to admit you were an idiot by claiming the ball-on-a-string is an invalid model, now knowing that the model is widely used in academia?
Or, are you going to remain a braindead cult idiot, denying reality and hurling insults?
The ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else.
RLH opts to remain a braindead cult idiot.
That’s not much of a surprise….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
Clint R remains a supporter of impossible logic. No surprise there.
from comments:
“This suggests that we really need more deepsea observatories, and more widely distributed at that. They would be as important as space observatories, and a great deal cheaper.”
Hmm. First what is this:
“In fact, the majority of Earth’s volcanic activity occurs underwater and at depths of several kilometres in the deep ocean.”
https://theconversation.com/deep-sea-volcanic-eruptions-create-megaplumes-that-may-have-dispersed-early-life-159264
And might have something to do with beginning of life.
It seems animals on land wish get away from any volcanic eruption, whereas it’s different under kilometers of water. Anyhow some are saying more 80% volcanic eruption occur under the ocean. Other this:
“But many questions remain. It has long been thought that deep-sea eruptions themselves are rather uninteresting compared to the variety of eruptive styles observed on land.” And:
“But data collected via remotely operated submarine vehicles has shown that tephra deposits are surprisingly common on the seafloor. Some marine micro-organisms (foraminifera) even use this volcanic ash to construct their shells. These eruptions are probably driven by expanding bubbles of carbon dioxide.”
Megaplumes mystery
In our study, we used a mathematical model to explain the dispersal of submarine tephra through the ocean. Thanks to detailed mapping of a volcanic ash deposit in the north-east Pacific, we know that this tephra can spread up to several kilometres from the site of an eruption. This cannot be explained easily by tides or other oceanic currents. Our results instead suggest that the plumes must be highly energetic.” and
“The heat transfer required to drive this flow, and carry the tephra with it, is surprisingly large at around one terawatt (double that required to power the entire USA at once)”
But back to deepsea observatories.
Well, why not use aircraft carriers. Why not put remotely operated submarine vehicles on Aircraft carriers, or a way get them to aircraft carriers, or perhaps any naval ship. Aircraft carrier would easier to fly in scientists which long distance away from them.
In terms oceanic base, it seems they should be near volcanic active areas and purpose of “deepsea observatories” is to improve the ability to predict when in area near base volcanic will erupt in the future. And this would also help in globally predicting when they will occur.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
But a new study from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) predicts a far wetter future for Lake Turkana – and possibly a more perilous one for the 15 million people who live on its shores.
The report found that over the next 20 years, climate change could likely lead to heavier rains over Lake Turkana’s river inflows, which would raise water levels in the lake itself and increase the likelihood of severe flooding.
The study urged officials in Kenya and Ethiopia, which both border Lake Turkana, to prepare for a future in which once-rare floods, such as those that hit the region in 2019 and 2020, are regular occurrences.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/climate-change-could-spark-floods-worlds-largest-desert-lake-new-study
oh boy, its going to be raining more frequently in A DESERT. wHAT A HORRIBLE FUTURE WE ARE LIVING IN!
If CO2 could be removed from Earth’s atmosphere, cheaply and quickly what CO2 level would you think is a good level?
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 2 days
2021 total: 53 days (24%)
Cosmic Rays Solar Cycle 25 is beginning, and this is reflected in the number of cosmic rays entering Earth’s atmosphere. Neutron counts from the University of Oulu’s Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory show that cosmic rays reaching Earth are slowly declining–a result of the yin-yang relationship between the solar cycle and cosmic rays.
200 DAYS OF SUNSPOTS: Soumyadeep Mukherjeee never misses a day. The indefatigable astronomer in Kolkata, India, has photographed the sun for 200 days in a row–and this is the result:
https://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=176873
I’m not in favor of anyone trying to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
CO2 is essential for life. If we had the means to remove CO2 from the atmosphere its not hard to imagine some poor mother’s son screwing it up and removing too much.
A much better question is how we keep the temperature of the earth as high as it is when all evidence suggests the current Holocene interglacial is going to end.
Optimum CO2 is around 800-1200 ppm so you have it backwards
CO2 optimum is around 800 – 1200 ppm , so you have it ass backwards
Well I think 600 ppm would be good. But the increase has been less than 25 ppm per decade. It has never been more than this and it’s unlikely that within 30 years global CO2 will be higher than 500 ppm.
If it’s been discovered that China has been lying about their CO2 emission [it could be much higher than they report] I am not going to think Chinese government did the right thing by lying about their CO2 emissions. If we assume China is accurately reporting {and they have never done this before] then China CO2 emission is leveling off. But China is burning so much coal, it doesn’t much matter what China reports, they we run out of coal within about 30 years.
And no other country is going to repeat “a china”, it just too stupid for them to do, nor is necessary to do it, and China had a lot of coal and China been mining coal for centuries- and most this time, china has burning it very inefficiently. And currently China paying about $150 per ton of coal. Most other countries would not pay this much for coal. Most countries would count more than $150 per ton as not mineable. Though $150 per ton of Coal is similar to cost of burning wood and western countries have subsidize burning wood at even higher cost then China is paying for Coal. And of course there is also the wind mills and solar panel which even more costly but in terms CO2 level these are not causing as much CO2 emission as burning wood.
And in terms billions of people, there a lot wood and dung being burned and it like this CO2 emission is being counted- because not much in the stupid industrial burning of wood, it’s being done because there no other choice of better fuel. So the rest of world might get to level lower CO2 emission per more useful energy use. And we have much more efficient energy use for lighting these days, the costs of it, can go much lower.
Of course the other question is what going to happen within 30 years.
It seems we start having ocean settlements within 30 years.
It’s possible we will mining lunar water within 30 years.
And we will have better idea of whether we can settlements on Mars within 30 years. The rich man in the world, wants settlements on Mars sooner than 30 years, and wouldn’t rule it out. But we simply have not explored Mars enough, though exploration could indicate it’s possible within 20 or 30 years.
Other wild things are possible, like peace in Middle East.
The artificial greening of Sahara desert, and etc.
https://youtu.be/DSnc-Zh-myg
And therein lies the problem! Assuming you are being truthful, the obvious gap in your education is that engineers must take at minimum three Physics courses: General Physics, Eng. Physics I (Statics) and Eng. Physics II (Dynamics).
How you were awarded a degree having only taken one Physics course is a mystery, but you were cheated.
“A reference frame has significance only when relative motion is involved”
As motion only makes sense when relative to something else….
Tyson, please stop trolling.
I am assuming that all those people saying the Earth emits blackbody radiation live on a different planet to me.
Blackbody radiation is emitted from metal objects as they are heated and is a consequence of metallic bonding in those objects.
In covalent compounds which is the majority of the earths surface radiation is only emitted at certain frequencies.
See William Happer article ‘Radiation Transfer’ for details about why the blackbody radiation model works.
Mark Wapples
” Blackbody radiation is emitted from metal objects as they are heated and is a consequence of metallic bonding in those objects. ”
Duh.
Could you please read a bit about this blackbody concept?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation
The only difference between a planet and an idealized blackbody is that while the former has an albedo and partly reflects the radiation directed to it, the latter absorbs all that radiation.
J.-P. D.
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(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 Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ 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)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ 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 Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C 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
Why no calculation for Venus?
TYSON
“Why no calculation for Venus?”
The above calculations are for planets and moons without-atmosphere, or with a very thin atmosphere, as Earth and Titan have.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What’s your cut-off for a “thin” atmosphere?
Earth’s atmosphere is at 14.7 psi at sea level and 2.9 psi at 11 Km.
Titan’s atmosphere is 21 psi at the surface.
Mercury’s atmosphere is at 1.45E-10psi at surface.
TYSON
“What’s your cut-off for a “thin” atmosphere?”
I think Earth and Titan have thin atmosphere. Venus has thick atmosphere.
Jupiter also has thick atmosphere. No one knows how thick Jupiter’s atmosphere is, but it should be very thick.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 2:21 PM
None of you “skeptics” ever give a direct answer. thx
TYSON
“None of you skeptics ever give a direct answer. thx”
Why are you interested in the other planets atmospheric thicknesses?
Do you employ the planets* temperatures comparison method?
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 3:10 PM
“TYSON…
Why are you interested in the other planets atmospheric thicknesses?”
I’m not interested beyond understanding why you include planets with atmospheric pressures less than 1 psi at surface (Mercury and Mars) in the same calculation as Earth which has atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi at surface, and yet, say that “Earth has a “thin atmosphere.”
I am trying to understand what your definition of a “thin” atmosphere is.
It is not a trivial definition. Water boils at the temperature of the human body at the atmospheric pressures seen around 18 KM here on Earth. I call that thin up there; below that it is not.
Christos Vournas at 3:10 PM
Dr Spencer was talking to you…
TM, are you so closed-minded that you do not realize CV is doing exactly what Dr. Spencer mentioned: “…someone comes along with another quantitative model that uses different physics to get as good a simulation of the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere,”
Earth’s temperature does NOT need the GHE to be explained, as CV has demonstrated.
PS If you don’t like 288K, what should Earth’s average temperature be? Please show all work. And, if you use imaginary objects, it will only increase the humor.
To summarize:
Mercury= 1.45E-10 psi at surface.
Earth= 14.7 psi at sea level and 2.9 psi at 11 Km.
The Moon= 4.4E-14 psi at surface.
Mars= 0.095 psi at surface.
Titan= 21 psi at the surface.
TM,
To summarize –
Your comment is completely pointless.
For example, a cylinder of CO2 at 860 psi, and the same cylinder at 15 psi, will achieve precisely the same temperature as their surrounding environment.
Pressure is completely irrelevant, as far as pressure is concerned, if the gas is allowed to cool – as it will, if hotter than its environment.
The “gravito-thermal effect” is just as silly as the “greenhouse effect” – a myth clung to by the gullible and delusional.
Greenland melt data is discussed in disgust. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fIyvlnMsuc
ken…the climate propagandists would have been a massive hit in Hitler’s Nazi regime. Joseph Goebbels would have been demoted while the climate liars were promoted to lead the Ministry of Propaganda.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
H/T Kennui:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v66SPTYqF0
Greenland halts new oil exploration to combat climate change and focus on sustainable development
Kalistat Lund, the country’s minister for agriculture, self-sufficiency, energy and environment, said that the government “takes climate change seriously.”
“We can see the consequences in our country every day, and we are ready to contribute to global solutions to counter climate change,” Lund said. “Naalakkersuisut is working to attract new investments for the large hydropower potential that we cannot exploit ourselves. The decision to stop new exploration for oil will contribute to place Greenland as the country where sustainable investments are taken seriously.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/greenland-ends-oil-exploration-to-combat-climate-change-and-focus-on-sustainable-development/
maguff…”Greenland halts new oil exploration to combat climate change and focus on sustainable development…”
***
Load of Danish twits. They can no longer run around attacking innocent villagers based on Viking brutality, so they turn to getting a name for themselves by butt-kissing to climate authority. Eric the Red will be rolling over in his grave in embarrassment.
Gordo, you’re saying stuff once again in my thread.
You, not Eric, should be embarrassed.
Pray tell more about your experience in engineering.
willard…”Gordo, you’re saying stuff once again in my thread”.
***
Here’s a quarter, go call someone who cares.
I’d rather have a quarter each time you ignore my question regarding your engineering past, dear Gordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hmm, I wonder how many tons of O3 {ozone} is in the atmosphere:
“3 billion metric tons
The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth.”
So way less O3 above troposphere than CO2. But at region of peak concentration, could more tons of O3 than CO2.
So if compared the warming of CO2 that is above our troposphere vs O3 above our troposphere, which has larger warming effect.
My guess is warming from CO2 above 20 km is some number very close to zero. And Ozone might be more than 1 C.
Can’t say I have paid much attention to the topic. It seems it could be easy to monitor and not sure if there any clue of the past amounts of O3 in our upper atmosphere. I paid some attention to scam about the hole in ozone layer. And many claim that scam encouraged the global warming scam. So in terms of history it’s interesting.
gbaikie…”My guess is warming from CO2 above 20 km is some number very close to zero. And Ozone might be more than 1 C”.
***
Put another way, the lapse rate should be a linear line revealing the relationship of temperature to pressure from the high pressure surface to zero pressure space. It’s not, because temperature start to rise in the stratosphere due to O3 warming.
Or put another way, O3 is called a greenhouse gas, but it has nothing to do with longwave radiation.
It about a shortwave radiation.
It’s similar with calling droplets of sulfuric acid of Venus clouds a greenhouse gas [or calling it a powerful greenhouse gas].
“Today could be written in history as a turning point in the climate change crisis. The world’s leading authority on climate change will release a landmark report which warns that fire, floods, and extreme weather are just a hint of what’s to come in what has been called “an imminent and dire risk” to the global climate.
Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University, said this would be the last IPCC assessment that can make a real difference in policy terms — before we exceed 1.5 degree of warming.”
I don’t know how you can post such drivel suggesting 1.5C warming when the graph at the top of this thread shows there is not any warming that can be attributed to CO2. Those up and down swoops are showing climate is more than likely driven by the sun and moderated by ocean currents. Otherwise it would be a steady line going up exponentially in lockstep with CO2 increasing.
In reality, CO2 follows temperature in both short and long timescales. Salby has mathematically shown this. Others, like Chic and Bart, have posted the mathematical evidence on this blog many times. Salby has shown that CO2 evolves as the integral of temperature. Berry, Salby, Harde, and others have shown that natural emission is the dominant cause of CO2 increase since 1750, not fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a blip compared to natural emissions.
studentb…”Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University…”
***
-distinguished???????
-The same Mann who botched the Hockey Stick? The IPCC has since discarded the propaganda, replacing it with a graph with error bars that allow any kind of interpretation.
-the same Mann caught in the Climategate email scandal promoting the harassment of journal editors (interferring with peer review) and revealing a ‘trick’ that hides declines in global warming?
-the same Mann who made sexual slurs about scientist Judith Curry?
-the same Mann who claimed in a paper that Antarctica had warmed since 1950. He and his co-author Steig, a blatant alarmist, used warmer temperatures from the Antarctic Peninsula to skew the average. One of the stations they used for data was under 4 feet of snow.
The IPCC is no better, a political propaganda unit who cheats on their reviews by allowing a Summary for Policymakers, written by 50 politically-appointed Lead Authors, to re-write the reports written by 2500 reviewers.
The Summary is produced before the main report.
No objective person pays any attention to the propaganda from the IPCC.
binny…”Mark Wapples
Blackbody radiation is emitted from metal objects as they are heated and is a consequence of metallic bonding in those objects.
***
Mark is correct. When a metal is heated sufficiently, the electrons in the metal atoms at the surface emit electromagnetic energy that is proportional to the temperature. The spectra of EM emitted broadens as the metal heats up till it approaches the spectra of blackbody radiation.
This is the reality and can be measured. What you are quoting is highly theoretical and cannot be measured. The prefect blackbody is supposed to absorb all EM incident upon it but the Sun is a near perfect BB and it absorbs very little. The Sun is an emitter, not an absorber.
Once again, the 2nd law steps up. The only way the Sun could absorb EM is if the EM came from a hotter, nearby source. Highly unlikely.
maguff…”And therein lies the problem! Assuming you are being truthful, the obvious gap in your education is that engineers must take at minimum three Physics courses: General Physics, Eng. Physics I (Statics) and Eng. Physics II (Dynamics)”.
***
Statics and Dynamics were not full semester courses. We took Statics from Sept through Dec and Dynamics Jan through May. Those courses are what I refer to as engineering physics classes since the general physics course, a full semester course, was not about Applied Science (aka engineering).
We are talking about orbital mechanics and I studied that as part of my Dynamics course. Our application of freebody diagrams pertained only to Statics and Dynamics and we covered some of that visually in Engineering Drawing classes, especially with Statics. We learned how to calculate the true length of a line, for example, on curved surfaces like spheres and cylinders.
If I had been asked in an exam to prove whether or not the Moon rotates about its own axis, I would have proceeded as I have outlines several times on this blog. Furthermore, you should have understood clearly what I laid out as proof. The fact that you don’t understand what I have laid out is proof to me that either you never studied Dynamics or you failed to understand what you had learned.
That’s typical. I got a conversation going with a young Asian woman who had aced first year physics and math with 100% in each. I wanted to talk with her about practical matters in our engineering classes and she didn’t have a clue. Practical issues were foreign to her theoretical mind.
Another student was astounded, after being taught electrical theory via differential equations, that the L and C in the equations were real physical inductors and capacitors.
The worst example, however, came when I was working in an electronic manufacturers during one summer break. I’d returned as a mature student and had several years experience in electronics already. When an engineering engaged me to build prototypes, because he knew I had previous experience in the field, I felt aghast when looking at a drawing he gave me to follow.
The output transistors were drawn backwards. In a circuit employing a complementary NPN/PNP pair, the collector of the NPN goes to the positive power supply and the PNP collector goes to a negative, or ground source. I hesitated to challenge him then I had to. I approached him very diplomatically, asking if the transistors were drawn correctly.
He took one look and saw his mistake, then handed me a pad of paper, asking me to note any other mistakes. I found at least 10. He was a graduate engineer, albeit a very recent graduate.
People with degrees don’t necessarily know what they are talking about. Theoretical physicists and theorists in medicine can get away with that but engineers cannot, otherwise bridges collapse and electric circuits blow up. In medicine, people can die and they get away with it because human death is not as catastrophic as a bridge collapsing or a circuit blowing up.
I cannot for the life of me understand why you cannot see the logic in the radial line/tangent line examples I have produced. It is blatantly obvious that the side of the Moon facing the Earth cannot rotate away from that position, yet NASA is convinced it can. They cannot prove it but they spread that myth.
People like you are being lured into accepting the myth based on the rotation of a tangential vector through 360 degrees per orbit. You think it is rotating about the Moon’s axis whereas it is actually rotating about the Earth’s centre. Whereas the tengent line of the near face is rotating through 360 degrees about the Earth’s centre so is the tangent line of the far side, and in parallel.
Impossible for rotation about the axis to exist.
What is preventing you from seeing that?
Gordon Robertson at 9:00 PM
“If I had been asked in an exam to prove whether or not the Moon rotates about its own axis, I would have proceeded as I have outlines several times on this blog. Furthermore, you should have understood clearly what I laid out as proof. The fact that you dont understand what I have laid out is proof to me that either you never studied Dynamics or you failed to understand what you had learned. “
“People with degrees dont necessarily know what they are talking about.
“People like you are being lured into accepting the myth based on the rotation of a tangential vector through 360 degrees per orbit. You think it is rotating about the Moons axis whereas it is actually rotating about the Earths centre.”
In order to understand our planet’s and solar system’s context within their surroundings, we must be able to define, quantify, study, refine, and maintain an inertial frame of reference relative to which all positions and motions can be unambiguously and self-consistently described.
Newton was very clear about this.
TM, the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string negates are of your wandering blah-blah.
If the string does NOT wrap around the ball, the ball is NOT rotating.
If the string wraps around the ball, the ball is rotating.
You can’t understand such simple concepts. That’s why all your blah-blah means NOTHING.
The analogy of a ball-on-a-string only applies to a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else.
Wrong again, RLH.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
You often quote a ball-on-a-string but fail to realize that it does not apply to gravitationally connected bodies.
>>
If the string does NOT wrap around the ball, the ball is NOT rotating. —
yeah, but if the string ITSELF is rotating about one of its ends (in a non-rotating but otherwise accelerating coordinate system of the earth or the baricentre), then the ball does so in order to keep their relative position unchanged.
cot, do you understand any of this?
I can’t believe something as simple as a ball-on-a-string confuses you.
“as simple as a ball-on-a-string”
Is it as simple as you?
>>cot, do you understand any of this? I can’t believe something as simple as a ball-on-a-string confuses you.–
Firstly, the ball-on-a-string is a very, very crude model of the lunar orbital dynamics, about at the same level of approximation as a basketball being model of the sun. They look kinda similar, that’s about it.
Secondly, here’s what I think. I think you and people like you are crisis actors, hired to pretend to be climate skeptics to make the real climate skeptics look like complete morons by association. Simply because I can’t believe that anyone capable of using computers can be this thickk. The chances that you are a genuine troll seems quite unlikely to me as well, your persistence is more than what should be expected from someone who does this just for fun.
cot, as I stated, you understand very little about this issue.
You don’t even understand the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. You believe the simple analogy is a “very crude model of the lunar orbital dynamics”. That’s an example of your ignorance. The simple analogy is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That’s all!
It’s the same model used in academia. It is a correct model of “pure orbital motion”. One side of the orbiting body always faces the inside of the orbit.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
It’s very simple, yet you’re unable to understand it. You don’t have a clue about this issue, so you believe you can make up for your ignorance with personal attacks.
I predict you will not learn, will deny reality, and will still cling to your false beliefs.
“Its very simple, yet youre unable to understand it. You dont have a clue about this issue, so you believe you can make up for your ignorance with personal attacks.I predict you will not learn, will deny reality, and will still cling to your false beliefs.”
Translation to English from Clintspeak.
Its very simple, yet CLINT is unable to understand it. He doesnt have a clue about this issue, he never has science-based rebuttals, so he just responds with personal attacks.
Clint will not learn, will deny reality, and will ever cling to his false beliefs.
Sorry troll Nate, but you’re not “translating”, you’re “perverting”.
Perverting reality is what you do. You have NOTHING.
@clintr and all whom it concerns:
in fact, I am 100% sure now that you are a warmista plant, put here to play an insane ‘skeptic’ in order to make the real rational skeptics (eg, dr. spencer for example) look bad by association. I bet you even sit in the same room withj willar entropic amn and others laughing maniacally as you are playing out this charade =::::=
Clint R says: . . . The simple analogy is a model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’.
Maybe someone has already brought this up, but what do you think happens with the ball’s rotation or lack thereof if the string is detached while the ball is ‘orbiting’? In this analysis, consider at least the perspective of an observer looking down from the orbital axis, that is perpendicular to the plane of orbit.
Yes, Mark B (aka bdgwx), that has indeed been brought up before, many, many times. No matter what happens to the ball upon release, it does not change the fact that prior to release the ball is not rotating on its own axis, it is instead rotating about an axis that is external to the ball.
@dremt
>> No matter what happens to the ball upon release, it does not change the fact that prior to release the ball is not rotating on its own axis, it is instead rotating about an axis that is external to the ball.—
again, from a purely kinematic PoV the choice of the axis of rotation is purely arbitrary – you can always change to a different coordinate system and in which the axis about which the ball is rotating would be in any place you want. Ponder this situation: a baseball is flying straight and rotating, then which axis it is ‘rotating about’? In the coordinate system moving with the ball, it rotates about its centre, but from the point of view of the people on the ground, the location of the instantaneous axis of rotation would be different, it would move with the ball but would not be located in its centre and could even be located outside of the ball. But that’s exactly the same ball, get it? Or take for example a train wheel, from a PoV of the person in the car, the wheel rotates about its own axis, while from the PoV of people on the ground, the axis of rotation is located at the point there the wheel touches the rail, and hence moves with the train at the speed of the train (unless the train is boxing). Not only the speed, but also the position of the IAoR changes between the coordinate system of choice.
Enter dynamics. In dynamics, the situation is slightly more complicated, as there are privileged class of the coordinate systems – the inertial coordinate systems, and the one moving with the ball is not one of them. The apparent privilege of the cs/for of the stick that the string is attached clouds the judgement of weak-minded.
Comes the moon. Here the situation is yet even more different. Unlike the ball on a string which is constantly accelerated and is not an inertial frame of reference, the moon is in a freefall. In other words, you could argue that the FoR bound to the ball is accelerating and therefore is less privileged than the one of the stick to which the string is attached by its other end, but you cannot say that with the case of the moon. It is possible to locally choose of coordinate system which is locally inertial and in which the moon is standing still and not accelerating, except for rotation about its axis. Thus to say that the moon rotates about its own axis is fully justified both kinematically and dynamically, even in the framweork of the mind in which the ball-on-the-string does not.
There is only one possible axis of rotation for the ball on a string, regardless of reference frame. It is external to the ball, at the other end of the string (at the center of revolution, in other words). Simple as that.
@dremt repeating the statement like a woodpecker again and again without any follow-up argument… sigh. You just basically efining your own idea of the ‘axis of rotation’ that is different from that of all other people and then declare yourself a winner. I hope al-Gore pays you well for this.
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, regardless of frame of reference. I am just stating a fact. Sorry if that upsets you.
@dremt u’r stating a made-up fake fact, allison burgers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.”
@dremt up yours, dermt
Who’s "dermt"?
Gordon Robertson at 9:00 PM
“Statics and Dynamics were not full semester courses. We took Statics from Sept through Dec and Dynamics Jan through May. Those courses are what I refer to as engineering physics classes since the general physics course, a full semester course, was not about Applied Science (aka engineering). “
Gordon Robertson at 9:00 PM Exposed as a Liar (OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO)
On a positive note however, I discovered a band I’d never heard of and like, so there is that!
Tyson, please stop trolling.
binny…”The only difference between a planet and an idealized blackbody is that while the former has an albedo and partly reflects the radiation directed to it, the latter absorbs all that radiation”.
***
Don’t be silly. The theorized BB is a hollow sphere with a tiny hole in the surface to allow EM to escape. It’s an absurd idea created and perpetuated by theoretical physicists.
We have it backwards, the real world does not depend on thought experiments like BB theory, rather BB theory depends on the EM emitted from natural bodies like heated metal or the Sun.
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/11/blackbody-as-bottle-with-peephole.html
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2019/02/plancks-ugly-ad-hoc-trick-quantum.html
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Where Republicans Are Starting to Worry About Big Oil
Everyone likes the money from fracking. But as contaminated water spills across the North Dakota plains, a deep red state faces a question: What prevails, property rights or big business?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/08/06/north-dakota-republicans-oil-fracking-environment-502308
Willard, please stop trolling.
Currently ready a book by Freeman Dyson, Making of Patterns, who was regarded at the same level as Feynman in his time. The book is a series of letters written by Dyson and they outline briefly some of his theories and his interactions with scientists like Feynman.
He confided near the end of the 1940s that no one really understood nuclear physics. Today, in 2021, I don’t think we are any closer and I put that down to a century wasted on ridiculous thought experiments, lead by the likes of Einstein.
Feynman, who understood quantum theory as well as anyone, once commented that the theory works but no one knows why. I am skeptical of his comment that the theory works. It does work in chemistry and electronics at a very basic level but the nonsense later perpetuated by Bohr, the sci-fi version of quantum theory that prevails today, has never been proved.
As time goes by, (meaning as the Earth rotates and we humans insist on recording each rotation mentally), science is becoming more and more ridiculous. Yet, the scientists who perpetuate the nonsense are firmly in control with their paradigms. In the day of Dyson, Oppenheimer lobbied for a free exchange of information, but these days, anyone who contradicts the status quo is ostracized.
I just read that a Canadian doctor was fired, circa 2008, from his position as Chief Medical Officer in Manitoba for questioning how seriously H1N1 was regarded at the time. Have we turned into a race of science cretins?
BTW…Dyson was not supportive of model-based climate propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
“There is no climate emergency”…Dyson
“Dyson disagreed with the scientific consensus on climate change. He believed that some of the effects of increased CO2 levels are favourable and not taken into account by climate scientists, such as increased agricultural yield, and further that the positive benefits of CO2 likely outweigh the negative effects…. He was skeptical about the simulation models used to predict climate change, arguing that political efforts to reduce causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority. He also signed the World Climate Declaration entitled “There is No Climate Emergency”.
Blast from the Past:
http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2009/07/singer-refrains-from-environmental.html
Yeah, *that* Fred Singer.
willard the clown doesn’t bother to fact check a site that is claiming to fact check Fred Singer. The subtitle on the page states…”Trying to distinguish reality from propaganda and delusion”, yet the author of the page engages in propaganda and delusion.
Since when was Fred Singer engaged as an advisor to Environmental Geology? The author first claims he resigned then claims he is still listed on the Environmental Geology site. All it’s editions are archived and not available so we are forced to take Willard’s word on this.
Not likely.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/04/09/memoriam-dr-s-fred-singer-14705
“His many achievements include: Fellow at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, and NASA awarded him commendations for important contributions to space research.
His pioneering work at Johns Hopkins Universitys Applied Physics Lab led to discovery of the Van Allen Radiation Belt. His calculations with atomic clocks are now used in our GPS systems. He designed satellites and instrumentation to better explore our atmosphere (this work won him a White House commendation)”.
Let’s remind what kind of contrarian books Gordo is licking this time:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-is-too-short-to-occupy-oneself_21.html
Let us remind ourselves that Willard is an idiot.
No U.
rlh…”A reference frame has significance only when relative motion is involved
As motion only makes sense when relative to something else.”
***
I’m sitting in a comfy chair in front of my computer. So, it should make no sense if I engage in motion that gets me to the kitchen for a coffee?
Why are you hung up on the philosophy of motion? Just get up and walk. When you do that, are you always thinking to what your motion may be related?
BTW…where’s your rebuttal to my proof the Moon cannot rotate about its axis while keeping one face pointed at the Earth?
All motion is relative to something else. Otherwise there is no motion. Even for you and your chair.
What force is it and how is it applied that means that the Moon will always face the Earth as it orbits the barycenter but the Earth presents all of its faces towards the Moon as it does likewise.
Earth is both “orbiting” and “rotating”.
Moon is only “orbiting”, like a ball-on-a-string, it keeps one side facing the inside of its orbit.
The Moon is NOT like a ball-on-a-string.
You’re unable to learn, RLH.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
You are unable to counter the least question. Such is your non-scientific approach.
As to reference frames, think about the speed of light (photons).
Try and find a reference frame in which the photons are moving at anything except the speed of light (in a vacuum, of course).
Why is the speed of light independent of any inertial reference frame? It just is, whether you want to accept it or not.
Like the unpredictability of the motions of matter – in particular the atmosphere, aquasphere, and lithosphere. Why? It just is. Whether you believe it or not.
Do you accept that photons moving in opposite directions from a center to form a sphere mean that the diameter of the sphere is expanding at twice the speed of light?
RLH,
Your question is meaningless.
A photon moves at the speed of light, independent of inertial reference frames.
Maybe you can devise an experiment which shows that one photon is moving away from another at twice the speed of light, but I doubt it.
I accept you have tried for another gotcha. Try again, if you wish.
So you are saying that mirrors/corner reflectors setup at 1 light second/minute/hour/month/year from a center will be unable to reflect the light received on them back to the center to arrive at the same time as each other, the photons concerned having travelled 2d distance as measured from that center?
RLH,
Don’t put words in my mouth, unless you are terrified you might look stupid by quoting me, of course.
Notwithstanding that, look at your latest gotcha. Just silly.
Photons travel at the speed of light. Independent of inertial reference frames.
Your fantasies are not experiments. Try another gotcha. Next time, quote my exact words, and provide some facts to back up your disagreement with anything I said. If you can.
You are not doing too well, so far.
I am purely setting out an experiment.
The distance between the mirrors/corner reflectors will be the same in both directions from the center. The light has to reach both of those ‘ends’ at the same time in order to return to the center at the same time also.
Therefore the distance covered to the mirrors/corner reflectors will be the same in both directions.
Therefore it follows that the velocity between the photons in each direction when compare to the other will be twice the speed of light. You may counter that each photon will not be able to measure that velocity difference but it does not alter the fact that from the point of view of an observer seeing the ‘sphere’ the situation is as I have said.
RLH,
That’s not an experiment. That is your imagination ignoring reality.
From Michelson-Morley onwards, using ever more sophisticated techniques, the invariability of the speed of light with regard to inertial reference frames has been confirmed.
You may not like it, but there it is.
You may not like the fact that mirrors placed at an equal distance apart from the center means that photons must travel relative to each other in opposite directions and must travel at twice the speed of light if they are to re-meet at the center.
You can ignore that if you will but it still remains true.
Relative to each other that is. Relative to the ‘fixed’ frame they will, of course, travel at the speed of light.
RLH,
No. The speed of light is independent of any inertial reference frame.
I know it doesn’t seem right, but that’s the way it is. Just saying this or that “must happen” doesn’t make it so.
If you performed a reproducible scientific experiment and the result supported your speculation, the situation would be different.
If you can’t, your speculation (totally unsupported by experiment, by the way) remains – speculation.
I know what the speed of light is. Now tell me what distances are covered by 2 photons travelling in opposite direction from a center point cover if they bounce off 2 mirrors at equal distance from that center. And tell me how long they take to achieve that path. Now do the calculation for distance over time.
I predict a very snowy winter in the northern hemisphere this year. I am taking three factors into account.
First, galactic radiation is concentrated in the high and mid latitudes, according to the geomagnetic field.
Second, the oceans are warm enough that there will be enough water vapor to produce plenty of snow.
Third, there will already be La Niña in November, which will cause temperatures to drop in high latitudes.
In this situation, we can expect frequent stratospheric intrusions and snow fronts in the middle latitudes.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://i.ibb.co/mXtL48y/onlinequery.gif
A team was duly dispatched to the site at Belaya Gora, on the bank of the Indigirka River.
What they found there was one of the most beautifully-preserved Ice Age animals ever found: a 28,000-year-old cave lion cub, curled up under the permafrost with its teeth, skin, claws and even whiskers still intact.
The cub, whom scientist Dr Valery Plotnikov and colleagues initially dubbed Spartak, was found just 15 metres away from another cave lion cub, Boris, that locals had discovered the previous year.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/08/06/stunning-ice-age-lion-cub-found-in-siberia-russia-is-28-000-years-old-scientists-say
Testing.
Marco.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU2108/S00168/tornado-the-costliest-on-record-with-32m-paid-to-customers-for-insured-losses.htm
Wondering Wee Willy,
Total paid out due to damage caused by the “Greenhouse Effect” – $0.00
You do realise that insurance companies exist to make profits, don’t you? That’s why they exclude certain events – wars, acts of God, and so forth.
If they insure against tornados, either they are exceptionally stupid, trying to lose money, or their actuaries are incompetent, or they figure they can derive a profit from selling tornado insurance.
Got it, dummy?
Mike Flynn,
Milquetoast Flimflam.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You also need to know:
1. Has the cost of rebuilding an individual premises increased?
2. Has the number of premises increased?
Then and only then, does the total cost increase make any sense.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/costliest
But if the number of premises has doubled but the total cost has only gone up 50% then the actual cost per premises has gone down.
If cows had wings, we’d carry bigger umbrellas.
Idiot.
No U:
https://climateball.net/but-extreme-events/
Simple calculations and observations too much for you. Awh diddum’s.
Counterfactuals ain’t no observations, dummy.
Being an idiot comes natural to you.
No U.
Sorry to interrupt your flat Moon debate, La-nina Monday update
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/archive/20210731//plumes/sstOutlooks.nino34.hr.png
https://notrickszone.com/2021/08/08/cooling-in-the-pipeline-low-solar-activity-wild-fire-smoke-la-nina-all-setting-up-a-cooled-2022/
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf
Exxon was right…
But that the climate models that we have are not very good at predictions. As per Gavin Schmidt.
This is an attribution statement, dummy.
Nevertheless, here you go:
https://climateball.net/but-predictions/
“But as climate scientists face this alarming reality, the climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist. Many of the worlds leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models, which in other respects are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors, into useful guidance for policymakers. Its become clear over the last year or so that we cant avoid this, says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
“But there is another group which claims to accept the IPCC consensus on climate change but always finds reasons to do nothing, or next to nothing about it, often because they say there is something else that is more important, which, of course, they also do nothing about other than try and use it as a club against those who think we should be doing something about climate change. The hallmark of these types, like Bjorn Lomborg, just to name one, is to loudly proclaim that those who see the dangers of climate change and want to do something about it, care nothing for the Poors, especially the African Poors these days. Of course, in the end the Breakthrough Institute types and other Lomborg’s of the world take the money for themselves and do nothing for the Poors.”
So you claim Eli Rabbit is more useful than Gavin Schmidt. Useful to know.
Stop putting words in my mouth, dummy.
You quoted Eli when I quoted Gavin. What else am I supposed to think?
You’re supposed to infer that luckwarm concern trolling is well known, dummy.
I should observe that you are an idiot.
No U.
“This is an attribution statement”
Based on the fact that global temperatures have been falling for the last 6 months or more.
The attribution human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land wasn’t made on the basis of the last six months, dummy.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
“Attributions” by frauds, fakers, scofflaws, deadbeats such as Michael Mann, or self-styled “climate scientists ” are completely worthless, dummy.
Warming the ocean? You really are a gullible wee chappie, arent you?
You would probably be stupid enough to believe that sunlight heats the oceans!
Due to the miracle of climatological “heat diffusion”, perhaps?
Mike Flynn,
Mimicry Falsifier.
“made on the basis of the last six months”
All the scare stories created this year have been based on the not observed fact that temperatures this year are lower than last year.
Stop putting words in the stories’ mouth, dummy.
I’d ask you to stop being an idiot, but that would be too much.
No U.
No one believes in global warming.
If people believed in global warming they would stop living in cities. They would get some farm land and grow their own food.
They would make everything they need.
Doing this would be inefficient, though it could be enjoyable, but not profitable. Or if going to farm it’s more efficient to grow enough food for other people, and then you trade your goods for stuff other people make. Or have people do stuff they are interested and good at doing. But if buying stuff made thousands miles away it will involve more CO2 emissions.
The millions of cities in the world can’t work if you think solar power and wind mills are a solution.
Other than cities, large numbers of people working for a government, is not possible nor are welfare programs.
No one believes in global warming because it’s just too stupid, one might say you believe it because you believe support political ideas, which roughly mean you want other people to stop doing something you don’t like. Or it has mothing to do with you- or you would live on farm.
If happen to be a farmer, it does not mean you have a right to force other people to be farmers. You not entitled to this.
But the global warming religious follower tend not know where milk come from, they living in environment built by trade is dependent ways of transporting goods. They need lots of concrete and asphalt, steel, and etc and etc.
If you actually believed, you would act accordingly.
By the same logic, people who smoke don’t believe that smoking kills.
It is similar though also kind of backwards.
People say they believe but don’t actually believe in the religion of global warming and don’t realize they harming themselves and other people.
And no one who says they believe, actually believes otherwise they wouldn’t be so stupid.
No one actually believe wind mills are reducing CO2, know one think there immediate peril from CO2 and want wood to be burned for electrical power generation. No one is that stupid.
There’s nothing backward about akrasia, gb.
As GWB once suggested, America is addicted to oil:
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/2012/08/01/president-bush-s-america-is-addicted-to-oil-speech/
A Tale of Two Houses
George W. Bush’s eco-friendly ranch compared to Al Gore’s energy-expending mansion.
David Mikkelson
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tale-two-houses/
GWB did believe global warming, and he did something about it.
Bill Gates probably doesn’t.
And it seems Elon Musk could believe in global warming.
Dubya’s ranch is a feel-good story. You might as well tell about his paintings. For real stuff, look at the legacy of his foreign policy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration
Oh, and please:
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-new-climate-book-is-finally-here
Willard says: “For real stuff, look at the legacy of his foreign policy”
same wiki page:
Relations with India improved significantly during George W. Bush’s tenure. In September 2001, President Bush removed sanctions which had been imposed.[268]
During the tenure of the George W. Bush administration, relations between India and the United States were seen to have blossomed, primarily over common concerns regarding growing Islamic extremism, energy security, and climate change. George W. Bush commented, “India is a great example of democracy. It is very devout, has diverse religious heads, but everyone is comfortable about their religion. The world needs India”
You point to Clinton-Gore fail, as if it’s George’s fault.
And have ever looked at US CO2 emission?
C’mon, gb.
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Willard, please stop trolling.
Reasoning by analogy fails you again, willard-kun.
It is more like if when people who smoke either don’t believe that it is NOT them who’s gonna get killed but instead someone else (which is justifiable, nt everyone who smokes gets cancer), e.g. they’re playing a fair lottery, or they just don’t care considering the benefits of smoking (physical gratification, calmative or thinning effect) greatly outweigh the possible downsides.
Here’s a catch. People who lament global warming and then buy oceanview mansions or keep living big time in cities, don’t fall in either of those categories. They fall in the category of hypocrites.
Analogical reasoning might not mean what you make it mean, cot. There’s more than enough empirical evidence that people don’t always act in accordance to what they believe. Weakness of the will is only one such example.
That being said, gb’s reasoning also fails for a more important reason: AGW is a collective action problem, not an agentive one.
This should be added to this Bingo Square:
https://climateball.net/but-hypocrisy/
Thanks for the reminder.
Willard, please stop trolling.
” If people believed in global warming they would stop living in cities. They would get some farm land and grow their own food. ”
I can’t recall having read such a dumb, ignorant stuff (with of course the exception of what dumbies like Robertson, Flynnson and Clint R usually write).
gbaikie, I suspect you to be rich enough to write such stupidities.
Are you really so dumb that you don’t understand that cities grow and grow since ever only because poor people move to them in order to survive?
“Thy would get some farmland…”
With what money? More stupid you die.
J.-P. D.
“Are you really so dumb that you dont understand that cities grow and grow since ever only because poor people move to them in order to survive?”
Survive or do better, of course I understand. And you understand that by increasing electricity cost, hurts poor people the most?
And do understand that the religion of global warming is racist?
Oh also some predict cities might shrink or cease to be.
One has wiki:
The phenomenon of shrinking cities generally refers to a metropolitan area that experiences significant population loss in a short period of time. The process is also known as counterurbanization, metropolitan deconcentration, and metropolitan turnaround. It was popularized in reference to Eastern Europe post-socialism, when old industrial regions came under Western privatization and capitalism. Shrinking cities in the United States, on the other hand, have been forming since 2006 in dense urban centers while external suburban areas continue to grow. Suburbanization in tandem with deindustrialization, human migration, and the 2008 Great Recession all contribute to origins of shrinking cities in the U.S. Scholars estimate that one in six to one in four cities worldwide are shrinking in countries with expanding economies and those with deindustrialization.”
People like Scott Adams, which is risk and rewards and technology, and one call cities “old fashion”. Some predicting death of New York City. Old problem urban blight, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinking_city
I just think politicans foul and evil creatures, mostly. And cities are pretty dumb, meaning they lack anything associated with intelligence which again due to pols.
But why even if, doesn’t really matter, if cities are “cities grow and grow since ever only because poor people move to them in order to survive?”
Do less cities mean, less people survive?
It seems most people assume less cities could be “plus” and I don’t think they imagine it means less people survive.
I think the whole survive thing is merely that people have work they do. Or cities were where you get work. And if cities become places in which can’t get work, cities, cease to exist.
But it doesn’t mean, that there is not places to work.
If we become spacefaring, the general idea is move industry off world [where there cheaper electrical power}. But idea does not involve people huddled around industrial areas some where in space. Of course another thing about early cities, is there was electrical power, sewer systems, indoor plumbing, and more entertainment generally. And I think spacefaring civ will be related to living on the Earth’s oceans. And leaving earth will be cheaper than airline seat.
Followed to its logical conclusion, the alarmist narrative leads to a lockdown of society due to a perceived climate change emergency and should result in stopping the use of fossil fuels immediately.
Prior to the unlocking of fossil fuel technology, 90% of people used all of their time producing food.
Can you fathom agrarian reform program similar to the CCP’s Giant Leap Forward? You need to understand there is no other logical way forward from the premise of climate change crisis for which there is no salient data but that you are forced back into the fields. You’re going to be out standing in a field, picking bugs off the lettuce and doing the work needed to hopefully bring enough food in to survive the winter.
Oh how interesting!
Ken is talking about anomalies today.
J.-P. D.
AIRs v6 latest data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/airs6.jpeg
AIRs v7 latest data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/airs7.jpeg
AIRs ERSST latest data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/ersst.jpeg
AMO latest data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/amo.jpeg
Concerning AMO, everybody is free to show what s/he wants to be seen.
My preferred view is this one:
https://tinyurl.com/f394kavk
I know: the stuff goes back to 1856, but starting with 1900 is OK for me. Before that, anyone will complain about paucity of data…
Detrended:
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/amon.us.long.data
Undetrended
https://www.psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/amon.us.long.mean.data
The detrended AMO has only one meaningful use: to show that below its trend, the AMO has a cyclic character.
If you want to compare AMO with e.g. temperature series, you’ll have to select the undetrended variant; otherwise, your comparison is automatically biased.
J.-P. D.
I guess ‘behind’ would be in English better than ‘below’.
I use https://psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/amon.us.long.data as it says in the graph.
“My preferred view is this one:”
Why 60 months running means?
Why not?
What justification do you have for 60 months? Or is it just a number you plucked out of the air?
The goal of a running mean is to show how series behave.
The number of units depends on how much detail you wish.
Not enough units: too much detail.
Too many units: not enough detail.
For a century or the like, I use 60 months.
For the satellite era, I chose 36 months because that fits best to my needs.
That’s all.
“For a century or the like, I use 60 months.
For the satellite era, I chose 36 months because that fits best to my needs.”
So no scientific reasons for the choices. As I suspected. Just your ‘feelings’.
Aha.
So genius RLH defines here what is scientific and what is not.
Fyi
1. I know since quite long a time that AMO’s cycle is about 60 years.
But that, RLH, is rather useless when you compare the undetrended AMO with HadSST, for example.
2. Your ‘science’ is by no means more useful than mine when we present data on a blog like this one here.
If you want to show off as a great science man, then manage to present your ‘science’ where it will be examined by real scientists.
We were discussing about the length of filter to use, nothing else.
I asked what reasons you had for choosing 60 months. You has
d no real response. As I suspected.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.theverge.com/22617371/extreme-weather-science-attribution-un-report-climate-change
God I hate Roy’s parser.
“The fundamental difference is that there is more energy in the system”
Less energy than there was a year ago, but don’t let that get in the way of your stories.
“Less energy than there was a year ago”
That’s where you’re wrong, dummy.
Where?
“Less energy than there was a year ago”
Lower temperatures means more energy. Go tit.
Less profit is still profit, dummy.
Being less of an idiot is not possible for you.
No U.
If you are trying to pick our a long term pattern, a long running mean filters out the short term internal variation aka noise.
If you are mainly interested in the short term internal variation then you use a short running mean.
Strictly ;ow pass filtering allows you to keep both in band and out of band figures if you wish. All you need to do is subtract the low pass from the original data to produce the residuals/high pass.
Strictly low pass filtering…
You mean ideal filters, and without any noise.
Define ‘noise’.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noise
“You mean ideal filter”
Gaussian are ideal filters. Unless you can come up with evidence that says otherwise.
“an unwanted signal or a disturbance (such as static or a variation of voltage) in an electronic device or instrument (such as a radio or television)”
Is an individual reading of temperature data ‘noise’?
The concept of an ideal filter is very different from its implementations, dummy.
The only way to test the invertibility of your filter is to create an inverse filter, dummy.
“create an inverse filter”
Define the inverse of a gaussian filter.
“The concept of an ideal filter is very different from its implementations”
Define how gaussian filters differ from ideal ones then.
Define “define,” dummy.
Then define “filter.”
Idiot.
Define “No U,” dummy.
Idiot^2.
Kennui will be proud of you, dummy.
You are the only person who is proud of you.
I’m not playing home, dummy, and here’s to what I’m referring:
RLH says:
July 29, 2021 at 1:52 AM
I’ll try : )
Why should the world worry about what an idiot like you says?
Because the world cares about coherence, dummy.
But the world doesn’t care about you or your views.
Nature isn’t a thing that cares, dummy.
But sometimes it can speak:
https://youtu.be/rM6txLtoaoc
I am uninterested in your links.
And now you’re acting like Mike Flynn.
What a great Hall Monitor Roy haz.
Roy: Willard is an idiot.
Please stop putting words into Roy’s mouth, dummy.
That observation was addressed to Roy. Idiot.
If Roy was reading, dummy, he’d ban again the sock puppets he already banned.
RLH says: “You mean ideal filter”
Gaussian are ideal filters. Unless you can come up with evidence that says otherwise.
The word you are looking for is “optimum filter” which is “optimum” in relation to specific criteria for optimization.
In common usage “ideal filter” means something else and a Gaussian filter isn’t.
“hed ban”
Judging by the number of irrelevant posts you bring, he’d probably ban you first.
“An ideal filter is considered to have a specified, nonzero magnitude for one or more bands of frequencies and is considered to have zero magnitude for one or more bands of frequencies. On the other hand, practical implementation constraints require that a filter be causal.”
I accept that optimal is better than ideal. But in practicality all actual filters are non ideal.
A true Gaussian filter (as opposed to an actual one) extends to infinity in both directions and is thus ‘ideal’.
Richard: Gaussian are ideal filters.
Also Richard: But in practicality all actual filters are non ideal.
willard…”It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere
have occurred”.
***
Unequivocal…more IPCC psychobabble.
Still not a shred of scientific evidence directly relating anthropogenic causes to warming or climate change.
The IPCC are a load of charlatans appointed by governments and they bend over backwards to appease their employers by regurgitating pseuod-scientific bs.
Then there are the trolls like Willard who do their bidding by spreading the propaganda.
Let me spoon feed you once more, Gordo:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science
Dragon cranks like you are out.
In return, tell me about your engineering career, pretty please with sugar on it.
Gordon,
It is interesting how little fanfare this report has received. However, Biden and his leftist minions will use it to try to ram through their economy-killing Green New Deal. Government is always the last bad actor. They don’t care that no one accepts the reports anymore. However, they talk like everyone does. It is about advancing their leftist agenda.
Stephen,
For the nth time, Joe is center-right:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/16/joe-biden-election-liberal-moderate-christian-democrat/
Don’t you ever get tired of the lies? Joe has no principles. He is trying to out-left Obama.
willard…”This is the deeply conservative dimension to Bidens promise to heal the divisions that cut across American society…”
***
How can anyone who cheated to get into power heal anything? Biden isn’t centre-anything, he’s a self serving, politically-correct, jerk.
Gordo,
Is there any tin foil you don’t wear?
Tell me more about your engineering career.
Tell me more about yours.
Ask me when I’ll brag about being an engineer, dummy.
Whereas you…
willard…”One of the key developments since the IPCC’s last assessment report in 2013-14 is the strengthening of the links between human-caused warming and increasingly severe extreme weather, the authors say”.
***
Once again, where’s the proof linking severe weather to anthropogenic causes? The IPCC has none, its pseudo-science is based on a scale they invented which is comprised of words like likely, very likely, and incontrovertible.
That word means ‘not able to be denied’. I’m denying it, sue me. I am denying that one shred of direct causation can be attributable to anthropogenic causes.
You should know how to RTFR, Gordo.
Engineers usually do.
willard…”You should know how to RTFR, Gordo.”
***
You should have named your site Dodgeball rather than Climate ball. You are much better at dodging facts than you are at climate.
Gordo,
JAQing off with “wheres the proof” isn’t the best way to present a fact.
So that’s two dodges you made right there.
Do you JAQ off a lot? Considering the number of times you have mentioned it, it is probably always on your mind.
You must be new to the Internet, dummy:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
Just reacting to whatever you post. Idiot.
Reacting is what reactionaries do, dummy.
Being an idiot is what idiots do.
No U.
Interesting:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/09/cenozoic-ice-age-caused-by-drop-in-co2-because-models/
Cenozoic Ice Age Caused by Drop in CO2 Because Models
…
“Where do I start?
Models cant confirm anything.
We pretty well know that the thermal isolation of Antarctica and onset of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current occurred approximately 34 million years ago.
We pretty well know that the abrupt cooling at Eocene-Oligocene boundary was coincident with the thermal isolation of Antarctica and onset of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current
Estimates of Paleocene-Eocene atmospheric CO2 vary widely depending on the method of investigation.
This is from my college meteorology text book:
FORECASTING THE FUTURE. We can now try to decide if we are now in an interglacial stage, with other glacials to follow, or if the world has finally emerged from the Cenozoic Ice Age. According to the Milankovitch theory, fluctuations of radiation of the type shown in Fig. 16-18 must continue and therefore future glacial stages will continue. According to the theory just described, as long as the North and South Poles retain their present thermally isolated locations, the polar latitudes will be frigid; and as the Arctic Ocean keeps oscillating between ice-free and ice-covered states, glacial-interglacial climates will continue.
Finally, regardless of which theory one subscribes to, as long as we see no fundamental change in the late Cenozoic climate trend, and the presence of ice on Greenland and Antarctica indicates that no change has occurred, we can expect that the fluctuations of the past million years will continue.
Donn, William L. Meteorology. 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill 1975. pp 463-464 “
gbaikie…”Models cant confirm anything”.
***
Models can’t even predict the present given past data. Since the time of Hansen circa 1988, models have failed miserably.
That would mean the only ‘imminent’ climate crisis is a return to ice age conditions sooner or later. Given the previous interglacials were about 10k years long we are approaching that crisis sooner than later.
swenson…”Why is the speed of light independent of any inertial reference frame? It just is, whether you want to accept it or not”.
***
Once again, not trying to get into an argument over this, since I don’t know. All I am trying to do here is add some friendly commentary.
The speed of light as a constant is Einstein’s idea based on his Special Theory of Relativity. Unfortunately, that theory pertains to everywhere else in the universe but Earth. It does not work when applied to gravity. Therefore, Einstein had to work out his General Theory of Relativity in an attempt to work gravity into the theory.
See 2nd link below.
He worked this out around WW I but the theory was ignored from 1929 onward because there were no applications for it. It was not revived till the 1960s and even today, it’s only use is theorizing about distance phenomena like quasars and pulsars in astronomy. Since 1929, scientists in physics have been focused on quantum theory, nuclear theory, semiconductor, theory, etc. No one seems interested in studying problems like the speed of light in general physics.
How is anyone going to test the theory that the speed of light is constant? One of the detractions to the theory is that light, as reference to visible light, has an extremely broad bandwidth of frequencies. Does each frequency travel at the same speed and how could that be measured? We know that when visible light strikes water at an angle it is bent at angles according to the wavelength/frequency.
The same applies in climate science. How do we know that incoming solar energy behaves the same right across the broad bandwidth of frequencies? The average is given as about 1370 W/m^2 at TOA, but how do we know certain frequencies are not getting stronger, like UV, while others are getting weaker? In other words, the average could remain the same while hotter UV rays are stronger.
We don’t know how the Sun emits EM at each wavelength.
In this article it is claimed c is constant…by definition. It also claims SI definitions are based on certain presumptions.
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Here’s a video by an Einstein groupie being interviews by an even bigger groupie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh6bSIn210E&list=PLg3SyHADHi9umK90du-5OSJbVKoMG4fKb&index=6&t=187s
binny…”The goal of a running mean is to show how series behave”.
***
Look at the red running average curve in Roy’s graph above. It is self-explanatory. It says ‘running, centred 13 month average’.
The key word is average and it’s obvious that the average is taken from 13 months of data. Since each horizontal grid contains 12 months of data points, Roy appears to have averaged them and drawn in a rad marker to indicate the average over 12 months. Why he uses 13 months is fine detail I don’t pretend to understand but its obvious to me that the red curve is continuous and represents the running average of all the data points. Therefore it has been processed to make it continuous.
Far more accurate than a linear trend line. RLH will probably know since he is the resident statistics guru.
Robertson
You are such an ignorant dumb ass…
Why do you think to be necessary to ‘teach’ me about that?
I myself have explained that to you years ago, in a time where you didn’t even know what an average is.
And what you zombie never will be understand is that all averages below are correct, despite your hatred against NOAA and your paranoid claims about their allegedly ‘fudged’ data.
Let alone would you understand other things, e.g. why the Moon spins about its polar axis…
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, Moon does NOT rotate about its axis. It “orbits”, but does not rotate.
It’s the same motion as a ball-on-a-string — one side always faces the inside of the orbit.
A ball-on-a-string analogy is not appropriate for gravitational connected objects.
Wrong again, RLH.
The simple analogy is most appropriate.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
Thanks to you and Bindidon for being such perfect examples that idiots can’t learn.
Wrong again Clint R. A ball-on-a-string analogy is not appropriate for gravitational connected objects.
RLH, I never used the phrase “gravitational connected”. That’s your idiot attempt to pervert reality.
The ball-on-a-string is a simple model of orbital motion, specifically, “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You don’t understand any of this, and can’t learn.
Objects connected by gravity then. Same thing.
“The ball-on-a-string is a simple model of orbital motion”
No it isn’t and never will be. It is just something you have dreamt up that no scientist would recognize as a model for orbital motion.
As I stated RLH, you’re an idiot and can’t learn.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
As I’ve stated, you are a ‘flat earth’ type idiot who cannot get any real scientist to agree with you.
Space weather – learn all about it in this series
https://youtu.be/LORE5eE_ybY
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24021772
Even engineers should be able to get that.
Except for the last year or so where temperature this year are lower than last year. The world over.
Except you’re talking about the troposphere, dummy.
Not true. All temperature series from all sources show that this year is lower than last year.
The year has not ended, dummy, which is why you usually refer to the last six months.
Also note what you do not say when you snigger:
What “must be logical” here?
So far this year. Idiot.
“What must be logical here?”
That regardless of the fact that temperatures, month on month, are lower this year than last year from all sources, the scare stories are written as though that were not the case.
Idiot.
> stories are written as though that were not the case
Because if it was the case, the stories would be written very differently.
Must be logical.
“Because if it was the case, the stories would be written very differently.”
You don’t know many journalists do you?
I don’t know many journalists who commit the meteorological fallacy:
> despite your claim to be able to move the output point back 6 months, you are then unable to see what data will then follow and thus make an observation about the likely path it will follow.
But I know a luckwarm dummy who does.
I know an idiot who thinks he is clever. You.
Here’s the meteorological fallacy again, dummy:
This presupposes at least four false ideas:
(F1) That the effects of temperature increases are immediate.
(F2) That there’s some (tele-) connection between global temperatures and regional events, i.e. granularity.
(F3) That reducing the speed of an acceleration eliminates it.
(F4) That knowledge about climate systems is incremental.
As soon as one realizes that heat can reside in a system for a while before it triggers its effects, our dummy’s “logic” falls apart.
Sure, and last winter causes temperatures to fall in the summer.
Temperatures don’t cause temperatures, dummy.
You are still an idiot though.
No U.
The difference between weather and climate is, you can get out of the weather. Simple.
Not everyone can afford it, however.
Fair enough.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Willard: you’re seriously providing a link to the BBC? Yesterday on the evening news we were subjected to a barrage of all the usual cliches – film footage of floods, wildfires,and dire warnings that we really must mend our wicked ways, and this is our last chance – yes, really, honestly, we must do something about it.
Behold the human race, masters of the climate, we who have discovered that carbon dioxide is the control over all the world’s weather, and by controlling our emissions we can regulate the planet’s temperature to within a fraction of a degree. How can you honestly believe such a simplistic and naive idea?
Do some proper research of your own. Get the climate records (where available) of whatever country takes your fancy, look back as far as you can and see where these supposed drastic changes have occurred. Start with the UK’s records. Climate change? Nothing’s changed here – historically we’ve had wet years, dry years, cold winters, warm winters – you name it, the patterns remain as they’ve always been.
Wildfires? Look into the background – what causes them,have they really increased, and look for all the possibilities. Ditto floods and all the other tools in the propagandist’s armoury.
Finally, people might take a bit more notice of you if stopped being so rude – your manners are appalling.
chad-yes.png, C500.
If you got an itch for research, scratch it yourself.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Today, average citizens are more skeptical of the anthropogenic cause of climate change than are the oil companies.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
The concept of an ideal filter is very different from its implementations, dummy.
You are an ideal idiot though.
I’ll add this misconception to your list of blunders, dummy.
Add to you idiotic little list all you like. Doesn’t alter the facts one jot.
You’re appealing to unidentified facts, dummy.
So list how gaussian filters differ from ideal ones then.
I’m not saying that Gaussian filters are not ideal, dummy.
I’m saying that implementing a filter is a different ballgame than talking about filter theory, more so that “a true Gaussian response is physically unrealizable as it has infinite support.”
You want to rely on the fact that infinite data is required for an ‘ideal filter’. In that case no practical filters are possible. At all.
No, dummy.
I’m telling you that you can’t hide behind filter theory.
And I am telling you, you are an idiot.
No U, dummy.
Idiot.
No U, dummy.
Imagine if you took Roy’s as an opportunity to teach what you know instead of trying to show off.
It is impossible to teach an idiot such as you.
Now you’re talking like Pup, dummy.
Do you really think I’m speaking to you?
Were you talking to someone else? Who?
Do you even rhetoric, dummy?
Well you never stop being an idiot.
“Rhetoric aims to study the techniques writers or speakers utilize to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations,” dummy.
An idiot thinks he is a great speaker. Out of luck there then.
Please stop putting thoughts in my mind, dummy.
You have a mind? Who would have guessed.
Your own predicate was “thinks,” dummy.
Your idiocy doesn’t require a mind. Only fingers.
Here, dummy:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiocy
Is using a dictionary helping you understand stuff?
When was the last time you said that a chair was idiotic, dummy?
RLH
“regardless of the fact that temperatures, month on month, are lower this year than last year from all sources, the scare stories are written as though that were not the case. ”
Are you seriously suggesting that because 2021 will be cooler than 2020, that global warming has ended and that we will see a long term cooling trend henceforth?
All on the basis of six months data!
No I am saying that scare stories are being written in the press as though temperatures had risen from last year to this (month on month) whereas the opposite is true.
“as though temperatures had risen from last year to this”
That’s in your own mind, dummy.
Show me a source with current data that proves otherwise.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/pdo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/had crut.jpeg
(Remove the space)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/global-ncd c.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/land-ncd c.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/ocean-ncd c.jpeg
(Remove the spaces)
Your graphs do not justify your “as though,” dummy.
So you can’t find a temperature source that supports your ideas. No surprise there then.
Here, dummy:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best-upper
Here idiot.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best-upper/from:2020
We still got the extreme events we got, dummy.
Now, imagine when La Nina will stop.
La Nina will only make the global temperatures drop even further. Idiot.
Hence why I’m referring to when it’ll stop, dummy.
You’re dancing around a very basic point: more energy in the system will increase extreme events.
But there ius less energy now than there was last year.
“But there ius less energy now than there was last year.”
I think not.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24472-3
So all the temperature series show lower figures month on month this year compared to last year but the energy in the system is greater somehow.
So the deep ocean must be creating the extreme events without any way of communication via systems in between. Got it.
So you think that temperatures create extreme events.
Got it.
Why else would you be posting about GLOBAL COOLING?
Irony. Experimentation.
Are you really that dumb?
Well as you are an idiot…
No U
RLH
As you pointed out.
“La Nina will only make the global temperatures drop even further. ”
The oceans absorb about 90% of the extra energy accumulating in the system, hence the increasing ocean heat content.
ENSO shifts the balance.
El Nino has weaker winds which mix a smaller % of energy into the deeper oceans. With a higher proportion of incoming energy remaining in the atmosphere and ocean surface, giving a relatively warm year in the surface record.
La Nina has stronger winds and greater mixing. You get a smaller % of incoming energy remaining at the surface and a relatively cooler year.
You aren’t seeing less energy entering the system this year, just a change in the balance with more energy warming the bulk ocean and less warming the surface.
EM,
You wrote –
“You arent seeing less energy entering the system this year, just a change in the balance with more energy warming the bulk ocean and less warming the surface.”
Complete nonsense. Unless you believe a delusional SkyDragon of the Trenberth breed!
You really don’t believe that warm water floats on colder, denser water, do you?
To use one of Wee Willy Idiot’s favourite terms, you cannot warm the ocean depths with sunlight, dummy! Bad luck for you.
I would love to know how lower temperatures month on month creates more energy.
I’d love a pony.
The energy must be hiding below 400m
https://i2.wp.com/www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub_surf_mon.gif
Oops. A more up to date image
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive/20210803.sub_surface_anom.png?popup
That sure means something, dummy.
Thank you. That fits well.
From April to June a higher proportion of the incoming energy was absorbed by the ocean, so we saw low UAH temperatures and high ocean temperatures.
In July the balance shifted towards less ocean absorbtion. We saw lower ocean temperatures and UAH increased by 0.2C.
Willard: You mumble on at the usual level. No relevance in anything you say.
I’ll add your misconception about the relationship between the amount of energy in the climate system and temperatures to your list of blunders, dummy.
Add to your little list all you like. Doesn’t alter anything in the real world.
Are you seriously suggesting that because 2021 is marginally warmer than 1980 there is global warming at all?
Its still too cold to grow wine making grapes in the North of England as the Romans used to do.
In 2015 Scotland’s first home-grown wine, produced by Christopher Trotter, in Fife at a vineyard started in 2012. One merchant described it as sherry-like with “nutty” notes, and thought that it might complement a “very strong cheese”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/veni-vidi-viticulture-remains-of-roman-vineyards-found-in-uk-738723.html
Lincolnshire ain’t in Scotland, dummy.
“Most of the wines produced at them were probably fruity, sweet and brownish in colour. The grapes would have been harvested early, before they were fully ripe, in around late September. After the treading, large amounts of honey would have been added for sweetness and to produce an alcohol content of about 10 to 12 per cent.”
“Lincolnshire aint in Scotland”
But it is in the North of England.
The claim that is being challenged is Its still too cold to grow wine making grapes in the North of England as the Romans used to do, dummy.
Also, note that one can’t add honey to wine and call it so nowadays.
Lots of other things are
https://recipes.howstuffworks.com/food-facts/10-common-wine-additives.htm
Then what Romans called wine may not mean what you think it means, dummy.
And once again: there’s lots of wines in UK as of now.
Are you saying the Romans didn’t grow grapes in England?
No, dummy. I just quoted two resources that indicate they did, e.g.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-790257
What I’m saying is that there’s wine *now* in England, in contradiction to what Kennui was saying.
Try to keep up.
Who can keep up with an idiot?
No wine in Scotland; it was a disaster. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ex-winemaker-is-not-toasting-the-summer-g965jsxsp
Not a true Scot:
“this year’s record-breaking summer has produced perfect conditions for wine making”
https://www.cairnomohr.com/
https://www.ryedalevineyards.co.uk/about
In fairness, these are not English wines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_the_United_Kingdom#Welsh_wine
Willard, please stop trolling.
“The man who created Scotlands first vineyard has admitted he may have been too hasty in abandoning his dream to bottle Chteau DEcosse.”
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Are you seriously suggesting that because 2021 is marginally warmer than 1980 there is global warming at all? ”
1980 was an El Nino year, several tenths above the long term trend.
2021 has been a La Nina year, several tenths below the long term trend.
If a modern La Nina equals a 40 year old El Nino it indicates that considerable underlying warming has taken place in the interim.
If you want serious changes in climate you need real changes in temperatures. 0.5C doesn’t melt the ice in Greenland or Antarctic. 0.5C doesn’t cause hurricanes floods fires droughts etc.
7/10ths, 05C. Are you smelling what you shoveling? UN IPCC is full on horse pucks.
Mini Ice Age was 3C cooling. It shrank the atmosphere and caused jet stream to really wander and create the ideal conditions for extreme weather (kinda sorta like we have seen in quite a few places this year with the la nina effects) We still haven’t recovered 3C. Further, end of Holocene with 10C cooling is likely on the horizon.
> Mini Ice Age was 3C cooling
Citation needed.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Need in one hand, pee in the other. See which fills up first.
Why do you think anyone cares about what you believe is needed, dummy?
Do you have delusions of grandeur?
Mike Flynn, Mockery of a Flouncer,
I said that a citation was needed.
Not for me, as I already know he’s pulling a fast one.
For Kennui’s own sake.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Oh, I see. You really want someone to provide a citation to themselves.
That is a wee bit pretentious, isnt it?
More delusions of grandeur? And if he doesn’t provide himself with the citation which you have determined is “needed”, what then? Or if he just laughs at your silliness?
Not terribly bright, are you? Try thinking it through before you start hammering the keyboard, dummy.
Mike Flynn,
No, not *to* themselves.
*For* themselves.
As in: to support the claims they themselves make.
Something you never do.
What were you saying about grammar?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“All on the basis of six months data!”
Yep. RLH pins all his hopes and dreams on noise.
I observe facts as they arrive. The facts are that so far this year, month on month, the temperatures are lower this year than last.
Then also pay attention to the two dozen other times in last 40 y that ENSO noise produced a wiggle, just like this one, above or below the trend line, and did not change the long term trend. Thats what noise does.
Unless and until an obvious signal rises or drops out of this noise, no one should pin there hopes on it.
So you agree that although this year is cooler than last year but that wont stop people claiming that ‘bad things will happen ™ ‘.
The old change the subject strategy.
Bad things HAVE happened this year, and continue to do so.
The ENSO noise and its cooling by 0.1 C hasn’t cancelled the previous 50 y of warming by ~ 1 C.
Why is that so hard to understand?
An interesting fact I learned recently is about desertification in Western US and S. Europe.
The general circulation pattern is being altered by GW. The Hadley Cell circulation is rising moist air at the equator that then falls at ~ 30 deg N and South.
The circulation causes high pressure dry air in a zone around 30 deg. This produces the deserts at these latitudes.
GW is causing greater equatorial heating and a weakening of the N-S T gradient. As a result the Hadley cell is widening. It is gradually moving the zone of desert northward, from Africa into S. Europe, from Mexico into California.
Jumpin the gun on SC25,
The so called scientists announced a strong start of SC25 based on a single big flare-up, it is turning out it wasn’t so.
https://youtu.be/Pfrjqy39yjw
Aha!
Megaspecialist Eben presents one more time his absolutely unreliable ‘Grand Solar Minimum’ info.
1. According to Wiki, SC25 began in December 2019.
Here is the plot of the solar flux F10.7 cm (which has much more precision than the Sun Spot Number):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WnWTpWo40uRAITIpDVeiSr_sDXBuds5q/view
2. According to Wiki, SC24 began in December 2008.
Here is a comparison of SC25 with SC24, starting at the two cycles’ beginning time:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pxfx7f-aQv-wlMD-DotDT8e7LfX9_tKL/view
SC25 looks quite OK, Eben.
One day I’ll begin to think people like you are paid by GWPF or Heartland for presenting such flawed blah blah.
J.-P. D.
F10.7 cm source as usual:
ftp://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
“Solar Cycle 25 is Currently Very Similar to Solar Cycle 24”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ac19a2
I have learned years ago in discussions with a knowledged guy that in periods of weak solar activity, SSN observations are much less reliable than those based on solar flux at 10.7 cm.
Everybody can think what s/he wants about that.
The majority of people seem to think that Solar Cycle 25 is not gong to be much stronger than 24. But you think what you like.
https://bit.ly/3jNAZap
Gordon Robertson at 9:00 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-787628
Exposed as a liar, which begs the question, why?
maguff…”Exposed as a liar, which begs the question, why?”
***
Maguff is reduced to incoherent babbling after being informed by GR how physics works. Maguff, having no intelligent reply to offer, attacks GR with an ad hominem attack.
Maguff claims to mentor engineering students which is amazing since he cannot reply to a basic physics problem.
Gordon Robertson at 5:52 PM
My standing invitation remains: if you want me to show you how to differentiate a vector function just say so.
Gordon Robertson at 5:52 PM
Tell me again, how long was that semester of Dynamics you took in High School?
…details constructed via lying can become a (false) memory…
Tyson, please stop trolling.
“Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon”.
It states that planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
And I have demonstrated it in my site, by doing the on various planets the satellite measured mean surface temperatures comparisons, which proved the rightness of the Phenomenon statement.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 9:03 AM
As Nate points out here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-789903 you have fudged the Earth’s emissivity to 0.287 in order to match the “satellite measured mean surface temperatures”.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
TYSON
“you have fudged the Earths emissivity to 0.287 in order to match the satellite measured mean surface temperatures.”
–
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
states that planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
And I have demonstrated it in my site, by doing the on various planets the satellite measured mean surface temperatures comparisons, which proved the rightness of the Phenomenon statement.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
You’re not playing fair. They never have an answer for math.
Stephen, everything I have discovered and everything I have thought of I have posted in my site…
Stephen, do you refer for some particular aspect in New equation*s math?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Wee Willy Skydragon –
“Youre dancing around a very basic point: more energy in the system will increase extreme events.”
Wee Willy lets his imagination run riot, flinging out unfounded assertions, thinking nobody will notice he’s a deluded crackpot.
Unfortunately for Witless Wee Willy, the presence of mythical “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere does not result in “more energy”. Rather, the complete opposite! An example is that the hottest places on Earth, (arid tropical deserts), are characterised by a severe lack of the supposedly most important “greenhouse gas”, H2O.
But a deluded SkyDragon does not let facts get in the way of his religious proselytising.
He will just keep foretelling doom in the form of “extreme events”, no doubt including floods, droughts, plagues, famines, hordes of locusts, and all the rest.
Luckily, Nature laughs at dummies like Wee Willy and his SkyDragon ilk, and ensures that all heat from the Sun during the day is radiated to space at night, plus a little extra, from the Earth’s slowly depleting store of primordial heat.
Whickering Wee Willy claims expertise in playing “silly semantic games”. He is certainly silly.
When it comes to physics, however, Wayward Wee Willy runs for cover, emitting an incoherent stream of gibberish as he flees. Dummy or idiot?
You be the judge.
Mike Flynn, Meliorative Frustration:
https://www.ipcc.ch/
Dragon cranks have nothing like that.
Suck it up.
You really are a dummy, aren’t you?
Incoherent gibberish. Accompanied by a link to more gibberish in the form of the SkyDragon holy book, no doubt.
Does this also include the statement that it is not possible to predict future climate states?
If it does, the rest of the gibberish can be totally ignored.
Eh, dummy?
Mike Flynn, Maker of Futility.
Willard, please stop trolling.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ac19a2
H/T dummy.
As written above already, I prefer the solar flux data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pxfx7f-aQv-wlMD-DotDT8e7LfX9_tKL/view
because F10.7 has operational values even when SSN is zero for a while.
J.-P. D.
Solar Cycle 25 is Currently Very Similar to Solar Cycle 24
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ac19a2
Willard and RLH
I know you two love throwing insults at each other but can you guys give it a break. I kind of look through this blog for some actual ideas to think about. Your endless repetition is not doing much for either of your.
Yes we know RLH thinks Willard is an idiot (after 10,000 repetitions) and we know Willard think RLH is a dummy (maybe 9900 times).
These are not useful. A couple insults here and there are normal and will take place in a friction zone like climate change which can have highly emotional charged characters interacting but I scroll on and on with “Idiot” …. “No dummy” over and over with no content, substance or thought provoking content. Maybe you two need to take a vacation and go somewhere nice and relaxing and come back another day.
norman…”“No dummy” over and over with no content, substance or thought provoking content”.
****
That has nothing to do with RLH who has tried to offer intelligent commentary only to receive stupid and insulting replies from the troll Willard.
Willard’s getting frustrated. His quips have gone away. No longer the Quipmaster. Now he’s a frustrated old lady.
Willard,
What is it about enhancing the government’s power that you’re enamored with? What do you get out of it? Has Soros promised you a biscuit? Do you get a special place in the left’s utopia? By the way, where is it?
A sample of Willard’s intellectual prowess (or lack of it) –
“Lincolnshire ain’t in Scotland, dummy.”
Well, colour me amazed! Willard – master of geography. But alas, not of English grammar, or common courtesy.
I await, with interest, the next outpouring from Witless Wee Willy’s gibberish machine.
Stephen,
Contradicting Kennui is far from being frustrating.
It’s quite fun, actually!
Makes me discover all kinds of wines I didn’t know along the way!
The left’s utopia always ends in ashes, doesn’t it Willard? Always. As long as you’re on top of the ash heap, right?
A pity troglodytes always end up disappearing, dear Stephen.
Why do you live like you can bring your wallet to the other side?
Did you get to the bit about how the Scottish wine was unpalatable. That strong cheese was recommended to mask the flavor of the wine?
He got 10 bottles of horse piss (with apology to the horse).
Its not 10 000 gallons per year of potable wine as the Romans used to do in Lincolnshire.
You should invest your life savings in a Scottish winery. Good luck.
Kennui,
You claimed that there was no wine in UK today.
Your claim has been proven false.
If you had any honor, that’d be the end of it.
But no, here you are, in Black Knight mode.
Did you notice the bit where the Roman wine in UK was in fact mead?
I guess not.
You claimed that things on the globe were not warmer ever before. That was false as most of what you say is.
Capitalism kicked your ass, right Willard? Free markets? Competition? Now you’d rather spend your existence hating it. What about the nonequity in nature? How are you going to fix it?
Stephen,
Most if not all successful economic models are mixed.
Deal with it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Oh, Gordo.
If only you could have noticed the number of blunders Richard made along the way. But you don’t read. You’re just ranting.
The only affinity between you and him is that like you, Richard likes to pretend he’s some kind of engineer.
May it bring you some consolation!
willard…”If only you could have noticed the number of blunders Richard made along the way. But you dont read. Youre just ranting”.
***
RLH talks the same statistics I learned but much better. Have no idea where you learned yours…maybe from Binny, or the IPCC, where they make up their own statistics.
Oh, Gordo.
What university was that, again?
What was your University again? What did you study?
Ninjas don’t tell, dummy.
They don’t brag either.
If blunders mean disagreeing with you, I do that quite a lot.
It does not, dummy.
Idiot.
Norma,
Search for “GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE” on this page.
What are your contributions so far on this thread?
Whickering Wee Willy,
You wrote “Search for GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE on this page.”
Why? Who cares? What if he doesn’t?
And the point of those contributions was what?
In this case, an experiment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-771900
Which you failed brilliantly, dummy.
You never fail to be an idiot.
No U
entropic…”Are you seriously suggesting that because 2021 will be cooler than 2020, that global warming has ended and that we will see a long term cooling trend henceforth?”
***
Your range is far too short and the graphs you are using overemphasize the degree of warming, which has been miniscule over the past 170 years. The Little Ice Age ended circa 1850 and that is the date used officially by the IPCC for the beginning of greenhouse warming.
Syan Akasofu, who pioneered studies on the solar wind, claimed the IPCC made a mistake by overlooking the obvious fact that the LIA had just ended. They did not allow for a 0.5C/century expected warming following a mini ice age. Even though they acknowledged the LIA in their 1990 review, the IPCC has ignored rewarming from it since.
We may be nearing and end to re-warming from the LIA and we are definitely seeing effects from ENSO. Studies into the warming/cooling effects of such oceanic oscillations are in their infancy. We simply have no idea at this point whether this warming will continue.
We know literally nothing about the effect of solar cycles even though it has been theorized they played a major role with the LIA. Or maybe it was orbital issues. I don’t think it was volcanic aerosols since their effect is brief.
During the last years we’ve had two major EN (1998 & 2016) with a less powerful one in 2010. During that time we’ve had only 1 good La Nina, in 2008. What will happen if the PDO switches phases and we get a spate of LNs?
> Your range is far too short
That’s not EM’s range, Gordo.
Have any engineering professor told you to RTFM before opening your mouth or else you’ll end up putting a foot in it?
Wayward Wee Willy,
Has anybody ever told you to take your foot out of your mouth before shooting yourself in the foot?
You need to learn English, dummy. Both comprehension and expression.
Mike Flynn,
How many languages do you speak?
Who is Mike Flynn?
If you want to know how many languages I speak, bad luck.
Why should I tell you, dummy?
Willard only speaks ‘idiot’.
Mike Flynn,
You ask – Who is Mike Flynn?
It’s you, Marvelous Fiddler:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/02/science-into-agitprop-climate-change-is-strangling-our-oceans/#comment-782765
Cheers.
Willard = idiot.
z
willard…”Have any engineering professor told you to RTFM before opening your mouth or else you’ll end up putting a foot in it?”
***
Like Swenson said…”Has anybody ever told you to take your foot out of your mouth before shooting yourself in the foot?
You need to learn English, dummy. Both comprehension and expression”.
You really are thick as a brick, Gordo.
The range was Richard’s.
Should be easy to settle that one: you both are as competent in statistics as the other.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
” . . . you both are as competent in statistics as the other.”
Do you have to put a lot of effort into appearing semi-literate, or is your general sloppiness a congenital defect?
Are all SkyDragons as slapdash as you, dummy?
Lift your game, laddie!
At least I studied statistics. Nothing you have done sop far shows that you have.
Willard says:
May 22, 2021 at 8:34 AM
Denny,
Your new guru mistook modes and medians yesterday.
Give yourself a chance.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-701493
I miss-spoke one time and Willard is determined not to forget it. I corrected myself a little later but don’t let that get in the way of a good story.
Willard: DO tell where and when you studied statistics.
Speaking of statistical blunders, dummy, you were also wrong about CLTs:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-750558
All statistical books say that CLT requires independent, random values. Temperature aren’t random.
So Willard: Do tell where and when you studied statistics.
What I say stands on its own, dummy.
And you’re still wrong about the CLTs.
Also, note the S.
Willard: Did you study statistics or are you self taught.
Central Limit Theorem has no s.
Note the title, dummy:
Central Limit Theorems When Data Are Dependent:
Addressing the Pedagogical Gaps
http://www.ledoit.net/iewwp480.pdf
Very few statisticians agree. CLT is for random, not correlated, variables.
“If X1,X2,… ,Xn are random samples drawn from a population with overall mean mu and finite variance sigma^2…”
The paper addresses financial data, not temperatures.
Statistics is statistics, dummy.
You were wrong about CLT. End of.
And note:
“We believe that the best way to address this problem is by providing a worked example using a CLT for dependent data in a simple case.”
*A* CLT. For *dependent data*.
What a Cargo Cult Cycle Nut.
As I said, the paper addresses financial data, not temperatures.
Extending it to that has not been proved accurate or possible.
By far and away the statisticians agree that CLT only applies to random data.
“We have identified two pedagogical gaps in the area of the application of CLTs to dependent data. First, standard doctoral-level econometrics texts do not always make clear the assumptions required for common CLTs, and they may, by their very nature, fail to contain more advanced CLTs.”
May is not do.
c.f. “They argue that the form of the dependence is unlikely to satisfy the conditions of any CLT, even one for dependent data. “
and “Other authors assume independence in order to get a CLT they can use.”
maguff…”The difference between weather and climate is, you can get out of the weather. Simple”.
***
If you live in a desert you can get out of it and move to a rain forest. Of course, you are deluded into thinking climate is some philosophical entity that can be denied and not the actual physical location that normally defines a climate.
May I suggest you study actual science rather than the propaganda you are fed by alarmists?
Climate may be the result of weather but there are other factors. Right around the planet there are regions of desert next to regions of jungle. Wet , moist air rises from the jungles, dumps its moisture and the air flows down into regions with very dry air. Result…a desert.
Mountains also affect climate. It often rains heavily on one side of a mountain while the other side is relatively dry.
maguff…”My standing invitation remains: if you want me to show you how to differentiate a vector function just say so”.
***
In 3 or more dimensions? Using matrices?
First you hit me with an ad hom, and now you are persisting in talking about vector differentiation, a red -herring argument.
Why don’t you reply giving a rebuttal of my radial line/tangent line proof that the Moon cannot rotate on its axis.
Till you do, I can only presume you did get my proof and now you are too embarrassed to admit it.
Why don’t you presume a circular orbit, take the equation of the circle, differentiate it, and calculate the changing points of x and y (2D) defining the tangent line (1st devirative) at each point on the circle? Then you can actually see how the tangent line changes orientation around the circle just as the tangential plane of the near side of the Moon does.
You spinners have confused the natural properties of a tangent line to a circle, which is rotating about an external axis, with rotation about its centre. The near side tangent line to an inner orbital circle and the far side tangent line to an outer circle are always moving in parallel throughout the orbit.
Do I have to explain the significance of that? Even if I did, and I have, you’s come back with more ad homs and red-herring arguments.
Gordon Robertson at 7:24 PM
2D works just fine. Please proceed.
P.s.: I want to see equations; enough of these word salads you’re so fond of.
TM,
So you “want”, do you?
Want in one hand, pee in the other. See which fills up first.
What particular mental defect leads you to think that your “wants” are important enough for somebody to expend time and effort satisfying them?
I “want” you to admit that the Greenhouse Effect has nothing to do with greenhouses, and is of no effect whatever, being non-existent.
Do you intend to to do anything I “want”? No? Why is that?
Mike Flynn,
Tyson did not ask you anything, and you don’t speak for anyone but you and your sock puppet.
Too bad, so sad.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
And anybody is supposed to care what you “think”, because . . .?
You need to learn how to troll more effectively, dummy.
Swenson at 8:18 PM
For the hard of learning:
Have you consider the distribution of CO2 in the global atmosphere? Should lower concentrations have ‘less warming’?
TM,
An appeal to authority? How original!
Unfortunately, neither Dr Spencer, nor anybody else, has managed to adequately define this “effect”.
Maybe you can give it a try?
Start with describing where this “effect” may be observed, and how it may be measured – like other scientific effects. Can’t even do that, can you?
Away with ye, delusional SkyDragon worshipper!
Swenson at 4:44 AM
Your education is not my responsibility. You can get answers to all your questions for as little as $1.50 in overdue fines from your public library.
RLH at 4:22 AM
“Have you consider the distribution of CO2 in the global atmosphere? Should lower concentrations have ‘less warming’?”
To whom are you talking?
To you. You made the claim about ‘greenhouses’. Should the Southern Hemisphere (which has much lower concentrations of CO2) be less warm than it is?
RLH at 9:19 AM
You can get answers to all your questions for as little as $1.50 in overdue fines from your public library.
TM: No smart comeback then.
RLH at 4:53 PM
TM: No smart comeback then.
suitable
So you agree that although the Southern Hemisphere has lower overall concentrations of CO2, its temperature is not applicably different to the Northern one.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MOD_LSTAD_M/CERES_NETFLUX_M
Draw your own conclusions.
So is it CO2 or Summer that is making the difference?
Why the same pulling trick, dummy?
Why are you an idiot?
Is it what your wife told you about me?
I gave you data; it’s your job to turn it into knowledge.
I don’t have time for endless Q&A’s. Do you have a copy of “Middle Atmosphere Dynamics” by Andrews, Holton and Leovy 1987? It’s a good starting point for the layman.
“Should the Southern Hemisphere (which has much lower concentrations of CO2)”
False Premise!
Do you even bother to check these things before declaring them, RLH?
P.s.s.: You appear to have already forgotten the problem at hand, so here is the track back:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-785605
Focus!
maguff…”You should know that two vectors are equal if they have the same direction and magnitude. If either direction or magnitude is changing in time, then the vector is changing”.
***
I did not see you red-herring rebuttal.
“You should know that two vectors are equal if they have the same direction and magnitude. If either direction or magnitude is changing in time, then the vector is changing”.
Yes…it’s obvious that two vectors are equal if they have the same direction and magnitude. What the heck does that have to do with what I described? You are waffling because you don’t understand the simplicity of my argument…or…you do and you know you are wrong.
To satisfy your red-herring whine, if I have a vector changing with time where R = vector…
R(t) = t^2i + 2tj where i and j are unit vectors
R'(t) = 2ti + 2j
I worked with this all the time in electrical engineering calculations when dealing with real power vs. imaginary power but with linear scalars only. Real power is the actual resistive power used by a motor winding whereas imaginary power is the reactive power used to develop the required magnetic field. Since the magnetic field needs current to build it, then returns power to the circuit when it collapses, the situation becomes more complex.
The difference between the two gives an angle defining the resultant apparent power, which is the power factor.
What I am talking about is much simpler. Presuming a circular orbit, a radial line can be used to track the Moon in its orbit. Since the near face always faces the Earth, that face can be represented as a tangential plane with a tangential vector representing the instantaneous motion of that face. That face forms a circular orbit inside the orbit traced out by the COG.
That tangential vector is always perpendicular to the radial line and that proves without a doubt that the near face cannot rotate about its axis. Why NASA cannot see this is beyond me but I am guessing it’s because they have all accepted the popular myth that the Moon rotates and not bothered to take a look.
To make the proof conclusive, consider the far face represented by a similar perpendicular tangent line. Because the near face tangent line and the far face tangent line are always perpendicular to the radial line that means both tangent lines are ALWAYS PARALLEL. Ergo, they cannot rotate about the Moon’s axis because they are orbiting the Earth in parallel.
Extend it now to every point along the radial line within the Moon. Each point along that radial line forms a tangent line which traces out a multitude of concentric circles (orbits). Every one of those parallel lines is orbiting the Earth’s centre therefore it is not possible for them to also rotate about the Moon’s centre.
QED.
“Since the near face always faces the Earth”
Because it rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.
Do you think that its orbit would change if it rotated at twice the velocity it now does?
Gordon Robertson at 11:20 PM
“To satisfy your red-herring whine, if I have a vector changing with time where R = vector
R(t) = t^2i + 2tj where i and j are unit vectors
R'(t) = 2ti + 2j”
Wrong!
Since you did not apply the chain rule of differentiation you got the wrong answer.
The correct answer to your own problem(!) is:
R'(t) = 2ti + t^2(di/dt)_+ 2j + 2t (dj/dt)
The unit vectors’ orientation is also a function of time: if on the rotating frame (di/dt) = (dj/dt) = 0; if on the fixed frame (di/dt) = (dj/dt) = angular velocity.
I said enough with the word salads man!
Just a note.
Why complicate things more than needed?
Sir Isaac Newton managed to avoid using calculus in his discussions of the orbits of the Moon, planets, and other celestial bodies.
In fact, Newton preferred using geometric methods, allowing mathematical proofs.
GR’s description using geometrical terms adequately describes the fact that the Moon behaves just as Newton’s cannonball. No “tumbling”. No celestial beings pushing the Moon around its orbit.
Just a single force, gravity, acting on a body which would otherwise move in a straight line (as per Newton’s First Law of Motion), resulting in an elliptical orbit.
Dimwitted climate crackpots love diversion, and avoidance, while complicating an issue unnecessarily.
TM’s comment is an example. Irrelevant and pointless.
Swenson at 4:35 AM
“Just a note.
Why complicate things more than needed?”
This may seem complicated to a layman, but it isn’t.
Newton invented calculus 20 years before writing the principia.
To the layman the glass is always either half full or half empty; to an engineer the glass is twice a big as it needs to be.
TM, the mistake you make is believing Moon is rotating. You can’t pervert reality using vector calculus.
But, nice try.
The Moon IS rotating, once per orbit around Earth on its own axis.
As just about everybody agrees.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.wpr.org/global-warming-happening-more-rapidly-wisconsin-already-feeling-it
willard…”Wisconsin is already warmer and wetter than it was more than half a century ago”.
***
Not according to Tony Heller. He proved 1936 was the hottest year in US history and last time I looked, Wisconsin is in the US.
Have you ever considered to cite teh Goddard’s crap, Gordo?
Could be fun.
Until then, I’ll go with the guy who works for the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts than a contrarian coder who has been banned from Tony’s.
Whining Wee Willy,
You’re an idiot, if you believe that the “. . . guy who works for the Wisconsin Initiative . . .” can look into the future any better than a retarded goldfish can.
You gullible SkyDragons accept the most bizarre flights of fancy as fact!
By the way, your first sentence is execrable, dummy. If you want to be an effective troll, you need to appear intelligent, at least. Onlookers might assume, correctly, that you are as sloppy and incompetent as your English expression indicates.
Lift your game, dummy! You’re giving competent trolls a bad name.
Mike Flynn,
Mad Fabulist.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Have you ever considered to cite teh Goddards crap, Gordo?”
***
The link to the full video has been posted several times. Had you taken the time to view it, you would have seen, like the rest of us, that Tony has laid it out in detail.
You’re too old to do science via YT videos, Gordo.
Give me something I can read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity
No U
What sort of weather does Wisconsin get during La Nina?
Your itch, dummy.
You scratch it.
Idiot. Answers nothing as usual.
Dummies keep trying to bait, and fail.
Idiots keep on being idiotic. As usual.
No U
Earlier nonsense from Wily Wee Willy –
“Then what Romans called wine may not mean what you think it means, dummy.”
The Witless one has tried this before. A not-so-subtle implication that the commenter is wrong, without having the guts to say so, and back up his slimy insinuation with some facts.
Wee Willy Willard is a gutless, whiny, grub, with delusions of grandeur. God no doubt created cretinous creatures like Wee Willy so that normal people would realise how blessed they are.
For my part, I hope Whacky Wee Willy continues in his role of attempting to defend the indefensible, the mad notion that anyone can future predict climate states (a tautology I know, but the “experts” on the IPCC said it).
It will give all realists the opportunity to have a good laugh at the antics of a devoted SkyDragon.
[general laughing]
Wily Wee Willy is an idiot. ‘Nough said.
No U
Mike Flynn, Meager Flan:
Glad you try to defend Kennui’s indefensible claim.
British wines are a thing:
https://www.decanter.com/wine/wine-regions/english-wine/
Ah, diddums!
“The claim that is being challenged is Its still too cold to grow wine making grapes in the North of England as the Romans used to do, dummy.”
The claim stands. The link you provided shows wine regions of England. You’ll notice they are not located in the North of England (or more precisely, Lincolnshire) They are located in the South of England and, further, are small producers.
I’m sure you can find some alcoholic’s attempt to grow grapes for wine making in places like Scotland but growing enough grapes for 10 bottles of unpalatable wine over 5 years of effort does not count for discovery purposes.
Recall too that some people will drink hand sanitizer.
> The claim stands.
No it doesn’t, Kennui:
https://www.decanter.com/wine/wine-regions/english-wine/
If you are worried about the quality of the wine people are willing to drink, imagine the wine the Romans did.
Oh, and as for your “are small producers”:
https://www.decanter.com/wine/wine-regions/english-wine/
I added two of your latest memes to the relevant Bingo square:
https://climateball.net/but-historical-times/
If you have others to submit, feel free to do so.
Many thanks!
Wrong quote:
Let’s add this one:
Not too shabby for a non-wine-making country!
You might also like:
https://lerkekasa.no/
Willard, please stop trolling.
RLH
” The majority of people seem to think that Solar Cycle 25 is not gong to be much stronger than 24. ”
I read papers too, and I’m aware of lots of observations, among them
Prediction of the amplitude of solar cycle 25 using polar faculae observations
Jan Janssens, Solar-Terrestrial Centre of Excellence (STCE), Royal Observatory of Belgium
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf
No one doubts about that.
What I wanted to show is how wrong Eben’s persistent GSM alarmism is all the time.
Another guy nicknamed SAMURAI also presents such nonsense nearly every month, either here or at WUWT.
And when I see how F10.7 behaves since Dec 2019 in comparison with the situation since Dec 2008, I can only say: SC25 starts quite a bit stronger than did SC24.
But… that is a layman’s opinion, and has nothing to do with the highly qualified work done by e.g. Jan Janssens.
And I keep on what knowledgeable WUWT guest author Javier explained to me a while ago, best shown by I graph I made at that time:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zzbz16oNW-xT-jdX1eT7-_5ZgYbUVFLI/view
J.-P. D.
We will see who is the more accurate later then.
The animations in the following link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Make it clear that in “orbital motion without axial rotation” the same side of the object always faces towards the inside of the orbit rather than towards a distant star. The bottom of the cannonball, launched without spin, faces down towards the Earth whilst it completes the orbit, and it does so without needing to rotate on its own axis. After all, a person walking along underneath the path that the cannonball takes would not be standing on their heads by the time they were halfway around the globe, would they?
In other words, “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left” in the gif below, and not the “moon on the right”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
…and that settles the issue in the “Non-Spinners” favor. Debate over.
No it doesn’t. The animation shows forces not orientations. Newton said nothing about the orientation of his cannonball, despite your claims to the contrary.
What claims to the contrary? I am not saying that the animation shows the orientation of the cannonball, or that Newton discussed the orientation of the cannonball. I am saying that the orientation of the cannonball can be inferred from the animations.
Think of the person, walking below the path that the cannonball takes. Imagine that there were a track leading right around the globe. Look at the animations again. Halfway around his journey, he will be oriented 180 degrees from his starting position, but he will not have rotated on his own axis. In order for him to instead remain oriented “to the fixed stars”, he would have to be standing on his head at the halfway point! To remain oriented “to the fixed stars”, he would have to rotate on his own axis whilst circumnavigating the globe.
“I am saying that the orientation of the cannonball can be inferred from the animations.”
You would be wrong then. No such inference can be obtained.
So a person walking along the track would find themselves gradually turning upside down, and then back around the right way up, would they?
Why would walking on a track (where gravity is at right angles to the direction of travel) be relevant to orbits where it is not?
Look at the animation where the orbit is first complete. Picture the cannonball as being the head of the person as they walk around the globe. The pink arrow would be pointing out from their nose, facing the direction of travel. The arrow representing gravity would be pointing down towards the center of the Earth, through their body, down through their feet.
Now look at the animations again, and tell me you cannot infer anything about the orientation of the cannonball.
You can infer nothing about the orientation of the cannonball from the animation. Nothing.
That’s not an argument, RLH. That’s just you being obstinate.
Accurate more like. Despite your claim to see an orientation, none exists.
I showed the animation to my wife. After her saying “oh no, this isn’t about the moon again, is it?” I asked her where the bottom of the cannonball would remain pointing towards, throughout the orbit. She replied, as if it were obvious (and it is), that the bottom of the cannonball would remain pointing towards the center of the Earth, following the arrow. I then explained that I was arguing with people that believed a point on the cannonball remains oriented towards a distant star throughout the orbit. She looked completely confused by the suggestion, as if I were arguing with lunatics.
You could at least acknowledge that the bottom of the cannonball remaining oriented towards the center of the Earth is the most obvious, most intuitive way to interpret that animation.
DREMT: You wife is as wrong as you are. As all other scientists agree.
The animations speak for themselves, and settle the issue. The “Non-Spinners” are correct.
That is the second time (at least) his wife has been wrong.
The “Non-Spinners” are correct.
☺️
You and your small clique are wrong.
“The animations speak for themselves”
The animations don’t talk. But if they could they would say you are wrong.
The “Non-Spinners” are correct.
No they are not. They are deluded.
No, they are correct. You are deluded if you can look at those animations and think that one side of the cannonball will remain oriented towards a fixed star throughout the orbit.
They (and you are wrong) As ALL scientific people agree.
Back to argumentum ad populum again, I see.
I’ll settle for being on the side of ALL science.
Apart from Tesla and the Serbian astronomers who still support his arguments.
Newton didn’t. He understood about orbits and rotations.
Newton was not alive to see Tesla’s arguments, or even some of those that came before him.
Newton would not have agreed with anything that you try to put in his mouth. He understood this sort of stuff really well. Orbits and rotations were his cup of tea.
“Newton was not alive to see Tesla’s arguments, or even some of those that came before him”
Like Henry Perigal. Who also argued throughout his life that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Henry indeed argued for his position, Kiddo.
Why don’t you?
Willard, please stop trolling.
How about poems, Kiddo?
Your wife might appreciate your unorthodox view on the Moon if you wrote some, like Henry did.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Be lucky I’m still on vacation, and thanks for the pointer.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tesla used very flawed logic 100 years ago, as many Astronomers pointed out to him back then.
DREMT is unable explain the logic of it. But that won’t stop him from appealing to its authority!
Because contrarians are always correct!
So its BAD to appeal to main stream science, but its perfectly OK to appeal to the authority of individual contrarians.
DREMT, I hadn’t seen you commenting in a while. I thought maybe you got bored with vanquishing the idiots.
Welcome back! The fun never ends.
Thanks! I’ve been commenting, but a bit further up-thread.
I am curious what torque you think will start the cannonball rotating?
If you drop the ball with ‘no initial rotation with respect to the fixed stars’, it will clearly fall with ‘no rotation with respect to the fixed stars’. The same side will remain toward ‘the bottom of the screen’ as it falls toward earth. It will have no angular momentum (L=0) and no rotational kinetic energy(KE_r=0) when you let go, and no angular momentum and no rotational kinetic energy the entire time it falls. We seem to be in 100% agreement here.
If you push the ball forward with enough speed to go into a circular orbit still with ‘no initial rotation with respect to the fixed stars’, then what? It still starts with the same L=0 and KE_r=0.
Will it gain angular momentum and rotational KE as it falls? Will it ‘naturally’ gain some KE & L to keep one side ‘facing the center of the earth’? Where does this angular momentum and angular KE come from? There is no torque from gravity to add L & KE_r as it falls.
“I am curious what torque you think will start the cannonball rotating?”
The cannonball is not rotating on its own axis. It is fired without spin, thus it orbits without spin. Meaning that the same face of the cannonball remains pointing towards Earth whilst it orbits. So the answer to your question is: none. No torque starts the cannonball rotating on its own axis because it is not rotating on its own axis.
“It is fired without spin, thus it orbits without spin.”
You are welcome to fire the ball ‘without spin with respect to the center of the orbit’ but ‘with spin relative to the stars’. That is an option. But you need to *give* it some additional KE_r & L (relative to simply dropping the ball) to do that. You can’t simply start with a cannon ball stationary in a cannon, push it straight forward, and have it come out changing orientation with respect to the stars.
And that still doesn’t address the issue of elliptical orbits. What is the orientation then? Does one side of the orbiting cannonball continuously ‘face the center of the earth’
“You can’t simply start with a cannon ball stationary in a cannon, push it straight forward, and have it come out changing orientation with respect to the stars.”
Sure you can, Tim. Just look at the animations. The ball is fired straight forwards from the cannonball. You can see the vector for its linear momentum, at right angles to the gravity vector. It (the cannonball) is changing orientation wrt the stars because the two are combining to make the cannonball orbit, without axial rotation. Again, the cannonball is not rotating on its own axis, so no torque needs to be applied to make it move this way.
Think of the person walking around the track beneath the path of the cannonball. Their orientation changes with respect to the stars whilst they circumnavigate the globe, but they are not rotating on their own axis. No torque needs to be applied to the person to make them move that way.
“Just look at the animations.”
Just because you miss-interpret the animations doesn’t mean others will or do.
Tim can respond for himself, RLH.
When you are wrong, you are wrong. Plain and simple.
It is clear that neither you or Tim have any rebuttal to the arguments I have made, so yes, when you are wrong you are wrong. I am glad you admit it.
It is you and your merry band who are wrong, and all scientific people support that claim that the Moon both orbits and rotates on its own axis once per orbit. ALL.
I’m afraid argumentum ad populum is not a valid rebuttal.
Try ALL science supports orbits and rotations as being separate things.
Since I agree that orbital motion and axial rotation are separate things, you don’t really have a point in any case.
The point is that you are wrong.
Message received that you think I’m wrong. No need for you to comment further, then, unless you actually have an argument to make, for the first time?
You are wrong. But I’m sure you know that.
So you still have no argument.
It is not an argument to consider you stupid. It is a fact.
Now you are reduced to insults.
Do stupid trolls notice insults?
Mt. Everest does not rotate on its own axis…but most of you “Spinners” seem to think it does. Now that’s a stupid claim, claiming that Mt. Everest rotates on its own axis.
“You can see the vector for its linear momentum, at right angles to the gravity vector. It (the cannonball) is changing orientation wrt the stars because the two are combining to make the cannonball orbit”
How is it possible that after all these years of discussing this topic that DREMT is STILL mixing up Translation and Rotation!?
How does he STILL confuse momentum and angular momentum???!!
How does he STILL conflate direction-of-motion with orientation?!
What a loser…
“Again, the cannonball is not rotating on its own axis, so no torque needs to be applied to make it move this way.”
How is it possible after all this time, DREMT STILL doesnt get TORQUE and its relationship to ROTATION?!
He wants the cannonball fired without rotation wrt the stars to ACQUIRE rotation wrt the stars, WITHOUT ever experiencing a TORQUE!?
More magical thinking from the TEAM of MORONS!
I’m not happy with my 5:45 PM comment…I’ll just give that a quick edit:
“You can’t simply start with a cannon ball stationary in a cannon, push it straight forward, and have it come out changing orientation with respect to the stars.”
Sure you can, Tim. Just look at the animations. The ball is fired straight forwards from the cannon.. You can see the vector for its linear momentum, at right angles to the gravity vector. It (the cannonball) is changing orientation wrt the stars because the two are combining to make the cannonball orbit, without axial rotation. Again, the cannonball is not rotating on its own axis, so no torque needs to be applied about the ball’s own center of mass to make it move this way. Instead, the torque is applied about the cannonball’s orbital axis (at the center of the Earth) as a result of the combination of the force from the cannon (and the ball’s linear momentum as a result) and gravity, acting at right angles to each other.
Think of the person walking around the track beneath the path of the cannonball. Their orientation changes with respect to the stars whilst they circumnavigate the globe, but they are not rotating on their own axis. No torque needs to be applied about the person’s own axis to make them move that way.
“Again, the cannonball is not rotating on its own axis, so no torque needs to be applied about the ball’s own center of mass to make it move this way. Instead, the torque is applied about the cannonball’s orbital axis (at the center of the Earth)”
Uhhh Im DREMT, and look Im pushing on this bolt. Why won’t it turn?! What’s wrong?
The only way to loosen a bolt is to apply TORQUE on it. You can’t simply apply a force on it thru its COM or fire it out of a cannon.
The only way to apply torque on an unattached body like the cannonball is to apply a force on it NOT thru its COM, or better yet two opposing forces not thru the COM like a wrench does to a bolt.
The initial force of the cannon on the ball is applied thru its COM and thus can only give it linear momentum, not ROTATION. No torque is applied on the cannonball by the cannon.
Gravity is acting thru the COM of the cannonball, so again no torque is applied on it by gravity.
The ball is not attached to the Earth, it is independent. Its not like pushing sideways on a MGR which is a RIGID BODY.
It cannot start rotating wrt the stars without a causal mechanism, that would be a TORQUE applied to IT.
No response from Tim…guess that’s that. Issue settled.
“Issue settled.”
Hilarious..
In DREMTS universe, that’s how issues get settled.
TF, you are still making the same mistakes, caused by your cult.
1) You are using the “fixed stars” to determine rotation. That’s WRONG, and has been explained to you numerous times.
2) You keep believing that an orbiting body, with NO axial rotation, has angular momentum about its axis.
Until you are deprogrammed from your cult beliefs, you will never understand orbital motions.
“You are using the fixed stars to determine rotation.”
Anything else means that energy can be extracted from the rotation.
The animations speak for themselves, and settle the issue. The “Non-Spinners” are correct.
The animations are miss-interpreted by you and are the root cause of your failures. No-one else, apart from your small clique, sees them that way.
Anyone looking at those animations and thinking that a point on the cannonball would remain oriented towards a fixed star are acting purely on their programming. They are certainly not taking any visual cues from the graphics they are witnessing.
“The animations speak for themselves, and settle the issue. ”
Well, I guess that settles it! 1 anonymous guy on the internet said it is so, so that’s it. Ignore the 1,000 actual scientist and engineers who do this for a living.
“Anyone looking at those animations and thinking that a point on the cannonball would remain oriented towards a fixed star are acting purely on their programming.”
Anyone who can ‘see’ a rotation of the cannonball in those diagrams is seriously deluded.
I don’t see a rotation, because the cannonball is not rotating on its own axis. I don’t see the orientation of the cannonball either. However, it can be inferred from the animations that the bottom of the cannonball remains oriented towards the Earth whilst it orbits.
“However, it can be inferred from the animations that the bottom of the cannonball remains oriented towards the Earth whilst it orbits.”
You can infer all you like. That is not what happens to objects that are in orbit. They remain pointing in the direction they started in, towards a fixed star, unless some force operates to create a rotation about their own axis. They will revolve in orbit about a barycenter based on their masses, distances, linear velocities and gravity. Any rotation of either object on its own axis is a completely separate thing.
That is what Newton taught. No rotation or translation occurs unless some force operates to do so.
I don’t disagree with some of what you say. Where you go wrong is in not being able to correctly separate orbital motion from axial rotation. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is movement like the “moon on the left” in the gif linked to above…as can be inferred from the Newton’s Cannonball gifs. That is how objects in orbit remain oriented, unless some force operates to create a rotation about their own axis (or if they entered the orbit already rotating on their own axis).
I disagree with all you say. Newton would have disowned you in an instant.
I am aware that you disagree. Thank you for commenting, you have had your say now.
Continue on with your non-science behavior.
You have had your say now.
And I will continue to say you are wrong at every opportunity.
Argument by repeated assertion is not any better than your argumentum ad populum.
Your stupidity reaches no bounds.
Now you are reduced to insults.
Whereas you are reduced to being a stupid troll.
Mt. Everest does not rotate on its own axis…but most of you “Spinners” seem to think it does. Now that’s a stupid claim, claiming that Mt. Everest rotates on its own axis.
“2) You keep believing that an orbiting body, with NO axial rotation, has angular momentum about its axis.”
Learn the “Parallel Axis Theorem”. This is freshman level physics.
A body with no axial rotation REALITVE TO THE ‘FIXED STARS’ has no spin angular momentum (just orbital anvular momentum L = )rxp).
A body with rotation relative to the fixed stars has both:
L = rxp + I(pmega)
You’re still making the same mistakes, TF.
And you’ve indicated you also don’t understand the Parallel Axis Theorem. I guess that means you never had freshman level physics.
I already knew that….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_axis_theorem
Parallel Axis Theorem describes rotation about an axis. Like the Moon does.
Trolls Folkerts and RLH continue to entertain us with their ignorance of physics!
RLH claims: “Parallel Axis Theorem describes rotation about an axis.”
The Parallel Axis Theorem has NOTHING to do with rotation. It has to do with “moment of inertia”.
I predict these two will not learn anything. They’re cult idiots and can’t learn.
“The Parallel Axis Theorem has NOTHING to do with rotation. It has to do with moment of inertia.”
Surely even you realize that angular momentum is
L = I (omega).
Ie the moment of inertia is at the core of every calculation of angular momentum and kinetic energy. Ie at the core of all of rotational dynamics. So yes, it has everything to to with rotation!
“The parallel axis theorem, also known as HuygensSteiner theorem, or just as Steiner’s theorem, named after Christiaan Huygens and Jakob Steiner, can be used to determine the moment of inertia or the second moment of area of a rigid body about any axis, given the body’s moment of inertia about a parallel axis through the object’s center of gravity and the perpendicular distance between the axes.”
Are you saying the Moon has no moment of inertia? Even though it is rotating about its axis.
Idiots Folkerts and RLH continue to exhibit their ignorance of physics.
They use wikipedia for their source, but they can’t even understand wikipedia! They’re as ignorant and incompetent as Bindidon and Norman.
I don’t attempt to teach physics to such idiots, but I’ll just mention that “moment of inertia” has NOTHING to do with rotation. A body has moment of inertia regardless of its motion or rotation. Moment of inertia is ONLY based on mass and physical shape.
Idiots.
Idiot Clint R and his merry band continue to ignore the multiple scientific supports for the Moon both orbiting and rotating on its axis. Won’t alter that fact that it is exactly what it does.
The issue has been settled…the “Non-Spinners” are correct.
No they are not. Despite your desperate attempts otherwise.
No desperation here, RLH. Just the warm glow of victory.
You will never prevail against science.
I am not against science. You are aware that science doesn’t work via some sort of popularity contest?
RLH is the biggest idiot on this blog. Maybe the biggest ever!
He has no science to offer, can’t learn, and just throws out things he can’t support, like:
“Parallel Axis Theorem describes rotation about an axis.?
When he’s shown how stupid that is, he just moves on to something else. He has no interest in science, or learning.
When the Moon rotation nonsense is finally fully exposed, trolls like RLH will just claim he knew it all along! Trolling is his life.
When the Moon is discovered to be made of Blue Cheese, Clint R will be correct.
As will DREMT.
The “Non-Spinners” are correct.
No they are not.
Yes, they are.
We could get whiplash as Clint, DREMT and others bounce between “you clearly don’t know physics” and “forget physics, its all wrong anyway”.
Folkerts, you get whiplash because you keep trying to spin reality. You don’t have a clue about the relevant physics. You’re no different from the other idiot trolls.
” Not according to Tony Heller. He proved 1936 was the hottest year in US history… ”
Robertson the dumbie has been told so often about the fact that Heller aka Goddard never proved anything, especially not that 1936 was the hottest year in the US.
Simply because no one needs to prove it: it’s in the data since ever, and despite hundreds of ridiculous claims, it never was erased out of it.
See for example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017-550×413.jpg
or today’s evaluation of the GHCN daily data for CONUS (the top20 of a descending sort of the monthly mean temperatures):
1901 7 25.38
1936 7 24.97
1934 7 24.75
1931 7 24.50
1980 7 24.42
1954 7 24.24
1935 7 24.17
1966 7 24.13
1921 7 24.12
1955 7 24.10
1930 7 24.08
1983 8 24.04
1900 8 24.01
1936 8 23.91
1933 7 23.89
1964 7 23.85
1949 7 23.84
1937 8 23.83
1947 8 23.82
1916 7 23.82
But… as we can see, 1901 still is at top!
As usual, Robertson doesn’t understand the difference between absolute temperatures and their departures from a mean.
In the latter case namely, the 1930’s no longer are above the recent decade…
J.-P. D.
In tropics where you have the most water vapor and most intense sunlight, it does not break world record hot days.
It’s the drier Earth which has record breaking daytime high temperatures.
It mostly about warmer winters and nights.
No GHE? Gotcha.
Sunlight reaching the Earth surface can heat stuff to 80 C. The highest correctly measured surface air temperature is, as provided by wiki:
“The current official highest registered air temperature on Earth is 56.7 C (134.1 F), recorded on 10 July 1913 at Furnace Creek Ranch, in Death Valley in the United States.”
56.7 C is a hot air temperature. But parked car air temperature can get much hotter than 56.7 C.
Or with garbage bag filled with water in sunlight one can get high temperature water- ie it burn our hand, ie, cause pain, inflammation
to hand if put this hot water. Greenhouse gases do not cause air to get hot, no one says they do. Greenhouse gases are said to increase global average air temperature is averages about 15 C. 15 C water is cold water, which if immersed into such water can kill a human within hours. 15 C air and water is cold.
“Global warming” is about making a cold world, less cold.
The greenhouse effect theory claims Earth would be much much colder if not for greenhouse gases, instead of 15 C, earth would be -18 C.
Now if we were in such a cold world, sunlight would still heat the air in a parked car to higher than 56.7 C, and garbage bag with water in it, would still make scolding hot water.
GHE is about increase average global air temperature, and average air temperature is about measuring surface air when it’s warmest and when coolest in a 24 hour period, and averaging that with yearly recorded of night and day temperatures.
The country of India has average yearly temperature of about 24 C.
The simple reason India has 24 C and US has about 12 C, is India does not a have “winter” as people in US regard as “winter”. Instead India has wet seasons and dry seasons. Or at noon, the sun always remains high in the sky, as it is with US during Summer. India does not have low in sky noon sun, at anytime.
“India’s climate can be classified as a hot tropical country, except the northern states of Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir in the north and Sikkim in the northeastern hills, which have a cooler, more continental influenced climate.”
RLH says:
August 11, 2021 at 5:58 PM
“India’s climate can be classified as a hot tropical country,”
Well, the Brits would say that.
Brazil has higher average temperature, which 26 C.
There is no classification of hot tropical country.
India has desert and that is where it gets it’s highest recorded daytime temperature.
“In India, Phalodi in Rajasthan holds the record for highest temperature measured ever. Phalodi, near Pokharan, recorded the temperature of 51-degree Celsius or 123.8-degree Fahrenheit on May 19, 2016”
Washington State’s record is 118 F, and eager to make new record but were disappointed. They probably would be to happy to called a hot tropical country.
I was wondering if Brazil has desert.
“What is the biggest desert in Brazil?
Lençóis Maranhenses National Park. 155,000 hectares (380,000 acres).”
{it’s not a desert- it’s a sandy area on the beach}
Wiki:
“While much of the park has the appearance of a desert, the area receives about 1,200 millimetres (47 in) of rain per year, while deserts, by definition, receive less than 250 millimetres (10 in) annually. About 70% of this rainfall occurs between the months of January and May.”
https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/climate/India.htm
“In most of India summer is very hot. It begins in April and continues till the beginning of October, when the monsoon rains start to fall. The heat peaks in June with temperatures in the northern plains and the west reach 45 C and more. The monsoons hit the country during this period too, beginning 1st of June when they are supposed to find the Kerala coast, moving further inland from day to day. Moisture laden trade winds sweep the country bringing heavy rains and thunderstorms; sometimes these monsoon rains can be very heavy, causing floodings and damage, especially along the big Rivers of India, Bramaputhra and Ganges.”
“The heat peaks in June with temperatures in the northern plains and the west reach 45 C”
The west is desert, and it’s beaten Washington State record high temperature, but it’s dry with cool nights. The Capital {New Delhi} is forecasted to reach 99 F next Tuesday and it seems quite humid and doesn’t cool down much at night {81 F} and it seems with even higher humidity at night.
Nights seem like they pretty warm. Somewhere 20 million people, every increasing population. Some UHI effect but to me, doesn’t seem like a lot, though they say it increases electric costs by significant amount, also is slightly offset as also reduces heating bills during the colder times. So slightly cooler days than me, and quite a bit warmer nights. I would worry mostly about the humidity at night.
And slight chance of rain. And apparently it can quite foggy in India, and one UHI effect is reducing fog around the cities.
The thing about India is its high relative humidity for most of the year.
“In vast parts of India, humidity combined with heat is deadlier for human health and wellbeing.”
Oh boy!
TM, why do you like nonsense so much?
Because his head is hollow?
Birds of a feather…
“Take our moon and slice it down the middle, like cutting an orange in half. Now, hollow out both hemispheres of the moon. Fill one hemisphere with hammers, and the other hemisphere with feathers. Let’s guess that the hemisphere filled with hammers has 100 times more mass of the other hemisphere. Now, put the halves back together.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-555062
They must teach this at clown college.
TM, I’m happy to see you’re promoting some real science, for a change.
Keep it up. You might even learn something.
so that’s a nod to clown college then.
Yes, you certainly appear qualified for a career in comedy.
Science, not so much….
There are observations by CERES of 240 W/m^2.
Also
Solar flux on top of the atmosphere (TOA) is So =1,361 W/m^2
The planet uniform blackbody concept claims Earth*s surface absorbs on average
Jabs = (1-a)So /4 = (1-0.3)1,361 W/m^2 /4 = 240 W/m^2
Those two values are identical.
But planet does not emit uniformly, because planet does not have uniform surface temperature, not even close!
Also
Solar flux cannot be averaged over the entire planet surface…
And
Solar energy is absorbed during the solar lit hours only.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Solar flux cannot be averaged over the entire planet surface…
Solar energy is absorbed during the solar lit hours only.”
Idiot.
The sun does not go to bed. That 240 Wm-2 is non-stop.
It has to be balanced by emitted infrared radiation. The emitting temperature of 255K is the same whether the Earth is spinning at once every 24 hours, once every 24 seconds or stationary.
Please enrol in a basic climate science course and learn something correctly.
The Earth is not receiving 240 W/m^2. Half of the Earth (the lit hemisphere) is receiving 480 W/m^2, whilst the entire Earth emits 240 W/m^2 at the same moment. 480 W/m^2 balances with the 240 W/m^2 because the surface area over which the input is received is only half that of the area from which the output leaves.
480 W/m^2 has the potential to heat a blackbody surface to 303 K.
A second idiot.
The whole hemisphere (area 4pi r**2) is continually emitting at 255K.
The input is the amount intercepted by the Earth’s disk (area pi r**2).
There is no escaping this basic fact.
You seem to want to equate the emitting temperature with the surface temperature. This is a school boy error. The emitting temperature represents an average of the surface temperature AND the atmospheric temperature.
In simple terms, the emitting temperature applies at about 5km above the surface. The average surface temperature can be roughly estimated by applying a dry adiabatic lapse rate.
Please enrol in a basic climate science course and save us from your ignorance.
If our was ocean was limited to just 25 degree latitude north and south, it would absorb 1/2 of all sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. But rather than ocean covering just 40% of the surface, as would if only between 25 north and south, it covers 70% of Earth surface.
The ocean surface is transparent to sunlight and most of the sunlight is absorbed in the top 2 meter of ocean water, and of 200 cm of water the top 100 cm absorbs more and there is significant sunlight which is absorbed below 2 meter depth but this is largely visible light and UV light.
Most sunlight is shortwave IR:
“In terms of energy, sunlight at Earth’s surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).” Wiki, Sunlight.
So, about 1/2 of red light is absorbed before 5 meters depth, but of 52 to 55% infrared, about 90% absorbed in top 1 meter, and only about 1% gets below 2 meter depth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
https://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/parameters/weather/photosynthetically-active-radiation/
And Ocean absorbs direct and indirect sunlight.
But not sunlight is absorbed within top 1 cm depth of water.
As compared to land surface which aren’t transparent and a “large percent” is absorbed within top 1 cm depth.
And of course another aspect of ocean water is wave action can mix water down a 100 meters or so. {But also mixing warmed water up- I am not saying heat just goes down- plus got surface being evaporated and cooling and falling. And winds directly mixing and causing forced evaporation}. But point is sunlight doesn’t directly heat the 1 cm or say inch of ocean surface. More than 1/2 is 90% warming the top 1 meter.
So clear sky, sun at noon, 1120 watts of direct and indirect sunlight, say 55% is 616 watts per square meter, 90% is 554.4 watt, and have 100 cm, 5.544 watts per cm depth, let’s wild and say 50 watts warm the top 1 cm. 1 cm depth of 1 square meter is 10 kg of water. And water has high specific heat. Whereas sand, rocks, concrete can heat up the top 1 cm quickly.
Though when sunlight at lower angle this warms the ocean at shallower depth. But most sunlight does most warming of surface when the sun higher in sky {ie, peak solar hours}.
No, DMT, what I said is correct. The lit hemisphere has an area of 2 pir^2. The whole sphere has an area of 4 pir^2. The surface area of the lit hemisphere is obviously half that of the entire sphere. Since the entire sphere emits 240 W/m^2 at any one moment, the lit hemisphere is receiving 480 W/m^2 in that same moment. Since total energy in and out is what is conserved, whereas flux is energy per second per meter squared.
DMT, you have several things wrong. Obviously you don’t understand the physics involved. But, let’s just use your own nonsense to show how wrong you are:
“In simple terms, the emitting temperature applies at about 5km above the surface. The average surface temperature can be roughly estimated by applying a dry adiabatic lapse rate.”
The dry adiabatic lapse rate is about -9.8K/km, gaining in altitude. So at 5 km, the change is -49 K. Earth’s average surface temperature is 288K. So your “emitting temperature” is 288 – 49 = 239K.
Yet, you also believe the “emitting temperature” is 255K. You don’t even agree with yourself!
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/10/1026137992/3-things-to-know-about-what-scientists-say-about-our-future-climate
And the models show that to be definitely true. Roughly.
Except Gavin thinks they run too hot.
Nice squirrel, dummy.
You dispute what he said?
Nice squirrel, dummy.
Idiot.
No U
The Climate Science scenario for planet warming is that warming is started by CO2 increase. Warming causes water vapor (WV, a greenhouse gas) to increase adding to the warming. The calculated WV increase trend from just planet warming (Had_CRUT4 temperatures) amounts to about 1.04% per decade. This is essentially what is used by Climate Science and contributes to their epic fail in climate prediction.
NASA/RSS has been measuring average global WV by satellite since Jan 1988. The data show an increasing trend of 1.49% per decade. Thus the measured WV has been increasing about 43% faster than possible from just temperature increase. This demonstrates that there must be an additional source of WV.
The comparison is shown here graphically with links to methodology and data sources. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ntl57AEsPYfTppC0DUziRBnq0NV42g5B/view?usp=sharing
This ‘extra’ WV increase accounts for all of the temperature increase attributable to humanity (about 0.6 K 1909-2019). Carbon dioxide, in spite of being a ghg, has no significant net effect on climate.
Vournas makes a compelling case there is no GHE at all. The atmosphere is too thin.
stephen…”Vournas makes a compelling case there is no GHE at all. The atmosphere is too thin”.
***
I was surprised with that too. The atmosphere is about 300 miles thick overall but the troposphere, which affects us most, varies from 4 to 12 miles, thickest at Equator.
Considering that the radius of the Earth is about 3960 miles, the troposphere is almost insignificant in thickness and it’s effective thichness is even less.
Consider the top of Everest (~30,000 feet), where the troposphere is likely about 10 miles thick. Air pressure has decreased to about 1/3rd of air pressure at the surface. Humans cannot live at that altitude, without supplemental oxygen, some would die in hours without it, although some highly conditioned climber can survive for days without it.
The range of temperature at 30,000 feet (on Everest) is -20C to -35C, without a wind. Of course, if you are at the top on a clear day, with no wind, the Sun itself will warm you enough to survive for a while. Better not stick around after the Sun disappears. Some have been forced to spend the night a bit below the top and lost parts due to frost bite, even in May.
It’s apparent that temperatures drop with altitude and air pressure. That’s contrary to what some claim with regard to the lapse rate, that declining temperatures lead to reduced pressure. Not possible, since there is no such thing as temperature in reality, only varying levels of heat intensity.
Heat is directly related to pressure since both are dependent on the number of atoms/molecules in a gas. As the number of atoms/molecules are reduced in a container, the pressure drops and so does the heat content. Since temperature was invented to measure heat intensity, it naturally drops with pressure in a constant volume.
It is a reduction in the number of atoms/molecules that determines both pressure and temperature reduction with altitude with the determining factor being gravitational force.
Essentially, most humans live well below 10,000 feet. People live in Denver at 5000 feet but it is known that breathing becomes more difficult for athletes at that altitude. Would not surprise me at all if most weather events also took place below 10,000 feet.
The jet stream is known to descend to the level of the top of Everest, often depicted by plumes of snow being blown of the top of Everest. That’s 30,000 feet. Monsoon winds and hurricane level winds ravage Everest year round, and that air movement can make Everest a mighty dangerous place year round due to wind chills up to -70C.
Considering that Everest is located near the 30 degree parallel north, that puts it in the same latitude as North Africa and the northern end of the Gulf of Mexico. Shows the effect of altitude in the troposphere and also why you won’t find any surface thermometers anywhere nearby.
Gordon
“Heat is directly related to pressure since both are dependent on the number of atoms/molecules in a gas. As the number of atoms/molecules are reduced in a container, the pressure drops and so does the heat content. Since temperature was invented to measure heat intensity, it naturally drops with pressure in a constant volume.
It is a reduction in the number of atoms/molecules that determines both pressure and temperature reduction with altitude with the determining factor being gravitational force.”
Thank you Gordon!
There should be some material substance to have the necessary heat content. And there should be atoms and molecules to have the energy content and to emit the alleged 240 W/m^2…
A layer of air is not capable to emit 240 W/m^2. It is not only the temperature of 255K that matters, but also the density of the substance. It is 240 W/m^2 they are claiming about. It is impossible!
Thank you again.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In view of previous comments on this thread,here’s an interesting accounting of vineyards and wine in the UK during centuries past:
https://www.winegb.co.uk/history-of-the-industry/
Cool. Thanks.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/
Stephen McIntyre
“Although climate scientists keep telling that defects in their ‘hockey stick’ proxy reconstructions don’t matter – that it doesn’t matter whether they use data upside down, that it doesn’t matter if they cherry pick individual series depending on whether they go up in the 20th century, that it doesn’t matter if they discard series that don’t go the ‘right’ way (‘hide the decline’), that it doesn’t matter if they used contaminated data or stripbark bristlecones, that such errors don’t matter because the hockey stick itself doesn’t matter – the IPCC remains addicted to hockey sticks”
rlh..”(hide the decline)”
“the IPCC remains addicted to hockey sticks”
***
The author of that dastardly deed (hide the decline), referred to in the Climategate emails as “the trick’, was devised by Michael Mann. He is now inducted into the National Academy of Science and referred to as a distinguished professor.
If you read deeper into McIntyre’s block, climateaudit dot com, you will see that Thomas Karl, former heat of NOAA, knew about the trick and said nothing. He knew they had fiddled the hockey stick and said nothing.
Phil Jones, of Had-crut, and a Coordinating Lead Author at IPCC reviews, who holds immense power over the reviewers, bragged to Mann in one of the emails that he had employed the trick. He also bragged that he and another CLA would ensure that certain skeptic papers, one of them from John Christy of UAH, would not make it into an IPCC review.
Good on McIntyre and McKitrick for exposing the scam.
several typos, but you’ll figure it out.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/11/ipcc-un-climate-report-is-our-final-wake-up-call-say-experts.html
The globe is indeed cooler than it was 12 months ago, month on month.
And?
willard…”And?”
You’re the one posting numerous articles on global cooling, maybe you could tell us.
Very well:
You’re obviously discovering how to play squirrels.
Whereas you never answer any questions put to you but duck and dive all you can to avoid any such clarity.
You are yourself more like a squirrel, always moving here and there in a darting behavior.
Your leading questions and your squirrels are baits, dummy.
You are an idiot. (And a squirrel)
No U (are giving me free wins by breaking from the exchange with cheap insults)
Whereas you are just an idiot.
z
I would hope the World Leaders, whilst attending COP26, get to sample some of that fine Scottish Wine.
From your own source, Kennui:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ex-winemaker-is-not-toasting-the-summer-g965jsxsp
If you knew anything about wine, you’d already be aware that the quality of a wine isn’t exactly correlated to the richness of a terroir. On the contrary, it is said that the vine needs to suffer. And please bear in mind that in contrast to soja or corn, a large does of passion is required to grow it.
willard…”If you knew anything about wine, youd already be aware that the quality of a wine isnt exactly correlated to the richness of a terroir”.
***
Then tell me why most grapes are grown in arid regions that are relatively warm in growing season? We produce wines in British Columbia, Canada, but the vineyards are generally in the Interior of BC which is an arid to semi-arid environment that is warm in the growing season.
> tell me why most grapes are grown in arid regions
An arid soil isn’t exactly rich, Gordo. That the Okanagan Valley once was a desert helps control precipitations. The same logic applied to cherries.
Other factors than geography and climate are involved:
https://www.worldfoodwine.com/wine-in-africa
Also note that AGW will impact wine production:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_wine_production
Willard, please stop trolling.
I didn’t make my claim about Northern England and Roman Wine as a prelude to discussing finer points of wine tasting.
I’ll stick with tried tested and true. Rioja region from Spain, Undurraga region from Chile, Mendoza from Argentina tend to lead my choices. I’m not interested in South of England wines at all.
Nevermind Scottish wines not fit for use as hand sanitizer. Maybe they will be useful as anti-freeze this winter.
You made your claim without knowing anything about wine, Kennui. You have no idea what kind of wine the Romans grew or how successful it was.
It’s possible to grow vines in Scotland today. In fact it’s possible to grow wine in Norway. That’s just what it is.
It’s just a flesh wound. Get over it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ken…”I would hope the World Leaders, whilst attending COP26, get to sample some of that fine Scottish Wine”.
***
A pint of McEwan’s would be much preferable. Or some Irn Bru with fish and chips.
I can vouch for Draft Double Diamond (on tap) south of the border, although it does make findings one’s way home more difficult after the 9th pint.
Also affects one’s sense of direction. Got on the last tube out to Maida Vale, by accident (or inebriation), and had to walk 9 miles back to Earls Court, with a stopover at Wimpeys to refuel.
You might like:
https://www.unibroue.com/en-ca/beers/classics/la-fin-du-monde
I’m not in favor of bureaucrats in my government going to COP26 on my dime and enjoying finer things in life such as McEwans’ etc.
I don’t want the bureaucrats to go at all. Feed them unpalatble Scottish Wine choked down with strong cheese to cover the flavor.
Cheap wine does not go well with strong cheese, dummy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
tim…”Learn the Parallel Axis Theorem. This is freshman level physics”.
***
You’re digging a pretty deep hole here, Tim. As Clint pointed out, the parallel axis theorem is about the transfer of momentum from one axis to another.
If you have a body rotating about axis z and it starts rotating about a parallel axis z’, then the theorem covers the transfer of momentum about z’.
However, here’s where it falls down. The rigid body rotating around z is not keeping the same face pointed at z’ as it orbits z’. The only way it can keep the same face pointed at the z’ axis is if it stops rotating about the z axis.
Show me how it is possible for the rigid body with axis z to keep the same face pointed at parallel axis z’, while rotating about z’, and still rotate through 360 degrees about axis z.
We’re back to the same problem. If the rigid body keeps its closest side to axiz z’ at all times, then the side away from the near side is moving in a parallel circle. If the rigid body was rotating about axis z, those sides would need to change places by mid-orbit.
“the parallel axis theorem is about the transfer of momentum from one axis to another.”
Its not about ‘transfer’ and it is not about ‘momentum’!
It is about calculating the momentum of inertia (and hence angular momentum) of an object. You calculate the moment of inertia of an object about its own axis, I_cm, and then add the moment of inertia for the center of mass of the object as it moves around an external axis, mr^2. For an orbiting moon, the first term gives the ‘spin angular momentum’ and the second term gives the ‘orbital angular momentum.
For example, to find the correct angular momentum for a horse on a merry-go-round rotating at angular speed (omega), you find the moment of inertia for the MGR horse about its own axis, I, and multiply by the angular speed. Then you find the distance from the horse’s COM to the center of hte MGR and calculate the mr^2 and multiply by the angular speed.
L = L_spin + L_orbit = I_cm(omega) + mr^2(omega)
The rotation about the horse’s COM is real and needs to be included to get the right answer.
tim…”Its not about transfer and it is not about momentum! ”
That was a typo…I should have said moments of inertia. Still, the purpose is to transfer the momentum (did it again…moment of inertia) of one rotating body to the entire rotating system.
You have craftily avoided my point about how the body rotating about the z-axis, can keep the same side pointed to the
z’-axis when that system rotates about the z’-axis.
Awaiting your explanation.
Gordon, I think the principle challenges here is that there are TWO possible interpretations of a statement like “a merry-go-round rotates about its axis once every 10 seconds and a horse on the merry-go-round horse rotates about its own axis once every 10 seconds.”
This could mean either:
A) a merry-go-round rotates about its axis once every 10 seconds and a horse on the merry-go-round horse rotates about its own axis RELATIVE THE THE MERRY-GO-ROUND once every 10 seconds.” (Eg there is a motor that rotates the post holding the horse, so the horse rotates twice every 10 seconds relative to the ground)
B) a merry-go-round rotates about its axis once every 10 seconds AND BECAUSE OF THIS FACT, we can define an infinite number of OTHER axes about which the horse is rotating, including its own axis. (Ie the nose of the horse is moving in a circles once every 10 seconds relative to an axis through the center AND the nose of the horse is moving in a circles once every 10 seconds relative to an axis through the COM of the horse AND the nose of the horse is moving in a circles once every 10 seconds relative to an axis through the tail.)
You seem to only consider Interpretation A. And then your critique is valid!
The biggest problem with Interpretation A for the moon is that there is no ‘merry-go-round’. It makes no sense to measure “relative to the rotating platform” when there in is no platform. An axis through the barycenter *almost* works because the moon *almost* travels in a circle. But “almost” is not good enough.
Folkerts, your endless efforts to pervert reality are amusing.
Obviously, the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string has you flummoxed. You don’t have a clue about the relevant physics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-792962
testing…part 1…
willard…”The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorp.tion properties of different gases…”
***
I know this statement comes from Roy and my policy is to respect Roy as a guest on his site by not getting into arguments over his opinions. So, I am not going after him on this but after the entire notion of the GHE which is prevalent among many people.
A few years ago, Mike Flynn provided a good link to Tyndall’s work that lead to GHE theory. I found his experiment to be very professional, especially given the times and the equipment he was forced to use. Nevertheless, he got good results that PROVED his point, that certain gases can absorb infrared energy.
When the GHE was introduced it was based on the theory that the glass in a greenhouse trapped infrared energy but no one explained how trapped IR could warm a greenhouse. Were they suggesting that the 0.04% of CO2, and possibly about 1% water vapour (at sea level at northern latitudes like Vancouver, Canada)could raise the overall temperature in the air of a greenhouse to 10C above the air outside the greenhouse?
If so, that has never been proved in a lab. Furthermore, if it was true, we’d have glass-encased enclosure filled with CO2 in every room in our homes. We could use the CO2 as a heat source and save on fuel bills.
part 2…
Circa 1909, R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2, doubted that CO2 could cause such warming. So, he devised an experiment and proved it could not. He went on to theorize that the heating in a greenhouse is caused by the glass trapping molecules of air, which is 99% nitrogen and oxygen.
The temperature in a greenhouse is controlled by venting the hot air or even blowing it out with a fan. Fans cannot blow out trapped IR, therefore it is the N2/O2 molecules that are being blown out.
The trapping myth claimed for GHGs in the atmosphere is based on the same principle that trapped IR can warm the atmosphere. Only about 5% of surface radiation can be trapped by GHGs and converted to heat. But, that is insufficient heat to cause a significant warming as proved by the Ideal Gas Law, wherein CO2 at 0.04% could only contribute about 0.04C to a warming of 1C by all gases.
GHGs cannot trap heat. The theory that GHGs act as a blanket is unproved science. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and the only thing that can trap an atom is a substance like glass and the wood frames in which the glass is installed. Heat molecules of air moving by convection would drift straight by GHG molecules without stopping for so much as a hello.
That’s the only way heat can move though the atmosphere by convection. It can move by conduction but the resistance to such a heat transfer makes it seriously inefficient. There goes the GHE theory based on trapping infrared energy.
part 3…
AGW, or its more serious mythical form CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) is an extension of the GHE. It goes further by claiming that IR back-radiated from GHGs are absorbed by the surface hence raising its temperature above the temperature to which it is heated by solar energy. A fanciful theory, at best.
The back-radiation theory fails in two major ways. It is claimed in the AGW theory that the source of heating of the GHGs is sbsorp-tion of IR from the surface which is converted to heat by the electrons in CO2 molecules. The surface, in turn, absorbs broad-spectrum EM from the Sun and converts it to heat. That lower temperature heat is converted to IR in a constricted bandwidth of IR and is far less intense than solar EM.
The point is, the surface is claimed to be the source of heat in GHGs. Those GHGs are at a temperature which is in thermal equilibrium with the surface, or lower. That means no heat can be transferred from the GHGs to the surface. Since the GHG temperature decreases with altitude, it’s not possible to transfer heat, by its own means, from a colder region of space to the warmer surface.
Secondly, any process that recycles heat from a heat source back to the heat source, so as to raise its temperature is classified as perpetual motion. Cannot happen.
The last chink in the GHE/AGW theory is that the absorp-tion of IR from the surface somehow slows down the rate of heat dissipation at the surface. There is nothing in the S-B equation that addresses such a likelihood but it is known that the rate of heat dissipation is affected by the temperature of a medium surrounding an emitting body.
Heat dissipation in a vacuum is dependent on the rate of conversion from a heated surface to the emitted EM. That is S-B in a nutshell. However, if the surface is surrounded by air, the rate of dissipation is also dependent on the air temperature. If you raise the air temperature above the heated surface temperature, the surface will warm up. That is the basis of a convection oven where hot air is blown over a cooler substance to cook it by raising its temperature.
The rate of heat dissipation at the Earth’s surface is also dependent on the temperature of the air at the surface-atmosphere interface. That air temperature at the surface must be in thermal equilibrium with the surface temperature. Under those conditions, no heat could be transferred from the surface to the atmosphere.
However, air heated at the surface rises, and as it rises, cooler air from above descends to take its place. That cooler air is again heated by the surface, hence the surface heat is dissipated.
Any effect on the rate of surface heat dissipation cannot be dependent on trace gases. It has to be dependent on the entire atmosphere which is 99% nitrogen and oxygen.
It appears to me that none of the arguments supporting the GHE or AGW hold any water.
Gordon, I would recommend that you read William Happer’s article about ‘Radiation Transfer’. It makes a lot more sense than anything you’ve written here. No insult intended; I just think you’re wrong.
However, air heated at the surface rises, and as it rises, cooler air from above descends to take its place.
Yes, Ken, Gordon is demonstrably wrong. Gordon has been wrong for years.
Gordon: only air warmed by the sun above ambient rises until it equilibrates with surroundings. The convecting, rising air is replaced laterally by ambient air NOT “cooler air from above”.
Convection occurs when a fluid is warmed above ambient from below in a gravity field. There are several experiments showing the fluid convection process on youtube; Gordon can try to learn from them.
Dr. Spencer has explained the earthen GHE well enough even Gordon ought to be able to understand the GHE for which understanding, so far, Gordon exhibits no evidence.
Prof. Tyndall’s and Prof. Wood’s experiments proved Dr. Spencer correct in explaining the earthen GHE due to IR active gases.
Furthermore, Dr. Spencer has performed actual experiments on the real atm. proving the GHE. In the satellite era, the earthen GHE predictions were supported & that GHE has been measured at ~33K over many multiannual periods.
No word salad of Gordon’s, however extensive, will ever counter those measurements.
Ball4,
Air may rise or fall, depending on density, not temperature or heat content necessarily.
Or, it may merely expand laterally – resulting in rising temperatures, but still air conditions.
Often overlooked is that H2O vapour is much less dense than dry air, and if the vapour condenses to the liquid form, the the resulting air parcel suddenly becomes much denser as it volume contracts.
Depending on circumstances, all sorts of things may happen. The atmosphere behaves chaotically, and numerical predictions are generally no better than than naive persistence projections, combined with guesswork.
As to the supposed GHE, I believe Dr Spencer confirmed that the atmosphere (like all matter) radiates infrared. Pointing a remote sensing thermometer at the sky will read some of the infra red radiation in the instrument’s field of view, and convert this to a meaningless “temperature”. Nothing to do with any supposed “GHE”.
Nobody can even describe the “GHE”, let alone say where it may be observed or quantified.
Your fervour is admirable, but like that of all climate cranks, based on fantasy rather than fact.
ken…” I would recommend that you read William Happer’s article about ‘Radiation Transfer’. It makes a lot more sense than anything you’ve written here”.
***
You have read Happer and you think he makes sense? I think he is all over the place with his theories.
He does conclude:
“In summary, the figure above shows that the flux changes from doubling the concentrations of greenhouse gases, a very substantial change, reduces the radiation to space by only a few Wm-2. This is only a few per cent of the several hundred Wm-2 in the natural flux to space…”
That agrees with what I said, that GHGs absorb no more than 5% of total surface radiation.
It would help if you’d state exactly where you think I am wrong.
ball4…”only air warmed by the sun above ambient rises until it equilibrates with surroundings. The convecting, rising air is replaced laterally by ambient air NOT cooler air from above.
Convection occurs when a fluid is warmed above ambient from below in a gravity field”.
***
I regard you as a clown, as well as a troll, based on the bs you present and the way you cherry-pick what is posted. You cherry-pick Clausius and you twist the words of R. W. Wood to suit your own perverted science.
Once again, Wood, a world-renowned expert on gases, claimed the surface is heated by solar energy, the heated air rises, and because it is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, it cannot radiate the heat away. That is the GHE right there.
The biggest load of bs you have ever presented, however, is that heat does not exist, that it is a measure of energy transfer. Where did you get that hogwash? Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and the energy you describe as being measured by heat is heat. That’s what an idiot you are, you claim heat is a measure of heat. They call that temperature in other circles.
Now you are on about ambient temperature, your new buzzword. How does the Sun heat air above ambient, which is the temperature of the surroundings? In fact, how does Sun heat air at all? Nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of air, is claimed not to absorb solar energy at all. So, does it or doesn’t it? If it does, which I think it does, the GHE and AGW need to be re-evaluated.
The truth is that the Sun heats the ground and the ground heats the air by direct conduction. Happer claims it is only in the Tropics that occurs, but he is wrong. In summer, at the latitude of Vancouver, Canada, the Sun can heat sidewalks so much you cannot walk on them in bare feet. Black surfaces, like tar on roads, are even worse.
In winter, it is the same. The Sun heats ice and snow they melts, providing the ambient air temperature is high enough.
What does ambient mean with relation to surface temperature? Obviously, air in contact with surface is at the same temperature as the surface and no heat transfer is possible. However, that air will be warmer than air above it, normally, and it will rise. As it rises, what replaces it?
If the air replacing it is the same temperature, there will never be heat dissipation at the surface other than by radiation. Are we back to that old alarmist propaganda, that the only means with which heat can be dissipated is by radiation?
But wait, you don’t believe in heat, you think it is only a measure of a mysterious generic energy that is being dissipated. So, no more hot ovens when set to 375 degrees, what we feel is a generic energy that is unnamed. Can’t call it heat, Ball4 claims it doesn’t exist.
Ball4 tries to slip in some of his cult’s “anti-science”: “…GHE has been measured at ~33K over many multiannual periods.”
The “33K” is NOT a measured value. It does NOT exist in reality. The 33K is the difference between Earth’s average surface temp, 288K, and the equilibrium temperature of a blackbody sphere, 255K. 288 – 255 = 33.
The arithmetic is correct, but the science is WRONG. Earth is NOT an imaginary object.
There are many on this board and elsewhere in the last few years who have completely whipped out GHE theory. But still, the politicians march on. They are the last bad actors.
The phrase in the summary probably should read ‘doubling of CO2’ instead of ‘doubling of Greenhouse Gases’. I think that is what is intended. Your interpretation isn’t correct.
Scroll up and you find the section about Greenhouse Gases where it states “The surface temperature with no greenhouse gases would be -14°F (-10°C), well below the freezing point of water”
That -10C is in alignment with the ’33K’ being bandied about.
The decrease in direct thermal radiation due to all greenhouse gases, including water vapor, is understood to be on the order of 342Wm-2. The doubling of CO2 would decrease it further by only 3Wm-2.
The decrease in direct thermal radiation due to all greenhouse gases, including water vapor, is understood to be on the order of 342Wm-2. The doubling of CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm would decrease it further by only 3Wm-2. That doubling of CO2 is what Happer means in his summary.
“…that (heat) is a measure of energy transfer.”
No Gordon, since the time of Clausius heat is a measure of the total KE of an object’s constituent particles (i.e. molecules, atoms). Temperature is a measure of their avg. KE at the object’s thermometer measurement location. Measures don’t materially exist in nature despite Gordon’s claims to the contrary & which James Joule proved experimentally.
It’s high time Gordon actually learned & applied some thermodynamics from Gordon’s fav. Clausius.
“However, that air will be warmer than air above it, normally, and it will rise. As it rises, what replaces it?”
See the youtube videos demonstrating the mechanics of fluid convection Gordon for you to learn where the replacement fluid comes from; Gordon’s word salads are not material science, they are imaginary.
And, again, see the advice and experiments of Dr. Spencer to enable Gordon (& Swenson, Clint R) to understand the earthen GHE proven by Prof. Tyndall, Prof . Wood, et. al. experimentally long ago and Dr. Spencer reaffirmed recently. State their words, not Gordon’s own ill-advised words.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
> my policy is to respect Roy as a guest on his site by not getting into arguments over his opinions
You argue against Roy’s opinions every single day, Gordo, if not every comment.
At least own it.
willard…”You argue against Roys opinions every single day, Gordo, if not every comment”.
***
That’s coincidence, I don’t challenge him directly in an effort to discredit him as a professional. You do, however, your entire purpose on Roy’s blog is to negate what Roy claims.
I respect what Roy does at UAH and I think his work is important. He’s had the courage to stick with his integrity in face of criticism from your alarmist authority figures. I think their criticism has been based in pseudo-science.
He could probably be a lot wealthier had he cashed in his integrity for the big money being offered to butt-kissers who regurgitate the CAGW paradigm. John Christy of UAH, pays his own way to events where he has to testify so he won’t be labeled as being supported by Big Oil.
Seriously, you and your authority figures must resort to dirty tactics to get your cheap messages across.
Roy has never claimed that the current wimpy heat waves are related to anthropogenic causes. He thinks anthropogenic effects may be related but he does not think there is a concern for the future regarding catastrophic anthropogenic warming.
You have been posting post after post in an attempt to allege heat waves, droughts, and floods are caused by humans, even though you have offered not one shred of scientific proof.
That’s why you are an alarmist troll.
BTW…I have seen Roy go head to head with skeptic Philip Latour, a chemical engineer who is well versed in thermodynamics.
I know you did, Gordo. Vintage 2015:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/09/s-fred-singer-a-1960s-trailblazer-for-satellite-remote-sensing/#comment-199794
You’ve been at it for a while now.
Yes, Willard, as you note Gordon in comments is ill-advised to oppose Dr. Spencer’s experimental work proving the earthen GHE ~33K.
It is obvious that Gordon and certain others have repeatedly for years demonstrated no interest in learning about basic atm. thermodynamics from Dr. Spencer’s admirable efforts.
Willard, Ball4, please stop trolling.
Wondrous Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“You argue against Roy’s opinions every single day, Gordo, if not every comment.
At least own it.”
What a completely illogical comment. First you tell him your opinion, then you demand he agrees with it!
Are you really irrational, or just pretending, dummy?
You’re using a sock puppet to comment here, Mike Flynn.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Are you truly delusional, or just pretending?
Having realised your previous comment made you an object of derision, you attempt to deflect blame onto the mythical “Mike Flynn”!
I have told you before – your fantasy is not reality.
You can run, but you can’t hide, dummy!
Run, Wee Willy, run! Run after that other coward – Gavin Schmidt, who refused to debate Dr Spencer.
I don’t blame Gavin – he’s only a pretend scientist, and was scared he’d look silly. At least you don’t pretend to be a scientist, do you, Silly Willy?
Mike Flynn,
You’re not mythical:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/23/week-in-review-science-edition-38/#comment-780798
Rejoice your Climateball past!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordo,
Willard isn’t an alarmist. He’s a leftist. There’s a difference. The alarmist actually believes. The leftist misuses information to his advantage to further his agenda. The only thing the leftist believes is his utopian cause. He can never define it or tell us where it is, but the sociopath believes it just the same.
Gordo is a leftist, troglodyte.
” Willard isn’t an alarmist. He’s a leftist. ”
Says the guy who recently named Augsto Pinochet, Chile’s bloodthursty dictator, a ‘leftist’.
Yeah.
Bindi,
Is Kim a leftist or from the right? I know this is a difficult question for you to answer, but please try.
Bindi,
Also, what defines left or right?
Try Why I Am not a Conservative, Stephen.
It’s your guru, after all.
Did you actually read the essay? If you did, then you should realize it doesn’t support your flimsy point. But, you’re a propagandist, aren’t you? All your points are flimsy.
Indeed I did, Stephen.
Don’t you self-identify as a conservative?
” Is Kim a leftist or from the right? ”
Meaningless question.
Better you ask yourself:
” Were Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler” ‘leftists’ ? ”
Apart from having been responsible for the killing of 6 M Jews, they were responsible for the killing of 1M leftists (here without quotation marks): Christians, Social-democrats, Socialists, Communists.
At no time before and after the Nazis has German industry flourished so incredibly uninhibited.
No wonder: they got hundreds of thousands of ‘workers’ from the Nazis they didn’t have to pay.
*
My guess, Anderson, is that you simply try to hide your subcutaneous admiration for Fascism.
J.-P. D.
Nazis and Fascists were Nationalists. They killed Marxists. They didn’t want to be controlled by Stalin. The history of the world is filled with examples of leftists killing other leftists, of Christians killing other Christians, of Muslims killing other Muslims, of pagans killing other pagans. What’s your point? Kim and Pinochet were both dictators and, ergo, both leftists. What are the tenets of the left? One-party or one-person rule, limited liberties, state-owned or state-controlled enterprise, etc. Do you think anyone in China actually owns anything? You are deflecting and obfuscating. You keep bringing up Pinochet because you believe he is your right-wing example. What about him was right-wing? Nothing.
May you one day grow out of your libertarian adolescence, Stephen.
Maybe one day you’ll learn your soul has no price.
My soul isn’t that important, Stephen.
Even if your kids left you, you’re not alone, we’re all in this together, and this is the only dance we got.
In the US these days, you are either a democrat or an anarchist.
Or one of the minor parties.
Willard, bob, please stop trolling.
binny…”Robertson the dumbie has been told so often about the fact that Heller aka Goddard never proved anything, especially not that 1936 was the hottest year in the US”.
***
Yes, but who is it who is telling the ‘dumbie’ Robertson about Heller? Idiot alarmists with an agenda, that’s who.
Heller is an environmentalist who walks the walk. He shuns cars and uses a bicycle. For a while, he adopted the alarmist meme because someone sold him on it. Later, he began to question the meme.
Fortunately, Heller (aka Goddard) had a masters degree in electrical engineering and has been employed by Intel to work on the i7 processor, one of the most successful processors of all time. During his employment, he was called upon to do quality control that saved Intel large amounts of money.
He became the go-to guy for finding discrepancies in data analysis, an unfortunate problem for climate alarmists like GISS and NOAA when he applied his vast amount of experiencing to analyzing their data.
No one has managed to refute Heller, all they have done is re-emphasize the lies produced by GISS and NOAA. You are too much of a dumbass to even comment on his abilities.
The 1930s have always been the hottest years in US history with the largest number of heat waves, by far. No part of the US, even in the modern era, has come close to the heat and heat waves of the 1930s. We’ve had no Dust Bowls since.
I refuted Heller on the WUWT blog and he was not allowed to post guest articles there anymore, so he started his own blog.
That’s ancient history.
Good to see you back, Bob.
I like old Climateball stories.
Got a link?
bob, Willard, please stop trolling.
In heading of lower paragraph:
–Luke-warmers have the science on their side
Because research continues. The researchers who favor a value below 2.5°C/2xCO2 have strong scientific arguments that they will use in the coming years. For the IPCC, however, there will then be no turning back. A hopeless situation.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/11/ipcc-enters-into-thin-air-german-scientists-ipcc-in-a-hopeless-situationstained-scientists/
I am well below 2.5 C
But I mean within 100 years, and I don’t think more than 50 years is reasonable to guess about, or that is actually important.
And wonder if anyone thinks global temperature can rise by 2 C within 50 years.
Or another question, if you pick any future time period, when will warm the most within a time of say 20 to 30 year.
For example say you think at starting around 2040 it going really start warming up by 1 or 2 degrees starting from 2040 to 2060 AD.
Or say you think 2060 is time that it “really” begins to happen.
Earlier, DMT exhibited the usual delusional thinking of SkyDragons (climate crackpots), by issuing the following direction –
“Please enrol in a basic climate science course and save us from your ignorance.”
As climate is merely the average of past weather, it can be derived by any competent 12 year old. Anyone claiming to be a “climate scientist” is either a fool, a fraud, or mentally deranged.
Climate changes – unpredictably. It is the average of weather, after all. Anybody running around waving a sign saying “Stop climate change” is obviously delusional. First, one would have to ensure unchanging weather! Good luck with that.
However, if DMT and his fellow nutters believe they can prevent the climate from changing, I look forward to some advice from them as to where the climate will be unchangeably miserable. I will of course move to where the climate will be unchangeably delightful.
Climate science? What a load of bollocks! Even more useless than political science, or social science.
Oh well, that’s what happens when you put the inmates in charge of the asylum.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
It is increasingly clear that the prolonged drought conditions, record-breaking heat, sustained wildfires, and frequent, more extreme storms experienced in recent years are a direct result of rising global temperatures brought on by humans’ addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. And a new MIT study on extreme climate events in Earth’s ancient history suggests that today’s planet may become more volatile as it continues to warm.
https://phys.org/news/2021-08-global-begets-paleoclimate.html
Month on month so far, it has been cooler this year than last year.
I’m sure this means something, but what?
That your scare stories have less and less meaning. Even the models you base things on are considered to be running too hot. By Gavin Schmidt no less.
Let me get this straight –
Because month on month so far, it has been cooler this year than last year, that today’s planet may become more volatile as it continues to warm has less and less meaning.
That’s a powerful argument you got there, dummy.
How does less warm mean more volatile?
Idiot.
Thus spake our 74-year old Climateball rookie.
Make sure to tell me when you turn 75, dummy!
Why would I tell you anything? Other than you are an idiot that is.
Because I’m growing on you, dummy.
Nope. Idiot.
<3
That your scare stories have less and less meaning. Even the models you base things on are considered to be running too hot. By Gavin Schmidt no less.
“But modulz” is another door, dummy:
https://climateball.net/but-modulz/
Off and play your silly games.
Speaking of silly games:
Willard says:
August 12, 2021 at 10:01 AM
Let me get this straight
Because month on month so far, it has been cooler this year than last year, that todays planet may become more volatile as it continues to warm has less and less meaning.
Thats a powerful argument you got there, dummy.
RLH says:
August 12, 2021 at 10:09 AM
How does less warm mean more volatile?
RLH says:
August 12, 2021 at 10:10 AM
Idiot.
Willard says:
As usual the idiot.
Moar games, dummy.
Idiot.
No U
rlh…”Even the models you base things on are considered to be running too hot. By Gavin Schmidt no less”.
***
Gavin should know, he programs the models with a positive feedback but he cannot explain positive feedback.
See ‘Gavin Schmidt On Positive Feedback’, about 1/4 way down the page.
http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
A mathematician who cannot write an equation for positive feedback and who uses the equation in a model strikes me as being super-dumb. It’s even dumber when he notes the models are running hot.
Please, Gordo.
That page is unreadable.
As the Auditor would say, needles in the eyes.
Willard, please stop trolling.
RLH
Where do you get the idea that the Earth has been cooling for six months in 2021?
According to UAH the global temperature has risen from 0.12C in January to 0.2C in July.
YEAR MO GLOBE
2020 01 0.42
2020 02 0.59
2020 03 0.35
2020 04 0.26
2020 05 0.42
2020 06 0.30
2020 07 0.31
2020 08 0.30
2020 09 0.40
2020 10 0.38
2020 11 0.40
2020 12 0.15
2021 01 0.12
2021 02 0.20
2021 03 -0.01
2021 04 -0.05
2021 05 0.08
2021 06 -0.01
2021 07 0.20
Is
Each month in 2021 so far less than the same month in the pervious year?
YEAR MO GLOBE
2020 01 0.42 2021 01 0.12
2020 02 0.59 2021 02 0.20
2020 03 0.35 2021 03 -0.01
2020 04 0.26 2021 04 -0.05
2020 05 0.42 2021 05 0.08
2020 06 0.30 2021 06 -0.01
2020 07 0.31 2021 07 0.20
2020 08 0.30
2020 09 0.40
2020 10 0.38
2020 11 0.40
2020 12 0.15
Oh look. Month on month this year is less than last year (so far).
EGG MIN PAN
t1 6 t6 2
t2 5 t7 2
t3 4 t8 1
t4 3
t5 3
Oh, look! The egg still cooks!
Idiot.
How you misinterpret temperature anomalies is added to your list of blunders, dummy.
So do the yearly anomalies still have a yearly signal in them?
That’s a question for you to answer, dummy.
It is what was claimed by others recently.
A quote might be nice.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-792332
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-791526
“Notice that in addition to ENSO, there is an annual cycle present, with a dip in spring-summer and rise in fall-winter.”
This is referring to the anomalies!
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/fig1-cfsr-gmsta-2014-2022.gif
You’re rediscovering the copycat strategy, dummy.
If you got something to settle with Nate, go argue with him.
Try not to lose for once.
I can argue with him without your help/distraction.
You asked for a quote. I gave it to you.
Thanks for it.
In return:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evZmpsl3jI0
There are more formal characterizations, but you should get the point.
“Video unavailable
This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds”
Free with other peoples work I see.
Welcome to the Internet, dummy.
Try this instead:
Go play with Nate yourself.
“Welcome to the Internet”
Where copyright does not matter. Apparently.
Fair use is fair use, dummy.
” Month on month so far, it has been cooler this year than last year. ”
Who writes such an evidence should quickly write a nice little piece of software telling him (and then hopefully us as well) how many 6-month sequences show exactly the same behavior wrt the same six months of the preceding year, in the global averages presented by e.g.
– UAH6.0 LT
– RSS4.0 LT
– NOAA
– GISS
– BEST
– JMA
J.-P. D.
binny…” Month on month so far, it has been cooler this year than last year.
Who writes such an evidence should quickly write a nice little piece of software…”
***
Or…he/she could simply look at Roy’s graph above and see the obvious. Since the peak in 2020, it is now cooler. Don’t you see the red running average curve dipping down the way?
Robertson
Your are, one more time, such a dumb ass.
RLH was writing about 6 months in a row being cooler than the same six months one year ago – btw, without referring to any series – and you dumbie manage to write your stoopid UAH red curve eye-balling nonsense.
In my native tongue we use to say in such cases
” Plus bête que Robertson, tu meurs. “
You can always tell when Bindidon is lost. He resorts to foreign language he finds on the Internet.
He’s the last of the phony intellectuals.
Bienvenue dans l’Internet, Pup.
YEAR MO GLOBE
2020 01 0.42
2020 02 0.59
2020 03 0.35
2020 04 0.26
2020 05 0.42
2020 06 0.30
2020 07 0.31
2020 08 0.30
2020 09 0.40
2020 10 0.38
2020 11 0.40
2020 12 0.15
2021 01 0.12
2021 02 0.20
2021 03 -0.01
2021 04 -0.05
2021 05 0.08
2021 06 -0.01
2021 07 0.20
Is
Each month in 2021 so far less than the same month in the previous year?
YEAR MO GLOBE
2020 01 0.42 2021 01 0.12
2020 02 0.59 2021 02 0.20
2020 03 0.35 2021 03 -0.01
2020 04 0.26 2021 04 -0.05
2020 05 0.42 2021 05 0.08
2020 06 0.30 2021 06 -0.01
2020 07 0.31 2021 07 0.20
2020 08 0.30
2020 09 0.40
2020 10 0.38
2020 11 0.40
2020 12 0.15
Oh look. Month on month this year is less than last year (so far).
EGG MIN PAN
t1 6 t6 2
t2 5 t7 2
t3 4 t8 1
t4 3
t5 3
Oh, look! The egg still cooks!
Willard: Idiot.
No U, dummy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-793667
What part of ‘month on month’ did you not get?
Why is this significant?
Such short term variation occurs repeatedly in the temperature, but the long term warming trend continues.One cooling year does not a long term cooling trend make, despite your subtext.
RLH
” What part of ‘month on month’ did you not get? ”
None.
What part of my question did you not get?
” Who writes such an evidence should quickly write a nice little piece of software telling him (and then hopefully us as well) how many 6-month sequences show exactly the same behavior wrt the same six months of the preceding year, in the global averages presented by e.g.
– UAH6.0 LT
– RSS4.0 LT
– NOAA
– GISS
– BEST
– JMA ”
My answer to this my question concerning UAH (and including July because for UAH, it is present in 2021):
name | year
————+——
uah | 1982
uah | 1984
uah | 1989
uah | 1992
uah | 1999
uah | 2006
uah | 2008
uah | 2011
uah | 2017
uah | 2021
Do you get it now?
What’s so unique about 2021?
J.-P. D.
When July is excluded, 2018 is added to the list.
> What’s so unique about 2021?
Our Hall Monitor discovered Roy’s.
“One cooling year does not a long term cooling trend make”
It makes a 6 month trend which is all I claimed.
“Who writes such an evidence should quickly write a nice little piece of software telling him (and then hopefully us as well) how many 6-month sequences show exactly the same behavior wrt the same six months of the preceding year, in the global averages presented”
I could do that indeed. Why don’t you if you feel it so important?
But I was on Roy’s blog referring to Roy’s temperatures which I quoted above.
For just the last 6 months.
> which is all I claimed
You don’t even claim there’s a significant trend, dummy, and it’s what you’re implying that matters.
There is a trend for the last 6 months, which is all I have ever claimed.
So you got nothing else but repetition.
Congratulations!
Thus we all can see that RLH deliberately ignores the evidence that what he is pushing up:
6 (or even 7) UAH months in a row lower than the same months in the preceding year
has occurred 10 (TEN) times since 1979.
Very honest reaction, thanks!
J.-P. D.
So you all want to make it about what you want rather than what I said. OK.
All what you said was
” Oh look. Month on month this year is less than last year (so far). ”
Why not to reply that this is, as it happened already 10 times in 40 years, nothing unusual.
People like Robertson ALWAYS respond similarly when someone points out the opposite situation.
“Why not to reply that this is, as it happened already 10 times in 40 years, nothing unusual.”
So if it is not unusual, why are you so defensive about it?
My good friend psql sez the same is visible when looking at the data for RSS4.0 LT till June 2021:
name| year
—-+——
rss | 1982
rss | 1984
rss | 1989
rss | 1992
rss | 1999
rss | 2006
rss | 2008
rss | 2011
rss | 2017
rss | 2018
rss | 2021
and dito for Had-CRUT4, with a few years less:
name| year
—-+——
had | 1982
had | 1984
had | 1989
had | 1999
had | 2011
had | 2017
had | 2018
had | 2021
Thus…
So what. Doesn’t make what I said wrong.
P.S. All of the temperature sources say that, month on month, this year is cooler than last year.
” All of the temperature sources say that, month on month, this year is cooler than last year. ”
I don’t know if it is possible, even feasible, to be as stubborn as you behave, but I am ready to do my very best by writing:
All of the temperature sources say that lots of years in the past were cooler for several months in a row than the year before.
Defensive? With respect to what you write? Ha ha.
Try harder, RLH.
Again, so what? You could just have said it was a common occurrence. You didn’t. Instead you challenged that what I said was true. Which it is.
Sorted out if 0000 hours is today or yesterday in USCRN data?
That was not the very problem, RLH.
It was UTC >< LST, because I omitted to implement a spec step.
And you gave the hint.
And as opposed to your behaviour, I always admit that others can correct me wherever I'm wrong.
You, RLH, never admit anything.
That makes you so pretty similar to… Robertson and Clint R.
dmt…”“Solar flux cannot be averaged over the entire planet surface…
Solar energy is absorbed during the solar lit hours only.”
Idiot.
The sun does not go to bed. That 240 Wm-2 is non-stop”.
***
You are so stupid I doubt that you can chew gum and tie your shoe laces at the same time. Come to think of it, you’re too stupid to tie your shoe laces.
Christos is pointing out the obvious, that solar input only affects the area of the Earth lit by the Sun. The guestimated 240 W/m^2 applies only to the lit area.
The Earth is rotating, stupid.
Idiot
240 wm-2 = 240 w m-2 = 240 w m-2
That is the input to the whole Earth-atmosphere system.
You cannot avoid that fact. This must equal the output from the whole system which determines the average temperature according to SB.
According to your “logic” because the lit area momentarily receives 240 Wm-2 only the lit area emits at this rate. The unlit area receives zero therefore it must, by your logic, emit zero. Therefore the temperature of the unlit area plunges to absolute zero overnight!! See how stupid your argument is?
No?
I thought so. Pearls before swine.
DMT, your just another idiot that does not understand radiative physics.
Earth receiving 240 W/m^2 all over it’s surface is NOT the same as Earth receiving 960 W/m^2 at its disk.
Are you familiar with a rotisserie?
A chicken on a spit receiving 2000 W/m^2 from only one side, cooks without problems.
A chicken on a spit receiving 500 W/m^2 from all sides, doesn’t cook.
Dividing flux doesn’t work. Fluxes don’t add.
I predict you will not learn anything from this.
I have learnt that the number of ridiculous hand waving arguments from ignorant denialists now includes roasting chickens on a spit.
This again??
“Earth receiving 240 W/m^2 all over it’s surface is NOT the same as Earth receiving 960 W/m^2 at its disk.”
Well, it is similar in some important ways. Like the total energy input is the same either way.
It is different in other important ways. Like the temperature would be uniform for the first, but would have warm and cool areas on the second.
“A chicken on a spit receiving 2000 W/m^2 from only one side, cooks without problems.”
Really? 2000 W/m^2 is only 160 C (320 F for the Americans). To receive 2000 W/m^2 you would set your oven to 160 C and then open the door to provide radiation, and set the chicken *outside* the oven to receive only 1/4 of the radiation. The close side might get cooked, but not the center or far sides.
Oh, and don’t forget that you are sneaking in an additional 420 W/m^2 (20 C) to the other sides from the room that you are including.
The fair comparison would be:
500 W/m^2 @ 33 C for the whole chicken VS.
2000 W/m^2 @ 320 C for 1/4 of the chicken and 0 W/m^2 @ -220 C for 3/4 of the chicken.
Your ‘rotisserie’ will produce a chicken cooked to ~ 320 C on one side and frozen solid on the other sides — if you hold chicken stationary. If you turn the chicken, you could keep it from freezing — but then it won’t cook!
Not much of a rotisserie!
Folkerts, all that blah-blah just to prove you don’t understand how a rotisserie works?
I knew that before you started….
Tim,
You are an idiot. The chicken is receiving 2000 W/m2. The temperature of the emitter was not specified. Using sunlight at 5500 K, concentrated to deliver 2000 W/m2 at the exposed surface of the chicken, you will find that is easy enough to ensure that the chicken is heated to 75 C throughout, and evenly cooked, by rotating the chicken appropriately.
By the way, medium temperature on a grill is around 170 C.
I assume you do not have permission to attempt any cooking activities unsupervised?
Mike Flynn,
Do you know any rotisserie with an oven that only has 3K on one of its side?
Many thanks!
Yup. https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32916414622.html
Nice try, but nope.
They will be offended.
Votage:220V 50HZ
Rated power:3500w
I missed when they say that their oven comes with a side that guarantees absolute cold.
“Do you know any rotisserie with an oven that only has 3K on one of its side?”
Does it say anything about the cool side? Nope.
Use your head, dummy. Or ask yourself how you can reach absolute zero in your kitchen. Here could be the next step:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827893-500-how-to-create-temperatures-below-absolute-zero/
You’re just ducking out because your question was wrong. Idiot.
My question was perfectly fine, dummy.
You messed up the Moon analogy, and now you’re going to mess up the rotisserie?
“Do you know any rotisserie with an oven that only has 3K on one of its side?”
So you deny that you asked the above question?
The rotisserie to which you handwaved does not have a 3K side, dummy.
It has 3.5KW on one side. The other is up to you. How fast do you think the center contents will cool when not facing the grill? Even if facing 3 Kelvin. Think they might only radiate at the temperature they are at? Cold doesn’t radiate, it only absorbs.
K refers to Kelvins, dummy.
So how fast do things cool when facing 3K? Related to their own temperature is it?
You really have no idea what this is all about because you never read anything once again, dummy, do you?
Jeez Clint R,
2000 W/m2, that’s not even in EZ-Bake oven territory.
You’re not right, not even enough to cook a chicken.
Wrong again, bob.
2000 W/m^2 would provide a steady state surface temperature of 160 C (320F) to a black body.
Even Folkerts got that much correct!
You don’t understand any of this.
> 2000 W/m^2
On a single point, say your forehead, not so much.
Clint R,
You will just have to try it in practice.
In a machine shop I used to work at, we had a 13.5 KW radiant heater we used to keep food warm for our monthly potlucks.
Less than 2 square meters, so about 6000 watts per square meter.
Wouldn’t cook a chicken.
Willard, bob, please stop trolling.
Except, unlike you, Roy does not deny the science of the GHE, and that the globe is warming because of it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
willard…”That page is unreadable”.
***
Maybe to someone lacking the ability to comprehend. I have read through the entire page and had no problem understand that Gavin Schmidt does not understand physics very well.
Besides the awful typography, I stopped at:
Jeff should hire an editor.
Willard, please stop trolling.
dmt…”240 wm-2 = 240 w m-2 = 240 w m-2
That is the input to the whole Earth-atmosphere system”.
***
As far as I can see, it means the solar input is 240 w/m^2. If the Sun is not shining on a surface in any way, the input is 0 w/m^2.
How could it be otherwise mr. rocketscientist?
DMT,
You are delusional, and obviously a follower of that other climate crank, Kevin Trenberth.
No, the Sun does not shine on “average”. No, the Earth has cooled from the molten state. Obviously, energy lost was greater than energy supplied. No, the temperature of the unlit side does not drop to absolute zero, because the Earth is more than 99% molten at the present time, and is rotating, something like a rotisserie.
The SB law has no relevance to the Earth. Anybody pretending that it, has (generally climate cranks), are either fools, frauds or deluded. For example, these idiots claim that the Earth’s “average” temperature “should be” 255 K, even though the Earth’s surface has progressively cooled from over 1500 C or so, to its present temperature. In spite of this, the climate crackpots insist their stupid “calculations” are superior to reality!
You are obviously too dimwitted to accept reality. Surface temperatures on Earth (excluding natural sources like volcanic activity, hydrothermal vents etc.) vary between around 90 C and -90 C. Nobody has ever measured an “average” surface temperature. Anyone who claims otherwise is one of the aforementioned fools, frauds, or deluded dimwits.
Maybe you could tell me where this GHE may be observed and quantified. Only joking, I know you can’t – because it doesn’t exist, you idiot!
Mike Flynn,
We all know you love Doritos.
“Maybe you could tell me where this GHE may be observed and quantified.”
July was the hottest month on record globally.
Compared to July last year?
YEAR MO GLOBE
2020 07 0.31
2021 07 0.20
In NOAA it is hottest July. In GISS it is just shy of hottest July. All differences within uncertainty of course.
GISS shows temperatures dropping this year.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/giss.jpeg
GISS data
2020,1.17,1.24,1.17,1.13,1.02,0.92,.90,.87,.99,.88,1.10,
2021,0.81,0.64,0.88,0.76,0.79,0.85,***,***,***,***,***,***
And that July this year was lower than last year.
Wrong.
GISS July T 0.92.
Beats 2020 and very near the record for July of 0.94 in 2019
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Monthly_Mean_Global_Surface_Temperature/graph.txt
Hansen states:
“The 12-month running mean global temperature (blue curve in Fig. 2) has already reached its local minimum. Barring a large volcano that fills the stratosphere with aerosols, the blue curve should rise over the next 12 months because Earth is now far out of energy balance more energy coming in than going out.”
willard…”It is increasingly clear that the prolonged drought conditions, record-breaking heat, sustained wildfires, and frequent, more extreme storms experienced in recent years are a direct result of rising global temperatures brought on by humans addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere”.
***
Perhaps you would clarify why it is increasingly clear. Where’s your evidence linking these weather events to anthropogenic warming?
Willard, don’t waste your time. GR, like the frog in a beaker, is immune to evidence.
Always Be Avidly Considering the Audience, Bunny.
ABACAB
I am afraid there may not be much of an audience left this far down the thread.
🙁
DMT, Willard, please stop trolling.
dmt…”Willard, dont waste your time. GR, like the frog in a beaker, is immune to evidence”.
***
I am waiting for the evidence, not propaganda from alarmists.
Sun shining = input 240 w/m^2
Sun not shining = input 0 w/m^2
You do understand what watt means, don’t you? It is a measure of mechanical energy related to the horsepower and derived from it. Solar energy is electro-mechanical energy and is not related to horsepower, in fact, it cannot be expressed in watts till it is absorbed and converted to heat.
Confused you, didn’t it? You see, there is an equivalence between heat and mechanical energy but not between EM and mechanical energy, otherwise it would be stated in the 1st law, which is strictly a relationship between external heat/work and internal heat/work. When EM is absorbed by electrons in surface atoms, it is converted to heat. However, heat is measured in calories, not watts.
Even more confused, aren’t you?
Somewhere around 1840, the scientist, Joule, found an equivalence between heat and mechanical energy, aka work. He ran a tiny paddle in water and measured how much the water warmed, then calculated the work done by the paddle. When you see heat expressed in watts it means the equivalent work for that amount of heat.
A decade or so later, Clausius wrote a book on the equivalence of heat and work and in it he produced the 2nd law and the principle of entropy.
The 240 w/m^2 is obviously a measure of heat produced in one metre of surface area by solar energy. How does the Sun produce that heat when the surface is facing away from the Sun?
That’s a free lesson, the next one will be 25 cents, payable in advance.
Here, Gordo:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Sun shining = input 240 w/m^2
Sun not shining = input 0 w/m^2”
Sort of. But misleading. 240 W/m^2 is the average input, 24/7. Sometimes more, sometimes less.
If 0 w/m^2 is when the sun is not shining (ie at night), then 480 w/m^2 would be the matching value when the sun is shining (ie the average during the day).
“You do understand what watt means, don’t you? It is a measure of mechanical energy … “</i)
No.
1) Watts measure *power*, not *energy*.
2) Watts are appropriate for *any* sort of power. Not just mechanical.
“Solar energy is electro-mechanical energy”
I think you mean “electromagnetic”.
“You see, there is an equivalence between heat and mechanical energy but not between EM and mechanical energy”
Sure there is. A joule is a joule.
“otherwise it would be stated in the 1st law, which is strictly a relationship between external heat/work and internal heat/work.”
The first law is
ΔU = Q + W (using one common sign convention)
It is a relationship between:
U: the ‘internal energy’ = a “state variable” that measures thermal energy of a system (which you seem to want to call “internal heat/work”
Q: ‘heat’ transferred thermal energy TO the system from other systems
W: ‘work’ transfered mechanical energy TO the system from other systems.
Radiation is grouped with “heat”. The external energy of the photons transfers to the system. That is basically the definition of “heat” and therefore is included in the 1st Law.
“The 240 w/m^2 is obviously a measure of heat produced in one metre of surface area by solar energy. “
The 240 w/m^2 is obviously a measure of AVERAGE heat produced in one metre.
” How does the Sun produce that heat when the surface is facing away from the Sun?”
See the first paragraph above.
Gordo,
Here you go:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1424642708291821569
You’re most welcome!
willard…”Here you go:”
***
I have Twitter blocked. Don’t want Nazis on my computer.
No problemo:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/ipcc-how-the-ar6-wg1-summary-for-policymakers-compares-to-its-predecessor
Woeful Wee Willy,
Just how stupid are you?
Another irrelevant link? And of course, it is irrelevant because you are attempting to appeal to the authority of a pack of bumbling buffoons who believe climate shapes weather!
Carry on, dummy!
There must be people in the world even more stupid than you. They might believe you know what you are blathering about. Good luck with finding them.
Mike Flynn,
Maroon Fiver
Willard, please stop trolling.
Better stock up on coffee, all this year coffee crop froze up in the global warming heat wave snow.
https://youtu.be/NsXJjJu5VAA
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.the-star.co.ke/counties/nyanza/2021-08-08-climate-change-hurts-coffee-production-in-kisii/
I’m astonished! Witless Willy accepts that weather affects plants!
Most people already know that, but it must come as a surprise to at least some climate cranks.
What next? Accepting that people freeze to death in cold conditions, or drown if submerged by floodwaters or tsunamis?
Ah, well, a miracle may yet occur!
Soros is throwing Willie an extra biscuit this week. He has a nice little doghouse for Willie at the end of this assignment.
Let’s give Willie a break. He’s doing his best to shape a narrative. What better place to learn your trade than anonymously on a message board? When he leaves his doghouse, no one stops him and says, “you’re that incompetent boob spinning climate apocalypse narrative.” Soros says, “You have a special place in my utopia. Good boy, Willie.”
Keep sliming, troglodyte:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-false-george-soros-claims-idUSKBN23P2XJ
Says Soros-owned media.
Linked by Soros-owned leftist tool.
Reuters, dummy.
Wiltard, Wiltard, Wiltard.
Wiltard, Wiltard, Wiltard.
That’s what I said, Soros-owned leftist tool.
Spell it out, Troglodyte:
Tell me that Thomson is part of the Rothschild conspiracy.
Show us your true colors.
Mike Flynn,
Maximal Fleer.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“In East Africa, La Nia results in drier than usual seasons. “
“Minimisation or minimization is a type of deception involving denial coupled with rationalisation/rationalization in situations where complete denial is implausible.”
Have we recently had a La Nina?
Is the weather in East Africa going to be drier as a result?
Is Kenya in East Africa?
Was the story about how Kenya is drier than normal and thus it is hard to grow coffee?
Are you an idiot?
Is it the first La Nina in Kenya, dummy?
Would farmers grow coffee beans if La Ninas made it impossible?
Could it be because La Ninas are not all equal?
Why are you minimizing?
Do you realize how dumb it is to argue by questions against me?
You think this is the only time that Kenya has had droughts?
You think that that has stopped people trying to grow coffee?
Are you still an idiot?
You think that Kenyan farmers don’t know that AGW impacts their crops?
Who do you think you’re kidding right now except yourself and your army of reactionary troglodytes?
Who do you think you are kidding with your GLOABAL COOLING stories?
You.
Nope.
Yet here you are.
And so are you. Being an idiot.
<3
Burning Coal, learn all about it, these are not your old fathers power plants any more
My father was a giant coal powered steam generator operator for a chemical factory.
when I was a kid they taught us there was only 30 years worth of coal left in the ground, that was 45 years ago.
https://youtu.be/iBrV_7LYBxc
I blame Maggie.
from a simple stoichiometric principles, there should be enough coal in the crust to burn all of the earth’s oxygen, and then more to account for the presumed possible oxidation of the mantle over the geological time. Unless of course the oxidation of the earth atmosphere happened because of the hydrogen escape.
sorry, ok, not coal but reduced carbon, hydrogen, sulfur and/and other reduced species, which can be in multiple forms such as coal, gas, oil, shales or other unfathomable forms
A lot of the carbon is in chalk.
It is fully oxidized and therefore is irrelevant to the question.
It is a large sink of carbon though.
Its a large sink of co2. Co2 and carbon are, you know, not exactly the same sh~t.
There’s one Carbon to two Oxygen in CO2.
Same Carbon for CaCO3, but now one Calcium and three Oxygen as well.
Or you could say CO2 with a Calcium and an Oxygen.
well, duh. I suggest you read this particular thread from the beginning, because it seems like you didn’t read it at all and just keep posting dumb non-sequiturs, stating correct but absolutely irrelevant facts.
> stating correct but absolutely irrelevant facts.
Our Hall Monitor often does that, cot.
Welcome to the club.
I was simply pointing out that, although hydrocarbons such as coal/oil/gas are mentioned quite a lot, other sources of fairly permanent Carbon sinks are not mentioned in comparison. Such as chalk/limestone/marble.
“Calcium carbonate, or CaCO3, comprises more than 4% of the earths crust and is found throughout the world. Its most common natural forms are chalk, limestone, and marble, produced by the sedimentation of the shells of small fossilized snails, shellfish, and coral over millions of years.”
> other sources of fairly permanent Carbon sinks are not mentioned in comparison
And how is that relevant to cot’s point, dummy?
What percentage of the Earth’s crust is in coal/oil/gas?
You’re a one-trick pony.
You’re an idiot.
z
>>I was simply pointing out that, although hydrocarbons such as coal/oil/gas are mentioned quite a lot, other sources of fairly permanent Carbon sinks are not mentioned in comparison. Such as chalk/limestone/marble.—
except that i was not talking about carbon sources/sinks, i was talking about *electron* sources and sinks.
our discussion is like this:
me: the sky is blue because of the light scattering
you: you know what is also blue? crayons
Eben.
The figures I heard about ten years ago were
25 years of oil and gas.
200 years of coal in the UK.
It was suggested at the time of UK mining closures that the decision was partially strategic to conserve our supplies for the future.
Ability to extract more oil and gas from existing fields has improved.
Interesting, thanks.
J.-P. D.
I was surprised that so many of the idiots (Folkerts, DMT, Willard, and RLH) didn’t understand a simple rotisserie. But, I shouldn’t have been surprised — they don’t understand a much simpler ball-on-a-string!
Their source for science is usually Wikipedia. Being idiots, that’s all they can understand.
Wikipedia actually does a fair job of explaining a rotisserie:
In medieval cuisine and early modern kitchens, the spit was the preferred way of cooking meat in a large household. A servant, preferably a boy, sat near the spit turning the metal rod slowly and cooking the food; he was known as the “spit boy” or “spit jack”. Mechanical turnspits (“roasting jacks”) were later invented, first powered by dogs on treadmills, and then by steam power and mechanical clockwork mechanisms. The spit could also be powered by a turbine mounted in the chimney with a worm transmission for torque and speed conversion. Spits are now usually driven by electric motors.
Rotisseries have been around for centuries. They’re in active use today, now equipped with elaborate speed controllers. The idiots have never seen, or used, one because they never get out of their basements.
I predict the idiots will still not understand the simple analogy of cooking a chicken on a rotisserie.
Pup,
You got two days left. Use them well!
That “because they never get out of their basements” hit hard, huh Dud?
Reality does that….
I can’t relate to that predicament of yours, Pup.
You can’t relate to anything, Dud.
You’re an empty glass, a book without pages, a zero. You’ve got NOTHING.
(And no, I won’t be wasting time all day with you.)
YOU GOT NOTHING
You know why you’re parroting the same thing over and over
You got nothing
You label your beliefs facts
You don’t like having your beliefs attacked
Hence why you started the ad homs
And still are trying to malign me
That’s what trolls do
Your avoidance of reality and your immaturity is not just opinion, it’s 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 ain’t science
Incompetence and immaturity ain’t 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 don’t know how to interpret data
You can’t think for yourself
You can’t learn
You’ve already demonstrated you don’t understand science
You don’t understand the issue
You’ll never understand
You have a poor record of understanding physics
I will accept your admission of incompetence
That’s 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 won’t be wasting my time, let’s see if you’re ready to face reality
If you really want to learn, answer the simple question, and let’s get started
Don’t let that stop you from attempting science
There’s nothing wrong with a good laugh
Keep wasting your time trolling
(2021-06-26)
Quoting me is a good way to develop some credibility, Dud.
But, you only quoted me responding to trolls. Next, you should quote me explaining science to you idiots. After that, you should try to understand the science.
I predict none of that will happen.
I’m not exactly quoting you, Pup.
I’m turning your abuses into poetry.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Try a donner kebab grill, which is a vertical rotisserie. I predict that Clint R won’t see the similarity.
https://id.aliexpress.com/item/32916414622.html
You continue your ‘bait and switch’ Clint.
You introduced a 2000 W/m^2, 160 C rotisserie that heated only 1/4 of an object as an analogy for how the earth is heated by the sun. By implication, the other sides would be 0 W/m^2 and close to -270 C.
Then you pretend this is going to cook as well as a REAL rotisserie, with glowing coals or glowing electrical heating elements (ie much hotter than 160 C and much higher than 2000 W/m^2 , with room temperature (or oven temperature!) on the others sides.
Sure, real rotisseries work, but they have MUCH higher power inputs than your rotisserie.
Tim,
Learn to read, dummy. The chicken receives 2000 W/m2. All over one side.
The power or temperature of the emitter is irrelevant in this case. You just don’t understand reality, do you?
Have you heard of the “hand test” for barbecues? You don’t actually put your hand on the hot surface, you know! And yet meat cooks nicely at a medium heat. You even have to turn it to stop the outside charring!
But don’t believe me –
” . . . arrange the meat on a wire rack set in a rimmed baking sheet, and place it in a low ovenbetween 200 and 275F (93 and 135C). You can also do this outdoors by placing the meat directly on the cooler side of a closed grill with half the burners on.”
Hmmmm. You were educating someone about cooking, were you? 160 C not enough to cook meat?
And just in case you are going to start whining about chickens –
“According to . . . the USDA, you can cook chicken as low as 140F (60C) as long as the internal temperature of the bird reaches and maintains that temperature for at least 35 minutes.”
No apology for your stupidity, I assume?
“The chicken receives 2000 W/m2. All over one side.”
And 0 W/m^2 all over the other 75% of the surface. That is the comparison. How warm will the rest of the chicken get from 0 W/m^2? -270 C! Or if you spin it quickly, the whole surface will get just slightly above room temperature.
“The power or temperature of the emitter is irrelevant in this case. “
The power, temperature (and geometry) of the emitter is completely relevant. It could be a solid surface @ 160 C right above 1/4 of the chicken. It could be a few hot filaments focused onto 1/4 of a chicken.
No matter what the source, if the surface is in radiative equilibrium, it will emit 2000 W/m^2 if it absorbs 2000 W/m^2. And that surface will be 160 C (give or take a little depending on the emissivity of the surface).
And if the other surfaces are in radiative equilibrium, they will
will emit 0 W/m^2 if they absorb 0 W/m^2 = -270 C (give or take a little depending on the emissivity of the surface).
Finally, it is you who needs to learn to read. I said “Then you pretend this is going to cook as well as a REAL rotisserie … “”.
I never claimed it would not cook a chicken AT ALL. In fact, I specifically said early that you could cook PART of a chicken with Clint’s underpowered rotisserie. That makes 2/3 of your post a strawman — attacking something I never said! (And the other 1/3 is mostly wrong, as pointed out above.)
Tim, please stop trolling.
tim…” By implication, the other sides would be 0 W/m^2 and close to -270 C”.
***
You are still confusing EM with heat. A number written as w/m^2 cannot represent solar energy, as EM, it represents the heat converted from EM in the surface. Therefore 240 w/m^2 represents heat on the surface. If that heat is not dissipated completely by the time the planet rotates away from the Sun, the surface heat per square metre will not drop to 0 w/m^2.
That could happen on a planet with a very slow rate of rotation, but not on Earth. We are well placed at the right distance from the Sun and we rotate at a very favourable rate. We also have oceans and an atmosphere which keep our temperatures at a livable level. Nothing to do with CO2.
A watt has an equivalence in heat, not in EM. 1 watt = 1 joule/sec and 4.184 joules = 1 calorie. However, a joule is a measure of mechanical work whereas a calorie is a measure of heat. When heat is expressed, you often see it expressed in its mechanical equivalent in joules. Heat is actually defined on the number of calories required to raise 1 cc of water by 1C, which is 1 calorie.
So many times in scientific literature you see people presume thy can express EM flow as heat, and they express it in w/m^2. That is wrong, until the EM is converted to heat it has no associated units.
No one today knows what energy is. All anyone can do is measure the effect of an energy on mass. For example, thermal energy is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms. ‘Something’ in atoms with a certain energy level, when brought into contact with water, causes the temperature of the water to rise. That energy is called thermal energy but its measure is the effect it has on the temperature of water, in this case.
EM can not only produce a rise in temperature of mass when it is absorbed and converted to heat, it can also cause electrons to flow through a conductor. That is the basis of communications electronics, or electric motor/transformer theory. However, EM itself is an unknown phenomenon, as is heat.
You have to be mighty careful when discussing solar energy that you dot the i’s and cross the t’s. Keep EM as EM and keep heat as heat. Just because it has become a convention to quantify EM in w/m^2 does not mean EM actually carries that kind of power. It’s the mass it contacts that produces the power, provided the EM came from a source with a temperature higher than the temperature of the target.
Eli Rabbett is thoroughly confused about the difference. He not only thinks heat can be transferred both ways by EM between bodies of different temperatures, he thought when G&T claimed, based on the 2nd law, that heat can only be transferred in one direction, that would mean one of the bodies had stopped radiating.
Duh!!!
Gordon, briefly:
1) Energy is energy. Measuring energy in calories or joules or erg or kWh or eV or BTU just involves unit conversion. These are not fundamentally different from each other.
2) EM really does have ‘associated units’. It really does carry Joules from the sun to the earth. The joules don’t ‘disappear’ from the sun and ‘reappear’ at the earth 500 s later. That would violate conservation of energy!
3) Yes, EM can also cause electrons to flow through a conductor — like PV cells with visible light and antennas with radio waves. And light can also cause chemical reactions, like photosynthesis. But that is not what is happening with the ‘rotisserie’ under discussion. If 2000 W/m^2 of thermal IR gets absorbed by the ‘chicken’, then that energy gets converted to thermal energy (not to currents).
4) I am 99% sure Eli does not make the mistakes you imagine in your last couple paragraphs. If you can find a specific quote, then I could be persuaded to change my mind.
“Energy is energy.”
Tim, setting Gordon straight would be better served writing photonic hf is energy and molecular KE is energy. Neither is heat (as Clausius defined) unless the total KE of the object’s constituents is known – then you have Clausius’ heat: a measure of the total constituent KE in an object.
Tim, Ball4, please stop trolling.
Wrong Folkerts, the only things “continuing” are your ignorance of how a rotisserie works and your false accusations.
As Swenson has already pointed out, the 2000 W/m^2 is AT THE SURFACE! It plenty enough to even burn the chicken, if it were not rotating.
But, that’s not the main issue. The main issue is you can NOT divide the flux by 4. 2000 W/m^2 arriving the surface of the chicken from one side, as it rotates, will work just fine. But 500 W/m^2 spread over the entire chicken will NEVER cook it.
The simple rotisserie is just one more thing that destroys the AGW nonsense.
“As Swenson has already pointed out, the 2000 W/m^2 is AT THE SURFACE! It plenty enough to even burn the chicken, if it were not rotating.”
And in radiative equilibrium, that would mean the surface is 160 C = 320 F. Plenty to cook one side. But you could cook a chicken at 320 F on all sides for hours before it would start to seriously dry out or ‘burn’.
As for your ‘main issue’, it is pretty much like saying “If I get $500 each week, that would not do much. But if I got $2000 every 4 weeks — wow! — that would be so much better!”
If your rotisserie turns once every minute, then a given 1 cm x 1 cm part of the surface absorbs (2000 W/m^2)(0.0001m^2)*15s + (0 W/m^2)(0.0001m^2)*45 s = 3 J each minute.
Or it could absorb (500 W/m^2)(0.0001m^2)*60s = 3 J each minute.
I am curious how you will explain that absorbing 3 J will cook better than absorbing 3 J.
Tim, please stop trolling.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Earth sizzled in July and became the hottest month in 142 years of recordkeeping, U.S. weather officials announced.
As extreme heat waves struck parts of the United States and Europe, the globe averaged 62.07 degrees (16.73 degrees Celsius) last month, beating out the previous record set in July 2016 and tied again in 2019 and 2020. the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Friday. The margin was just .02 degrees (.01 Celsius),
The last seven Julys, from 2015 to 2021, have been the hottest seven Julys on record, said NOAA climatologist Ahira Sanchez-Lugo. Last month was 1.67 degrees (0.93 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 20th century average for the month.
“In this case, first place is the worst place to be,” NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad said in a press release. This new record adds to the disturbing and disruptive path that climate change has set for the globe.”
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2021/08/13/global-sizzling-july-was-hottest-month-on-record-noaa-says/
UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2021: +0.20 deg. C
UAH
This is Roy’ blog about UAH.
It shows quite clearly that there has been a 6 month or longer temperature drop, world wide, so scare stories like this need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
RLH,
Some buffoon at NOAA doesn’t know that climate is derived from past weather. He was stupid enough to say “This new record adds to the disturbing and disruptive path that climate change has set for the globe.”
Climate always changes. This nitwit apparently thinks that weather is derived from climate.
Here’s a quote from a NOAA nitwit –
“It is clear that inaction to mitigate climate change is making it worse.” What a crock! Making what “worse”? The weather? What “inaction”?
The man’s deluded, or stupid. Maybe both.
As we’ve come to expect from Flynnson, repetitive ad-homs and declarations, and no science whatsoever.
> so
For that “so” to hold, dummy, you need to show that your 6 month trend is significant.
For Willard, 6 months is never significant. Probably not a year. Requires a decade at least. Possibly even a centaury.
Stop putting words into my mind, dummy.
Where’s your significance test?
Aren’t you supposed to be Gordo’s stat guru?
As I said, for Willard, 6 months is never significant. Probably not a year. Requires a decade at least. Possibly even a centaury.
Stop putting words into my mind, dummy.
Is your mind big enough to take whole words? Idiot.
3.
Wayward Wee Willy,
Complete nonsense, of course.
In the Southern Hemisphere –
“The conditions comes after a particularly icy week for the state and around the country with every state and territory registering temperatures cold enough for frost this week and all but one saw the temperature plunge below -2C.”
Sizzling? Not so much.
By the way, the Australian BOM declared all official temperatures prior to 1910 to be unreliable (to get rid of the inconvenient 1896-97 heatwave), so the claim of 142 years of record keeping is pure fabrication. Stupidity or fraud? Who knows?
As to claims of ascertaining global “average temperatures” to 0.01 C, if Americans believe such fantasies, then truly “nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
Carry on with your propaganda. Other climate crackpots will applaud.
Mike Flynn,
You already told that one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-749725
Cheers.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You really are in a state of denial, aren’t you?
I don’t blame you for running away from supporting NOAA’s nonsensical propaganda.
Go on, man up! Try and defend the indefensible. Or just try and sneak away, like the gutless SkyDragon you are!
You can run, but you can’t hide, dummy.
Mike Flynn,
Musical Fever
Willard, please stop trolling.
swenson…”By the way, the Australian BOM declared all official temperatures prior to 1910 to be unreliable …”
***
Very convenient, that cuts out the Little Ice Age, which ended circa 1850, and removes a physical explanation for why temperatures began to rise after 1850.
At least they make it 1910, most of the alarmists today start their base reference with 1960. Heller gave direct evidence of that in his video.
Is this what you call a scientific rebuttal, Gordo?
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Earth sizzled in July and became the hottest month in 142 years of recordkeeping…”
***
Major lie. They conveniently omit that NOAA and GISS have retroactively fudged the record to remove warming from 1936 that exceeded anything we see today.
Oh how short the memory.
Compared to July last year?
YEAR MO GLOBE
2020 07 0.31
2021 07 0.20
Speaking of short-term memory:
Bindidon says:
August 11, 2021 at 6:29 AM
” Not according to Tony Heller. He proved 1936 was the hottest year in US history… ”
Robertson the dumbie has been told so often about the fact that Heller aka Goddard never proved anything, especially not that 1936 was the hottest year in the US.
Simply because no one needs to prove it: it’s in the data since ever, and despite hundreds of ridiculous claims, it never was erased out of it.
See for example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017-550×413.jpg
or today’s evaluation of the GHCN daily data for CONUS (the top20 of a descending sort of the monthly mean temperatures):
1901 7 25.38
1936 7 24.97
1934 7 24.75
1931 7 24.50
1980 7 24.42
1954 7 24.24
1935 7 24.17
1966 7 24.13
1921 7 24.12
1955 7 24.10
1930 7 24.08
1983 8 24.04
1900 8 24.01
1936 8 23.91
1933 7 23.89
1964 7 23.85
1949 7 23.84
1937 8 23.83
1947 8 23.82
1916 7 23.82
But… as we can see, 1901 still is at top!
As usual, Robertson doesn’t understand the difference between absolute temperatures and their departures from a mean.
In the latter case namely, the 1930’s no longer are above the recent decade…
J.-P. D.
willard…”I dont agree with Roy. I witnessed a debate between Roy and a chemical engineer, Pierre Latour, who works directly with thermodynamics and I thought Roys argument was wrong”.
***
That was 2015. Along the way, Roy made it clear what he considered fair comment and I went beyond that and decided not to get into differences of opinion with him. I still disagree with Roy’s opinion on the GHE and the 2nd law, I no longer come out and challenge him on it.
Roy is a professional with a reputation to maintain. It’s not fair for others to take shots at him on his own blog when he cannot fairly become embroiled in such an exchange.
I think Anthony Watts at WUWT was wrong to censor someone of Tony Heller’s background and abilities. Phillip Latour has similar skills, actually in thermodynamics, as a chemical engineer, and Roy did not ban him for disagreeing with him in detail. I think that’s because Philip kept his replies professional.
Let’s get it straight. Roy is among the most open-minded blog owners on the Net when it comes to allowing dissident opinions. He endured a guy whose initials led to the d*c posting issues to go on for ages into stuff that went far beyond science before banning him. And that was, IMHO, because he started attacking Roy personally.
I did not mind many of the points made by d*c but he had a penchant for crossing the line.
Actually, I think you should clean up your approach to posting. I can toss insults but I get right into the theory. Seldom will you see me offer an ad hom or an insult without a valid scientific rebuttal. It would not hurt you if you focused more on the reason for your reply and less on the emotions they illicit in you.
> Seldom will you see me offer an ad hom or an insult without a valid scientific rebuttal.
You could not last 7 minutes, Gordo:
Gordon Robertson says:
August 14, 2021 at 12:11 AM
Major lie. They conveniently omit that NOAA and GISS have retroactively fudged the record to remove warming from 1936 that exceeded anything we see today.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“THE SUN IS BLANK: Today, there are no sunspots on the sun–only tiny pores and regions of magnetic froth called “plage”. So far, 2021 has had 56 spotless days. That might sound like a lot, but it is in fact a sharp reduction compared to hundreds of spotless days observed in 2019 and 2020. Solar Cycle 25 is still on track for a robust maximum in 2024 or 2025.”
Any Max around 2024 could be useful.
I wonder if got too much spotless over long enough period, would be factor in ending ISS.
” Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 4.99×1010 W Cold
Max: 49.4×1010 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×1010 W Cold (02/2009)
Thermosphere is still not warming up much.
It seems solar Max might not amount to much and be over quickly.
Which would be bad for Mars program. But maybe Min will be shorter this time.
On a brighter note, reality has temporarily overcome fantasy. From the US administration –
“US national security adviser Jake Sullivan criticized big oil producers including Saudi Arabia for what he said were “insufficient crude (oil) production levels”. “At a critical moment in the global recovery, this is simply not enough,” Sullivan said in a statement.
What – no demands for the wind to blow harder, or the Sun to shine brighter?
Isn’t “renewable” energy supposed to be putting fossil fuel out of business? Why is the US administration begging foreign producers to produce more oil? Seems odd. Maybe the US has run out of oil, but doesn’t want to tell anybody. Or maybe this is what happens when you let the winners of beauty contests run a country.
[laughing rather than crying]
> Isnt “renewable” energy supposed to be putting fossil fuel out of business?
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/in/pdf/2017/09/Solar-beats-coal-cost.pdf
Who should we believe, Mike Flynn: the sock puppet of a Dragon crank or KPMG?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Wondering Wee Willy stupidly wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Do you know any rotisserie with an oven that only has 3K on one of its side?
Many thanks!”
Clearly demonstrating that he is psychotically fixated on some non-existent source of terror he refers to as “Mike Flynn”, and that he poses pointless and irrelevant presumed “gotchas” based, not on what I wrote, but the foul and demented contents of his retarded fantasy.
Ah well, that is the perverted imagination of the climate crank. Unable to accept reality, they create their own. Only imaginary, luckily. Otherwise, realists would be in a pretty pickle, wouldn’t they?
[chortling mirthiness)
Mike Flynn,
Here’s you:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/27/week-in-review-47/#comment-713698
Willard, please stop trolling.
It is so sad listening to the increasingly desperate croaking of the doomed frogs here.
DMT,
Why bother listening, then?
Are you a masochistic delusional climate crank?
No wonder you’re sad, listening to your ilk, croaking away!
5. Carbon Extraction
The takeaway: The two scenarios in the report that limit warming below 2C use carbon removal from the atmosphere during the latter part of the century.
Carbon naturally cycles through the soil, water, plants, and air continuously. We can draw carbon out of the atmosphere by planting trees, sequestering carbon in agricultural soil, restoring ocean ecosystems that store carbon, and applying carbon capture and storage technology.
Model simulations in the latest report suggest that removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere drops temperatures in just a matter of years.
Although some carbon removal methods show promise, the practice remains in the research and development phase and would require deployment at massive scales, according to the report. Carbon capture could cause undesirable effects such as losses of biodiversity, water, or food production.
Duncombe, J. (2021), What five graphs from the U.N. climate report reveal about our path to halting climate change, Eos, 102, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EO161811. Published on 09 August 2021.
TM, the only connection CO2 has to temperature is a very slight cooling effect.
Another idiot modeller. Believes in halting climate change?
Truly delusional.
You deniers need to all get on the same page; you are arguing against each other…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-796067
I think most Skeptics would agree that you’re a braindead cult idiot.
How’s that for being “on the same page”?
You’re no ordinary contrarian, Pup.
You’re a Dragon crank.
Dud, you can’t even get your insults right!
No U
Willard, please stop trolling.
Amid Extreme Weather, a Shift Among Republicans on Climate Change
Many Republicans in Congress no longer deny that Earth is heating because of fossil fuel emissions. But they say abandoning oil, gas and coal will harm the economy.
Published Aug. 13, 2021Updated Aug. 14, 2021, 4:54 a.m. ET
Members of Congress who long insisted that the climate is changing due to natural cycles have notably adjusted that view, with many now acknowledging the solid science that emissions from burning oil, gas and coal have raised Earths temperature.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/climate/republicans-climate-change.html
Yes, it is all about politics.
Politicians don’t have a clue about science.
“Merkel was born in Hamburg in then-West Germany, moving to East Germany as an infant when her father, a Lutheran clergyman, received a pastorate in Perleberg. She obtained a doctorate in quantum chemistry in 1986 and worked as a research scientist until 1989.”
Dud must believe one isolated example is a “vast majority”.
Idiot.
You said “Politicians dont have a clue about science,” Pup.
It’s just a flesh wound.
Did you know that political leaders had scientific advisors?
Dud, a “science advisor” can be as worthless as a basement-dwelling troll.
More than that, Dud.
*You*, the basement troll par excellence, can be scientific advisor.
But are you?
You’re the “dud”, Dud!
This is too difficult for you, huh?
No U
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tyson,
My guess is because it is politically expedient to do so.
Personally, I believe the climate is warmer than in the past, and we’re lucky that is so. Whether or not man’s actions have any significant influence is immaterial in one sense. In another, if may is causing the climate to be warmer, then I say – keep up the good work. If we were to head back into a deeper ice age, the devastation would ruin all civilizations, not just ours.
Lewis Guignard at 7:00 AM
“Personally, I believe the climate is warmer than in the past”
Yes:
“Whether or not mans actions have any significant influence”
That’s incontrovertible.
“I say keep up the good work. If we were to head back into a deeper ice age, the devastation would ruin all civilizations, not just ours.”
So, you’re saying that global cooling has been called off, no?
No, it isn’t incontrovertible. There is little evidence that man is contributing to any of the recent warmings anymore than he has during any other warming periods. Also, the math says different. Salby’s math, Berry’s math, Harde’s math, Vournas’ math, Pangburn’s math. All of the evidence properly evaluated says otherwise. Your willful ignorance doesn’t make your dreams come true.
> Salby’s math
Where?
Salby has made several presentations that are available to everyone. Also, his text Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate provides the basic physics. You’re good at finding all kinds of information, try.
Vournas’ math? Lol.
Christos ignores the IR opacity of the atm. so concludes that atm. opacity doesn’t matter; instead, Christos substitutes a constant in 1st law in place of the planetary atm. – a constant selected after the 1LOT energy balance (surface layer and TOA) answer is well known.
Willard, Ball4, please stop trolling.
“If we were to head back into a deeper ice age, the devastation would ruin all civilizations, not just ours.”
India would be doing fine, other than the hordes of people who want live in a warm place.
India is small and already got lot’s of people. Australia would also be warm, and doesn’t much people. So perhaps the freezing people could go to Australia, instead.
Australia currently has average temperature of about 21.5 C, much warmer average temperature than Europe with about 9 C
Australia has land area of 2.97 million square miles.
India has 1.269 million square miles with population about 1.38 billion people and average is about 24 C, which only little higher than Aussie land, though it’s population is .02569 billion.
There must be something other than warm weather which makes India so popular. And India was starting it’s civilization back in the day a thousand year before time when Earth was much warmer than it is now.
So, should check that:
Holocene Climate Optimum- 9,000 to 5,000 years BP
“That suggests the Harappan civilization is nearly as old as sites from West Asia such as Jericho, where evidence of a neolithic city has been found to date from as early as 9000 BC. But it also means that Harappa, with new proof of hakra ware dating to 7500 BC, may have been more technologically advanced bolstering India’s claim to the title of the cradle of civilization.”
https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-11-28/archaeologists-confirm-indian-civilization-2000-years-older-previously-believed
So, yeah, somewhere around 1000 years prior to Holocene Climate Optimum. Venezuela would also be warm enough, currently it’s average temperature is about 26 C. People didn’t flee Venezuela
because it’s warm, btw.
Instead they had very bad political leadership.
There’s too much freedumb in Texas at the moment.
A summertime surge is more evidence the vaccines have caused variants. It’s very possible that new variants will be far worse that the original.
It is very possible that new variants will be far milder than the original. Which common cold variant are we on? I had the COVID infection and hope to continue to get exposed to every variant from now on. I go out of my way to try to get exposed.
> I had the COVID infection and hope to continue to get exposed to every variant from now on
You also exposed other people, whom exposed other people, and so on and so forth. Which means that Bill Maher’s rule strikes again:
https://youtu.be/W_um2srMerA
Bill Maher is a leftist mastermind like you. He thinks human masterminds can defeat this virus. Yes, I will continue to be exposed and expose others. This behavior will give me and the people I expose the best chance to survive.
> Bill Maher is a leftist
http://gph.is/1VgVawe
Still waiting for your Rothschild conspiracy regarding COVID, Troglodyte.
My family and I walk about freely without fear of exposure. Do you? We’ve been to many mass gatherings for several months, go to restaurants, etc. We are essentially back to normal. We avoid going anywhere where there is a mask mandate. We don’t wear masks or social distance. We are essentially back to normal.
I don’t villanize Jews as you leftist Nazis do.
George Soros was born Gyrgy Schwartz, dummy.
> We are essentially back to normal.
Where?
Willie,
You’re free to go to Berry’s site and explain to him where he is wrong. He welcomes all critiques. Several prominent scientists have done so. If you or Tyson, or Eman are so confident against Berry’s claims then please go there and set him straight. If you have the guts. No, you’d rather stay over here in your obscure safety and proffer insults. Wonder what Dr. Park would say?
Judaism is a religion, dummy. Not a race.
The left hates actual practicing orthodox Jews. They hate Israel. What a conundrum for the left. All those “Jewish” supporters. Strange.
Troglodyte,
As I told you, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel:
Is there any collective noun that you won’t redefine?
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/qPwbG6AW2nmMRMQs9rLQRg–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtjZj13ZWJw/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-uploaded-images/2021-08/19b96cf0-0514-11ec-b797-d508aa8b35d5
Covid hospitalizations are 28 x higher for unvaccinated.
Fear of climate – or climate of fear
https://youtu.be/w_ybzC2wP7Q
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2021/08/hard-problems-fear-and-solutions-pick.html
If Eli says it then it must be true. Mind you, he has a tendency to link anti-scientists with CAGW sceptics, so not much in the way of analysis or thought there.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/26/cagw-a-snarl-word/
Not Eli, dummy. It’s a quote from a paper. Did you know that conservatives has a bigger amygdala?
“But CAGW” is indeed the central square of the Climateball Bingo:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
By the way, Ed Berry’s preprint #3 has been fully peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by Atmosphere. It falsifies the IPCC core theory that humans caused all the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1750. His calculations show humans caused about 25ppm of the 130ppm rise in CO2. He makes no claims against GHE theory. However, if GHE theory is true, most of the warming is due to nature.
Who?
You know, if you’d stick to the science instead of your leftist agenda and post under your actual name, you’d probably acquire some credibility.
You would not get any biscuits from Soros.
This thread is about a study that explains the hate of Troglodytes like you, Stephen.
If you’re to peddle Ed’s paper, at least cite it.
You mean this one?
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/
“Comments by scientists:
Dear Ed, Congratulations a wonderful piece of work. Dr. Nils-Axel Morner
A proper model must address all CO2 in the atmosphere at once, without discrimination. You do that magnificently from first principles. Dr. Gordon Fulks
Ed does not make mathematical mistakes in solving his rate equations. Dr. William Happer”
MDPI.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/gordon-j-fulks
https://co2coalition.org/members/william-happer-phd/
“It falsifies the IPCC core theory that humans caused all the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1750. His calculations show humans caused about 25ppm of the 130ppm rise in CO2. ”
Sorry a model cannot falsify data and observations.
If getting a paper published means you must be right, then I will put up 10,000 published papers that are right, but also disagree with him.
“Ed does not make mathematical mistakes in solving his rate equations. Dr. William Happer”
That is quite weak. He doesnt mention that Berry’s rate equations are way way too simple to explain the Earth’s actual carbon cycle.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Perhaps this paper.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes#:
Would Eli refer to something he did not believe?
You said “If Eli says it then it must be true,” dummy.
If Eli endorses it then it must be true.
If you can almost say something, dummy, that must mean something.
Being an idiot. nothing you say matters.
Thanks for the free win, dummy.
Think what you like. You are still an idiot.
What fun will it be when you’ll realize what Andy is really saying, dummy.
You’re still an idiot Willard.
No U, dummy.
And add at the end
“So with the anti-vaxxers, the climate change deniers and yes the no-hopers, emphasize progress and solutions.”
You disagree?
He has a tendency to link anti-scientists with CAGW sceptics, so not much in the way of analysis or thought there.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/26/cagw-a-snarl-word/
I asked you if you disagreed with the claim, dummy.
Also, please take time to read Andy’s rationalization.
“So with the anti-vaxxers, the climate change deniers and yes the no-hopers, emphasize progress and solutions.”
I disagree with the above as it lumps people who think different things under the same label. Incorrectly.
The claim, dummy.
Try to identify what is being said.
Elli’s claim is
“So with the anti-vaxxers, the climate change deniers and yes the no-hopers, emphasize progress and solutions.”
with which I disagree.
Yet you have not disputed the claim, dummy:
“emphasize progress and solutions”
I made clear what I disagreed with. If that is not sufficient for you, tough.
You really have no idea how logic works, dummy:
[ESTR] When A, B or C happens, wait for Godot.
[VLAD] YOU ARE LUMPING A, B, and C together!
[ESTR] I did not say they’re equivalent.
[VLAD] I DISAGREE!
[ESTR] With what?
[VLAD] I TOLD YOU!
[ESTR] Not the claim, dummy.
Idiot.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-797757
You’re still an idiot Willard.
No U, dummy.
Do you know Allison Aiken? She knows who Berry is.
Wut?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Christos Vournas August 12, 2021 at 1:21 AM
Those indicators work perfect for both the AGW nonsense and the Moon rotation nonsense.
suppose the moon keep its orientation with respect to the distant stars, such that at any point on the moon the stars remain visibly still, while at the same time keeps orbiting the earth. Would you say it is rotating and on which axis?
coturnix
Anybody who is no professional denier understands on which axis Moon rotates after having read Steven Wepster’s dissertation about a little subset of Tobias Mayer’s work.
One just needs to look at
9.5.1 Locating the rotational axis
starting on page 173 in the document
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
A tiny bit about Mayer’s work:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-709942
J.-P. D.
cot, the easiest way to understand orbital motion is with the simple ball-on-a-string. The same side of the ball always faces the inside of the orbit, indicating it is NOT rotating about its axis. If the ball were rotating, the string would wrap around it.
That’s the motion we see with Moon — orbiting, but NOT rotating.
I see Clint R still comments the moon is connected by a string to Earth.
Actually our moon is orbiting in earthen gravity field freely spinning once on its own axis per orbit since really: there is no string. Hint: don’t tell Clint R that reality, the blog might lose its main entertainer to the actual reality.
Actually observed inertially is if the ball on string were rotating more or less than once per orbit, the string would wrap around it.
The ball is not rotating on its own axis wrt to the string frame, Clint R just doesn’t reveal the location of the commented observation.
@ball4
>>don’t tell Clint R that reality, the blog might lose its main entertainer to the actual reality.—
I don’t think anyone should worry abut that. That will NEVER happen =)
Ball4 gets tangled up in his own rambling nonsense, as usual.
I agree coturnix 2:10pm, Clint R’s entertainment will be incessant no matter what, as observed 2:28pm.
Still got hold of that string Clint R? Keep spinning your ball and trying to get the physics sorted out of how our moon’s orbital motions are not like your analogy of a ball on string. Hint: there is no string keeping our moon spinning on its own axis once per rev.
Ball4 rejects the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. He’ll have to compete with Bindidon, RLH, Folkerts, Norman, and several others, for “Biggest Idiot”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
There is a quote attributed to various people:
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
Yes, a ball on a string is a simple model of orbital motion. Unfortunately for Clint, it is too simple in ways that he seems incapable of understanding. For example, a ball an a strong cannot accurately model elliptical orbits, not can it accurately model libration. When a model fails to predict reality accurately, it needs to be discarded in favor of a better model.
There is a quote attributed to various people:
“People that attempt to deny/distort/pervert reality are idiots. And, idiots can’t learn.”
Folkerts has now admitted a ball on a string is a simple model of orbital motion. Unfortunately for Folkerts, he is an idiot and tries to pervert the model. The purpose of the model is to demonstrate that an orbiting body always keeps the same side facing the inside of the orbit, just as Moon does. If the orbiting body is also rotating, then all sides would be facing the inside of the orbit at some time.
A more detailed model of Moon’s actual orbital motion could be built, involving an elliptical orbit and libration. It would involve a slanted, oval track, with a body propelled along the track. The body would STILL have one side facing the inside of the orbit. It would NOT be rotating.
Folkerts has NO workable model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”. He has NOTHING, except his usual blah-blah.
Whereas you have nothing except your tiny cult of non-scientists to cling to.
Clintionary:
Distort- To correct Clint’s erroneous posts
Pervert – to explain how Clint’s posts disagree with ordinary physics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
You’re still wrong Clint R.
“Here are 3 links for you to deny:”
Here is the ‘distortion’ of that:
Quotes from his sources:
“Over time the Moons rotation has slowed so much that it matches its orbital period”
“It is now in synchronous rotation with its orbit”
“it orbits Earth in the same time it takes to spin once around its rotational axis”
So sorry, Clint’s self selected sources of authority declare Clint is totally wrong.
Those indicators don’t apply at all to both the textbook AGW sense and the Moon rotation sense.
Some do apply to Christos work though & routinely apply to comments by DREMT, Clint R, and many to Gordon’s work.
What textbook would that be?
A college level meteorological course textbook on principles of both atm. radiation and atm. thermodynamics. I always recommend the easily readable texts by Dr. Craig Bohren 1998 and 2006.
Also I recommend the atm. and lab experiments provided by Dr. Spencer.
You’ll need to show chapter and verse in Bohren’s text the “AGW sense.”
Do you mean where Dr. Spencer holds a spectrophotometer up to the sky? We all know CO2 absorbs infrared. So do water and methane. Their effect is small. Most of the atmosphere’s warming comes from conduction at the Earth’s surface and convection. The Earth warms that other 99% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Dr. Bohren’s 2006 text, chapter 1, verse 6.
You can get a free copy loaned at your local college library.
“Their effect is small.”
Sure & relatively small, if by that is meant the effect of IR active gas opacity on earthen global multiannual instrumental median temperature. Dr. Bohren p.33: “Although nitrogen and oxygen are the numerically dominant atmospheric gases, they are not radiatively dominant.”
“Do you mean where Dr. Spencer holds a spectrophotometer up to the sky?”
I’m unaware of where he’s blogged he’s done so. What I do mean is where he’s blogged experimentally showing icy cirrus can raise the temperature of ambient surface water at depth due the added radiation (hf energy) absorbed from the cirrus over that of nearby ambient water not in view of the cirrus. He then calculated that effect from first principles.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4 at 12:47 PM
Yes, not unlike:
Potholer’s Interrogative
You believe you have discovered a basic error in the accepted Physics. Which is the most likely explanation?
(A) You have discovered something that all the PhD Physicists have missed.
(B) The Physicists are involved in a massive conspiracy to hide the truth.
(C) The Physicists know something you don’t know.
In reality what usually happens is that you’ve looked at a popular description, a simplified explanation, taken it as literal and then gone down a logical rabbit hole where the only conclusion is that Physics is broken and you’ve found the break. Generally speaking, that’s not what’s happened. What’s happened is you didn’t get the full technical explanation because you don’t know the physics.
What all PhD physicists would that be? So, who are these PhD physicists who promote AGW?
normally it is C. Very rarely, especially if you are trained in physics yourself, it happens to be A. But when politics is deeply involved in the issue, the B is quite likely.
The key word here is ‘The Physicists’. Who are these ‘The Physiscists’, how are their member chosen, who supports their group, what is their agenda and ideological affiliations?
TM,
Anybody who appeals to “Physics” is even sillier than one who says “Science teaches . . . “.
Accepted physics? Accepted by delusional SkyDragons, no doubt, who believe in a mysterious Greenhouse Effect, that they can’t describe, or even where it might be observed!
Your fantasy is not reality. You cannot name one physicist who has actually described the Greenhouse Effect in any meaningful way, can you, much less quote his description!
That’s because you are a desperate, gullible, idiot, trying to save face.
Mike Flynn, Major Floridity,
Have you ever observed causality?
“when politics is deeply involved in the issue, the B is quite likely.”
Oh the massive conspiracy thing is quite likely?
Examples??
I mean other than Nessie, the Flat Earth cover up, and the fake Moon landings?
Witless Wee Will wrote (getting ever more desperate) –
“Mike Flynn, Major Floridity,
Have you ever observed causality?”
Trying to appear intelligent, and failing miserably. What an idiot he is!
Mike Flynn,
Marmite Flower
“Who are these The Physiscists, how are their member chosen, who supports their group, what is their agenda and ideological affiliations?”
I am one. We are hand-picked by a Grand Master who is in Isaac Newton’s bloodline. There is a long period of indoctrination into the ways of the forces.
Our agenda is to obtain a grant to build a massive underground lair, from which we hope to achieve world domination.
We are affilated with chemists, mathematicians, and engineers, who actually are our minions.
: )
Top of the list: https://ibb.co/yB3sVdz
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Ball4 wrote –
“What I do mean is where he’s blogged experimentally showing icy cirrus can raise the temperature of ambient surface water at depth due the added radiation (hf energy) absorbed from the cirrus over that of nearby ambient water not in view of the cirrus.”, in regard to Dr Spencer.
Complete nonsense, Blogging is not reproducible scientific experiment.
Icy cirrus can never radiate energy sufficient to raise the temperature of water anywhere. It is composed of ice crystals. Either you have misunderstood Dr Spencer, or he has inadvertently expressed himself incorrectly.
Nobody can describe the GHE, or indicate where it may be observed.
Just like phlogiston, or the luminiferous ether, or many other ideas that seemed logical at the time, the idea of the GHE will fade away, and be talked about no more.
In the meantime, consider yourself a devotee of the SkyDragon cult, rushing madly about, shouting “Only 10 Years to Save the World'”, “It’s Worse Than We Thought!”, while you wave a placard reading “Stop Climate Change!”.
Mike Flynn, Mystical Fluid,
It’s “But 12 Years”:
https://climateball.net/but-12-years/
And yet another irrelevant and pointless comment from the idiot.
“We Have 10 Years Left To Save The World, Says Climate Expert”, who happens to be the UN lead negotiator of the Paris Climate agreement.
The SkyDragons can’t even agree how “worse than we thought” it is.
Some catastrophe!
Luckily, only deluded idiots like Woeful Wee Willy Willard are stupid enough to believe all this “save the. World” crap.
Mike Flynn, Miserable Freak,
Dragon cranks like you have no bench at all!
Sorry!
Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh!
Whickering Wee Willy,
What are you blathering about? Benches?
You really are disconnected from reality, aren’t you?
Swenson 5:24pm claims the 1st law of thermodynamics data as blogged experimentally by Dr. Spencer is: “Complete nonsense”.
Dr. Spencer has also described the GHE and indicated how it can be observed where Swenson claims: “Nobody can describe the GHE, or indicate where it may be observed.” There is much testable science that Swenson has misunderstood, misread, rejected, and/or not comprehended.
Just like phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and Mike Flynn, Swenson’s disconnected from reality comments fade away, and will be talked about only in comedy shows.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
[Mike Flynn] Anybody who appeals to “Physics” is even sillier
[Also Mike Flynn] The NASA answer is nonsense, and depends on magical physics. Newtonian physics suffices.
Aw diddums!
The world has been coooling for the last 6 months or more. Get over it.
No U
Idiot.
No U.
willard…”The following gem cited by a Sky Dragon made me look into energy balance models:
Out of the mathematical convenience of not having to treat the system in real-time, and with the real power of sunshine, climate scientists average the real-time power of sunshine over the entire surface of the Earth at once, so that they can get rid of day and night, and also so that they can treat the Earth as flat, which makes things easier for them in the math”.
***
One…you and your alarmist ilk are the Sky Dragons, by definition. The term ‘Sky Dragon’ was coined by Claes Johnson et al to describe CO2 in the atmosphere as the Sky Dragon breathing hot air, aka heat. Therefore those who support that theory become Sky Dragons through belief and skeptics become the Sky Dragon Slayers.
Really, getting confused over something so simple is typical of your mentality.
Two…Anyone who tries to average an incoming EM flux over the entire Earth’s surface fails to grasp the reality. That’s especially true when they try to average it mathematically over a flat surface.
This is why you alarmists are so screwed up. You cannot deal with the real, physical world as it is, where the speed of rotation of the Earth creates the warming you alarmists refer to as the GHE.
When you try to break solar energy into averages mathematically, you end up with a distorted picture of what is really going on. You end up applying S-B to a problem where it cannot be applied effectively. The problem is far more complex that S-B can handle.
Gordo,
You belong to the Dragon cranks side. The view you’re trying to promote does not exist in the scientific lichurchur. You slayed nothing.
So no, I don’t accept Claes’ crappy branding.
As for everything else, you wrote a lot of words without really saying anything. If that helps you spend your evenings without hurting anyone, suit yourself.
SkyDragons don’t accept reality.
They have faith that self-styled “climate scientists” know what they are talking about.
When it comes to physics, they don’t.
Mike Flynn,
You say–
“When it comes to physics, they don’t.”
You said earlier–
“Anybody who appeals to “Physics” is even sillier”
Consistency is not Dragon Cranks’ forte, it seems.
Aw diddums!
Tee hee hee..
Willard, please stop trolling.
maguff…”Potholers Interrogative
You believe you have discovered a basic error in the accepted Physics. Which is the most likely explanation?
(A) You have discovered something that all the PhD Physicists have missed.
(B) The Physicists are involved in a massive conspiracy to hide the truth.
(C) The Physicists know something you dont know”.
***
There are at least two more possibilities:
(D) Only a fraction of all physicists were consulted.
(E) Those consulted were:
i)incompetent
ii)butt-kissers hooked on a bad paradigm
(F)Maguff is yet another deluded fool.
Gordon Robertson at 9:34 PM
Quit running and dodging (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-791396) and admit that you don’t know how to differentiate a vector function. You can’t even work through your own example!
TM,
Quit running away from reality. The Earth cooled to its present temperature from the molten state.
What is your evidence to the contrary?
You don’t have any, do you?
You are delusional.
“What is your evidence to the contrary?”
Globally earth is measured warmer now than in 2013.
But it appears that it was warmer in the past. Even than now.
Climate shystering 101
https://youtu.be/oinESthOQ34
tim…”a ball on a string is a simple model of orbital motion. Unfortunately for Clint, it is too simple in ways that he seems incapable of understanding. For example, a ball an a strong cannot accurately model elliptical orbits, not can it accurately model libration…”
***
I don’t recall Clint claiming a ball on a string can model an elliptical orbit or libration. I was involved when the ball on a string was introduced and it was aimed primarily at demonstrating how a ball can orbit without rotating about its local axis.
Since the ball orbits the head of the person swinging it, yet cannot rotate about its local axis due to the tension on the string, it does model the action of the Moon. The Moon moves in exactly the same manner about the Earth, the exception being in the mechanics. The ball relies on the string to not only cause it to orbit it also counters the effect of gravity. The Moon has it’s own linear momentum and relies on gravity to continually bend the direction of that linear momentum into an orbit.
We also introduced a horse running an oval track, a wooden horse BOLTED TO a merry go round floor, and an airliner orbiting the Earth at 35,000 feet. All of them demonstrate exactly the same motion of the Moon, which orbits the Earth with no local rotation.
Not one of you spinners have supplied proof to refute those proofs.
So why does the string not get wrapped round the Earth then, as it is rotating approximately 27 times faster than the Moon is orbiting?
A string between Earth and Moon WOULD wrap around Earth because Earth is rotating about its axis, as it orbits. Moon is only orbiting.
But also means that a ball-on-a-string is not relevant to orbits at all.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
Still wrong as usual.
Yes you are.
No U.
You nailed it Gordon. Folkerts stumbles again:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-797433
“Since the ball orbits the head of the person swinging it, yet cannot rotate about its local axis due to the tension on the string”
Your argument is perhaps intuitive, but it is still too simplistic. You all need to be open to new ideas and use some critical thinking skills.
1) A string constrains a ball to face one direction. Does gravity offer such a constraint? No! The argument that a ball would ‘get wrapped up on a string’ doesn’t make any sense for gravity, since the moon can’t get ‘wrapped up’ on the ‘gravity string’ holding the moon. Similarly, there is no ‘bolt’ holding the moon and no ‘hooves’ pushing against ‘the ground’ to turn a horse.
A better analogy would be a ball rolling/sliding on a banked frictionless track. The banking makes the ball curve, but provides no constraint to keep any particular part of the ball facing any particular direction. *That* is how gravity acts on the moon!
2) Define what you mean by “rotate on its own axis”. “Its own axis” is a vertical line upward through the center of mass of the the ball. Surely you agree. “Rotate” means to change orientation around an axis, relative to some reference directions.
You choose “the string” as the reference. That is certainly one interesting and intuitive direction to choose.
Every scientist chooses “the fixed stars” as the reference. That is also an interesting and intuitive direction. And for reasons you either can’t or won’t understand, this choice has many advantages. Not the least of which it that it is possible to measure absolute rotation. In a room with no windows (or other information from the outside world) you cannnot tell if you are translating, but you CAN tell if you are rotating.
3) Your models (whether ball-on-string or horse-on-merry-go-round or train-on-a-track) simply do not have any predictive power for libration. The fact that Clint got the wrong answer for the orientation of the moon at “D” in this image shows he doesn’t understand the correct origin of libration.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-797433
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-753439
You’re still wrong Clint R.
ball4…”Hint: there is no string keeping our moon spinning on its own axis once per rev”.
***
From the same climate clown who claims heat is a measure of energy transfer. Since the energy being transferred must be heat in this situation, according to Ball4, heat is a measure of heat.
Now the rocket scientist misses the point entirely of the ball on a string. No Bally, there is no string between the Earth and the Moon, although some string theorists may disagree. However, the ball at the end of the string orbits without rotating locally. It can’t rotate locally BECAUSE IT IS ATTACHED TO THE STRING AND UNDER TENSION!!! In that sense, the motion of the ball and the Moon are identical throughout an orbit.
A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
Gordon, the ball can’t rotate locally (meaning locally wrt to the string) BECAUSE IT IS ATTACHED TO THE STRING AND UNDER TENSION!!! Unlike our moon which is not attached to any string under tension like Clint R claims!
However universally and inertially the ball rotates once per rev. on its own axis OR IT WOULD WRAP THE STRING!!!
Yet again Gordon: Clausius’ heat is the total KE of the constituents of the object.
Ball4 denies reality by misrepresenting me. “Unlike our moon which is not attached to any string under tension like Clint R claims!”
That’s all they’ve got — twisting, distorting, perverting reality.
Hey Pup,
Time’s up.
Are you still appealing to reality as if Dragon Cranks owned it?
Clint R does claim our moon is connected by a string to Earth writing: “(Our moon is) the same motion as a ball-on-a-string.”
Blog laughing stock Clint R is in denial.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
You’re still wrong Clint R.
To attach a string to the Moon. One needs about 50,000 kg of string.
One end of string attaches to spent stage about 50,000 km from Earth/Moon L-1 {towards Earth] the other end hang down to Lunar surface.
Most of string could be like this “Kevlar Thread – Size 415 / Tex 500 / “:
Use to reinforce medium to heavy duty belts, and to sew heavyweight and multi-ply fabrics, canvas, and leather. Average thickness: 0.82 mm (27/1000 In). Nominal tensile strength: 150 Lbs.
And string near lunar surface could be: “Kevlar Thread – Size 46 / Tex 40″:
Use to sew lightweight fabrics and leather, gear, and fishing tackle. Average thickness: 0.21 mm (8/1000 In). Nominal tensile strength: 14 Lbs.”
Something which weighed up about 50 lb on Earth, could hang from it.
A heavy Falcon does about 26,700 to GTO so not big enough with one launch. [though probably could make lighter, then I roughly guesstimated].
It could cost less than a typical moderate size satellite.
Like the thousand already orbit {excluding stuff like cubesats or 60 starlink satellites- which are most of satellites currently in orbit- which deployed with one Falcon-9 launch.
Making each satellite “assemble line made” very cheap.
I meant the normal “old space” satellites which are in orbit.
binny…”One just needs to look at
9.5.1 Locating the rotational axis
starting on page 173 in the document”
***
There is nothing on that page, other than in the section title of 9.5.1 that talks about the Moon rotating about that axis. All Meyer was trying to do was use geometry to determine where a pole would be wrt the ecliptic, if it was there.
If the Moon did rotate on an axis, there would be no problem finding an axis via direct observation. The Moon keeps the same side pointed at the Earth through the entire orbit, proof positive that it is not rotating about a local axis.
The Moon pointing one side towards Earth has nothing to do with its orbit. It could rotate twice as fast on its axis as it does now without changing its orbit in any way.
RLH, twice zero is still zero.
If the Moon rotate faster on its axis per revolution then you WOULD be able to see all sides.
Yes, if Moon were rotating we would see all sides of it from Earth.
But, it’s NOT rotating. That’s why we only see one side. It’s the same motion as a ball-on-a-string.
A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
You’re still wrong Clint R.
willard…”Earth sizzled in July and became the hottest month in 142 years of recordkeeping, U.S. weather officials announced”.
***
Such an odd claim. This UAH data shows no warming whatsoever in July over most of the planet.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Perhaps humans don’t live in the troposphere, Gordo.
Have you ever thought of that?
When it’s warm in the Northern Hemisphere, it’s cold in the Southern Hemisphere. Vournas will tell you it’s the spin rate of the planet. It keeps temperatures pretty stable and livable.
Let me ask you a question, Stephen:
Do you understand anything that Christos writes?
Let me ask you a question, dummy
Why do you ask such stupid questions?
Because Willard is an idiot.
No U, and No U
Yes, would you like me to explain his theory to you? It isn’t too difficult, even for you.
That’s perfect, Troglodyte.
Tell me about Christos’ emissivity.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Perhaps humans dont live in the troposphere”
Perhaps all satellites measure all of the atmosphere, including right down to the surface. Not just the troposphere.
You might be on stronger ground if you contested the weightings and what happens in the surface boundary layer.
“Perhaps all satellites measure all of the atmosphere”
They don’t.
You seem so certain.
You surmise that satellite measure all air columns whereas you can’t even bring yourself to accept thermometers at ground level, dummy.
I have well founded reservations about all of the temperature measurements. Both thermometer and satellite. Mostly to do with Nyquist both in time and space.
Both are also affected by changes in relative humidity which is often not correlated to either.
The depth of the surface boundary layer is also something that neither track well, although weathermen will often use it to predict the future.
Your reservations are incoherent, Hall Monitor.
That’s the opposite of well-justified.
Whereas you are just an idiot Willard.
You’re still wrong, Richard.
Not a very useful map.
Those continues are 1C apart so the map only shows the largest changes and is not sensitive enough to show most of the variation.
Curses.
“Those contours”
EM,
Snookered by the autocomplete, I assume?
Sometimes I wonder if someone like Wee Willy Willard was involved. Only joking, autocomplete is quite useful, usually.
Unlike Woeful Wee Willy.
I find this site more aggravating to use than any other. I have endless problems with autocorrection, with posts rejected for no apparent reason and with lockouts.
For 24 hours last week I had all comments rejected, even “Testing”.
There are problems, with d*c being the most common reason for rejection. The rest are to do with the parser’s way of dealing with odd characters. Try using https://mothereff.in/html-entities before posting.
“For 24 hours last week I had all comments rejected, even “Testing”.”
I’ve noticed that too, it seems to occur when being chatty with longer comments in subthreads as if there is a number of comments/minute and/or word/minute limit. If exceeded, you receive a timeout for a day or so.
Richard, being chatty?
Our Hall Monitor only has 640 comments so far!
Yes, seems to be commenters can chat incessantly using just a word or two or three.
There appears to be no limit on the number of replies. Just on the total length of submissions in lines during a day (or two).
Yes, that is my experience too, seems like forced timeouts have reduced somewhat last several months or so. For example, time laughing at Clint R & DREMT antics is increasingly allowed.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Entropic man says: Not a very useful map.
Those continues are 1C apart so the map only shows the largest changes and is not sensitive enough to show most of the variation.
Also the monthly mean anomaly (0.20 C) and the expectation value on linear trend (about 0.22 C) are biased from the center of the colormap so it mostly falls into the “no color” (-0.5 to 0.5) range.
Here’s a higher resolution mapping of the same data:
uahTltJuly2021AnomalyGrid.png
The color scheme makes the graph mostly useless.
Check the light greens.
Using a Mercator projection distorts areas/importance at the poles. Using an equal area such as Mollweide does not. That is why Roy uses it.
Updated figure linked above with different color scheme and map projection.
You’re the best, Mark.
Much better. Now if only we could get https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif in a Mollweid projection : )
The average absolute temperature out of which UAH’s anomalies are computed is about 264 K, i.e. about -9 C.
Everybody can see that when readingt Roy Spencer’s hints on one of his threads:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
Those who know how to compute UAH’s baseline out of its grid data use the climatology file
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
Robertson still can’t manage to understand that the average altitude for UAH’s temperature measurements therefore is about 4 km.
He still did not get that to avoid the lower troposphere data being unduly affected by surface influence, a bit of the lower stratosphere is added to the LT mix.
J.-P. D.
As I have said before, satellites look at air temperatures mostly from above the surface boundary layer whilst thermometers look at them from inside that same surface boundary layer.
Not that one should expect that the 2 are unconnected as weathermen having been using the connection between them for a very long while.
Anomalies tend to show only a few degrees of difference.
The ice age is only a few degrees of difference away.
Stupidty is right next to you. Idiot.
3.
Willard = idiot.
Empty recursion.
Still make you an idiuot.
No U
1.
Willard = idiot.
That’s step 3, Hall Monitor.
That’s an idiotic reply. Idiot.
And that’s a fixed point on 3, Hall Monitor.
That you are still an idiot is not contested at all.
No U
Massive Earthquake Hits Haiti, Thousands Feared Dead
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-massive-earthquake-hits-haiti-thousands-feared-dead?%3Futm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwtwitter
Linked from:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
“A major earthquake struck Haiti on Saturday morning as the island nation still struggles to recover from a devastating earthquake that killed hundreds of thousands back in 2010.”
Testing access.
You made it.
Woebegone Wee Willy wrote earlier (complete comment) –
“Mike Flynn,
Marmite Flower”
Poor delusional Wee Willy. What little brain function he possessed, is now fading fast.
What next? Claiming that “Mike Flynn” stole his brainwaves?
Wee Willy needs a new tinfoil helmet. Only joking – his present one just needs a bit of repositioning.
Mike Flynn,
Mush Fritz
Willard, please stop trolling.
Conservatives are fearful of change and loss of control, but are mostly rational.
There have been four atmospheric problems since WW2; air pollution, acid rain, ozone depletion and climate change.
In three cases conservatives recognised the problem and took appropriate corrective action.
So why is the fourth problem, climate change, treated with denial by some conservatives and reluctance to respond by many others?
Entropic man at 3:59 AM
Air pollution was real, as was the pollution of lakes and streams. But “acid rain”, “ozone depletion”, and “AGW” are all in the hoax category. Also see “bigfoot”, “flying saucers”, “Martians”, and don’t forget “Moon rotation” and “tidal locking”!
> ozone depletion
So now you’re a Chemistry Dragon Crank, Pup?
Willard, please stop trolling.
The ‘fourth problem climate change’, has insufficient evidence to support the claim.
The salient data does not indicate that there is a ‘fourth problem’.
Its not ‘denial’ its a recognition that empirical evidence is important.
Read AR6.
Is that the summary or the actual report. They do differ.
About 20% of the PAGES 2019 proxies are 50 Asian tree ring chronologies, all of which were originally published as chronologies in PAGES (2013). At the time, none of these series (and certainly not in these digital versions, had ever been published in technical literature, peer reviewed or otherwise.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/15/pages19-asian-tree-ring-chronologies/
Stephen McIntyre
We don’t need proxies the the 20th century, dummy.
From Dr Spencer
“The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of.the climate system itself!”
And just to follow up –
“Climate change it happens, with or without our help.”
Indeed. The atmosphere is chaotic, and never repeats its state exactly. It is not possible to predict future climate states.
What measurable outcomes do you think would result from lowering CO2 levels in the atmosphere by say 50%, in the climate of Antarctica? Or Death Valley? What about London or Kathmandu?
You don’t know, and neither does anyone else! So why would any sensible person run around waving a placard saying “Stop climate change!”? Only the delusional and gullible fall prey to such nonsensical ideas.
By the way, ozone is created by the action of high energy photons emitted by the Sun on – oxygen! Ozone depletion? Let me know when the Sun stops shining, or the atmosphere runs out of oxygen.
Except Roy Spencer actually believes in science, the GHE and AGW.
See https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
He correctly considers you to be a troll, and has banned you twice.
But not CAGW as he has made clear.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/26/cagw-a-snarl-word/
Try to apply Andy’s argument to the N-word, dummy.
Try not to be an idiot Willard.
CAGW is a bastardization of AGW, dummy.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is what you persist in going on about.
“Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory explaining today’s long-term increase in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere as an effect of human industry and agriculture.”
bastardization
Noun
The making of a bastard or bastards; Having children out of wedlock or destroying the legitimacy of children’s paternity.
The creation of offspring from two different species; cross-breeding.
(by extension) The combining of separate races in marriage or breeding; miscegenation.
Definition of bastardize
transitive verb
1 : to reduce from a higher to a lower state or condition : debase
2 : to declare or prove to be a bastard
3 : to modify especially by introducing discordant or disparate elements
Definition of idiot. Willard.
3.
You’re still an idiot Willard.
You still blundered, dummy.
N,
Read what Dr Spencer wrote, dummy. I have quoted his words, from the article you linked to.
Furthermore, his article contains no reference to GHE or AGW, which you may have overlooked in your mad desire to replace fact with fantasy.
I consider you to be a deceptive idiot, too stupid to link to something that supports your idiocy.
Off you go, now. Try to get things right next time.
Oh, by the way, if Dr Spencer banned me, I’m obviously not pointing out you are delusional with this comment, because I’m not here. You must be dreaming.
Mike Flynn,
You say-
“if Dr Spencer banned me”
He did! Many times!
You just came back using sock puppets!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Swenson’s comments won’t stand the test of time & will fade away just like similar Mike Flynn comments did and the luminiferous aether.
Willard, Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Furthermore, his article contains no reference to GHE or AGW”
Uhh…just about the entire article is about the Greenhouse Effect.
So you are straight-up lying.
No surprise that he banned you, troll.
If you lowered CO2 levels by 50% life on earth would cease to exist.
You’re a gift that keeps on giving, Kennui:
https://climateball.net/but-life/
There was Life on Earth at 200 ppm. If you lowered iron levels by 50% in their body, humans would suffer. Should we ingest as much iron as we can?
Thanks a bunch!
Humans are 60% water or so, but increasing that amount can cause problems.
The Bell Telephone Science Hour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY
Good times!
This is another example of the nonsense the idiots believe in. Their cult members search the Internet for ANYTHING that they believe supports their cult.
The “Dr.” on the video had a PhD in English! He wouldn’t know anything about the relevant science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_C._Baxter
Whereas your tiny cult rejects what science accepts, that the Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.
Wrong troll RLH.
REAL science does NOT reject reality.
You have rejected reality so long that you’re now braindead:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
The point is that you do not represent REAL science. Just make the false claim that you do.
Yes RLH, Clint R shows no experimental data supporting various claims enabling Clint R to disconnect from reality. For example, there is no observed data that shows a string connects our moon to the Earth as Clint R claims.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
Clint R: You are still wrong.
Hey Pup,
Time’s up:
“Following his war service, Baxter enrolled in the University of Pennsylvania, where he studied zoology and archeology, graduating summa cum laude in 1923.”
Thanks for verifying my words, Dud: “He wouldn’t know anything about the relevant science.”
It’s been almost 3 hours now, and none of the idiots noticed I said “PhD”. I was testing to see if any of them knew the difference between a “PhD” and a “Doctorate”. Of course they don’t….
Titles don’t matter much, Pup.
“A PhD is a doctoral research degree”
1.
Willard = idiot.
3.
You counting again? Won’t impress me at all.
Your confusion between referring to a numbered list and counting is added to your list of blunders, dummy.
If you are of a certain age you should have fond memories of The Bell Telephone Science Hour. It may even be one of the reasons you chose to study Science or Engineering.
TM is a “blockquote addict”. He believes that if he uses “blockquote”, it will somehow make his nonsense more viable. Other cultists like Willard and E. Swanson use the same ploy.
It’s kinda similar to putting lipstick on a pig….
You got “NOTHING,” Pup.
Willard, please stop trolling.
TM,
Oh no’ Not the “blanket analogy” again.
Want to get cooler in direct sunlight? Put a blanket between you and the Sun. Or wear one, like the Berbers and Bedouins do. Generally goat’s wool, dark coloured and thick, and remember the old saying “The hotter the Sun, the thicker the robe”.
Gee, you SkyDragons really have no clue, do you?
Insulators work both ways, dummy, Ever heard of coolrooms, refrigerators, or cryogenics storage devices? Insulation – to keep out the heat. Just like the atmosphere.
Mike Flynn, Microprocessing Flibbertigibbet
Are you suggesting that black refrigerators work better than white ones?
That’d explain the crave about chrome!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Swenson at 7:51 AM
“again”? Note the date on that article, 1911! Read much?
Willard, Tyson, please stop trolling.
The earth radiates a finite amount of energy in any given unit of time. The existing ‘blanket’ absorbs all the available energy. It doesn’t matter if you make the ‘blanket’ thicker; there is not more energy to absorb.
” The existing blanket absorbs all the available energy. ”
Where is your source for that dumb, superficial stuff?
Blankets are not thermo pumps, Kennui.
Ken at 10:14 AM
“The existing ‘blanket’ absorbs all the available energy.”
This should be easy for inquiring minds to check, given that…
Including launches through 4/30/2021
Total number of operating satellites: 4,084
United States: 2,505
Russia: 168
China: 431
Other: 980
LEO: 3,328
MEO: 139
Elliptical: 57
GEO: 560
Total number of US satellites: 2,505
Civil: 32
Commercial: 2,091
Government: 166
Military: 216
Well, if ‘blanket’ equals ocean. A thicker ocean would absorb more energy.
If you halved the ocean, by removing the water you would be changing the surface {artic ocean would isolated and all kinds of other stuff]. How about take the deepest and largest Ocean and filled it in and removed the water so all ocean remain same sea level:
“The volume of the Pacific Ocean, representing about 50.1 percent of the world’s oceanic water, has been estimated at some 714 million cubic kilometers”
“The Pacific Ocean is the largest and deepest ocean basin on Earth, covering more than 155 million square kilometers (60 million square miles) and averaging a depth of 4,000 meters (13,000 feet).”
So landfill it so its 2000 meter deep, and remove about 1/4 of all ocean water, thereby making a thinner ‘blanket’ of water and not changing the sea level topography.
I was sure that when people like Clint R don’t have a substantive argument, they automatically attack the form.
Who wonders about that?
Clint R, like Robertson and a few others, knows nothing but distort, discredit, denigrate and … lie. Just like here:
” Cassini served for decades as astrologer to Louis XIV. ”
Nobody can hold Clint R solely responsible for this statement above: after all, he has very likely copied the text from the English Wiki:
” For the remaining forty-one years of his life Cassini served as astronomer/astrologer to Louis XIV (‘The Sun King’) … ”
At best, we could ask him why he skilfully dispensed with the second part of the sentence:
” … serving the expected dual role yet focusing the overwhelming majority of his time on astronomy rather than the astrology he had studied so much in his youth. ”
And for this clumsy sentence, which is not based on anything real let alone verifiable, and shows the level of his ignorance:
” That was the time when he came up with the false belief that Moon is rotating about its axis. ”
Clint R is solely responsible.
J.-P. D.
Cassini has a good excuse, Bindidon. No one understood orbital motion in his day. It wasn’t until Newton discovered how gravity affects an orbiting body, that it was understood. Had someone explained to Cassini that it was like a ball-on-a-string, he would very likely have understood. He was no idiot.
Speaking of idiots, have you forgotten all the times you tried to “distort, discredit, and denigrate” the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string? Avoiding reality is one of the reasons you can’t learn.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
You were talking to dummy, Pup.
“Had someone explained to Cassini that it was like a ball-on-a-string, he would very likely have understood. He was no idiot.”
And yet, since the time of Newton, thousands of scientists have heard that orbits are ‘like balls on strings’, briefly pondered the implications, and rejected this answer for a better answer that more fully explains orbital motions.
No, Cassini would have rejected, it just like everyone else show understands physics does.
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, Tim.
oh no
this isn’t about the moon again
is it
…regardless of reference frame, Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Incorrect.
“Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis”
Mt. Everest, being a mountainous bump on the surface of the Earth, is rotating about the Earth’s axis. Along with the rest of the Earth’s surface.
Exactly, RLH. Tim disagrees.
I don’t think that Tim disagrees with what I have said. We shall see.
Tim, and many other “Spinners”, have argued that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis wrt the fixed stars.
I think you will find that they are saying that anything on the surface of the Earth rotates about the Earth’s axis wrt the fixed stars.
No. In fact bobdroege and MikeR went so far as to argue that everything on the planet is rotating on its own axis, wrt the fixed stars.
“everything on the planet is rotating on its own {the Earth’s} axis, wrt the fixed stars.”
That is what I tried to tell them, RLH. They just would not accept it.
Drempty,
You are a liar, you always argued that those things are not rotating on their own axes.
I am arguing that those things are not rotating on their own axes. So is RLH.
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis. It is rotating about the Earth’s axis.
All things on the planet are rotating about the Earth’s axis, not on their own axes.
A wooden horse on a merry-go-round is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, not on its own axis.
A ball on a string is rotating about the central point, not on its own axis.
rlh…”Mt. Everest, being a mountainous bump on the surface of the Earth, is rotating about the Earths axis. Along with the rest of the Earths surface”.
***
Of course it is. However, to claim that Everest is rotating about its own COG wrt the stars is nonsense. Everest is bound to a rotating rigid body that is orbiting the Sun while rotating about Earth’s axis. In order that Everest rotate about its own COG/axis, that COG/axis would have to be the axis about which the rigid body is rotating. In other words, the Earth would be rotating about the axis/COG of Everest.
You guys have reference frame fever but you fail to understand the basic premise of the reference frame. Changing the perspective from which motion is viewed does not change the physical parameters of a moving body. If a body is rotating in one reference frame you cannot make it start rotating in another reference frame.
Motion, and types of motion like rotation, are caused by a force acting on a mass. You guys are missing that fundamental, scientific fact in your analysis. By the same token, a body in motion requires a force to change that motion.
Motion is not affected by changing reference frames, the frames are used for the convenience of the human mind, to help it visualize motion from different perspectives. Therefore, reference frames are imaginary constructs created in the human mind.
If Everest is attached to the rigid body represented by Earth, it is impossible to start it rotating about its own COG/axis without applying a force that would rip it out of the ground to which it is attached and allow it to rotate about its own COG/axis.
What are you guys thinking about?
DREMT: “Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, Tim.”
That would be more convincing coming from a person who can define “rotate” and “axis” in a precise mathematical way.
RLH: “Mt. Everest, being a mountainous bump on the surface of the Earth, is rotating about the Earths axis. Along with the rest of the Earths surface.”
Half right!
A car can be driving in the x-direction at 50 mph relative to an infinite set of axes simultaneously. And Mt Everest can be rotating one per day relative to an infinite set of axes simultaneously.
Draw an axis through the COM of the earth. Is Mt Everest rotating about that axis? It sure is! Draw a vector from that axis to a point on Mt Everest. Every day, that vector slowly shifts directions relative to ‘the fixed stars’, 360 degrees in one day.
Draw an axis through the COM of Mt Everest. Is Mt Everest rotating about that axis? It sure is! Draw a vector from that axis to a point on Mt Everest. Every day, that vector slowly shifts directions relative to ‘the fixed stars’, 360 degrees in one day.
That is the definition of “rotating about an axis”. It applies equally to either axis, so Mt Everest can equally be said to be rotating about either axes. [Or come up with some simple consistent criteria that shows that one and only one of these is true.]
See, RLH? There is no reasoning with him. He believes Mt. Everest can be described as rotating on its own axis, relative to the fixed stars.
The argument that earth’s axis is the only axis is flawed for two reasons.
1) The earth’s own axis is not “fixed”. It moves in an ellipse around the sun, which itself moves around the center of the galaxy. The motion of the axis through the COM of Mt Everest is only slightly more complicated. Measuring rotations about either axis means recognizing that the axis is moving in a complex way, and drawing a vector from the moving axis to a specific point. Then measuring the angle of that vector relative to the ‘fixed stars. A point on Mt Everest moves in a circle about either moving axis.
2) EVEN IF we accepted that there is one and only one axis about which an object ‘truly’ rotates, the moon throws a wrench into the works! The moon does not move in a circle about the center of the earth. The Moon does not move in a circle about the barycenter of the orbit. If we pick a ‘true’ axis for the moon, the only that works is the axis through the COM of the moon!
See, RLH? DREMT can’t actually argue against the things I write. He simply appeals to his own intuition.
Please, RLH, think about the argument I made and try to find any flaw.
“Draw an axis through the COM of Mt Everest. Is Mt Everest rotating about that axis? It sure is! Draw a vector from that axis to a point on Mt Everest. Every day, that vector slowly shifts directions relative to ‘the fixed stars’, 360 degrees in one day.”
The vector slowly shifts directions relative to the fixed stars because Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own axis.
“The earth’s own axis is not “fixed”. It moves in an ellipse around the sun, which itself moves around the center of the galaxy. The motion of the axis through the COM of Mt Everest is only slightly more complicated. Measuring rotations about either axis means recognizing that the axis is moving in a complex way, and drawing a vector from the moving axis to a specific point. Then measuring the angle of that vector relative to the ‘fixed stars. A point on Mt Everest moves in a circle about either moving axis.”
And what do you conclude from that, Tim!? That Mt. Everest is both rotating on its own axis and rotating about the Earth’s axis!? If that were the case, Everest would have to have ripped itself out of the ground in order for it to rotate independently of the Earth! It has to be either one axis or the other. The only logical choice being that Everest rotates about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own axis.
“If a body is rotating in one reference frame you cannot make it start rotating in another reference frame.”
I can chose a reference frame in which that body is not rotating however.
“A car can be driving in the x-direction at 50 mph relative to an infinite set of axes simultaneously”
Not unless you have a different definition of motion from me.
A car can be driving in the x-direction at 50 mph relative to another point on the x axis. The x axis may, or may not, be rotating relative to another frame(s).
DREMT is still wrong about a ball-on-a-string being relevant in any way to orbits however.
Folkerts is so confused about motions that he believes Mt. Everest is rotating about its axis.
We can’t help Folkerts, so this is just for interested lurkers:
Mt Everest has a center of mass. Mt Everest, being on Earth’s surface, is rotating about Earth’s center of mass. But, Mt Everest is NOT rotating about its own center of mass.
Draw an imaginary line between Earth’s center of mass and Mt Everest’s center of mass. That imaginary line is the axis through Mt Everest’s center of mass. Clearly, there is NO rotation about the axis.
You have to excuse Folkerts, and most of the idiots. They don’t understand any of this.
“You have to excuse Folkerts, and most of the idiots. They dont understand any of this.”
From the man who whines about being occasionally being insulted.
We have already established that when it comes to physics, Clint, an almost-physics-minor, gets just about everything wrong. While Tim, a physics PhD, gets it right.
Everyone here understands that Clint is a fraud.
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, as even the “Soft Spinners” (RLH, Craig T, Norman, Bindidon et al) would agree. It’s only the “Hard Spinners”, like Tim, bobdroege, Entropic Man etc, who are so brainwashed by their programming that they have completely lost touch with reality to the extent they believe it is rotating on its own axis. So there is at least a shred of sanity amongst some of the “Spinners”.
DREMT just isn’t schooled enough to understand relativity.
The fixed horse on a rotating merry-go-round (m-g-r) is not rotating on its own axis wrt to the m-g-r while the horse IS rotating on its own axis once per m-g-r rev. wrt to the earthen room in which the m-g-r is located.
Just like Mt. Everest is not spinning on its own axis wrt to the Earth frame while Mt. Everest IS spinning on its own axis wrt to the universe frame.
Poor DREMT, on the losing side yet again. Most on this blog schooled in science realize unschooled DREMT’s loss while being happy with the science win.
“And what do you conclude from that, Tim!? That Mt. Everest is both rotating on its own axis and rotating about the Earths axis!? ”
Yes. That is exactly what I conclude. My car can move at 60 mph along an x-axis with its origin at my house and also move at 60 mph along an x-axis with its origin at my neighbor’s house. That is not going to rip anyone’s house out of the ground! My car does not move at 120 mph just because I can define 2 sets of axes for translation.
And Mt Everest does not get ripped out of the ground just because I can define two sets of axes for rotation.
…and you would be wrong, Tim. If Mt. Everest were rotating about both the Earth’s axis and its own axis, it would present all of its sides towards the Earth’s axis over time.
…and to Ball4, sorry, but you are also in disagreement with the “Soft Spinners”. Argue it out with them.
> If Mt. Everest were rotating about both the Earths axis and its own axis, it would present all of its sides towards the Earths axis over time.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
DREMT, relativity is hard, you just need to go to Tim’s relativity school.
Mt. Everest doesn’t rotate on its own axis wrt to earthen accelerated frame like the fixed horse on the m-g-r; Mt. Everest does rotate on its own axis wrt to universal inertial frame – same as the m-g-r horse wrt the room.
Listen and learn.
“My car can move at 60 mph along an x-axis with its origin at my house and also move at 60 mph along an x-axis with its origin at my neighbors house.”
That’s just defining an origin for the x axis.
RLH, as you point out, DREMT’s car moves at 60mph on the speedometer while it could be measured moving 120mph from the car in the opposing lane with 60mph on its speedometer. DREMT just isn’t schooled enough to understand relativity.
RLH disagrees with you and Tim, Ball4. Like I said, argue it out with the “Soft Spinners”.
I disagree with DREMT and Clint R.
Soft spinners and hard spinners???
According to Clint’s self selected sources of authority, you non-spinners are totally wrong:
“Over time the Moons rotation has slowed so much that it matches its orbital period:”
It is now in synchronous rotation with its orbit
it orbits Earth in the same time it takes to spin once around its rotational axis
“I disagree with DREMT and Clint R.”
…but not about Mt. Everest.
About everything. I just want people to chose their words carefully and restrict themselves to talking about inertial frames.
You already agreed Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis. You cannot worm your way out of it now.
” Cassini has a good excuse, Bindidon. No one understood orbital motion in his day. ”
You are a dumb ass like Robertson.
Of course did Cassini understand orbital motion.
And of course did Newton understand what Cassini discovered: the lunar rotation about its polar axis.
As your friend-in-denial Robertson recently had to definitely admit that Newton really wrote – in Book III, Proposition XVII, Therorem XV of his Principia – that the Moon rotates in the same time as it ORBITS, he immediately wrote:
” Newton was wrong. ”
Hear, hear.
A dumb ass like Robertson tells us that Newton was wrong.
What do you think about that, Pup?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you’re now at the bottom of the gutter, not only hurling insults, but also using the same immature name-calling as your new hero, Willard.
You just make us look good.
I could easily clear up your confusion about Newton/Cassini, if you weren’t an idiot. But we know you can’t face reality and you can’t learn.
So, just keep making us look good.
You never look good Clint R.
binny…” Newton was wrong.
Hear, hear.
A dumb ass like Robertson tells us that Newton was wrong”.
***
Hey, I’m not afraid to call a spade a spade. I claimed Einstein was wrong as well. In fact, I just read that his Special Theory of Relativity applied everywhere but Earth. In other words, it was such imaginative bs that it applied only in imaginary worlds. He had to come back later and create his General Theory of Relativity to incorporate gravity.
I think Newton was a far superior scientist to Einstein. He actually performed his own experiments and did his own reasoning based on direct observation. Einstein did none of that, his lab was his mind and that’s where he did all of his work. That’s why he screwed up so much with his understanding of time.
A statement from a link to Louis Essen…
https://www.npl.co.uk/famous-faces/louis-essen
“In 1967, the definition of the second was changed to its current form based on a particular transition in caesium atoms. Previously, the definitely of the second was based on the rotation of the Earth, so its duration was difficult to determine accurately and varied unpredictably with time.
He retired in 1972 after being quietly warned not to continue his contradiction of Einstein’s law of relativity”.
Couple of points…
1)the second is based on the rotation of the Earth. Even though it is now based on vibrations in the Cesium atom, the length of the second is still based on the original second derived from the rotation of the Earth.
In other words both seconds are constants. Not to Einstein. He arbitrarily added a multiplier to time to allow it to vary with velocity. That means the Earth’s rate of rotation would have to change or the cesium atom would have to change its rate of vibration.
2)Essen was forced to resign for criticizing Einstein. Good grief, are we humans all such a load of creepy butt kissers with nothing more than an appeal to authority?
Once more, if Newton claimed the Moon rotates on its axis, he was wrong. Tesla has proved it can’t, a nobody like me has proved it can’t, and several of the guys in the blog have proved it can’t. The spinners are nothing more than the butt kissers who forced an eminent scientist like Essen to retire for criticizing Einstein.
What’s with all you butt kissers who tremble in your boots when it comes to authority figures?
In Essen’s words…with reference to Special Relativity..
“I concluded that the theory is not a theory at all, but simply a number of contradictory assumptions together with actual mistakes. The clock paradox, for example, follows from a very obvious mistake in a thought experiment (in spite of the nonsense written by relativists, Einstein had no idea of the units and disciplines of measurement).
http://beyondmainstream.org/dr-louis-essen-inventor-of-atomic-clock-rejects-einsteins-relativity-theory/
“the second is based on the rotation of the Earth.”
Which varies quite a bit.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-earths-rotation-is-gradually-slowing-down
“For billions of years, Earths rotation has been gradually slowing down. Its a process that continues to this day, and estimates suggest that the length of a day currently increases by about 1.8 milliseconds every century. The day’s length varies slightly from year to year, as well; the result of myriad forces both on and off Earth pushing and pulling at its rotation.”
https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/UT1LOD.html#:~:text=UT1%20is%20related%20to%20the,%2DTAI%20or%20UT1%2DUTC.
“The difference between the astronomically determined duration of the day and 86400 SI seconds is also called length of day (LOD). The relationship of the angular velocity of the earth Omega with LOD is
Omega = 72 921 151.467064 – 0.843994809 LOD, where Omega is in picoradians/s and LOD in milliseconds.
The variations over the recent years of UT1-TAI and in LOD are shown.”
https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/LODgps.html
Clint R
” … not only hurling insults, … ”
I’m just naming a guy like Robertson as he merits to be named: as long namely as he will keep naming relevant persons of our past ‘a cheating SOB’.
What now concerns the ‘Pup’: you merit such a name as well, through
– your persistent discrediting and denigrating of persons like Giovanni Domenico Cassini, and many many others;
– your dumb, primitive ‘ball-on-a-string’ blah blah.
So, yes: you behave like a Pup…
J.-P. D.
“youre now at the bottom of the gutter, not only hurling insults, but also using the same immature name-calling”
Somebody insulted Clint?
OMG thats terrible. Clint, where does it hurt? What can we do to help? I’ll get you your Teddy bear and your binky. Tonight you get ice cream. OK?
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
I often dont. I was locked out for 24 hours one day last week.
This site has become so erratic that it should be given either major maintenance or decent burial.
Perhaps one of you IT folk should offer Dr. Spencer their services.
When you start to see the error page, EM, wait for a while.
That should help.
EM
Please don’t start becoming parano!
What you wrote about happened often to me when I posted a comment containing too many links.
I think 5 links in a response is the limit.
Very long comments in quick succession can lead to a ban for a time occurring. I think that is deliberate.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/majority-germans-believe-scientists-climate-change-warnings-are-correct
The average temperature Russian is about -5 C, German is about 9 C,
Germans who are worried about global warming should move to Russia and in exchange the Russians which want to be moderately warmer, can
move to Germany.
Da:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Russia
willard…”Welcome to Wikipedia, AjaxSmack! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid”.
***
Tips for the naive and stupid on using Wikipedia.
1) go to the Talk tab at top of page and click on it. Look to see who is editing the piece. You could edit it yourself, or me. Anyone can edit the page.
2)You’ll notice one edit is by AjaxSmack. Now, why would anyone rely on an article edited by someone with a name like AjaxSmack.
If you click on the hyperlink named AjaxSmack, it takes you to another page where you’ll see this…
“Welcome to Wikipedia, AjaxSmack! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid”.
Wow, now you have a regular editor who edits the edits. His name is Acetic Acid, and at his page he makes the insightful comment that..
‘Acetic acid makes french fries taste better’. That’s a lie since a bit of salt is all you need on chips and sometimes Heinz ketchup (has to be Heinz) works well. It has some acetic acid in it as well.
But I digress. The point is that Wikipedia is runs by fools and any fool can enter an article on Russian climate.
3)Only idiots take Wiki articles seriously.
At this link you become more illuminated…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians
Wikipedians???
As Curly of the 3 Stooges would say…
“Ain’t that quaint”?
When corrected, that it’s not ain’t, it’s isn’t…he replied…
“Isn’t that quisn’t”?
Gordo,
Willie’s one of the Wikistrators.
Hey Willie,
I just found out one of the people who attended the gun show with me last weekend contracted COVID. Was that my fault?
Well done, Troglodyte!
stephen…”I just found out one of the people who attended the gun show with me last weekend contracted COVID. Was that my fault?”
***
Two points…
1)The guy was one of the tiny number of unfortunates who fell in the 0.01% of people who die from the contagion.
2)the tests have come under fire as being fraudulent. The claim is that they don’t test for a virus but for the genetic material RNA that is a basic building block in every human cell. No one knows what the tests are testing for.
Only about 4% of all people tested are testing positive. The inventor of the PCR method used in the covid RNA-PCR test, the late Kary Mullis, claimed PCR cannot be used diagnostically as it is being used. He based his statement on the fact that a virus that cannot be seen on an electron microscope cannot be amplified using PCR.
Duh!!! Covid has never been seen on an electron microscope despite the fake photos of it on the Net. The scientists who created the RNA-PCR test for covid freely admits he did not physically isolate the virus. He too followed the fraudulent claim that certain strands of RNA found in infected people come from a virus. The same RNA comes from other disease, stress, dead cells, and the common flu, among other things
Ironically, a papaya tests positive for covid.
He didn’t die. He had received the vaccine and only has a sore throat and sniffles. I told him he will be bolstered with natural immunity like me now.
stephen…”He didnt die. He had received the vaccine and only has a sore throat and sniffles. I told him he will be bolstered with natural immunity like me now”.
***
Good news. I can assure you the vaccine had nothing to do with his recovery. It probably acted as a placebo, however, ridding him of fear and stress and allowing his immune system to do its job.
I cannot belief how stressed and hysterical people have become over this contagion.
Me neither, Gordo.
After all, only 4,374,668 died so far:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/
It’s just twice the JewishRoman Wars, after all.
“the tests have come under fire as being fraudulent.”
Whoever said that was a liar. Covid exists and kills people. Ask their families.
“I cannot belief (sic) how stressed and hysterical people have become over this contagion.”
If you die from it I’m sure you will pass it off as a mistake.
Gordo,
Do you have a scientific rebuttal or are you going to settle for slinging ad homs and insults?
[1] refers to the SPM.
Willard what got to say about Russia and Inertia.
I don’t have much of opinion about it, but maybe it related to
the air temperature.
gbaikie…”the Russians which want to be moderately warmer, can move to Germany”.
***
They already tried that once, it didn’t work out.
Ah, but did the Russia know, that the vast majority of Germans want to live in colder conditions?
And Russia has no shortage of very cold land that no one sane would want to live in.
So the coldest land is for Germans who imagine CO2 levels which China is going be causing going to warm a lot. And less cold land for the Germans which think it’s only to warm a little bit and currently feel it’s already to warm where they are living.
And seems the coldest land could be quite cheap to buy.
Obviously Russian marketing would focus on Germans who feel it going warm the soonest and warmest. A few million Germans might fit into this sector. And it could sold as form of insurance, so buying future option which could activated when ever the warming in Germany becomes unbearable, so within a month time everything is ready to quickly go there. And in meantime it’s like a timeshare.
willard…”The majority of Germans (74%) are prepared to make changes to their lifestyle to prevent global warming, a survey among 1,000 consumers commissioned by heating technology company Stiebel Eltron shows”.
***
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. …Mark Twain.
Somehow you manage to cover all three kinds of lies with your on-going propaganda.
Gordo,
Your empty assertions are duly noted.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“About 20% of the PAGES 2019 proxies are 50 Asian tree ring chronologies, all of which were originally published as chronologies in PAGES (2013). At the time, none of these series (and certainly not in these digital versions, had ever been published in technical literature, peer reviewed or otherwise.”
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/15/pages19-asian-tree-ring-chronologies/
Stephen McIntyre
Interesting article, RLH. Nothing suspicious here.
“Having been introduced through the back door, so to speak, nearly all of the 200+ Asian tree ring chronologies were carried forward into the PAGES (2017) compilation, and then a subset of 50 chronologies (more or less the most hockey stick shaped) was screened to become a substantial component of PAGES (2019) – the source of the IPCC Summary for Policy-makers Hockey Stick.”
And you wonder where the ‘hockey stick’ came from?
> And you wonder where the “hockey stick” came from?
From 20th century data, dummy.
You mean the tree rings in PAGES (2019) don’t you?
That’s step 2, Hall Monitor.
You realize I started at the Auditor’s, right?
You realise you were already an idiot before that, right?
The problem with idiots, is they don’t realize they are idiots.
That’s step 3, dummy.
Willard continuing to be an idiot.
3.
Apparently, even idiots can count. I wonder how high?
“3” refers to the third step of the only trick you have, dummy.
Idiot refers to you being an idiot.
It’s “idiot,” dummy.
I’ll add “can’t grok semantics” to your list of blunders, for this one matters for system science engineer, or whichever brand you prefer.
As I said, you are an idiot.
You said “Idiot refers to you being an idiot,” dummy.
rlh…from your link…
“Keith Briffa had a clever, too clever, solution: publish the PAGES2K submission as a Progress Article a classification that did not require the peer review procedure required for a Research Article. This would qualify the article for IPCC and nobody would notice the sleight-of-hand. (Even I didnt notice it at the time; someone told me.)”.
This is how the cheating works in IPCC reviews. They published the hockey stick based on Mann’s ‘trick’, which he introduced to hide declining proxy temperatures while the atmosphere was warming. The hockey stick obliterated the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, The IPCC had already acknowledged both the LIA and MWP in their 1990 review and they re-instated both after the hockey stick was demolished by McIntyre and McKitrick.
Phil Jones, head of Had-crut, and a Coordinating Lead Author on IPCC reviews, bragged in the Climategate emails that he and fellow CLA Kevin Trenberth would block papers from skeptics. One of the papers was co-authored by John Christy of UAH.
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/climategate-ten-years-later
Maybe Troll Boy Willie can comment? Oh, wait, not until he gets his talking points from Soros.
Comment on what, Stephen, that joke of editorial by Heartland, or how Gordo misremember just about everything?
How about you commenting on the fact that you are an idiot?
That’s step 2 and 3 at the same time, Hall Monitor.
Well done!
“Curiously, this leading diagram of the Summary of Policy-Makers does not appear in the Report itself.”
Willie,
I thought peer-review was a big deal to you propagandist types?
Funny you talk about that, Troglodyte, for the Auditor admitted that he won’t publish his results except on social media.
“Curiously, this leading diagram of the Summary of Policy-Makers does not appear in the Report itself.”
So it is good enough for the summary but not for the report. Who knew?
That’s step 2, dummy.
And the answer to your rhetorical question is: anyone who read the Auditor’s over the years.
Who would want to read the drivel?
Time to say Oups, dummy.
Regardless of the time, you continue to be an idiot.
You just said that we can read drivel at the Auditor’s, dummy.
You drivel on at so many things.
No U, dummy.
Still an idiot I see.
3.
You think a count will impress me?
It’s not even a count, dummy.
And that’s 2.
“Twenty years later (1988), Osama bin Laden, then a CIA protege, announced himself by slaughtering the Shia population of Gilgit. (In todays US intel nomenclature, since they were Shia, the murdered Shia would presumably be labeled as “Iran-backed” as though that were both justification and sufficient explanation.)”
Willard, please stop trolling.
entropic…”I often dont. I was locked out for 24 hours one day last week”.
***
This is a problem all over the Net, not just with Roy’s site. It’s actually pretty stable. I have trouble accessing Google at times.
Try this search engine, Gordo:
https://www.searchscene.com
Check your ISP or computer then.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
With fields parched and cracked and rivers running dry, the recent drought has made some of the worst effects of a more extreme future climate abundantly clear in Manitoba.
But while the drought here provides a picture of how climate change will alter our lives, Manitoba also has the potential to show the world possible solutions to the global climate crisis, researchers and policy makers say.
“I think that Manitoba is incredibly well placed to become a national and international climate leader,” said Ian Mauro, executive director of the Prairie Climate Centre, an organization that works to educate Canadians about the science, effects and risks of climate change.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-climate-change-solutions-1.6141179
willard…”With fields parched and cracked and rivers running dry, the recent drought has made some of the worst effects of a more extreme future climate abundantly clear in Manitoba”.
It’s weather, Willard, summer weather.
Nothing new in Manitoba, they had a 10 year drought starting in 1929. It became so dry the topsoil was blowing away in giant dust clouds.
https://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP13CH1PA2LE.html
There’s something about the climate system that seems to escape you, Gordo. Weather does not happen in a vacuum. It’s created by climatic conditions. In the case of the Dust Bowl, it was SST forcing:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/303/5665/1855
Had you a more thorough Climateball playbook, you’d know that the Dust Bowl was not the only extreme drought in NA history. Scientists know about these. Yet they also realize that AGW will exacerbate the climate conditions so that we’ll get more and more extreme droughts.
So ignorance of climate history isn’t on the scientists’ side, but on yours.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Had you a more thorough Climateball playbook, youd know that the Dust Bowl was not the only extreme drought in NA history. Scientists know about these. Yet they also realize that AGW will exacerbate the climate conditions so that well get more and more extreme droughts.”
You fantasies aren’t fact, dummy.
Raving on about your Climateball fantasy just confirms you are an idiot, like the dimwitted and delusional SkyDragon, Ken Rice.
Which “scientists” are predicting the future? Name one. By the way, saying that AGW will exacerbate climate conditions is really stupid. Climate is the average of weather, and nobody has claimed to be able to quantify the effect of CO2 on weather.
As to drought (or floods – SkyDragons claim CO2 causes both), when, where, and how severe?
You don’t know, do you? Neither do any of your delusional SkyDragon buffoons.
What’s the use of any of you, if you can’t provide anything useful?
Mike Flynn, Mountain of Fantastications,
Here’s a prediction. You will continue to use “but predictions”:
https://climateball.net/but-predictions/
Oh! Oh! Oh!
I predict that Willard will continue to be an idiot.
3.
No U
U are the idiot.
No U
The globe has been cooling for the last 6 months or so. Get over it.
That turns out not to be the case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58208792
Show me a current temperatures series which differs.
UAH for certain doesn’t. Nor RSS, GISS, AIRs, etc.
That’s step 2, dummy.
Unable to reply sensibly, Willard continues to be an idiot.
And that’s step 3, dummy.
Doesn’t matter how many steps you take, you will never get away from being an idiot.
More step 3, dummy.
More idiocy from the idiot.
No U, dummy.
U are the idiot.
No, dummy.
U.
No idiot, U.
That’s step 3.
And No U
Your hypothesis, your burden of proof. (Cf. Russell’s Teapot).
Correct.
c.f. GISS’s own anomaly record.
1.
Counting again idiot? The figures speak for themselves.
That’s 2 and 3, dummy.
And no U.
“c.f. GISSs own anomaly record.”
What about it? It shows warming.
willard…”After all, only 4,374,668 died so far:”
***
Interesting number. The world population as of 2021 is estimated at 7.9 billion. That’s 7,900,000,000 people.
4,374,668/7,900,000,000, = 5.54 x 10^-4 x 100% = 0.0554%
That’s about 5.54/100ths of 1%.
Anyone who calls that a pandemic is living in an altered reality.
Here in British Columbia Canada the number of deaths (about 1700 for a population of about 5 million) falls almost exactly on that percentage. That makes me wonder why the number of deaths in the US is so high by comparison (close to 0.1%). The leader of the pack, Anthony Fauci, has been labeled a consummate liar by Dr. Kary Mullis, who knows him.
The number of pneumonia deaths in 2015 was 2.74 million and in 1990 it was 3.4 million. The number you quote for covid is about 4.37 million.
Covid deaths are from viral pneumonia. However, with the micro focus on covid and the lack of stringency in identifying other causal factors for death, the 4.37 million is not a good figure. We know for a fact that the bean counters have been messing with the number, marking covid deaths in many cases in which the victim did not test positive. The criterion there is if the victim had been in contact with someone who had tested positive.
> Interesting number.
“Interesting” isn’t the first adjective that should come to mind, Gordo.
Have you ever taken a sociopathy test?
Silly Willy,
You wrote “”Interesting” isnt the first adjective that should come to mind, Gordo.”
Who put you in charge of what people should think, dummy?
You really do have delusions of grandeur, don’t you? In what alternate reality would you imagine that you are otherwise than impotent, powerless, and pointless?
WillyWorld, perhaps?
Mike Flynn,
Masked Fatuousness.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier. Witless Wee Willy wrote –
“Theres something about the climate system that seems to escape you, Gordo. Weather does not happen in a vacuum. Its created by climatic conditions.”
The delusional fool does not seem to accept that climate is derived from past weather observations. Just mindlessly repeating that weather is “created by climatic conditions” shows how deeply removed from reality the SkyDragon climate clowns are!
Nobody has yet demonstrated that any “GHG” has any measurable effect on weather at all. Nobody.
Wee Willy and his congregation of clods cannot face this rather inconvenient truth, and are reduced to the sorts of completely idiotic and bizarre attempts at pointless trolling you will notice in the comments above.
But hey, the more the bumbling buffoons try to substitute their fantasies for facts, the quicker the politicians, journalists, and the gullible sheeple will realise that they are being taken for fools. And as usual, fall for the next popular delusion, after sheepishly abandoning this one . It never ends.
Mike Flynn,
We all know you like Doritos.
I’ll tell you when it’s about Doritos.
Aw diddums!
Willard, please stop trolling.
The “Spinners” remain confused about lunar libration. Folkerts always tries to discredit the ball-on-a-string because it does not represent libration. But, the simple analogy is NOT a model of exact lunar motion. It is only a model of “orbital motion without axial rotatiion”.
But, “libration” does NOT help to “prove” Moon has axial rotation. In fact, libration is more proof Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
Lunar Libration
Lunar Libration is nothing more than a change in how Moon appears as viewed from Earth. Moon appears to “wobble”, but the motion is not actual. An example makes it much clearer.
A runner runs on an oval (elliptical) track. An observer stands at one focus point of the ellipse. When the runner is closest to the observer (semi-minor radius of ellipse), the observer sees only the left side of the runner, if the runner’s “orbit” is counter-clockwise.
As the runner progresses down the track, the observer can see more of runner’s back. At a certain distance, the observer may be able to read the number on the back of the runner’s shirt. When the runner is at the far end of the track (apogee), the observer again only sees runner’s left side. As the runner starts back, the observer may be able to see the number on the front side of runner’s shirt.
The observer can see more than just the left side of the runner, depending on where runner is in the orbit. It’s the same with Moon.
Moon’s orbit is a little more complex, as it is also tilted relative to Earth’s orbit. It would be similar to the runner running on a transparent tilted plane. At one end of the oval, the observer may be able to see the bottom of runner’s shoes. At the other end of the track, the observer may be able to see the top of runner’s head.
All the different views of Moon is what is referred to as “libration”. It is not hard to understand. At no time does the observer ever see the right side of the runner because the runner is NOT rotating about his axis.
It is only a model of orbital motion without axial rotation.
No its not. Nothing makes the Moon face the Earth during its orbit. Other than its rotation once on its axis whilst doing so that is.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
You’re still wrong Clint R.
RLH,
With respect, something does make the Moon face the Earth.
It is the force of gravity. The same force that causes a pendulum bob to be closest to the Earth, at rest. Or, the valve on a suspended unbalanced bicycle wheel to eventually stop, closest to the Earth.
The Moon has “stopped” with its massiest part facing the Earth, as is right and proper.
As to “distant stars”, not only could the Moon be regarded as “rotating on its axis”, but also as moving laterally left and right, and also pulsating nearer and further away!
Like libration, “apparent” is key.
“With respect, something does make the Moon face the Earth.
It is the force of gravity.”
Only because the Moon is not an actual sphere but distorted by Earth’s gravity into a shape extending towards Earth. And it takes a very long while for that to be impactful. Nothing like a -ball-on-a-string. Even remotely.
The significance of the ball-on-a-string to Moon is the fact that the same side of both always faces the inside of its orbit.
Ball-on-a-string does NOT apply to orbits. Never has. Never will.
Clint R,
Not exactly, but believe what you will, even when it is wrong.
Willard, please stop trolling.
That is all well and good Clint, but the runner has the WRONG AMOUNT of libration. The runner would always have to run facing ‘diagonally outward’ on the trip from perigee to apogee, and ‘diagonally inward’ on the trip from apogee to perigee.
It is details like this that you continuously overlook/ignore/miss. To face the correct direction, the runner always turns at the same rate relative to the ground (ie turn on his own axis at a constant rate.
Neither the ball-on-string nor the runner-on-track predicts the correct libration.
Here is a correct model.
A platform is mounted on the back of truck (stationary for the time being) with frictionless bearings. A person sits at the center of the platform. The platform is given a spin so that it rotates on its own axis — say once per minute. With no friction, the platform and person rotate at a constant rate. Facing north initially, east after 15 sec , south after 30 sec, etc.
As the platform is rotating on its own axis at this constant rate, the truck starts to drive (on a smooth, level path). It could drive in any direction or combination of directions, with the platform always rotating on its axis at a steady rate once every 60 seconds. In particular, the truck could drive at varying speeds around an ellipse, completing 1 lap every 60 s. The platform continues to rotate on its own axis once every 60 sec.
Similarly, if the platform was NOT rotating on its axis initially, then the person would forever remain facing north. Whether the truck sped up or slowed down or turned, the frictionless bearings would keep the person facing north. A person standing inside the ‘orbit’ would see all sides of the person on the platform.
You’ve tried this ploy before, Folkerts.
Come up with a new way to pervert reality. Use your imagination.
Obviously you have nothing else going in your life.
Have you considered to condense your abuses into one word, Pup?
“Idiot” is taken, but Richard might be willing to share.
Ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits. NOTHING.
It’s an ANALOGY, dummy.
See here for a primer:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/16/how-to-reason-by-analogy/
Ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits. NOTHING. Even as an analogy.
ANYTHING can be compared to ANYTHING, dummy.
Analogies ALWAYS break down at some point, dummy.
It’s what you DO with them that matters, dummy.
As you do nothing other than being an idiot, the observation is moot.
Perfect, dummy.
I’ll add how you fail to get analogical reasoning in your list of blunders.
Add what you like, you are still an idiot and no-one cares what you write/add/think.
Thanks, dummy.
No problem idiot.
Don’t forget that you only speak for yourself, dummy.
You speak for no-one other than yourself. Idiot.
No U
Correct.
Clintionary
Reality –
1. a child-like view of the universe.
2. a universe where facts that don’t agree with Clint dont matter.
3. a universe explained by Fizuks and physics does not apply.
* See Pervert
Sorry Folkerts, but you’re wrong.
I didn’t mention any measurements or dimensions with the runner on a track. So, you’re just making up nonsense, again. The geometry could be designed to be an exact model of Moon, if desired.
And, as has been explained to you numerous times, the ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with libration. It’s only a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
To look even stupider, you continue believing the track runner is “turning on his axis”. The track runner is “changing direction”. You STILL don’t know the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”.
From time to time, you need to remind yourself that you know NOTHING about orbital motions, and you can’t learn. Maybe that will keep you from making such an idiot of yourself.
Without a metric your model is useless, Pup.
Clint R, your runner IS rotating about his own axis wrt to the inertial universe frame but not in your accelerated frame.
Blog laughing stock Clint R is as unschooled in relativity as is DREMT and refuses to learn from Tim.
…and Ball4 is in disagreement with the “Soft Spinners”, who think that the moon is rotating on its own axis, but that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
No.
Yes.
The “Soft Spinners” disagree with the likes of Tim and Ball4. They argue that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis.
Wrong DREMT, they correctly argue that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis in the earthen accelerated frame.
Listen and learn. To Tim’s school of relativity.
Our Hall Monitor is confused again, Kiddo. Perhaps he thinks that because he has some patent about locating a mobile device, he knows everything about physics.
Have you found Henry’s arguments yet?
Wrong, Ball4. Here is what RLH said:
“I think you will find that they are saying that anything on the surface of the Earth rotates about the Earth’s axis wrt the fixed stars.”
He didn’t realize you idiots thought that anything on the surface of the Earth is rotating on its own axis wrt the fixed stars.
And it is not just RLH. Craig T stated before that the axis of rotation for Mt. Everest was the Earth’s. Bindidon and Norman have both stated that the ball on a string and wooden horse on the merry-go-round are not rotating on their own axes, but instead are rotating about a central point.
As I wrote DREMT, RLH words are consistent with agreement that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis in the earthen accelerated frame.
Listen and learn from Tim’s school of relativity. Anything fixed on the surface of the Earth (like Mt. Everest or a fixed horse on m-g-r) is rotating on its own axis “wrt the fixed stars”. Some commenter’s, not being specific to frame of reference, easily confuse DREMT since DREMT doesn’t understand relativity. At all.
Craig T is correct as noted: “the axis of rotation for Mt. Everest was the Earth’s.” in Earth’s accelerated frame. Mt. Everest is also rotating on its own axis in the universal frame.
Bindidon and Norman are also correct: “the ball on a string and wooden horse on the merry-go-round are not rotating on their own axes, but instead are rotating about a central point.” wrt to the m-g-r.
DREMT is simply wrong, “they” do not “argue that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis.” wrt to the universal frame.
Listen and learn.
I understand relativity just fine, thanks.
From the inertial reference frame, Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own. As agreed by RLH and Craig T. If they disagree, let’s hear it.
From the inertial reference frame, the wooden horse on the merry-go-round is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis. As agreed by Norman and Bindidon. If they disagree, let’s hear it.
“I understand relativity just fine, thanks.”
Words are just words, demonstrating an understanding is also necessary and DREMT demonstrates no such understanding.
Listen and learn.
They have the chance to disagree, Ball4. Let’s wait and see.
I disagree with DREMT and Clint R.
Mt. Everest is in Earth’s inertial frame. Its own COG is not an inertial frame.
Yes, we all know that you disagree with us about the moon. What I asked was do you agree with us about Mt. Everest, that it is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame?
Who’s “us,” Kiddo?
Moon Dragons are not a big bunch.
Why am I asking? I already know RLH agrees with us about Mt. Everest. Ball4 is just trolling, as usual.
I disagree with DREMT and Clint R on everything.
As to rotation about a point inside Mt. Everest, great care is needed when choosing ones words and inertial frame.
You already agreed Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis. You cannot worm your way out of it now.
There is no inertial axis to Mt Everest for it to rotate around.
DREMT is using the divide and conquer tactic. He thinks if he divides the spinners then the non-spinner POV must be right!
Wrong.
Its just more evasion of the fact that the Moon rotation model is the simplest and most logical explanation of all the available facts. It has worked for > 300 years, and science has found no reason to abandon it.
Whereas the moron-TEAM model requires us to throw out logic, abandon Kinematics Laws and definitions, Newton’s laws for rotation, orbital mechanics, and any facts that don’t fit the model, which are MANY.
Projectiles in vacuum don’t need to POINT in the direction of motion. They don’t have legs or wheels or wings!
And as Tim has pointed out, the ‘point in the direction of motion’ cannot account for the Moon’s motion in orbit and Libration.
The moron-TEAM is stuck in the familiar realm of terrestrial motion.
“Inertial axis”!?
“There is no inertial axis to Mt Everest for it to rotate around.”
The Earth’s axis orbits the sun. Nobody has a problem with the Earth spinning around this non-inertial axis.
It is simple enough to separate the orbital motion of the Earth around the sun, from its axial rotation.
Same goes for the Moon.
…and answer came there none.
Facts are facts. Your ignoring of them makes no difference.
…still no answer.
Facts are facts. Its past your bedtime…
…still nothing.
Facts are facts, no matter who delivers them..
And you are doing a poor job of ignoring my posts!
…not a sausage.
Since you are not ignoring my posts, I’ll ask you:
The Moon’s axis is tilted 6.7 degrees. Thus as it orbits, sometimes the N. Pole tilts AWAY from Earth, and is not visible. But half of an orbit later it tilts toward the Earth, and is visible.
And the Pole points to the same stars throughout the orbit.
Compare to a horse welded to a MGR, a rigid body rotator.
If the horse is tilted outward 6.7 degrees, it’s head is ALWAYS tilted outward. When the MGR rotates halfway around, the horse’s head is NOT tilted inward, like the Moon’s N. Pole does.
How does this happen if, as you claim, the Moon is JUST rotating like a rigid body??
I guess RLH is never going to explain himself. Oh well.
That’s where you’re not wrong, Kiddo.
I can always count on you to ignore when you have no answers.
So “How does this happen if, as you claim, the Moon is JUST rotating like a rigid body??”
Answer: it doesnt.
Two motions, axial rotation and orbiting are required to explain what’s observed.
The Moon is spinning like a top on its tilted axis that points at a fixed point in the stars.
Its orbital motion around the barycentre is entirely separate and independent translation on an ellipse.
The non spinner model completely fails to explain this phenomena.
.
Nice to see we finally agree on something, Willard.
It’s more someone, Kiddo, but I’m glad that you can get out of character from time to time.
There is still hope.
But… are you?
*Twilight Zone music kicks in*
Interesting to observe how quickly China are moving to gain influence in Afghanistan as the West leave.
They’ve become very good at moving into the sort power vacuums left behind by US isolationism.
“It is only a model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’.”
No it’s not. Nothing makes the Moon face the Earth during its orbit. Other than its rotation once on its axis whilst doing so that is.
Oops. Wrong thread.
Yes Ent, the next president will be left with the mess Joe made there.
Elections have consequences….
One unfortunate consequence of international diplomacy is that each POTUS is required to abide by international agreements signed by his predecessor.
Biden is stuck with the consequences of Trump’s agreement with the Taliban and whoever follows Biden will be stuck with whatever agreements Biden makes.
“What in the hell have the United States and its allies been doing in Afghanistan for the past 20 years? ”
The 9/11 attackers were trained in Afghanistan with the blessing of the taliban.
The US and UK invaded Afghanistan to close the training camps and stayed to support an otherwise weak government which kept the camps closed for twenty years.
Trump decided to let the Taliban back in and allow the training camps to reopen. Biden inherited the policy and continued it.
The UK has been engaged in Afghanistan since the 1800’s with little to show for it during the whole of that time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_relations
It’s the old problem.
Electorates are not good at joined-up thinking. They saw the funding and the US casualties but failed to appreciate the terrorist attacks which were prevented.
It won’t prevent the Auditor to blame Joe.
Considering how long he has been rooting for not intervening in Syria and Ukraine, one has to admire the contrarian tendency to be contrarian.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Who Benefits From the Taliban Takeover? The Same Country That Has Paid Millions to the Bidens.
https://pjmedia.com/columns/kevindowneyjr/2021/08/16/who-benefits-from-the-taliban-takeover-the-same-country-that-has-paid-millions-to-the-bidens-n1469813
You have to laugh sometimes at the pathetic attempts by RWNJs to foment paranoid fantasies.
“Kevin Downey, Jr. Is a comedian and columnist. When he isn’t writing or performing on stage he is collecting surf records and perhaps practicing his mixologist skills at his tiki bar. His apartment, the Atomic Bunker, looks like it was furnished from George Jetson’s garage sale.”
On the other hand, there is probably a buck or two in it.
Exactly DMT. But, it’s the same for both sides of the political spectrum. That was my point.
I see the flaws on both sides. Cult members never see their flaws. In fact, they’re even willing to pervert reality to fit their cult beliefs.
Pathetic, huh?
Here’s you, Pup:
https://imgflip.com/i/5jsbby
Clint R: The cult you are in is very, very small and disagrees with science.
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(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 Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*C, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*C/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*C)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ 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)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ 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 = 33C difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C 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
There really is a ~33C atm. greenhouse type enhancement on the Earth’s global median surface temperature reasonably measured by thermometers and radiometers, Christos. You just haven’t yet found, understood, and applied the proper basic 1LOT equation with observed atm. IR opacity included.
I’ve given you the text ref. in the past to do so; you demonstrate not having followed up.
Wrong Ball4. The “33C” is nonsense. It comes from comparing Earth to an imaginary object.
Get real!
“Get real.”
ClintR, there really is a ~33C atm. greenhouse type enhancement on the real Earth’s global median surface temperature reasonably measured on the real Earth by real thermometers and real radiometers.
As shown and supported by the real 1LOT.
Listen and learn like DREMT should do.
288K is Earth’s average surface temperature. Where do you measure your imaginary 255K?
255K is Earth’s average surface temperature, Pup. Where do you measure your imaginary 288K?
I guess things got a little too real for Ball4. He’s “left the building”.
When the trolls get stumped they usually resort to finding irrelevant links. Let’s see what Ball4 tries….
“Where do you measure your imaginary 255K?”
Not in my imagination.
The real ~255K is measured from reasonably observing the real earthen system globally over multiannual periods by realsatellite radiometers at the orbit of the specific real instrument package as calibrated by real thermometer.
So are you measuring the temperature of the orbit or instrument package? What is the altitude?
(Poor Ball4 has so trapped himself that I almost feel sorry for him. Almost….)
“observing the real earthen system” at the real altitude of the real satellite.
Not observing the satellite “instrument package”.
Reading comprehension hasn’t yet been fully achieved and demonstrated by Clint R.
This might help.
https://climlab.readthedocs.io/en/latest/courseware/Spectral_OLR_with_RRTMG.html
T = 255 is earth + atmosphere while T = 288 is earth. The difference is due to greenhouse effect.
Mathematics found here: http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html
Ball4, I know you trapped yourself. But, you need to:
1) Identify the surface where your imaginary 255K exists.
2) If the “surface” is somewhere in space, you need to identify the altitude.
Everything else is just your usual rambling in place.
Ken and Ent are as confused as Ball4!
The idiots don’t even understand their own cult teachings.
Where does the 255K come from?
Answer: It is the temperature of an imaginary object.
This ain’t science, folks.
Not an imaginary 255K brightness temperature Clint R, just improve your reading comprehension to find real global multiannual ~255K measured & calibrated to thermometer temperature readings:
1) Real top of the real atmosphere
2) Real altitude of the real orbital measuring satellite instrumentation.
Don’t bother reading Ken’s link Clint R, it employs words and math beyond your current comprehension and science ability.
Listen and learn.
You’re just babbling nonsense, Ball4.
What surface?
What altitude?
Simple questions, but no answers.
Ken’s link mentions an imaginary object.
1) Real top of the real atmosphere
2) Real altitude of the real orbital measuring satellite instrumentation.
Even simple answers are too complex for Clint R to comprehend. And zero hits on Clint’s “imaginary” in Ken’s link; Clint R just imagines the mention. Clint R doesn’t comprehend Ken’s link as expected by my comment.
255K is derived from measuring the blackbody temperature of the sun and determining how much solar energy emitted from the sun impacts the earth.
The calculated values give the solar constant of 1370 Wm-2 which is the energy impacting the surface of the earth atmosphere.
Effective TE of 255K a calculated value representing temperature at the surface of the atmosphere.
Observed surface TE is 288K.
The greenhouse effect is the difference between the surface of the atmosphere and the surface of the earth which is calculated as 33K
If you think this information is wrong you’d have to change a lot of the basic physics that underlie our understanding of how things work. You’d have to prove Plank, Schwarzschild, Kirchhoff, and Boltzmann as being wrong. That would seem to me to be impossible for the work these people have done has been rather widely been replicated.
Anti-science is what you are.
Ken, you should be embarrassed by how little you understand of your cult’s nonsense.
I have to explain your own nonsense to you!
960 W/m^2 arrives at the disk of a blackbody sphere. At equilibrium the surface of the sphere is emitting 240 W/m^2. That corresponds to the S/B temperature of 255K.
The 255K is the SURFACE temperature of an imaginary object.
The 255K has NOTHING to do with the atmosphere. You and Ball4 are ignorant of your own cult’s teachings.
Obviously, Clint R 5:31pm doesn’t comprehend the basic science in Ken’s link as expected by my 3:46pm comment.
Listen and learn.
Nothing but babbling from Ball4.
The 33K is nonsense. They can’t support it. They claim it is from a layer of the atmosphere, but they can’t say what the altitude of the layer is!
The 33K comes from comparing Earth’s average surface temperature, 288K to the surface temperature of an imaginary object. The imaginary object receives the same solar as Earth, and achieves the temperature of 255K. But, the imaginary object has NO atmosphere, no rotation, no soil, no oceans. It’s an imaginary object. The claim is that 255K would be the surface temperature of Earth with no radiative gases! So they then claim the 33K difference is the result of radiative gases, meaning CO2.
It’s all bogus, and unsupportable, as we see from them all the time. Imagination ain’t science.
255K is derived from measuring the black body temperature of the Sun and determining how much solar energy emitted from the Sun impacts the Earth……LOLOLOLOL
Wrong Clint R, there is NO imaginary comparison object as you imagine which ain’t science. Clint R just doesn’t know 255K is instrumentally measured from the real earthen system with all real atmosphere, rotation, soil, oceans.
The 1LOT shows with real measured data the global temperature of an earthen O2,N2 atmosphere. Simple minded Clint R can’t comprehend even the basic science linked by Ken.
Listen and learn.
Ball4 was still going last night, after I left. They never stop. They’ve always got to get the last word. I’m the one that has to stop it, and this is the time to do it.
My goal was to show how empty their knowledge really is. They don’t even know their cult beliefs. They don’t know that the 255K comes from an imaginary object! They just make up stuff, like with the Moon issue. They believe Moon is rotating about its axis even though no one can see it doing that. It’s all in their imagination. They can’t say where the 255K exists. It’s all in their imagination. Ball4 has repeatedly come up empty.
So, on to the next example of their ignorance. I’m done here with the anonymous troll Ball4. They can have the “last word”, meaning more blah-blah, false accusations, and unsupportable claims. Cult idiots are predictable.
That’s why this is so much fun.
If, Clint R, your words are attempting to show you are wrong, you’re doing a great job.
If, RLH, your one-sentence burps are attempting to show what a troll you are, you’re doing a great job.
Why persist with this crap?
Repeating it does not make it any more correct.
Christos Vournas at 10:36 AM
Top of the list: https://ibb.co/yB3sVdz
Please also visit the Ron Clutz’s blog:
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.058701
The globe HAS been cooling for at least the last 6 months.
Russell’s Teapot.
You say it, you prove it.
But you’ve been getting hot under the collar during that time, dummy.
Remember that both GISS and NOAA have announced record July 2021 anomalies.
Not just records for July, but also the hottest month on record.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58208792
GISS’s own data for the last few months
2020,1.17,1.24,1.17,1.13,1.02,0.92,.90,.87,.99,.88,1.10,
2021,0.81,0.64,0.88,0.76,0.79,0.85,***,***,***,***,***,***
Shows that June this year was lower than last year. It doesn’t yet get to month 7 (July).
UAH, which does have month 7, shows that July this year is lower than last year.
2020 07 0.31
2021 07 0.20
Sorry, GISS just updated their data
2020,1.17,1.24,1.18,1.14,1.02,0.92,0.91,0.87,0.99,0.89,1.11,0.81,1.02,1.04,1.17,1.11,.90,.99
2021,0.81,0.64,0.89,0.76,0.79,0.85,0.92,***,***,***,***,***,***,***,.76,.81,***,***
which makes their claim correct. (by 0.01).
Not the hottest anomaly though
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/giss-1.jpeg
Still below July 2019 though
2018,0.81,0.85,0.89,0.89,0.83,0.78,0.83,0.76,0.80,1.02,0.83,0.92,0.85,0.85,0.86,0.87,0.79,0.88
2019,0.93,0.95,1.17,1.01,0.85,0.91,0.94,0.94,0.92,1.01,1.00,1.10,0.98,0.96,0.93,1.01,0.93,0.98
2020,1.17,1.24,1.18,1.14,1.02,0.92,0.91,0.87,0.99,0.89,1.11,0.81,1.02,1.04,1.17,1.11,0.90,0.99
2021,0.81,0.64,0.89,0.76,0.79,0.85,0.92,***,***,***,***,***,***,***,.76,.81,***,***
> Not the hottest anomaly though
1.
Willard thinks that
0.93,0.95,1.17,1.01,0.94,0.94,1.01,1.00,1.10,0.98,0.96,0.93,1.01,0.93,0.98,1.17,1.24,1.18,1.14 and 1.02 are lower than 0.92.
And you wonder why I think he is an idiot.
Putting thoughts in mind belongs to the first step of your one and only one trick, dummy.
Pointing out that you cannot do simple maths make others see you as an idiot as well.
Your “not the hottest anomaly” was irrelevant, dummy
If we discuss 2021’s monthly temperature behavior wrt 2020 for itself (and not: compared with previous, similar year duos) than of course RLH is right.
Neither GISS’ ridiculous 0.01 C difference for July, nor e.g. that of JMA (0.02):
2020 0.55 0.53 0.50 0.36 0.31 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.30 0.22 0.36 0.12
2021 0.14 0.02 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.26 0.29
can change anything here.
Mais il ne faut jamais vendre la peau d’un ours avant de l’avoir tué.
We will see at the end of the year how it finally looks.
J.-P. D.
> If we discuss 2021’s monthly temperature behavior wrt 2020
But do we?
Well if we compare this month to last month, why not compare it to a year ago?
We don’t, and 2.
Gee.
“Their dynamics is encoded in the natural variability of the climate.”
In other words, weather is unpredictable.
Who needs a “state-of-the-art Earth system model” to realise that?
SkyDragons like Whining Wee Willy, that’s who!
Mike Flynn, Melodramatising Faineant,
Try to read the paper.
Woeful Wee Willy,
No. It is nonsensical speculation, otherwise you, as a devoted SkyDragon, would not have asked me to waste my time reading it.
From your comment –
“We show that two 2010 high impact eventssummer Russian heatwave and winter Dzud in Mongoliaare associated with atmospheric patterns that are exceptional compared to the typical ones but typical compared to the climatology of extremes.”
As I said, weather is unpredictable. The authors agree. Obviously too hard for you to understand.
That would be typical.
Mike Flynn, Mincing Facade,
ICYMI:
That should deflate whatever point you have, if you have any.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”By applying large deviation theory to a state-of-the-art Earth system model…”
***
Can the pseudo-science get any worse? Theory being applied to models programmed with nonsense.
Gordo,
Engineers ought to know that models are meant to test theories.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monday La Nina update
https://i.postimg.cc/Xvv3D2Mz/nina.jpg
JMA has published a new revision for their ENSO forecast:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
We see that they recently changed the Nina probability from 20 up to 30 %.
*
It’s always good not only to look at what might happen in the next few months, but also to have a closer look at the past.
Here we can see where we are right now in puncto La Nina 2020/21, compared with 2010, 1999 and… 1973, 1954 etc etc:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/ext.ts.jpg
J.-P. D.
Christos Vournas at 10:36 AM
You have competition here: https://vimeo.com/587881990
Oh boy!
Which God is that then? And why does his/her opinion matter above anything else?
rlh…”Which God is that then?”
***
I get you point but let’s not be too hasty in a rush to judgement. The alternative is that life occurred by chance and developed by chance. There is not a shred of scientific proof to back that theory and plenty of evidence that some form of intelligence was involved.
I base that in part on the codes encoded into DNA. Human life cannot go on without those codes, which are read by RNA and transported out of the nucleus where they are used to form amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.
Codes do not form by chance. As you know, no modern OS can work without the ASCII code and that had to be developed by humans to interface human language to computer language. What are the chances of that occurring by natural selection? Human intelligence was required and I am confident intelligence was involved with the formation of life.
All I am saying is try to keep your mind open.
There are many Gods and none have preference above any other.
One religion challenges another religion.
All religions are suspect.
Amen.
Nothing wrong with religion. What you have to watch out for is a religion that believes it’s based on science.
That’s a cult, and a cult ain’t science.
Science is based on religion.
Well, the religions that believes there is one God.
The atheists are which anti-science, makes sense to me.
And devoted priests who are scientists, also makes sense.
Or other than making beer, what are monks suppose to do?
gbaikie…”Science is based on religion.
Well, the religions that believes there is one God”.
***
How do you account for Isaac Newton, who was totally scientific yet devoutly religious?
People can hold religious views. Provided it does not get in the way of their science.
“How do you account for Isaac Newton, who was totally scientific yet devoutly religious?”
The Catholics have screwed up, again, by failing to make him a saint.
The current Pope is jackass, but if managed the simple task of making Sir Isaac Newton a saint, this would more than redeem him.
But there is greater failure of religious institutions: Obviously, space is heaven.
We have been in the Cenozoic Ice Age for 34 million years.
We are in this cold period not because of the Sun, not because of greenhouse gases, and not because of Milankovitch cycles.
We are here because our ocean is cold. And the sun, greenhouse gases, nor Milankovitch cycles caused out ocean to be cold.
Our average ocean temperature is about 3.5 C.
3.5 C is cold. So is 5 C, as is 8 C.
In this Ice Age there has warmer and cooler periods. The warmer and cooler period are warmer or cooler because our cold ocean warms a bit and cools a bit. And this seems related to Milankovitch cycles.
But climate science or probably better to say climate pseudo science, with various degrees of kookiness, is like the drunk looking for keys under a street lamp.
In this “climate science” the Milankovitch cycles are related glacial advances and retreats. And in warmer periods [with a warmer ocean] glaciers do tend to retreat. But glacier are on land and land is only 30% the surface of our planet, and the ocean determines global climate. We don’t have average global land temperature of 15 C, it’s about 10 C, and average global ocean surface temperature is about 17 C. And we have average land temperature of 10 C, because warmer ocean surface temperature increases land to about 10 C.
So not only does Earth’s ocean have more surface area {70%}, and thereby sets/controls global air temperature, because it sets global air temperature, it warms the land because causing a higher global air temperature. Or global ocean surface temperature was about 15 C, this lower the global surface air temperature, and lower global land surface temperature.
A comment from Mrs Entropic Man.
For over thirty years an Irish mystic called Christine Gallagher has received spiritual messages which are warning that the human race is in danger of wiping itself out of existence because of the colossal capacity of the nuclear weapons that so many nations now possess.Christine says that people should turn to GOD and acknowledge their Heavenly Father as their Creator and listen to the teachings of His Divine Son Jesus Christ.Christine has the gift of healing and she has pointed out that Jesus Christ does the healing in answer to her prayers.She says that people must obey the Ten Commandments.The message of Our Lady of Fatima when the cosmic miracle of the Sun leaving its place in the universe and seeming to hurl itself at the Earth is now believed to be a warning from GOD about nuclear war.
Which God is that then?
Presumably the Christian one.
She saw Tyson’s comment and decided to reply. Christine Gallagher is an Irish Catholic Mystic.
> Prominent archbishop is claiming Pope Francis supports a one-world religion
http://www.christinagallagher.org/en/
Willard, please stop trolling.
to Mrs. Entropic…I am tired of hearing humans telling us what Jesus thinks and what God thinks.
This is the essence of problem that religion(s) face in general. Even supposing there is a supernatural being that affects the observable universe, humanity’s view of it’s purpose and direction is interpreted through each persons finite view and corrupted by their biases. God(s) is a creation of humanity whether or not God exists.
Hearing humans telling us what Jesus thinks has at least par value with Trudeau telling us what Canadians think.
Considering that he’s our first and only socialist zombie, Ken, appealing to our infinite ignorance is all troglodytes got.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Entropic man at 4:15 PM
“It’s Physics all the way down. Particles and fields. Physical laws and initial conditions. To the depth of reality we have so far plumbed, there is no evidence for anything else.” Brian Greene.
tim…”And Mt Everest does not get ripped out of the ground just because I can define two sets of axes for rotation”.
***
Sheer arrogance. You think you can make a mountain rotate about it’s COG/axis by redefining the axes for rotation.
Tim, you represent everything that is wrong with modern physics. Like your kin, you think physical reality exists only in your minds and you can control it from your minds.
Your kin has claimed all mass in the universe appeared suddenly out of nothing. Your kin claims that time can dilate when time has been defined based upon a constant, the rotation of the Earth. You have all hit rock bottom, I hope, by claiming that gravity is not a force, but a spacetime anomaly.
Give your head a shake man, you are utterly deluded.
ball4…”Listen and learn from Tims school of relativity. Anything fixed on the surface of the Earth (like Mt. Everest or a fixed horse on m-g-r) is rotating on its own axis wrt the fixed stars”.
***
Tim is a blithering idiot and so are you. You proved that when you claimed heat is a measure of energy transfer and has no physical existence. The energy being transferred is thermal energy, aka heat, therefore, according to you, heat is a measure of heat.
Now you and Tim are arguing that a hunk of rock attached firmly to the Earth’s surface is rotating about its axis (where’s the axis???) wrt the stars. How did you two get this stupid?
As I said to Tim, and this applies to you, he has gotten so stupid that he thinks he can affect physical motion by observing from a different reference frame.
Hey, rocket scientists, physical motions is caused by a force acting on a mass. At times, it is caused by a force at a distance acting on a mass, like an electric field acting on a steel rod. Rotation about an axis cannot occur without a force being applied to a mass, and that applies no matter where you observe it from.
This is the kind of stupid thinking that has lead to climate alarm, and I find it scary that daft politicians believe this nonsense.
Tim talks about inertial and non-inertial frames of reference which has a tendency to get people confused.
I agree with Tim (but might chose different words in some places).
You have plainly said that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, and when you make such a statement one can only assume you mean regardless of reference frame. Otherwise, you would specify. On another thread you even said people would be idiotic to claim that it was rotating on its axis. So no, you do not agree with Tim, sorry.
There is no inertial axis for Mt. Everest alone. I think that Tim will agree. The ‘center’ of Mt. Everest is in the inertial reference frame of Earth.
Tim thinks that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame. As far as I am aware from what you have said, you disagree…and rightly so.
Tim did not say ‘inertial axis’. There is no inertial axis for Mt. Everest alone to rotate about.
Tim may create an axis but not an ‘inertial axis’ for Mt. Everest alone if he wishes.
What do you mean by “inertial axis?”
entropic…”Interesting to observe how quickly China are moving to gain influence in Afghanistan as the West leave”.
***
How long do you think China would put up with Muslim based terrorism?
BTW…where is the UN? You know the con-artists who formed the IPCC to preach pseudo-science?
tim…”A platform is mounted on the back of truck (stationary for the time being) with frictionless bearings”.
***
Where are the frictionless bearing on Everest, Tim?
BTW…if you set up this contraption on the back of a truck, presuming a circular track for now, and the dummy in the contraption had to remain pointed at the centre of the circular track, all you have to do is start at the location of East, point him at the track centre, and start driving the truck. I am presuming the contraption is not rotating.
As the truck circles the track, the dummy (Willard???) does not turn at all, yet he always faces the centre of the track.
You are trying to tell me, that if I view this contraption from the stars that he will start rotating?
You laugh at the wooden horse bolted to the MGR platform, but it’s exactly the same as what I just described. Yet you surmised in your thought experiment that the guy would keep pointing north. Are you daft?
If you started out at due east, with him pointed due north, moving CCW, his left side would always point to the centre of the track. It would make not a whit of difference if you viewed him from the stars, he would still be sitting on the back of that truck with his left shoulder pointing at the centre of the track.
Gordon,
“As the truck circles the track, the dummy (Willard???) does not turn at all, yet he always faces the centre of the track.”
Nope, it’s a frictionless bearing that the dummy is sitting on, there is no force transmitted through the bearing to turn the dummy, so he always faces the same direction, say north, and not to the center of the track.
Get a clue, the towards the center of the track is not the same direction as the truck moves around the track.
> the dummy
That’s Richard, Gordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
tim…”1) Energy is energy. Measuring energy in calories or joules or erg or kWh or eV or BTU just involves unit conversion. These are not fundamentally different from each other.
2) EM really does have associated units. It really does carry Joules from the sun to the earth. The joules dont disappear from the sun and reappear at the earth 500 s later. That would violate conservation of energy!”
***
I’ll agree to one thing about energy only, that no human has any idea what it is. So, how do you measure an unknown?
The way we humans measure an unknown in the form of energy is to observe the effect it has on matter, in whatever form the matter takes. If horses apply muscular energy to a load through their legs, we observe how much weight they can lift in a specific period of time. The measure of that is the horsepower which later became the watt. Therefore a watt is an indirect measure of the effect of mechanical energy on a mass.
There are several forms of energy and each form has different properties. We have mechanical energy, thermal energy, chemical energy, electrical energy, magnetic energy, electromagnetic energy, gravitational energy, nuclear energy, etc.
Thermal energy is measured as the heating effect an unknown has on a cc of water. The measure of that heating effect is the calorie and the watt has no direct application to a heating effect. However, the scientist Joule discovered an equivalence between heat and mechanical energy as work.
Work is force times distance and has nothing to do with the calorie, which is the amount of heat required to raise a cc of water by 1C. However, Joule discovered that the work done by a mechanical paddle turning in water can be related to the amount of heat it produces in water.
It is not mechanical energy raising the water temperature, it is water molecules that produce the heat when their kinetic energy is raised. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, and molecules are defined as two or more atoms bonded by electrons.
Energy leaving the Sun is electromagnetic energy produced by boiling electrons in the Sun radiating it due to their motion. It’s not clear to me whether the boiling protons can emit it, I have not taken the time to investigate. There is no way to measure that EM energy until it comes into contact with mass. Then we can measure the effect of the EM on mass when it is converted to heat.
Using the watt to measure this heat is purely convenience. It is incorrect to use the watt to measure heat since the watt is an equivalent measure of heat. It’s units are not the units of heat.
You can see that from the 1st law, which is a sum of external heat and work and internal heat and work. When I say sum, they must all add to zero.
Claiming the radiation from the Sun as measured at TOA is 1380 watts, or whatever it is, is absolutely meaningless at the TOA. There is no way to measure that energy directly since no one knows what it is in reality. If we stick a temperature probe at TOA we are measuring the heat produced in the probe by electrons in the probe that have absorbed it and increased their KE.
As you know, no such heat exists at TOA. The temperature should be close to 0K because there is little or no mass there to absorb it.
Words of wisdom from John Christy of UAH, a man of integrity.
“The climate of the past 126 years is a tiny slice of time relative to the full set of climate variations and trends that the land on which the conterminous U.S. stands has experienced through the millennia. With a climate system that is so highly dynamic, such circumstances as the hot decade like the 1930s or the brutal year of 1936 can certainly happen again, and likely be even worse.”
http://climaterealism.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/01-08-21-OSTP-Christy-Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf
From the hubris and self-delusion files:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556191
Gordon Robertson November 20, 2020 at 7:10 PM
Here’s feedback I just sent to NASA re Bob’s link.
Hi…would you please correct the error on your misconceptions page about the Moon rotating on its axis. It is simply not possible for the Moon to keep the same face toward the Earth while rotating on its axis. You are likely confusing a change in pointing direction of the near face during the orbit as local rotation but it is actually due to curvilinear translation.
Well, a quick check of the NASA misconceptions page reveals that as-of-today it still reads:
https://moon.nasa.gov/inside-and-out/top-moon-questions/
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis.
There is no axis of Mt. Everest for it to rotate around.
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis wrt to the earthen accelerated frame.
Listen and learn.
You believe it is rotating on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, Ball4. Where is the origin located, for this inertial reference frame?
DREMPTY,
Anywhere and everywhere,
I predict you won’t understand this but Tim will.
I asked Ball4, clown.
Hey shithead, you’ve answered questions I asked others, so what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Have I? I probably just asked you to please stop trolling.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
If I did, I did. If I didn’t, I didn’t. I don’t particularly care either way. I don’t recall bob asking a question to somebody else and me answering on their behalf, but maybe I did. I won’t lose any sleep about it.
My prediction turned out to be correct.
Drempty just derailed the discussion.
Who’s drempty? DREMT here, just use my correct name to proceed.
Your name is not DREMPT, DR EMPTY.
It’s “DREMT”, bob.
It’s Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team actually.
The correct abbreviation of DREMT is fine.
“DR EMPTY” or “Kiddo” are better tho.
…for the purposes of poisoning the well.
TM, Gordon also reported their response. They indicated Moon was only rotating “relative to the stars”. We know of course that “the stars” can’t tell the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”. Hopefully Gordon will expand on this if he sees it.
You should also email NASA and ask them why they report Mercury only rotates 1.5 times for every orbit. Why don’t they count that as 2.5 rotations? NASA is not even consistent within their own organization.
Orbits are revolutions around a barycenter. Rotation is around an axis. “The stars” can quite happily distinguish between those.
If the orbiting body is rotating, “the stars” can tell the difference. But, it the body is NOT rotating, “the stars” would indicate rotation. That’s why “the stars” can’t be used for Moon, since it is NOT rotating, only orbiting.
RLH won’t understand any of this because he believes in his cult nonsense. His mind is closed to reality. He must reject everything that proves him wrong, like the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string, even though many “edu.” sites use the simple analogy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
RLH must reject his own cult to believe in his cult.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“Thats why the stars cant be used for Moon, since it is NOT rotating, only orbiting.”
As the Moon could be rotating twice as fast as it currently is (or even not rotating at all), its orbit and its rotation are not connected as such.
In the past the rotation rate of the Moon was different to what it is now. Wouldn’t have altered its orbit in the slightest.
Nobody is arguing that orbiting and axial rotation are connected. They are two completely separate motions.
Indeed they are. So the Moon’s orientation wrt the Earth is not connected with its orbit.
You have argued that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards a distant star. So for you, just as much as for the “Non-Spinners”, orbit connects to orientation.
Inertia keeps a body pointing in the direction it was pointing just as was when it started in rotational terms.
Rotation around an internal point/axis is independent of its orbit.
Orbit connects to orientation.
RLH at 6:07 AM
Newton’s first law of motion states that a mass in uniform motion relative to a coordinate system fixed in space will remain in uniform motion in the absence of any forces. Such motion is referred to as inertial motion; and the fixed reference frame is an inertial, or absolute, frame of reference. It is clear, however, that an object at rest or in uniform motion with respect to a rotating frame is not at rest or in uniform motion relative to a coordinate system fixed in space. Therefore, motion that appears to be inertial motion to an observer in a rotating reference frame is really accelerated motion. Hence, a rotating reference frame is a noninertial reference frame. Newton’s laws of motion can only be applied in such a frame if the acceleration of the coordinates is taken into account.
TM, finding things on the web that you don’t understand won’t help you. It just makes you look like another idiot.
Start with the widely accepted, simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. Once you understand that, we can move on.
You start with it, Pup. It’s your analogy after all.
If you want another one, there’s the Pole Dance Experiment.
I think we need to distinguish between an axis/point as a reference frame and any movement that may occur around it. An axis/point is inertial and has no rotation as such. A rotating reference frame about that point/axis is a non-inertial reference frame around that inertial point/axis.
Thus the difference between orbit/revolution and rotation.
Seems like you agree that “orbit/revolution” means “rotation about an external axis”, then.
Nope. You be wrong as you always are.
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
John P Millis, PhD in Physics and Astronomy
“However, in the case of planets revolving around stars {and moons around planets} , the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.“
Does the Moon rotate? Does the Moon spin on its axis?
Yes! The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once on its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
That’s right, RLH, in the case of planets revolving around stars {and moons around planets}, the motion of the body rotating about the external axis is also commonly referred to as an orbit.
Hence, a rotating reference frame is a noninertial reference frame. Newton’s laws of motion can only be applied in such a frame if the acceleration of the coordinates is taken into account.
This is just a restatement of my comment here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-791396;
“The unit vectors’ orientation is also a function of time: if on the rotating frame (di/dt) = (dj/dt) = 0; if on the fixed frame (di/dt) = (dj/dt) = angular velocity.
Some of you get it, some of you (non-spinners) don’t.
The “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the right” in the below gif. The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the left”. There is a difference between the two motions regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the two groups transcends reference frames:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Some of you get it, some of you (“Spinners”) don’t.
DREMT you’re wrong.
“in the case of planets revolving around stars {and moons around planets}, the motion of the body rotating about the external axis is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
That is correct. Where you are incorrect is in saying that an orbit creates an inwards orientation. It doesn’t.
Well now you have a problem, RLH. Because an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own axis) moves with the same side always oriented towards that external axis.
Orbits are not like a ball-on-a-string. Nothing in an orbit is required to face inwards.
You just agreed that an orbit can be described as a rotation about an external axis.
‘Can be described as’ is not ‘is’.
Well an orbit (without axial rotation) can either be rotation about an external axis (motion like the “moon on the left”), or it can be translation (motion like the “moon on the right”). Which is it?
“Well an orbit (without axial rotation) can either be rotation about an external axis (motion like the moon on the left), or it can be translation (motion like the moon on the right). Which is it?”
An orbit without axial rotation means the object always faces a fixed star.
An orbit with axial rotation means the object can/may face the object it is orbiting.
So you are going for translation. You think an orbit (without axial rotation) is translational motion. Why then did you initially agree that an orbit (without axial rotation) was rotational motion?
NASA Is as misguided as the NSF claiming for years that melting sea ice would raise sea levels, Archimedes’ principle notwithstanding.
It took the NSF several years to acknowledge the error, albeit grudgingly.
Some people at NASA are simply deluded.
melting sea ice does not raise sea levels. Melting land ice does.
Sea water at 28F is in equilibrium with sea ice at 28F.
Sea water is densest at 28F, is not like pure water.
In order to melt sea ice, you have to raise its temperature above 28F, where it is less dense, occupying more volume, so melting sea ice raises sea level.
Don’t do experiments with fresh water ice, you will get the wrong results.
That kinda depends if the ice on the sea is frozen ocean or formed on the land then.
Our Hall Monitor is back to step 1.
Our resident idiot is always here. Willard.
Actually it depends on the age of the sea ice, it gradually gets fresher, eventually it is good enough to drink, not sure but I think I remember 5 or 6 years old is fresh enough to melt and drink.
bob is wrong again.
But bob can’t learn, so it’s more fun to watch him fool RLH, another idiot.
Please stop trolling, Pup.
“Actually it depends on the age of the sea ice, it gradually gets fresher, eventually it is good enough to drink, not sure but I think I remember 5 or 6 years old is fresh enough to melt and drink.”
Brine falls off the base of the ice all the time.
Clint R,
“bob is wrong again.
But bob can’t learn, so it’s more fun to watch him fool RLH, another idiot.”
But Clint R, you can’t actually specify what if anything I posted is wrong, can you?
Mike Flynn,
Try this:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/learn/project/how-melting-ice-causes-sea-level-rise/
Neither TM nor Dud could understand what Swenson wrote.
Idiots.
Mike Flynn is saying stuff once again, Pup.
As for the implicit argument, here it is:
P1. NASA said that the Moon rotates.
P2. NASA said something about sea level rise.
What’s your own conclusion?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Some might find this interesting –
“Judge Strikes All of Michael Mann’s Expert Witnesses from Libel Suit”
The following is part of the court’s reasoning in the case of Dr Naomi Oreskes (supposed expert witness supporting Michael Mann) –
“When asked about the methodologies that she used in this case, Dr. Oreskes responded: “If you want me to tell you what my method is, it’s reading and thinking. We read. We read documents. And we think about them.”
That is the problem, here. Reading and thinking about documents are not the types of “reliable methodologies” typical of an expert witness, which leaves the Court unable to distinguish why Dr. Oreskes is more capable than the average juror, who can also read and think about documents. See Parsi v. Daioleslam, 852 F. Supp. 2d 82, 89 (D.D.C. 2012) (rejecting an expert opinion based solely on the experts “reading and viewing” and finding that reading, alone, does not constitute an acceptable methodology). Dr. Oreskes “reading and thinking” have not been peer-reviewed, have no known success rate, and cannot be replicated by other experts in her field. . . . Dr. Oreskes opinion is not derived from the scientific method and is more aptly described as a historical narrative or research compilation than scientific testimony. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590; Meister, 267 F. 3d at 1127 (finding that to identify scientific testimony, “forces the court to focus on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate, and thus demands a grounding in the methods and procedures of science, rather than subjective belief or unsupported speculation.”
Judge refers to the scientific method. Points out that subjective belief or unsupported speculation are not scientific testimony. “Climate scientists” just assume that they can not be challenged, and are outside the law.
Here’s a judge saying differently.
Also “aspects of Dr. Mann’s work that can reasonably be construed as manipulative, if not in intent than in effect, as the word is used in common parlance.”
And “constructed random sequences, simulated like playing cards drawn from a deck, are no less skillful for reconstructing temperatures than naturally occurring proxies.”
“I am still wondering which ‘isotopes of hydrogen’ can be analyzed in trapped air (did they mean the hydrogen in the molecules of water vapor in the bubbles ?). The authors probably confused here the analysis of the past CO2 concentration in trapped air bubbles with the estimation of past temperate from the isotope ratio in ice.
This error is not relevant for the paper itself, and this paragraph is unnecessary, but it does tell me a few things: the authors did not consult with any climatologist; they feel confident enough to write about things of which their knowledge is very superficial; the editors did not find necessary the manuscript to be reviewed by someone with some knowledge about proxies.”
A url for that might be useful and relevant. It is quite old.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
https://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/08/mcshane-and-wyner-on-climate.html
Not as old as you, dummy.
Also note:
I’ll add that one to my “But Modulz” page.
You mean the models that even Gavin said were running too hot?
Our Hall Monitor is back to step 2.
Willard looks back 10 years in order to justify Mann. Fails.
Richard does not realize that the lawsuit is that old.
But then he’s 74.
Willard doesn’t realize that the ruling is recent however. Because he is an idiot.
Here’s Wyner’s claim, dummmy:
“constructed random sequences, simulated like playing cards drawn from a deck, are no less skillful for reconstructing temperatures than naturally occurring proxies”
CEI’s guru does not even realize that recons are not like GCMs.
The court kept him in though. So much for your opinion than.
Wee Willy Idiot,
The court has accepted Wyner as an expert witness. The court has dismissed all the people put forward by Mann as “experts” as failing the legal tests to be recognised as such. In other words, legally “inexpert”.
In this case, Mann’s assembled team of SkyDragon propagandists has been summarily dismissed as offering nothing more than unsupported opinions. Oh dear.
Time to accept reality, dummy. This is how the law operates.
Maybe Mann will win, maybe not. Unfortunately for him, the only legally valid expert witness is not on his side. It will be interesting to see if Mann withdraws rather than facing examination from a competent lawyer, and being forced to backup his assumptions.
Will he do better than his “expert witnesses”?
What do you think?
Mike Flynn, Maniacal Fingerling,
You might like:
“Another advantage of our method is that it allows us to calculate posterior probabilities of various scenarios of interest by simulation of alternative sample paths. For example, 1998 is generally considered to be the warmest year on record in the Northern Hemisphere. Using our model, we calculate that there is a 36% posterior probability that 1998 was the warmest year over the past thousand. If we consider rolling decades, 1997-2006 is the warmest on record; our model gives an 80% chance that it was the warmest in the past thousand years. Finally, if we look at rolling thirty-year blocks, the posterior probability that the last thirty years (again, the warmest on record) were the warmest over the past thousand is 38%.”
I’ll you guess who wrote that.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“recons are not like GCMs”
You mean the GCMs that are running too hot?
No, dummy: it’s harder to establish the skill of a recon than the skill of a model.
Your turn: are you saying that a model that establishes that there are 4 chances out of 5 that last decade was the hottest in millennia is just like a deck of cards?
“This paragraph, and later other similar paragraphs, tells me that the authors have not really read the original paper by Mann, Bradly and Hughes (1998). MBH never used ‘only one principal component of the proxy record’. The authors, again, are probably confused by what they may have read in blogs.”
This is another extract from the same, old, blog listed above.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-800955
MBH is more than 20 years old, dummy.
Also note:
“Well, this result [S&W’s] may be interesting and probably correct, but I doubt it is useful, since I am not aware of any reconstruction using this statistical regression model.”
The court ruling you attached to is quite recent however.
The lawsuit dates back to 2012, dummy.
The court ruling that threw out all of Mann’s ‘expert’ witnesses wasn’t.
Seems that Wyner has learned nothing:
“constructed random sequences, simulated like playing cards drawn from a deck, are no less skillful for reconstructing temperatures than naturally occurring proxies.”
The court kept him in. So much for your opinion then.
The Judge still thinks that there’s a scientific method, so make that what you will.
Besides, you forgot to cite that part:
“The court’s order does not necessarily mean that all other expert testimony will be excluded. Judge Irving noted his “expectation that the Parties will likely attempt to elaborate on the methodologies that their experts used in subsequent pleadings,”
Whacky Wee Willy,
Read the judge’s order, dummy. Or believe a journalist’s interpretation, if you prefer.
In any case, the order was issued on 26 July 2021.
Recent enough for you?
“The Judge still thinks that theres a scientific method”
And that expert witnesses should use it.
Science is not a substitute for common sense but an extension of it, dummy.
Mike Flynn,
You say–
“believe a journalists interpretation”
Who you call a journalist is actually Jonathan Adler, a law professor. Here’s how he describes his Damascus moment:
Aw diddums!
Weary Wee Willy,
One who writes for a journal (or the media generally) is a journalist.
Waffling about his “Damascus moment” is irrelevant. As you point out, he is also a law professor, and his views or opinions on climate change are worthless at law.
You SkyDragon idiots have not grasped the distinction between the scientific method, and cultist beliefs. The judge has, as a matter of law.
Keep trying. I appreciate you trying to flatter me by adopting some of my idioms, but it won’t change my opinion of you. You are still an idiot cultist.
Mike Flynn,
Reason is a magazine, and many people write for the media in general.
Very few of them are Dragon cranks like you!
Better luck next time!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Judges make rulings in court. And that’s where this is.
“Judge Irving noted his “expectation that the Parties will likely attempt to elaborate on the methodologies that their experts used in subsequent pleadings,”” is a quote.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27072021/michael-mann-hockey-stick-defamation-lawsuit-competitive-enterprise-institute/
Tyson, please stop trolling.
When citing John Christy’s words
” With a climate system that is so highly dynamic, such circumstances as the hot decade like the 1930s or the brutal year of 1936 can certainly happen again, and likely be even worse. ”
*
Robertson carefully omits to mention that Mr Christy’s analysis of daily maxima and minima in CONUS, visible on two snapshots
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qno66UybjEWAPKBJiQxxaIXaOu-MO3Xz/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LgMAko5uPLqrFdWCAyrJ4Tr_wcSjVlNg/view
is entirely based on NOAA’s USHCN record:
https://tinyurl.com/2c2y4he2
Exactly that kind of data which Robertson permanently discredits and denigrates as ‘fudged‘ – or even lies about, by claiming NOAA/GISS allegedly would have made the 1930’s disappear from their data!
Anybody able to process NOAA’s absolute data, be it out of GHCN V3, V4, daily, HCN (what Robertson never has ever been able to do) sees that the 1930’s still are, 1901 excepted, the highest on record:
1901 7 25.38
1936 7 24.97
1934 7 24.75
1931 7 24.50
1980 7 24.42
{ The 1930’s only get off top when anomalies with annual cycle removal are considered. }
*
A point I found interesting was that during the 1930’s, not only the maxima were highest since 1895: the highest minima (i.e., the warmest nights) were, during this period, highest as well:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sVA3c7j94Cr12tNcfzSQwdNX8gIV9hjq/view
J.-P. D.
Correct bob, inertial 0,0,0 just can’t be translating or rotating wrt the universal frame.
OK, well, from such a reference frame Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own.
DREMPTY,
That’s a distinction without a difference.
The difference is that Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not about its own center of mass. Whereas you people argue that it is rotating about its own center of mass.
Except dear DREMPTY,
I have never argued that something is rotating around its center of mass.
I would rather argue that nothing is rotating around its center of mass.
The Moon certainly isn’t, the Earth certainly isn’t, and my boomerang isn’t either.
Whatever phrase you wish to use for “its own axis” then, pedant.
Look who’s talking, Mister “correctly separate orbital motion from axial rotation.”
Correctly separating orbital motion from axial rotation is not a minor detail, Willard. It is of fundamental importance to the entire debate.
The axis described by the object in question is its own axis.
Dipshit.
Willard,
He’s making me quote the Offspring again.
How can we make it stop?
Kiddo knows what he’s doing, Bob.
He’s never gonna give you up.
Never gonna let you down too.
…and Mt. Everest rotates about the Earth’s axis, not any other axis. That is the axis passing through the Earth, about which the Earth rotates. Mt. Everest does not rotate about an axis passing through Mt. Everest.
OK?
> It is of fundamental importance
Thanks for confirming that it was a silly semantic game all along, Kiddo!
Two entirely different motions, semantics irrelevant.
The Moon does not rotate in a textbook, Kiddo.
It rotates in the sky.
I know of nobody commenting by the name “kiddo”, Willard, but if I do ever see someone using that name, I will be sure to refer them to all the comments you have written them.
Drempty,
“…and Mt. Everest rotates about the Earth’s axis, not any other axis. That is the axis passing through the Earth, about which the Earth rotates. Mt. Everest does not rotate about an axis passing through Mt. Everest.
OK?”
Still some error in that statement, but
Mt Everest rotates?
About at least one axis, and I can name three easily.
Go on then.
> know of nobody commenting by the name
Quit playing dumb, Kiddo.
Willard, rest assured I will refer your latest comment to Kiddo, if he ever shows up. If you wish to address me, you can use “DREMT”.
Please stop trolling, Kiddo.
Your dichotomy between concepts and semantics did not go unnoticed.
I am sure Kiddo may be very interested to hear that, Willard. If he starts commenting, I will refer that comment to him. If you wish to address me, you can use “DREMT”.
OK, well, from such a reference frame Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own in the earthen accelerated frame.
Or from the inertial reference frame, Ball4.
Mt. Everest does not rotate about an axis passing through Mt. Everest wrt to the earthen accelerated frame. Just like a hobby horse fixed to a m-g-r does not rotate wrt to the m-g-r.
Mt. Everest does rotate about an axis passing through Mt. Everest in the universal inertial frame. DREMT is so confused about relativity as to become blog laughing stock #2 after #1 Clint R.
Listen and learn.
> If he starts commenting
Please stop playing dumb, Kiddo.
Mt. Everest does not rotate about an axis passing through Mt. Everest in the universal inertial reference frame or in the earthen accelerated frame. It rotates about the Earth’s axis, from either reference frame. Just like a hobby horse fixed to a m-g-r does not rotate wrt to the m-g-r, or wrt the ground next to the m-g-r. It rotates about the center of the m-g-r, from either reference frame.
Ball4 is so confused about rotation as to become blog laughing stock #1.
Listen and learn.
Mt. Everest has nothing to do with the Moon’s orbit and orientation.
RLH has nothing to do with constructive commentary.
There’s nothing constructive about your trolling, Kiddo.
Please desist.
Dud, please stop trolling.
Please stop making Bob win if you can, Pup.
Still waiting for bob to name the three axes he believes Mt. Everest rotates around.
Still waiting for you to fish out Henry’s arguments, Kiddo.
DREMT has nothing to do with science or logic.
If someone by the name of “Kiddo” starts commenting, I will pass on your request for arguments from somebody called “Henry”. If you wish to address me, you can refer to me as “DREMT”.
DR EMTPY,
“Still waiting for bob to name the three axes he believes Mt. Everest rotates around.”
You’ll be waiting a long time, as I never said I could name three axes I believe Mt. Everest rotates around!
You said:
“Mt Everest rotates?
About at least one axis, and I can name three easily.”
Earth, Sun, Galaxy?
Groucho, Harpo, and Kiddo.
As long as one of the axes does not go through Mt. Everest itself…because that would be wrong, since Mt. Everest does not rotate on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
The answer is because Euler’s theorem would apply.
I am sure that someone commenting by the name “Kiddo” might be fascinated to learn that “the answer” to an unspecified question has something to do with Euler’s theorem. If someone comments under that name I will be sure to pass your message on. It’s “DREMT” here, by the way.
Meanwhile, Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
DR EMPTY,
“You said:
Mt Everest rotates?
About at least one axis, and I can name three easily.
Yes I did, and where is the word believes in that statement.
You should be able to find three axes that Mt. Everest is revolving around, that is if you are smart enough.
I don’t think you are.
> I am sure that someone commenting by the name
Please stop playing dumb, Kiddo.
Have you found back Henry’s arguments yet?
The only axis Mt. Everest rotates around is the Earth’s axis. It does not rotate on its own axis. The Earth then revolves around the Sun. So you could count that as an extra axis of rotation for Everest, though technically it isn’t.
Prepare to be mesmerized, Kiddo:
https://www.livescience.com/51233-mount-everest-moves-after-earthquake.html
If I see a “Kiddo” commenting here, I will let them know they should be prepared to be mesmerized for some reason. You can call me “DREMT” if you wish to address me.
> If I see
I’m referring to you, Kiddo.
Please stop playing dumb.
You can call me “DREMT” if you wish to address me in future.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
…”DREMT”.
… DR EMPTY
It’s “DREMT”. Have the last word for today, I will just post again tomorrow, then the next day, then the next day, until I have the last word overall. I will do this forever, and will always win.
That’s where you’re wrong, “Kiddo.”
No, I am not wrong, child…and it’s “DREMT”.
HAVE THE LAST WORD
have the last word
for today
i will reply tomorrow
but also the next day
and so on and so forth
until i have the last word
over all, forever
i always win
*that’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo*
Oh, I know that the “who has the last word in an Internet debate, wins” rule is a stupid one…but it is what people like you depend on in your work. That is why the whole PST thing upsets you so much. Back tomorrow.
See?
Willard, please stop trolling.
We are able to Theoretically calculate the planet mean surface temperature Tmean
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
The method we use in this research is the “Planet Surface Temperatures Comparison Method”.
The data available are from observatories and satellite measurements.
The data:
1). The solar flux’s intensity upon the planet surface “S”.
2). The planet surface average Albedo “a”.
3). Planet surface temperatures “T” K.
4). Planet rotational spin value “N” rotations/day.
5). Planet surface composition (planet average surface specific heat “cp” cal/gr.oC).
6). Planet surface Φ-factor – the planet surface Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor (the planet surface shape and roughness coefficient).
We have resulted to an important discovery:
The planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) according to their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
The consequence of this discovery is the realization that a planet with a higher (N*cp) product (everything else equals) appears to be a warmer planet.
We call it the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
…………………………………..
We are able to Theoretically calculate for the planet without-atmosphere the mean surface temperature.
For every planet without atmosphere there is the theoretical uniform surface effective temperature Te.
Te = [ Φ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
And for every planet without atmosphere there is the average surface temperature (the mean surface temperature) Tmean.
Thus we can write
Tmean = Te * X
where X is a coefficient which calculates the planet Tmean from the planet known Te.
The X is a different and very distinguished for every different planet number.
Notice:
The planet Te is theoretically calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law, when the planet average surface Albedo, and the solar flux upon the planet surface are known.
Te = [ Φ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Now, we can accept that for every planet (ι) there is a Te.ι and there is a Tmean.ι
We can accept that for every planet (ι) there is a Xι, there is a Te.ι and there is a
Tmean.ι = Te.ι* Xι
So we have here
Tmean.ι = Te.ι * Χ.ι
or
Tmean.ι = [ Φ.ι (1 – a.ι) S.ι (X.ι)⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Conclusion:
We have admitted that for every planet (ι) there is a different for each planet (ι) a factor [(X.ι)⁴ ], which relates for the purpose to theoretically calculate for the planet (ι) the average (mean) surface temperature Tmean.ι
………………
by simply multiplying the X.ι with the planet (ι) the theoretical uniform surface effective temperature Te.ι
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, State of the Climate: Global Climate Report for Annual 2020, published online January 2021, retrieved on August 17, 2021
The globe HAS been cooling for the last 6 months or so. Get over it.
Issuing this irrelevant factoid is part of your first step, one-trick pony.
I note you don’t say it is not true. Because it is.
12 + 8 = 20
Idiot.
Our Hall Monitor is a one-trick pony.
“The globe HAS been cooling for the last 6 months or so. Get over it.”
It is pretty hard to get over it when I see it rising in various data sets.
Are you moving into Denialism territory?
Have you seen Bindidon’s post which says just the opposite?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w3t7PtLNmGoFvBfAbxvHC4yFuIOy1BSs/view
A Simple Theorem, but a very important Theorem.
Also for every planet (ι) without atmosphere we have the planet (N.ι*cp.ι) product.
I have demonstrated in my website that planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) according to their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
Thus we can in the equation
Tmean.ι = [ Φ (1-a) S (X.ι)⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
the (X.ι)⁴ term to replace with the (β *N.ι *cp.ι) ¹∕ ⁴ term
where
a.ι – is the planet (ι) the average surface Albedo
Φ.ι – is the solar irradiation accepting factor (for smooth surface planets Φ = 0,47 and for rough surface planets Φ = 1)
N.ι – is planet (ι) rotational spin (rot/day)
cp.ι – is the planet average surface specific heat (cal/gr.oC)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
Consequently, for every without-atmosphere planet (ι) we have:
Tmean.ι = [ Φ.ι (1 – a.ι) S.ι (β *N.ι *cp.ι)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Conclusion:
The above formula theoretically calculates the planets without atmosphere mean surface temperatures with very closely matching to the satellite measured temperatures results.
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
Notice:
The planet mean surface temperatures Tmean are very much precisely being measured by satellites.
……………………………………
A Simple Theorem, but a very important Theorem.
From the above…
for every without-atmosphere planet (ι) we have:
Tmean.ι = [ Φ.ι (1 – a.ι) S.ι (β *N.ι *cp.ι)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
or
Tmean = [ Φ (1 – a) S (β*N*cp.)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
or it can be re-written as
Tmean = Te * [(β*N*cp.)¹∕ ⁴]¹∕ ⁴
The Theorem:
The planet mean surface temperature Tmean numerical value will be equal to the planet effective temperature Te numerical value Tmean = Te only when the term
(β*N*cp) = 1
and, since the
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal
the planet N*cp product should be then
N*cp = 1 /β
or the numerical value of the product
N*cp = 1 /150
…………………………………….
The Theorem leads to the following very important conclusions:
1). In general, the planet effective temperature numerical value Te is not numerically equal to the planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature Tmean.
2). For the planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature numerical value Tmean to be equal to the planet effective temperature numerical value Te the condition from the above Theorem the (N*cp = 1 /150) should be necessarily met.
3). For the Planet Earth without-atmosphere the (N*cp) product is (N*cp = 1) and it is 150 times higher than the necessary condition of (N*cp = 1/150) .
Consequently, the Earth’s effective temperature numerical value Te cannot be equal to the Earth’s without-atmosphere mean surface temperature… not even close.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> The Theorem
You’re selling your con right there, Christos.
The theorem looks interesting. Basically you’re saying the blackbody theory doesn’t work if the black body is rotating while getting all its energy input from a point source. All you need to do now is get someone to test, check, and replicate your theorem.
> Basically youre saying the blackbody theory doesnt work
\o/
***
> replicate your theorem
LOL
I thought he was saying a planet with atmosphere is warmer without an atmosphere.
Which was what meant by greenhouse effect before the cargo cult nonsense.
Though also water vapor, so planet with atmosphere and ocean of H20 is warmer.
And I think everyone knew a longer night would make a planet cooler that was so obvious no one bothered mention it. Even if earth was flat longer nights would be cooler.
But I think Venus at Earth distance would be colder than a fast spinning space rock at 1 AU.
Oh, but I wasn’t allowing for Venus having a ozone layer- apparently it has small ozone layer at 100 km. If added the “greenhouse gas” of oxygen to Venus, it could be warmer than a spinning space rock.
Imagine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgkThdzX-8
If IPCC been charge with task of determining what has larger effect the doubling or halving of CO2 Or the doubling or halving O3.
Instead of the stupid idea of determining whether increasing CO2 is something governments should do something about.
Because in this reality, IPCC in many decades has not determined whether CO2 causes any measurable warming effect due to rising CO2 levels.
In alternative reality one would two camps fighting over which did more- which would be interesting.
Christos, its all garbled.
Are you still in denial of Earth observations?
Unless you have corrected your model, to make it agree with observations for Earth, it is still falsified.
Nate says:
August 18, 2021 at 9:44 AM
“Christos, its all garbled.
Are you still in denial of Earth observations?
Unless you have corrected your model, to make it agree with observations for Earth, it is still falsified”.
All garbled, Nate?
Is it falsified, Nate?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yep:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/nasa-spacecraft-maps-earths-global-emissivity
Willard, please stop trolling.
RLH (part 1 of 3)
I’m still awaiting your final results for a global averaging of the comparison, within USCRN’s hourly data, of the mean – i.e., (TMIN+TMAX/2) -, the median and the 24h average.
Your claim was that a median-based time series would give a proof of a warming bias in temperature series based on the mean.
Conversely, I am still convinced that the two – median vs. mean, compared with the 24 h average – show spatiotemporal dependencies, making a fair comparison useless as long as these dependencies will not be eliminated.
Unitl now, you kept concentrating on graphs illustrating single stations only, and on local comparisons of USCRN hourly, daily and monthly data.
The latter work was not very useful: it would have been sufficient to look at single data positions, for example, at two consecutive days like 2010 11 16/17 in the data of the station AK_Kenai_29_ENE.
There, anybody sees that the difference between
– the own averaging of USCRN’s 24 hourly averages: hours 1-23 of day 16 together with hour 0 of day 17, giving -6.76 rounded to -6.80,
and
– USCRN’s own daily average showing -6.70
can only be due to the use of (e.g. subhourly) data having some higher precision. There is no need for any tedious evaluation of subhourly data to understand this.
And anyway, it makes few sense to talk about differences ranging within [-0.6:+0.7] when the discussion should be centered around differences (between ‘average minus mean’ and ‘average minus median’), ranging, e.g. for the Kenai station, within [-3.5:+4.7] and [-5.8:+4.9], respectively.
J.-P. D.
RLH (part 2 of 3)
Let us therefore please come back to temperature and difference series for two exemplary stations: for exampleone in Alaska, and one in Florida.
1. AK_Kenai_29_ENE
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AAEaajbUuq13S9A1EwgptzSFk-NHXTQB/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g3DRhowNPzXcpIzG4pKvGENoCtICmkHb/view
2. FL_Everglades_City_5_NE
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q0xgTzcKfFGFAoBjUlyzy__OTYARlP2q/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OL1TVQakmjRyavWuNgchTOnlc29L4bpk/view
We immediately see how much the differences behave! You could say that this is a pure coincidence.
Such visible discrepancy calls therefore, as I wrote some weeks ago, for a more global evaluation, i.e. of the CRN stations alltogether.
RLH (part 3 of 3)
Here are the two outputs of a per-station averaging of the differences between ‘average minus mean’ resp. ‘average minus median’, together with the stations’ latitude:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1egXNGmi4T-8rxh7PVMxH3Unq5agJmOIB/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oi8IUJWvaVn9xyFQZTMWgidzwTQRuEku/view
These two lists alone show, when entered into a spreadsheet, how much they differ on average. The average latitude of each quarter in the lists tells a lot!
*****
But it is of course somewhat tedious to keep a closer look at two times more than 200 lines; a graphical X,Y dot presentation superposing the two difference lists is the better choice.
Here is a graph showing the distribution of these two differences over US latitudes, from Alaska till Florida:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13fZbOg4aUS1zL-wQagK5R2YvPBCB3Yif/view
Should this graph not show, for the differences, a latitude independent behavior, instead of such great differences between the two dot bulks?
In addition to this latitude stuff, a monthly time series was generated, showing how ‘average minus median’ and ‘average minus mean’ develop over time:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CADMrsUAbZQ0NaxnqJBJtgX7TBLbClp/view
Here again I ask: should the difference between the two plots not be independent of time considerations?
And above all: why are, in the two series, peaks and drops respectively opposite?
*
A while ago, you wrote that all this stuff would have few to do with spatial and / or temporal dependencies, but rather could be explained with ‘simple statistics’ instead.
You wrote above: ‘I learned statistics’.
Good for us all.
J.-P. D.
“Im still awaiting your final results for a global averaging of the comparison, within USCRNs hourly data, of the mean i.e., (TMIN+TMAX/2) -, the median and the 24h average.”
You’ll wait a long time then.
As I said before, the average , the ‘mean’ and the median will all differ. This holds true for all temperature sources. USCRN even goes to the extent of computing the average (true) and the ‘mean’ for its output, both Daily and Monthly, so to a certain extent your request is pointless. They calculate those results from their 5 minute data collections (SubHourly) so much more accurately than you.
As you cannot even get correct if 0000 hours is in today or yesterday I will take no orders from you.
“Your claim was that a median-based time series would give a proof of a warming bias in temperature series based on the mean.”
Talk about a distortion. I said no such thing. I said that in statistics, unless the distribution was previously known and was ‘normal’, then the median was considered a better choice than the mean. Let alone the ‘mean’ calculated from (min+max)/2.
“There, anybody sees that the difference between
the own averaging of USCRNs 24 hourly averages: hours 1-23 of day 16 together with hour 0 of day 17, giving -6.76 rounded to -6.80,
and
USCRNs own daily average showing -6.70
can only be due to the use of (e.g. subhourly) data having some higher precision. There is no need for any tedious evaluation of subhourly data to understand this.”
As you cannot read the USCRN notes correctly there is little hope for you. The xx00hrs notification in the time/date field is for the period PRIOR to the ones it is in. Thus you need to subtract 1 second to put it in the correct place.
When that is done, as USCRN themselves said, then the monthly/daily/hourly come out to the same number.
Do I need to do the maths again for you? I showed it earlier and USCRN was correct and you were wrong.
e.g.
2015/11/07 CRND0103-2015-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -2.5 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -2.5 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -2.5 Count = 288
and
2015/11/16 CRND0103-2015-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -21.7 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -21.7 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -21.7 Count = 288
and
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.7 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.8 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.7 Count = 288
where the rounding error is 0.1 but the SubHourly agrees with the Daily.
When extended to an extra decimal place
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.7 Count = 288
Where the SubHourly and Daily still agree.
The summation of the Hourly figures differ because the Hourly figures are themselves already rounded and thus the figure does not always come out the same as the Daily. That’s the problem with treating rounded figures as absolutes.
Make that
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
where the problems with rounding become clear. As all of us who have dealt with this before well know.
RLH
” Thus you need to subtract 1 second to put it in the correct place. ”
I knew there would be little hope for a meaningful answer from your side.
You keep below tiniest values to make a whole average inaccurate.
The difference between my values and USCRN’s is WAY WAY WAY below what matters to us: the difference between
– mean
– median
– average
computed out of USCRN’s hourly data.
And you, RLH, still can’t admit that.
You are simply dishonest.
Noe I definitely stop talking with you about that.
I keeps clear to me that you can’t admit that the median is, wrt the true average, exactly as much subject to spatiotemporal dependencies as is the mean.
Bye bye.
J.-P. D.
“The difference between my values and USCRN’s is WAY WAY WAY below what matters to us: the difference between
– mean
– median
– average
computed out of USCRN’s hourly data.”
USCRN already do daily (and monthly) average and ‘mean’ but you wont even admit that. Calculated from 5 min data.
Statistics tells us that for anything other than ‘normal’ distribution, median is better than mean.
Prove me wrong.
“You are simply dishonest.”
No I am not. You are just an arrogant twat.
Do you dispute
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
where the problems with using already rounded data in any further calculations is obvious for all to see?
My last statement
” Talk about a distortion. I said no such thing. I said that in statistics, unless the distribution was previously known and was normal, then the median was considered a better choice than the mean. Let alone the mean calculated from (min+max)/2. ”
That, RLH, is no more than a claim without substance.
You brought until now not half a bit of a proof for that.
Only a few teenie dot plots, probably based on carefully chosen CRN stations.
You never will do the job needed to prove your claim.
J.-P. D.
“That, RLH, is no more than a claim without substance.”
The substance is there for all to see. You, sir, are an arrogant twat.
Steps 1 and 3 all rolled together.
What a beauty!
What an idiot you are Willard.
That’s Step 3 once again, Richard!
What a marvelous Hall Monitor we have.
Still an idiot I see Willard.
No U
U are the idiot.
No U, dummy.
U are still the idiot. No matter what you say.
Keep blundering, dummy.
And No U.
That still makes U the idiot.
“You never will do the job needed to prove your claim.”
You will never find a statistical text book that says anything other than what I have said.
Do you dispute
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
where the problems with using already rounded data in any further calculations is obvious for all to see?
“What is the most appropriate measure of central tendency when the data has outliers?
The median is usually preferred in these situations because the value of the mean can be distorted by the outliers.
In a normally distributed data set, which is greatest: mode, median or mean?
If the data set is perfectly normal, the mean, median and mean are equal to each other (i.e., the same value)”
“When is the mean the best measure of central tendency?
The mean is usually the best measure of central tendency to use when your data distribution is continuous and symmetrical, such as when your data is normally distributed.”
“usually”
“The mean is usually the best measure of central tendency to use when your data distribution is continuous and symmetrical, such as when your data is normally distributed”
They both go together.
There’s nothing unusual in you being an idiot. That is for sure.
uSuALLy
Idiot.
and
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.7 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.8 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.7 Count = 288
where the rounding error is 0.1 but the SubHourly agrees with the Daily.
Climate Change and COVID 19 have a similar problem.
The Policy is based on Models that are demonstrably not fit for the purpose because the Empirical Data does not support the Model.
Well worth the time to read: A TALE OF TWO SCIENTIFIC PARADIGMS: CONFLICTING SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS ON WHAT “FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE” MEANS FOR SARS-COV-2 AND THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
link here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353837019_A_TALE_OF_TWO_SCIENTIFIC_PARADIGMS_CONFLICTING_SCIENTIFIC_OPINIONS_ON_WHAT_FOLLOWING_THE_SCIENCE_MEANS_FOR_SARS-COV-2_AND_THE_COVID-19_PANDEMIC
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/08/17/texas-governor-greg-abbott-tests-positiver-covid-19/
#BREAKING Texas Gov Greg Abbott Tests Positive For Being A Smug Reckless Anti-Science Piece Of Garbage.
I wonder if Michelle is ashamed to admit the AGW nonsense is based on an imaginary object.
If you’re right then all of Quantum Physics is based on an imaginary object. Who knew?
Schrodinger’s cat is wailing up a storm.
Sorry Ken. “All of Quantum Physics” is NOT based on an imaginary object.
And a wailing cat ain’t dead.
How about about sock puppets, Pup?
Do you stutter much, Dud?
Or is that just more evidence of your incompetence?
Do the Poll Pull Dance experiment, Pup Pup.
Quantum Physics is based on an imaginary object. What object would that be Ken?…..LOLOLOLOLOHAHAHAHALOOLOL
These kind of abstractions are more consequential than your puppets, Pup.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Where can the highest air density be found on Earth?
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/30621/where-can-the-highest-air-density-be-found-on-earth
[That’s what I was wondering.]
“At first I thought – Death Valley or the Dead Sea area at night, but they can still be fairly warm.
Then I thought the south pole is really cold but then I realized the altitude is quite high.
Then I thought flying over some arctic or Antarctic area near sea level would be the highest density, but water can warm the air a bit.”
What lowest elevations in Antarctic?
Anyhow, an answer given:
“My candidate would be Verkhoyansk in Siberia, elevation 140 m. The average temperature in January is only -50F, so this should be a perfect combination of low and cold to produce density records.
…
I could not find a source for actual density measurements, but theoretically those conditions should yield 1.522 kg/m.”
Yeah but, I was looking for actual measurements.
Why can’t the pseudo climate science measure air density?
Google: lowest land elevation in Antarctica
“The lowest point on Antarctica is Deep Lake, Vestfold Hills in East Antartica with a depth of -50 meters (−160 feet).Dec 30, 2019”
Google: Deep Lake, Vestfold Hills in East Antartica
“Comfortable in the Cold: Life Below Freezing in an Antarctic Lake Cold-loving species are changing everything from laundry detergents to our search for extraterrestrial life.”
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/seeking-psychrophiles-in-antarctica/
“Organic Lake gets as cold as -13˚ C. The only reason its depths dont turn to ice is thanks to its staggering concentration of salt.”
“We discovered things we were never even looking for, Cavicchioli says.”
Well, that’s called, Exploration. Humans stumbling onto/into to various things.
“If Cavicchiolia warm-blooded mammalwere to fall into the lake, he might die of hypothermia in a matter of minutes. But for the species in Organic Lake, frigid temperatures are comfortable. Warm them up to room temperature, and many would die in the scorching heat.”
Maybe, Germans are more directly descended from such creatures.
Anyhow Death Valley does get quite cold and might more a convenient location for testing flying things as compared to Antarctica or Russia.
Anyhow I was wondering how well something would float [or fly} on Titan, because of this article, “A Landing Site for Dragonfly” from:
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/
Oh, forgot to mention:
“Debate existed about the surface density (and even whether methane is the dominant constituent) until the Voyager encounters,
when it became clear that the surface density is four times that of Earth (5.2 kg m−3 versus 1.2 kg m−3 for the Earth) and
that the primary constituent is molecular nitrogen (N2) (Table 5). Despite the great atmospheric mass, Titan’s small gravity
produces a surface pressure of 1.5 bars, similar to that of Earth.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/titan
So 4 times density of Earth surface air when air around 15 C.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
An excellent example of how climate change accumulates is Earths energy imbalance. I am a climate scientist and have a new book on this, about to be published by Cambridge University Press.
The Sun bombards Earth with a constant stream of about 173,600 terawatts (that is 12 zeros) of energy in the form of solar radiation. About 30% of that energy is reflected back into space by clouds and reflective surfaces, like ice and snow, leaving 122,100 terawatts to drive all the weather and climate systems around us, including the water cycle. Almost all of that energy cycles back to space except for about 460 TW.
That remaining 460 TW is the problem were facing. That excess energy, trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is heating up the planet. That is the Earths energy imbalance, or in other words, global warming.
Globe illustration showing energy in and out and the remainder, trapped by greenhouse gases, going primarily into the oceans
https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-relentless-seemingly-small-shifts-have-big-consequences-166139
The globe HAS been cooling for the last 6 months at least. Get over it.
That factoid is still irrelevant.
Find better material.
You have to have half a brain to understand its relevance. Willie doesn’t qualify.
Then spell it out, Troglodyte.
Still true however.
3 + 5 = 8
Even idiots can do simple maths. Apparently.
Still doesn’t make it incorrect.
The Moon is NOT made out of cheese.
I agree with you on that.
Today is Wednesday.
(Except for Mike Flynn.)
That only holds true for part of the day all over the globe.
Snow is white.
And you are an idiot.
No.
U.
U are the idiot.
No U
2+2!=5
In which number base?
That’s step 2.
I wonder how long it will take before Climate Science notices that water vapor has been increasing 43% faster than possible from just planet warming. And that 7 molecules of WV have been added for each molecule of CO2 added. The added WV can explain all of the planet warming attributed to humanity.
I’m sure they already do, Dan:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
It may not imply what you make it imply, however.
Wee Willy,
It may not mean what you think it means, dummy.
Mike Flynn, Model Flu,
You’d have to click on the link to know that.
But you won’t!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Dimwitted Wee Willy,
It may not mean what you think it means, dummy. Nothing to do with me.
Thanks for the flattery, though. I accept flattery, even from idiots.
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
Miscarriage of Fragrance
W,
That link actually demonstrates that they are NOT aware that WV has been increasing faster than possible from just planet warming. They assert that WV increase is a feedback. The only way WV increase can be a feedback is from temperature increase. WV increase has been 43% more than that.
Dan,
Got a cite?
Click my name.
Please, Dan. No.
I already did. I can’t undo it.
maybe it’s the contrails that do that? Also, since WV is condensible and highly heterogeneous, saying that it “increased this and that” actually doesn’t give enough information to make an informed opinion on the topic. Where, in which part of the atmosphere is it increasing? Because raising WV in the boundary layer, but falling in the upper troposphere can even lead to the decreasing WV forcing while showing up WV levels as increasing, and the opposite can also be imagined.
I don’t know how or why, but I think Richard did it.
Did what? Richard Lindzen or what?
The contrails, cot, and the same Richard as you asked earlier.
Richard did the contrails? I have trouble imagining that =)
Also, the impact of contrails doesn’t end when the contrails end. The contrails, that from from the water vapor, are just an optional visible manifestation of stratospheric aviation injecting extra H2O into the regions of the atmosphere where it wouldn’t have been to begin with. WV is the main greenhouse gas on earth in terms of its instantaneous contribution. The fact that is is severely undersaturated thrughout the bulk of the atmosphere means that its GHE is very much far from maxed-out and that whatever processes control its concentration in the clear free troposphere are very important in keeping earth from mechanistically turning into venus just like the simplistic climate models built by simpletons suggest.Since the removal of WV happens in one known place only – by the precipitation in the clouds, bypassing this ‘feedback’ can really screw with its functionality. I know, the amounts of wv injected into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere by the jet aviation is tiny, but the amount that is advected into the upper troposphere through clouds is not great either, and the lower stratosphere is even smaller as it is somewhat decoupled from the vigorous tropospheric overturning. I’m not sure anyone looked into this potential problem, perhaps some simple order of magnitude estimation can explain why; maybe i’m wrong and the effects are completely irrelevant and are dwarfed by the noise.
ok, back of envelope calculations show that the amount of wv injected into the dry upper tropospheric regions is on order of 0.1% or less of the natural fluxes through the 8-12km aviation slab. Hard to imagine it could make much difference even if it evades the controlling feedbacks.
That would be the seriously delusional Kevin Trenberth.
Still convinced that his heat is missing (lurking in the oceans against the laws of all known physics).
At least Trenberth realises that day and night exist. He still refuses to accept that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, from a molten state. Obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed, is Kevin.
He describes himself as a “distinguished scholar” (not just an ordinary scholar), much like Michael Mann describing himself as a “distinguished professor”, as opposed to the ordinary kind. Obviously, members of the SkyDragon cult are not known for their outstanding humility and modesty.
Kevin claims a share of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change . . .” As neither Kevin, Al, or the IPCC seem to have any knowledge about “man-made climate change”, the award of the Nobel Peace Prize may have been the result of a temporary lapse of judgement by the Nobel Committee.
No wonder Wayward Wee Willy appeals to the authority of such nonentities, he can find nothing better.
Mike Flynn,
Marginal Fright,
Made you look!
“That remaining 460 TW is the problem…”
The “problem” is that idiots do not understand science.
Earth has no “energy imbalance”. If it did, it would be handled quickly. The “460 TW” figure comes from estimates. The “460” is about 0.26% of the total. But the “total” varies by almost 7%. So the errors in the “460” are huge.
But, let’s play their game. What happens if Earth’s temperature goes from 288K to 289K, about 0.35% increase? The resulting flux increases by 1.4%. The emitted flux increases 4 times faster than the temperature!
Pup,
Let’s play a game.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Report.
Willard, please stop trolling.
People who write:
” The globe HAS been cooling for the last 6 months or so. Get over it. ”
should have a closer look at the temperature series
GISS
NOAA
BEST
Had-CRUT
JMA
then compute, for each series, the difference between Jan-Jun 2020 and the corresponding month in 2021, and put the stuff into a graph.
That might motivate them to become a bit less condescending.
Agreed: For UAH6.0 LT, NOAA STAR MT and RSS4.0 LT, the differences are different: that could be because LT differs from the surface.
Thus, before I write such a judgment, I would at least wait for the end of the year.
*
Anyway, I personally don’t care so much about these numbers.
What we experience in Northeastern Germany since 30 years I don’t like anyway.
It doesn’t get colder! Not at all, especially during our winters, which get warmer and warmer.
We get more and more WIND since decades, due to an increase of atmospheric perturbations (low pressure areas) coming from Northwestern Atlantic.
I definitely don’t appreciate that.
J.-P. D.
“I would at least wait for the end of the year.”
How does that alter a month on month observation?
Jan compared to Jan.
Feb compared to Feb.
Mar compared to Mar.
…
…
Oh wow!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w3t7PtLNmGoFvBfAbxvHC4yFuIOy1BSs/view
Even the religious are noting the religion.
Most of sensible religious of any faith do complain about how religious things can get:
–And not just politics Mass also says that the accepted tenets of global warming have become a sort of religion. Consider the language used, he says, such as the question of whether one believes in anthropogenic climate change. You dont believe in gravity, he says. The religious metaphor also explains why colleagues get so bent out of shape with him, Mass says: Theres nothing worse than an apostate priest. —
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/17/does-climate-change-cause-extreme-weather-now-heres-a-scorcher-of-a-reality-check/
Is Joe Biden the next Jimmy Carter?
Ford was President when Vietnam was overrun, comparable to the current situation.
Ford was about as bad as Carter, but he was unelected. However, I think the Iranian Embassy overrun is just as comparablealso, the projection of weakness, indecisiveness, poor leadership skills, that’s Biden and Carter. Carter was a nincompoop, but so was Ford.
If only Joe could have put out of Afghanistan as decisively as teh Donald strongman.
Jimmy Carter said Obama was worst President.
Joe Biden could be worse than Obama, but if he is office when we land on the Moon, it possible, maybe not.
Whether he will survive until such time is another matter.
But wars and inflation could wipeout any small bump he could get from a moon landing. And doing worst at wars than Obama, is certainly possible.
And at least Joe Biden, does not have Hilary Clinton as Sec of State.
And People might not like the VP, but Joe Biden was a worse VP for Obama.
I didn’t realize until tonight that Obama was the one who let the Taliban leader loose from Gitmo in the Bergdahl exchange.
stephen…Obama was also the one who hand.cuffed the US soldiers with ridiculous rules of engagement, to the extent that a fair question might be, ‘whose side are you on anyway”?
He also also changed the rules to allow some terrorists to claim their terrorist activities were based on their religious credo, thus not terrorism.
stephen…”Is Joe Biden the next Jimmy Carter?”
No way…Carter had a degree in nuclear physics. I doubt if Biden has a high school certificate. Like him or hate him, Carter had integrity. Can’t say the same for Biden.
Don’t recall a lot about Carter, maybe that’s why some folks are down on him. I do recall in a negative sense that he was peddling antiviral drugs to Africans, allegedly because they suffered from AIDS.
Carter, Gates, and idiots like rock star Bono were peddling the notion that Africans were dying from AIDS due to sexual transmission of HIV. The stigma involved was wasting syndrome, a condition well-known before the HIV hysteria, to be caused by malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections like malaria. The WHO, in a moment of sheer stupidity, claimed the cause was HIV and added wasting syndrome to the list of AIDS opportunistic infections.
The scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, now claims HIV does not cause AIDS and that it is harmless to a healthy immune system. He is outspoken on the situation in Africa, claiming the problem is what I have listed above, especially the need for clean drinking water.
The fact that Carter fell for this conspiracy made me question his intelligence. I could easily understand Gates and Bono getting sucked in but not a nuclear physicist.
Robertson
” The scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, now claims HIV does not cause AIDS and that it is harmless to a healthy immune system. ”
You are such a dumb, disingenuous, disgusting liar.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2008/montagnier/facts/
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp038194
Pfui Deibel.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/killer-syndrome-the-aids-denialists-1831610.html
“Why does a small band of scientists and campaigners persist in denying the link between HIV and Aids, when the evidence that they are wrong is overwhelming? “
For the UAH aficionados: here is a nice corner I didn’t visit since years:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uChXaEBXhQCulNM78bdzxtHab4U-Qw-s/view
Here you can feel the pulse of the LT area just above the main ENSO region.
The drop in 2010-2011 was amazing, about twice the one of this year.
*
Source for such data is, as always, the set of tltmonamg files in the directory
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
J.-P. D.
Why a 3 year running mean? Scientifically that is.
[PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ASSEMBLER (MORE THAN ONE), C, C++, C#, VB (MORE THAN ONE), R, SQL, PASCAL, AND A FEW OTHERS, TO A LEVEL GOOD ENOUGH TO DEBUG OTTERS CODE AND SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS. MORE THAN 40 YEARS IN THE INDUSTRY, THE ODD QUALIFICATION IN THE FIELD, TEACHING SOME OF THAT TO THE OTHERS] Why a 3 year running mean? Scientifically that is.
[ALSO RICHARD] Still true however.
Willard is an idiot. Still true too.
No U
U are the idiot.
No, dearest Richard.
U.
No. U are the idiot for sure.
Nah.
That’s U.
Nope. U are the idiot.
U
U are the idiot with your idiotic reply.
I thought it would be easy to grasp, but…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w3t7PtLNmGoFvBfAbxvHC4yFuIOy1BSs/view
J.-P. D.
binny…”I thought it would be easy to grasp, but…”
***
Why all the fudged surface data? Where is the real data, from UAH?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-800765
Oh look. All major temperature series show a decline over the last 6 months. Who knew?
Why a 6 months trend? Scientifically that is.
Science can refer to a trend over any period. Including 6 months.
[ESTR] Why should we wait six months for Godot?
[VLAD] Because we can.
Luckily we have no time to wait for an idiot such as Willard to appear.
And… that’s step 3, dummy.
It requires no steps for you reach being an idiot though.
The claim itself reaches step 3 of your one trick, pony.
Idiot.
Climate science tests its trends, dummy:
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data-tools-and-analysis/trend-analysis
Are you saying that a tend of 6 months is too short for science?
That Step 2 of your One Trick conceals a burden of proof reversal, dummy.
Did you test it?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
Nope.
It shows quite clearly the the Earth has been cooling for the last 6 months or more. Do you disagree?
Wonky Wee Willy,
“I’ll you guess who wrote that.”
Will you really?
No thanks, I’m not into guessing games. That’s more the province of groups of dimwits calling themselves “climate scientists”.
Guess who some of them are. Here’s a hint – IPCC.
Mike Flynn, Morphologically Fractious,
Yes, I will!
Your loss!
Cheers,
Woeful Wee Willy,
I have lost nothing, you dimwit.
You, on the other hand, have apparently lost your marbles.
How are you going, trying to locate the GHE? Maybe it’s on the shelf, between “Aether, luminiferous” and Phlogiston? Or maybe hiding with the preposterous Trenberth’s “missing heat”!
Carry on trying to avoid reality, dummy. You can run, but you can’t hide.
Mike Flynn,
We all know you love Doritos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
Swoon!
Waster Wee Willy,
Typical SkyDragon avoidance. Running away from reality, flinging out diversions as you run, hoping no one will notice your intellectual vacuity.
However, normal and rational people realise just how stupid and idiotic your comments are – obviously based on some SkyDragon cultist fantasy!
Luckily, it makes all other members of the Mythical GHE Cult look stupid and gullible by association. An excellent thing, is it not?
Mike Flynn,
Mercy Fiesta,
Since you like Doritos, you’ll love to click on that link!
Willard, please stop trolling.
gbaikie…”But there is greater failure of religious institutions:”
***
Yes…there have been failures but religion serves a purpose for many people. The root meaning of the world religious (from physicist David Bohm), is to be serious.
Elaine Pagels, a noted religious scholar who observes religious history and questions what it means, basically lost her faith in the church. She lost a child to illness, then her husband, to an accident. Her questioning, however, came from a conflict about what she had been taught in her younger years about religion and what she had learned as a student, learning Greek, and reading the actual Bible in Greek. Then she became deeply immersed in translating the Nag Hammadi scrolls, which uncovered book that had been omitted from the original Bible circa 325 AD.
She reconnected one day while out for a jog. She stopped into the church for a few minutes to listen to the choir sing. She began to see that the ambience in the church with people being together and doing activity like singing, appealed to the soul. I got her point because it’s possible to reach a similar experience from engaging with people in an awareness seminar if the people are serious. Church does not have to be about the sermon, it could simply be about sitting quietly with other people.
Although I am not involved with any religious groups, I have sat in on religious events. I was somewhat miffed while visiting Scotland, to hear a preacher castigating the congregation, calling them worthless sinners and the likes. I don’t think religion should be about that.
Short term temperature trends are down but long term trends are still up.
T TPW CO2 thru June 2021: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZS-menV9-7qcgbjggrfCzMQQ5cIJdH1u/view?usp=sharing
What’s the source for the second box, Dan?
NASA/RSS has measured average global TPW using satellite instrumentation and reported numerical data monthly until Jan 2021 at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202101.time_series.txt. I used EXCEL to make the graph.
Thanks!
Please consider adding the provenance to the graph.
willard…”An excellent example of how climate change accumulates is Earths energy imbalance. I am a climate scientist and have a new book on this, about to be published by Cambridge University Press”.
***
What’s wrong Willard, too embarrassed to point out this is written by Kevin Trenberth, who thinks nothing of interfering in peer review on behalf of climate alarmists. In the Climategate emails he was caught admitting warming had stopped (during the IPCC claimed hiatus) and that it was a travesty that no one knew why.
In the same Climategate scandal, IPCC Coordingating Lead Author, Phil Jones, of Had-crut, partnered at the time with Trenberth, claimed he and Kevin (could that be Kevin Trenberth?) would ensure that certain skeptic’s paper would not get into the IPCC review. One of the papers was co-authored by John Christy of UAH.
Here he is, in this paper, confusing electromagnetic energy with thermal energy. Little wonder his energy budget makes no sense.
“That remaining 460 TW is the problem were facing. That excess energy, trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is heating up the planet. That is the Earths energy imbalance, or in other words, global warming”.
Trenberth claims to be a climate scientist, yet he can’t tell the difference between electronmagnetic energy and heat. He points out that the Sun ‘bombards’ the Earth with so many Tw of ‘energy’, then he implies the same energy gets trapped by GHGs on the way out, causing an ‘energy’ imbalance.
Energy in = energy out is not the problem, it’s the ‘EM in’ … ‘heat out’ that is the problem. Only heat can cause global warming and heat cannot be trapped by GHGs. GHGs can only trap about 5% of EM radiated from the surface and because CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere it is limited by the Ideal Gas Law to producing heat in proportion to its mass percent. That means for every 1C warming, CO2 can only contribute about 0.04C.
John Christy of UAH, studying during his grad years under Trenberth. Since John graduated and got into satellite work, and noticed the sats were reporting far less warming than the warming implied by Trenberth, Trenbrth has been out to get him ever since.
That’s what kind of scientist you are quoting. A scientist whose partner at IPCC reviews claims both of them connived to block a paper co-authored by John Christy.
> In the [CGs Kevin] was caught admitting warming had stopped (during the IPCC claimed hiatus) and that it was a travesty that no one knew why.
You have a very imaginative memory, Gordo!
That’s not what Kevin admitted.
It was not a why-question.
Kevin said the same thing publicly.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Think this quote came from Willard…
Its Physics all the way down. Particles and fields. Physical laws and initial conditions. To the depth of reality we have so far plumbed, there is no evidence for anything else. Brian Greene”.
***
Is this the same physics that claims all matter in the universe suddenly appeared out of nothing? And don’t most physics students accept that propaganda without questioning it?
Is this the same physics which these days claims that gravity is not a force but a spacetime anomaly? BTW…spacetime comes from Special Relativity and it doesn’t work anywhere but in mysterious dimensions other than Earth.
Although this is not fundamentally physics, evolution theory depends for its basis on covalent bonding theory, a field of chemistry but originating in physics. Abiogenesis, the fundamental theory of evolution’s beginning, tries to explain how atoms with no life can bond together to produce life.
The book on chemical bonding was written by Linus Pauling. He went to Europe in the 1930s to learn quantum theory. At the time, he had expertise in x-ray bombardment of atoms/molecules to determine their shape. He brought QM theory back to North America and combined it with his x-ray studies, to explain the covalent bond.
There is nothing in covalent theory that can account for life. No matter how you bond hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, phosphorus and nitrogen, there is no way to form a living molecule. It was tried in the 1950s and all they got was a pool of tar. They concluded that the environment required to produce the tar could not support life.
So, here we have another idiot making outlandish claims about physics. Let’s face it, the past 100+ year have been wasted in physics. We have made some gains but wasted a whole lot of time on stupidity like the Big Bang and spacetime nonsense from Einstein.
When a physicist of note, like Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, and an expert on time, claimed that Einstein’s theories were bad thought experiments, and that Einstein did not understand measurement, he was quietly forced out the door.
That’s why we are stuck with nonsense like catastrophic global warming and covid theory, we have idiots running science. We badly need a fundamental transformation in thinking in which skeptical thought is embraced rather than rejected out of hand.
The quote came from Tyson, Gordo.
If you have the time to write long screeds every night before bed time, you have the time to CTRL-F.
rlh…”Does the Moon rotate? Does the Moon spin on its axis?
Yes! The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once on its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month”.
***
You keep saying that but I have never seen you prove it. Lay out an x-y plane with the Earth at 0,0 and the Moon initially along the positive x-axis at 5,0. Draw an arrow from the Moon’s centre to the side that always faces the Earth. Now, start the Moon rotating CCW and show me how you can keep that arrow pointed at 0,0 (the Earth) while rotating it through 360 degrees per orbit.
It is not possible and I have shown you several times why it is not possible, yet you ignore my proof without rebutting it.
Here it is once again and it is irrefutable. Same drawing as above but this time draw a line perpendicular to the arrow tip. This line will also be perpendicular to the x-axis at say 4,0, to allow a lunar radius of 1. As the Moon rotates, that perpendicular line will be a tangent line at any point on a circle drawn out by the near face as it orbits.
Please note, that tangent line will constantly change orientation as the Moon orbits.
Back to the start at 5,0. You have the Moon as a circle centred at 5,0 with an arrow drawn from its centre to 4,0. Therefore the arrow is a radial line of the Moon. Now go to the opposite side, the side that always points away from the Earth, and draw another line perpendicular to the far side, touching it and perpendicular to the x-axis at 6,0. As the Moon orbits that perpendicular line will be a tangent line at any point on a circle traced out by the far side.
You now have the near side and the far side with parallel tangents on concentric circles throughout the entire orbit. If the Moon was rotating, the inner tangent and outer tangent would exchange places by the half orbit position. And they would not be able to orbit in parallel.
That’s pretty well a QED unless you can come up with something that transcends basic physics.
“You keep saying that but I have never seen you prove it.”
If I go out at night and observe the Moon, it always keeps one face pointing to Earth. If I apply Newton’s and Kepler’s Laws correctly they explain the orbit but not the orientation. If I conclude that the Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit, all is then satisfied.
How does that rotation arise? Tidal locking of the Moon to the Earth over many millennia.
Prove me wrong.
RLH, you have no clue about science. Just because you “conclude” something ain’t science.
Moon’s motion is easily explained by a ball-on-a-string.
“Tidal locking” is nonsense. It is easily disproved.
You couldn’t solve the easy problem about “gravitational torque”. All you can do is troll.
Tidal locking is fact. Accepted by scientists the world over. Only you and your tiny clique disagree.
Is rotating 1.5 times per orbit an example of “tidal locking”?
Hint: You don’t have a clue about any of this.
Hint: You have no clue about science or the scientific method.
GR,
I can’t believe that you are as dumb as your argument suggests so the only explanation for the argument ‘does the moon rotate on its axis?’ has to be in the assumption of whether or not the axis rotates once for each time the moon goes around the earth. But it is not valid to define the axis as rotating. It’s a line so deciding that it is rotating is meaningless. Your statement “If the Moon was rotating, the inner tangent and outer tangent would exchange places by the half orbit position.” is incorrect. You would never make it as a Mechanical Engineer thinking like that.
Dan, please stop trolling.
clint r…”TM, Gordon also reported their response. They indicated Moon was only rotating relative to the stars. We know of course that the stars cant tell the difference between orbiting and rotating. Hopefully Gordon will expand on this if he sees it”.
***
That’s about it but NASA did not expand on my return query about the stars. I pointed out that if the Moon was not rotating in our current reference frame it could not rotate in any reference frame.
Neither have I received a reply from any spinner on the obvious. It requires a force to produce motion in a mass. If that force is not there, to cause rotation, for example, changing reference frames cannot produce such a force to create motion.
The spinners, and likely NASA, believe that motion can be instigated simply by changing reference frames. There are people in quantum theory who believe an electron can be in two places at the same time.
I wrote another email regarding this garbage and received no reply…
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4709
It’s obvious that the idiot who created this animation is using sunlight shining on the Moon to give the appearance that it is rotating about its axis. Only a serious spinner could fall for that. The shadow created by sunlight APPEARS to be rotating but it is not rotating about the lunar axis. It is the orbital motion causing the lighted area to give the appearance of rotation.
Shame on NASA for misleading people.
Look at the small circle surrounding the Moon with the partial radial line in it. That line should be extended all the way to the Earth and if it is, and it is kept in mind that the near side must always face the Earth, it becomes blatantly apparent that the Moon is not rotating locally. Nor is it rotating at all.
Forget the lighted area and focus on the near face where it touches the radial line. Only someone with a problem with illusions could miss the obvious. The near side is always perpendicular to the radial line. That means the far side is also perpendicular to an extended radial line therefore the near side and the far side are always moving in parallel. That is not possible with a rotating body in an orbit.
“NASA did not expand on my return query about the stars”
You expect a reply from them? You are deluded. They already have a answer to you question about the Moon rotating in the FAQ.
Gordo repeats his delusional physics again:
Gordo continues to display his lack of understanding of the concept of an inertial reference frame, which in this instance, is a set of coordinates which are fixed in the celestial sphere. Any set of coordinates fixed in the stars would suffice to define “not rotating” because all such coordinates are not rotating wrt any other such set of coordinates.
Godo fails to understand that a coordinate system based on the Earth-Moon radial line is rotating wrt inertial coordinates, thus can not be used to assess absolute rotation. That the Moon appears not to rotate is an illusion based on your choice of coordinates.
Suppose that you shoot a cannon ball at the Moon. In your coordinate system, the instantaneous velocity would be parallel to the Earth-Moon axis. But, before the cannon ball could reach the Moon, the Earth-Moon axis would rotate and the cannon shot would miss the target. That’s the result of the fact that the cannon ball’s motion vector is in a fixed direction wrt inertial space, not fixed in a local reference frame, as Newton realized long ago. Similarly, the Earth fixed lat/lon coordinate system can not be used to chart the path of a cannon shot at the surface without correction for the Coriolis Effect due to the Earth’s rotation.
I’m sure that the folks at NASA had a good laugh reading your e-mail. On this subject, you deserve to be ignored.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
clint r…here is my second email to NASA…no reply…
Some people at NASA are claiming it is a myth that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis once per orbit. This argument is scientifically unsound from an engineering perspective as I will demonstrate.
Look at the image at https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4709
The author of the images has drawn a radial line inside a circle around the Moon and it is pointed to the Earth’s centre. Since the same side of the Moon must always point to the Earth, that partial radial line must be butted against that lunar side at all times as the radial line rotates.
The author, for some reason that escapes me, has superimposed lighting from the Sun. It is the lighting cast by the Sun that is rotating, not the Moon. The partial radial line proves that conclusively. Since the same side of the Moon must always point in the direction of that radial line it means that face is revolving around the Earth in an inner orbit. In essence, you can consider that partial radial line as being welded to the near lunar face.
If you project the radial line through the Moon, the far side of the Moon will be revolving in an outer orbit while the centre revolves in an intermediate orbit. All points along the radial line within the Moon will be revolving in inner orbits between the near face orbit and the far face orbit. Since all points on that radial line are revolving in concentric orbits it is not possible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis.
It seems obvious that the author of the image could not demonstrate local rotation with the provision that the same face always points to the Earth. therefore, he used a slight of hand to fool the eye into thinking it does. Even at that, the near face NEVER performs a full 360 degree rotation, in fact, it does not rotate in the slightest about a local axis.
Watch where the radial line meets the Moon and following it through an entire orbit. What we are seeing here is translation. The Moon has only linear momentum and it is bent slowly into an orbit by Earth gravitational field.
A good exercise for NASA pilots would be to imagine a runway built right around the Equator. An aircraft then taxis right around the Equator on that runway. The same side of the aircraft always points to the centre of the Earth while the nose-tail axis constantly changes its orientation till it rotates through 360 degrees wrt the stars. That is translation without local rotation.
Now, visualize the aircraft taking off and maintaining an altitude of 35,000 feet. Presume also that the aircraft can maintain that altitude and momentum right around the Earth. It is now essentially orbiting the Earth in a manner similar to the Moon. Both have a constant linear momentum and gravity will hold them in orbit.
The nose-tail axis maintains a constant altitude yet it points in every direction of the compass throughout an orbit wrt the stars. Any pilot will tell you what would happen if the aircraft rotated once about it nose-tail centre of gravity per orbit. Yet, you at NASA maintain the Moon must perform the same rotation about a local axis. The Moon’s near face points in every direction of the compass as well, wrt the stars, but as evidenced by the aircraft, the Moon does not have to rotate to have the near face do that.
Translation alone accomplishes that feat.
“here is my second email to NASA…no reply”
Why would they reply to nuts?
RLH,
NOAA (the National Hurricane Centre) and I had an exchange of views via email a few years ago. Someone there thought that a 1 in 50 year event meant that it happened once in every 50 years.
The guy at the other end wound up agreeing that travelling to a location immediately after such an event was virtually a guarantee of safety from a severe hurricane! His view seemed to change when I asked if he could confirm the substance of his last email in a signed letter from NOAA.
At that point, it seems I became a nutter.
Rather like the National Science Foundation denying Archimedes principle, and sticking to their view that melting sea ice raised sea levels. Oh well, what would an old Greek with a strange name like Archimedes know? He probably didn’t even have a PhD!
Just another nutter.
As to NASA, for years it used PR figures that led to completely nonsensical outcomes, and preferred modelling to experiment, possibly resulting in the preventable deaths of some astronauts. Richard Feynman’s report observed, at the end, “Nature cannot be fooled.”
So who were the nutters here?
Anyone who thinks the Moon does not rotate on its axis once per orbit is a nutter.
RLH,
Oh well, that makes me a nutter in your opinion. Unfortunately, if you add up all the opinions in the universe from those who think I am a nutter, and add $5, you can probably buy a cup of coffee.
As I mentioned before, just one force (gravity) acting on the Moon which is travelling in a straight line initially, describes the Moon’s motion well enough for me.
The Moon is not a perfect sphere, and gravity readings per NASA’s GRAIL project show that Moon’s gravity field is not symmetrical, and there are anomalous mass concentrations within the Moon. “So what?”, you might well say. Well, just as a pendulum bob inexorably ends up closest to the Earth’s COG, so will the massiest part of the Moon. And this eventually places the COG of the Moon closest to the COG of the Earth, just like a pendulum under the influence of gravity.
Call it what you like – tidal locking, or something else, if you like. I rather like Newton’s thoughts. Seem to be confirmed by measurements. Some at the time thought he was a nutter – on religious as well as scientific matters, not to mention his alchemical beliefs. Maybe I’m accidentally in good company.
“As I mentioned before, just one force (gravity) acting on the Moon which is travelling in a straight line initially, describes the Moons motion well enough for me.”
That describes an orbit, not a rotation.
“The nose-tail axis maintains a constant altitude yet it points in every direction of the compass throughout an orbit wrt the stars.”
What hold an aircraft aloft? Lift.
What direction does it operate in? Opposite to gravity.
What direction does the nose-tail axis maintain? Right angles to gravity.
Does the Moon have such a vector. No.
Is your example useful for the Moon’s orbit. No.
You about as logical as a ball-on-a-string. None of what that shows (or you present) relates to orbits.
Thanks Gordon.
I think it’s interesting that no NASA employee has joined the conversation. You know they follow this blog. Anyone that understands orbital motions would quickly realize Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. None of the cult idiots here know anything about the relevant physics. And they reject learning.
There is no better example than RLH. Like several others he claimed over and over the ball-on-a-string was not a valid analogy for orbital motion. I took a few minutes to find 3 different “.edu” links that used the analogy.
RLH still refuses to learn.
“Anyone that understands orbital motions would quickly realize Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.”
On the contrary. The Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth. As NASAs FAQ suggests.
None of the cult idiots here know anything about the relevant physics. And they reject learning.
There is no better example than RLH. Like several others he claimed over and over the ball-on-a-string was not a valid analogy for orbital motion. I took a few minutes to find 3 different “.edu” links that used the analogy.
RLH still refuses to learn.
You are in the tiny, tiny, cult. You just don’t want to admit it.
Please also visit Ron Clutz’s blog:
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
Just for “heat trappers”.
What do you think happens when GHGs (or anything else) “traps” heat?
And then what happens to GHGs (or anything else) when you remove the heat source?
You are all either stupid, delusional, or your Bump of Gullibility (in the Phrenological sense) is so enormous you have to walk crabwise to compensate!
Go away, trap some heat, and show it to a “distinguished scholar”. Let me know his reaction.
[laughing a bit – or maybe a lot]
“what happens to GHGs (or anything else) when you remove the heat source?”
Whoops, Flynnson thinks the sun disappears at night. Guess what? It hasn’t.
Nate,
You are a devoted SkyDragon cultist, trying to put words in your fantasiy’s mouth.
Nope, doesn’t work. You can run, but you can’t hide, dummy!
Try again – what happens to GHGs (or anything else) when you remove the heat source?
Go on – try saying they increase in temperature! You’re an idiot, just like the rest of the “heat trappers”.
Or accept reality – the Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Mike Flynn,
The Universe cools down since the beginning of time.
You still can cook an egg!
Weary Wee Willy,
And the Earth has cooled to its present temperature. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, of course. And no, Carl Sagan’s strange fantasies are only evidence of delusional thinking.
So do at least try to come up with something based on physical laws as currently known.
Or just continue denying and diverting. Eggs? What next?
You’re an idiot. You can run, but you can’t hide.
Try answering the question. Abandon the SkyDragon cult! Live free!
Mike Flynn, Monumental Fragility,
Dragon cranks like have no bench.
Sorry!
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Try again what happens to GHGs (or anything else) when you remove the heat source? Go on try saying they increase in temperature! ”
After all this time trolling here, do you still have no clue what the GHE theory is actually saying?
What is the point of continually posting red-herring strawmen that literally nobody is claiming?
Are you simply a moron, just a troll, or both?
Mike Flynn, Mind Famine,
Please confer to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
Many thanks!
Wayward Wee Willy,
“Please confer to”?
You witless fool! Why should I waste my time following a link posted by someone who can’t even write intelligible English?
Maybe you should stick to your infantile “skillz”, “modulz”, “Muricans”, and all the other claptrap that you think implies intelligence.
Tell me, who is more deluded – you, Michael Mann, or Ken Rice?
Mike Flynn,
Marshmallow Footwear,
There are two answers to your silly question–
Because you like Doritos.
Because you clicked on the link that leads to Kevin’s piece.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
–Swenson says:
August 18, 2021 at 3:25 AM
Just for heat trappers.
What do you think happens when GHGs (or anything else) traps heat?
And then what happens to GHGs (or anything else) when you remove the heat source?–
I think I qualify as someone who thinks Earth traps heat.
I think the ocean traps geothermal heat, but it does not seem to me that the atmosphere traps much geothermal heat.
I think if just talking about the Earth’s atmosphere one dismiss the insignificant amount heat from Geothermal heat from land surface which is trapped. Whereas with larger atmospheres such Venus or gas giants, or stars such atmospheres do trap heat that should not dismiss as trivial.
So with Venus it’s mostly about trapping heat, I don’t think “geothermal” heat is a likely reason Venus rocky surface air temperature is hot. But it’s not likely due mostly from a lack evidence, and given my idea of why Venus is surface air is hot, it’s basically the clouds are heated, and atmosphere traps the small amount of energy that is absorbed from the sunlight heating clouds which in turn heats entire atmosphere.
But at further distance from the sun, the Venus clouds would absorb a lot less heat.
And guess if Venus were even closer the Sun it’s surface would be hotter- I had not thought about that before. How much hotter would Venus be if it was at Mercury or closer distance from the Sun.
What seems “obvious” is if you blocked all sunlight from reaching Venus, put solar shade at Venus L-1, it would take very long time for Venus to cool, somewhere on order of centuries- because Venus emits a small amount energy, and it’s hot.
So if blocks the sunlight, Venus would immediately emit less. Because I think Venus is heated at it’s cloud level and only portion of that sunlight’s heat is added to entire atmosphere and I would say the larger portion, within a short time period emits into space. So in terms entire atmosphere and rocky surface it emits a small amount of energy to space, the warmed clouds are adding back that small amount and the larger amount is more quickly radiated into space.
So within 1 day, after all sunlight is blocked from reaching Venus, I would say Venus emits 1/2 as much as it does now. And therefore takes long time for it’s surface air to cool by say 50 K.
Earth is similar, but should take a lot longer for surface air to cool by 50 K.
Earth will immediately cool in the sense of how we measure global air temperature, we average high and low air temperature. Within mins of blocking sun, it strongly affect daytime high’s temperature, and within a day wipes it completely out- you just have night time temperatures:)
Some call our planet, spaceship Earth.
Planets could be starships.
Some call our Sun our giant fusion reactor.
One could call our galaxy is way to travel to different stars.
And there are thousands of spacefaring civilizations in Galaxy
which use our galaxy’s star traveling system.
All star systems in our galaxy are traveling in different orbits.
There could be many solar systems in clump in same galactic orbit
which dancing with each other, but other stars or clumps of stars are going to in different orbit and cross in other stars or clumps of stars which are dancing with each other.
If had a planet which wasn’t close to a star, and therefore one might not call it a planet, but rather a large space rock, say the size of our Moon, it would not a solar wind removing it’s atmosphere. And seems possible instead of losing atmosphere it could gain atmosphere. And since the most common element in our universe
is Hydrogen and Helium, it could be gain an atmosphere of mostly Hydrogen and helium.
We assume our solar system has ejected planets from our solar system. And we can assume other star system ejected planets from their solar system. In terms of orbital energy, it’s easier to leave our solar system then compared change our orbital energy so as to hit our Sun. At our orbital velocity of about 30 km per second. And 1 AU, one needs 42.1 km/sec to escape the Sun’s gravity well. So need to add 12.1 km/sec to our current speed to leave our solar system, and one lose far more than 12.1 km per second from the 30 km/sec velocity to hit our Sun. And has general matter, the further from the sun, the less change of orbital energy is needed to hit the Sun- from Jupiter distance it’s easier, and from Mercury distance it’s harder. But further from the sun, it’s also easier to leave the Sun, and our biggest planet Jupiter is tossing rocks at the Sun and away from the sun, and it’s also collected a lot of rocks in it’s L-points [L-4 and L-5 mostly- also called, Jupiter’s Trojans].
Or there should lots of existing planets/large rocks in galactic orbits which have been adding atmosphere of mostly Hydrogen and Helium. Or one doesn’t need to push a planet away from orbit around a star, because it’s already happened. One simply need to find one, which is most suitable for our travelling purposes.
And the advantage of having a large atmosphere around planet far from a star, is the atmosphere “trapped” heat. So one could star travel in warm atmosphere with view of a dark sky and it’s stars.
For interested persons: a very good resumee of observations undertaken and theories developed for the lunar rotation, by
Karol Koziel (1979)
On the development of our knowledge of the motion of the moon around its centre of mass
https://tinyurl.com/7mn5c8cs
In this article, Koziel refers to Delambre’s Histoire de l’Astronomie Moderne; therein we can find an interesting hint on the fact that Cassini’s laws were known to Kepler (60 years earlier), and probably to Hevelius as well.
According to bobdroege, the moon does not rotate about its center of mass. I’m sure he will be along to correct you soon, Bindidon.
> According to bobdroege, the moon does not rotate about its center of mass.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Why are you giving him free wins like that?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-800942
“I would”
Yes, he wrote those words, and others.
“argue”
bob said:
“Except dear [DREMT],
I have never argued that something is rotating around its center of mass.
I would rather argue that nothing is rotating around its center of mass.
The Moon certainly isn’t, the Earth certainly isn’t, and my boomerang isn’t either.”
Bindidon referred to “the motion of the moon around its centre of mass”. The two disagree. Bob should challenge Bindidon.
“I would argue” != “I claim”
I am not saying bob claims anything other than that the moon rotates on its own axis. However, he disagrees with Bindidon on the use of “center of mass”, and should challenge him on it.
And that is not the only thing they disagree on…
…Bindidon agrees with the “Non-Spinners” that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.
[KIDDO] I am not saying bob claims
[ALSO KIDDO] According to bobdroege
bob disagrees with Bindidon on both the usage of “center of mass” and the matter of whether the ball on a string etc is rotating on its own axis. That is just going by what they have both written.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. After putting words in Bob’s mouth, now you put ideas in his mind.
Please stop doing that.
I am going purely on what they have both written. They disagree.
DR EMPTY,
First you have to figure out that there is a difference between rotating around a center of mass, and motion about a center of mass.
Then you may find out that Bindidon and I do not in fact disagree.
If you paid attention to Bindidon’s prior comments you would notice that he often writes about “the moon’s rotation about its center of mass” in place of “its own axis”.
You and Bindidon also disagree on the ball on a string etc.
> If you paid attention to Bindidons prior comments
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
DREMPTY,
The thing is, it is known where the axis the Moon rotates around is located.
Also the axis the Moon revolves around in known.
The exact location of the center of mass of the Moon remains a mystery.
Everything we have discussed is rotating, except your chalk circle which fell to the ground under the merry go round after my not rotating hole saw cut it from the floor of the merry go round.
I am not interested in splitting hairs with Bindidon when I can take my double headed axe to your position.
> except your chalk circle
Counterpoint:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWt8TYoRZWI
–bobdroege says:
August 18, 2021 at 1:46 PM
DREMPTY,
The thing is, it is known where the axis the Moon rotates around is located.–
It’s more 1000 km below the Earth surface, and racing across earth surface at around 1000 mph.
The chalk circle is not rotating on its own axis, bob. It is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round. As Bindidon and several other “Soft Spinners” would agree.
Don’t worry, nobody expects you to understand.
Who’s “you,” Kiddo?
Click on the link.
“You” is bob, the person I directed my comment towards.
A simple “I agree with you, Bob” would have done, Kiddo.
The disagreement under discussion is between bob and Bindidon.
[BOB] Everything we have discussed is rotating, except your chalk circle which fell to the ground under the merry go round after my not rotating hole saw cut it from the floor of the merry go round.
[KIDDO] The chalk circle is not rotating on its own axis, bob.
[BINDIDON] The wooden horse on the merry-go-round rotates about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
Wait…
[KIDDO] From the inertial reference frame, the wooden horse on the merry-go-round is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
You’re Binny?
DR DREMPTY,
“The chalk circle is not rotating on its own axis, bob. It is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round. As Bindidon and several other Soft Spinners would agree.”
The chalk circle has stopped rotating because my no rotating hole saw cut it loose, now it lies beneath the merry go round no longer moving.
The funny thing is that you actually think you have a valid argument. The hole saw cuts out the chalk circle because the entire merry-go-round is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. Nobody is denying that the m-g-r is moving, it is rotating. The chalk circle is just a part of the m-g-r. Therefore it rotates. Just not on its own axis.
Gbaikie,
Sorry,
“The thing is, it is known where the axis the Moon rotates around is located.–
It’s more 1000 km below the Earth surface, and racing across earth surface at around 1000 mph.”
That’s where the axis the Moon is revolving around,
The axis the Moon is rotating around can be found through the Moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
If the moon were rotating about both an external axis, and its internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
What you should actually be arguing is that the moon is translating around the Earth, whilst rotating on its own axis.
Only trouble with that is, you then lose your orbital axis. Oh well.
You will deny that any of what I have said is correct, even though it all is.
> What you should actually be arguing is that the moon is translating
Remind me again why your argument is not purely semantic, Kiddo.
That is, without that silly dichotomy between concepts and meanings.
Without an orbital axis, bob does not have two axes to compare.
I really told you, Kiddo:
Your main problem isn’t that you’re wrong in the sense of being incorrect, tho you are, at least most of the times.
Your main problem is that you’re wrong in the sense of saying something that is clearly false.
Geometrical gymnastics have little potency in the real world, and in the real world the Moon is said to be rotating.
At least have the decency to fish out Henry’s arguments, for your you-and-him fight is getting tedious.
Without two axes to compare, he cannot say that one is oriented differently to the other.
More generally, without two axes, one can’t fight with two axes.
Without being able to say that one axis is oriented differently to the other, the arguments surrounding the lunar “axial tilt” go bye bye.
Since there are only two occurrences for “axial tilt,” Kiddo, I’m not sure where you get the “arguments” to which you handwave right now.
Something tells me you’re trying to play squirrel.
I looooove to play squirrels!
Although, I guess they could still argue that the moon’s “axis” is tilted wrt the orbital plane. However, I would just repeat one of my previous counter-arguments, that a moon could have “axial tilt” even if it were moving as how the “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Thus “axial tilt” has no relation to whether or not a moon is rotating on its own axis or not.
We already been over that one, Kiddo:
The Moon could be in an infinity of other ways.
It just so happens that it’s just in the way it actually is.
Your problem here is that you forgot Henry’s arguments, and so you have no realistic model to offer.
Please fetch them!
There was a superfluous “or not” in that last comment. I wonder if Willard has noticed that I am not actually responding to him, but am simply killing time until either bob responds, or Willard finally takes the hint and stops replying?
In fairness, what preceded “or not” was superfluous too, Kiddo.
No, he is still replying, with his usual content-free insulting drivel, absolutely desperately obsessed with me as always. I have another stalker, it seems.
**It’s more 1000 km below the Earth surface, and racing across earth surface at around 1000 mph.”
That’s where the axis the Moon is revolving around,**
Correct.
**The axis the Moon is rotating around can be found through the Moon.**
Are you saying it has speed it’s surface is spinning at?
Say there pipe which 1000 meter long in low Earth orbit.
One end we will call A, and other end B.
And we will make end A always point at Earth.
And the time of one orbit is 90 min.
Are you saying the ends would be spinning around the middle
of the pipe?
Or 1000 meter diameter is 3,141.59 meter, are ends moving
at 3,141.59 meter per 90 mins.
What if pipe is instead of 1000 meter is 10,000 meter long.
Would ends moving at 31,415.9 meters per 90 mins or
31,415.9 / 90 = 349.065 meter per minute. Or 5.8177 m/s.
And ends would move faster if pipe was 100,000 meter long?
“That’s where the axis the Moon is revolving around,**
Correct.
**The axis the Moon is rotating around can be found through the Moon.**
He said revolving not rotating.
RLH obviously did not read the exchange properly.
DREMT is a nutter and unable to think logically.
You are unable to follow the exchange between gbaikie and bob, as your comment proved.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Richard isn’t into following exchanges, including his.
” Im sure he will be along to correct you soon, Bindidon. ”
I am not that sure.
Simply because if Bob would ever feel the need to correct anybody, he would address the correction to the Polish astronomer Karol Koziel, the author of the paper, and to the hundreds of scientists Koziel directly or indirectly reports the work of in his paper.
P.S. I am not a specialist, but I would wonder if “rotation around the center of mass” and “rotation around an inner axis” would mean something different to astronomers, physicists or mathematicians talking about celestial bodies :- )
J.-P. D.
No, I didn’t seriously expect bob to come and correct you. That would involve some consistency on his part. What I expected was that he would try to deny that there was any disagreement between you. Unsurprisingly, that’s exactly what happened.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
You simply misunderstand what Bob’s trying to illustrate.
God, you are pathetic.
bob is saying that we do not know exactly where the center of mass of the moon is, therefore we cannot say that the moon necessarily “rotates around its center of mass”. Everybody else is perfectly happy to use “rotates around its center of mass” as interchangeable with “rotates on its own axis”. It’s a minor detail, but one on which Bindidon and bob disagree, nevertheless. bob is not trying to “illustrate” anything, he is just desperately trying to score points.
Dear Kiddo,
There’s a difference between saying:
[ALETHIC] The Moon does not rotate around its center of mass.
and
[EPISTEMIC] We do not know if the Moon rotates around its center of mass.
Here would be pathetic:
[PATHETIC] Please stop trolling.
Here would be bob:
“I would rather argue that nothing is rotating around its center of mass.
The Moon certainly isn’t”
The “is” follows a “would,” Kiddo.
I hope you do not read historical novels.
“The moon certainly isn’t”.
“I would rather argue”
Where did Bob argue, Kiddo?
DR EMPTY,
The point I am making is that it is not necessary for the rotation about its own axis need not be through the center of mass for the object in question to be rotating around its own axis.
And the point I am making is that you disagree with Bindidon, on a couple of issues related to the moon discussion – one minor, one absolutely colossal – but you are never going to argue with him about them.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Binny is following closely the papers he cites.
Bob is showing that you have no idea what you’re talking about when you’re left on your own.
I disagree.
Of course you do.
The “Spinners” should argue amongst themselves, because there are two clear groups. Those that understand that the ball on a string etc is not rotating on its own axis, but still think that the moon is (the “Soft Spinners”) and those who think that the ball on a string etc is rotating on its own axis, along with the moon (the “Hard Spinners”).
We’ve already been over this, Kiddo:
https://xkcd.com/169/
It’s no better than Duty Calls.
In fact it’s worse.
Once the two groups have settled their differences, and all the “Hard Spinners” have either converted to “Soft Spinners” or “Non-Spinners”, then the lunar discussions can stop as far as I am concerned.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
There’s you and a quatuor of trolls who bring comic relief.
And there’s everyone else, along the scientific community.
Interrogate someone long enough and you’ll get a false confession. Is that what you want?
So, let the “Spinners” argue amongst themselves. That would be more interesting than endless “Spinner” vs. “Non-Spinner” discussions. I find it fascinating that the two sub-groups of “Spinners” never argue with each other.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LetsYouAndHimFight
What’s funny is that Kiddo does not realize that he’s the only one who at least tries to offer arguments. They’re not all coherent, but at least he tries.
It’s funny because he presents his idiosyncratic ideas as a position that is endorsed by a team or something!
I guess it is difficult for the “Hard Spinners” to accept the challenge to their years of programming and conditioning that the “Soft Spinners” present. Since they have to take the “Soft Spinners” seriously, whereas they dismiss the “Non-Spinners” out of hand as cranks. It must be extremely unsettling for them to hear that people they normally respect are arguing the polar opposite to their view on an important part of the issue.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
The only challenge is your trolling.
You should stop.
I remember MikeR was so taken aback when Norman challenged him about the ball on a string etc not rotating on its own axis that he had to ask if it was really him. The cognitive dissonance was so great for MikeR, he actually believed for a while that somebody from the “Non-Spinner” side was posting pretending to be Norman!
DREMT is a nutter at best.
Then when RLH agreed that Mt. Everest was not rotating on its own axis, he got scared he was losing credibility by siding with the “Non-Spinners”, so started trying to wriggle his way out of it, and over-compensating by going around calling all the “Non-Spinners” nutters. All easier for him to do than trying to argue against the “Hard Spinners”.
DREMTPY,
I can play that Serengeti game too.
“Once the two groups have settled their differences, and all the “Hard Spinners” have either converted to “Soft Spinners” or “Non-Spinners”, then the lunar discussions can stop as far as I am concerned.”
You say the Moon is rotating around an external axis, but Clint R says the Moon is not rotating at all.
So why don’t you two get a room and hash that all out and come back when you agree on what the Moon is doing.
I’ll separate you into two groups the idiot non-spinners and the moronic non-spinners.
You and Clint R can select which group that you think represents your point of view.
We both agree that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left”.
Let me know when you are ready to start arguing with the “Soft Spinners”.
DR EMPTY,
I have provided a proof that the ball on a string is rotating around its own axis.
Neither you, nor Clint R, nor Robertson, nor any of the so-called soft spinners have refuted it.
Here it is again.
Take the ball and string, and hold the ball so it remains orientated on a spot on the wall, now revolve the ball around the hand that is holding the string, and observe that the string wraps around the ball as you revolve it around your hand.
When you revolve the ball around your hand without holding it, the string doesn’t wrap around the ball, and the ball does not maintain its orientation on a spot on the wall.
Therefore the ball on a string is rotating around its own axis, as well as revolving around your hand.
If you don’t understand this, watch the video of the astronaut with the ball on a string where he lets go of the string and the ball continues to rotate.
Now I will wait for any refutation, but you have to do more than say I am wrong, you have to refute my arguments.
Which neither you, nor any of the non-spinners, nor anyone else has managed to do.
Thanks for playing, you loser.
“Take the ball and string, and hold the ball so it remains orientated on a spot on the wall, now revolve the ball around the hand that is holding the string, and observe that the string wraps around the ball as you revolve it around your hand.”
Thus you are translating the ball, not rotating it around an external axis.
“When you revolve the ball around your hand without holding it, the string doesn’t wrap around the ball, and the ball does not maintain its orientation on a spot on the wall.”
Here the ball is rotating around an external axis, without rotating about its own axis.
“Therefore the ball on a string is rotating around its own axis, as well as revolving around your hand.”
No, therefore the ball on a string is either:
1) Translating in a circle, plus rotating on its own axis. 2) Rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about its own axis.
Since 1) is an example of general plane motion, and you should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation, then the kinematically correct description for the ball on a string is 2).
Your “proof” goes poof.
There is no point in arguing with a nutter like DREMT.
You should be arguing with bob, RLH.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Richard isn’t into arguing.
DR EMPTY,
Your refutation is flying out the window because
“Since 1) is an example of general plane motion, and you should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation,”
As you say, general plane motion should not be used when a motion can be described as pure rotation or pure translation.
Please look up the definitions of the words “and” and “or” in a reputable dictionary.
1) is an example of pure rotation plus pure translation!
Not pure rotation or pure translation.
Also not pure translation plus no rotation.
Your refutation goes poof.
Thanks for playing you lose again, loser.
No, bob, 1) would be an example of general plane motion. 2) is an example of pure rotation (about an external axis). They are both ways of describing the same motion (that of the ball on a string), but since you should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation, and you can describe the movement of the ball on a string as 2), a pure rotation, then the correct description is 2).
> therefore the ball on a string is either
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. If the choices are equivalent, no “should” holds. Or else the debate revolves around your own semantic preferences.
But it’s hard to know what you hold equivalent, e.g.
How can you translate an object (or rather: how can an object translate) without rotating it around an external axis, again?
DR EMPTY,
Are you really that stupid?
That’s a rhetorical question by the way.
Ball on a string is an example of translation plus rotation, not pure rotation as you have claimed.
Here is your claim
“and you can describe the movement of the ball on a string as 2), a pure rotation,”
Well, no, you can not.
Willard and bob parade their ignorance.
At least I know the difference between “and” and “or”
General plane motion is a movement combining translation and rotation, bob. Hence 1) is an example of general plane motion.
2) is pure rotation about an external axis (i.e. no rotation about the ball’s own axis).
So 1 and 2 are not equivalent anymore.
Logical operators seem to escape you, Kiddo.
It’s not really that complicated, Willard.
1) and 2) are different ways to describe the same movement.
However, 1) would be classed as a general plane motion. 2) would be classed as a pure rotation.
Since you should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation, you should not describe the motion as 1). You should describe it as 2).
DR EMPTY,
You are still confusing the “and” operator with the “or’ operator.
That’s where you are going wrong.
Just repeating false statements doesn’t help your case.
Try pounding on your keyboard.
I am not confusing operators.
Build yourself a coherent dictionary, Kiddo. It might reduce your most abusive trolling, but then every good thing has its side effects.
Tim could follow this fine, when we discussed it. His "out" was that he didn’t believe this: "As you say, general plane motion should not be used when a motion can be described as pure rotation or pure translation" was a valid rule. I showed him notes from Brown University that mentioned it, and he tried to pass it off as some sort of mistake that if he contacted the person who wrote the notes, would be fixed.
Following is one thing, Kiddo. Being led astray is quite another.
Your out is “You should describe it as.”
If two descriptions are equivalent, rooting for one over the other becomes a mere question of semantic preference.
Oh, and please note that I’m not Tim:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-757385
Tracking back exchanges is my jam.
Not when there is a rule in kinematics which states that one should be used in favor of the other. A rule that bobdroege has already acknowledged is correct, when he said:
"As you say, general plane motion should not be used when a motion can be described as pure rotation or pure translation"
> Not when there is a rule in kinematics
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. It’s a pedagogical rule of thumb at best. And Tim showed you how one approach was to be preferred on pragmatic grounds. Unless we accept trolling as being pragmatic, that is.
And your “not when” is also wrong: a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation. That’s a geometric fact.
Yes, Willard. A general plane motion is the sum of a translation and a rotation. As I explained to bob at 11:02 AM. You couldn’t follow the discussion back then, and you cannot do so now.
You just have a fixed idea in your head that I must be wrong, no matter what, and then you base everything around that. You don’t listen, and you don’t attempt to understand.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. I follow every step you take in your rope-a-dope. And I don’t bite at your baits unless it helps me move the ball forward.
Now, focus. Your handout states that a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation. A general plane motion covers any motion: that’s why we say it’s general.
You simply prefer one description over another. So I’m correct in saying that you’re only making a semantic argument. None of what you say changes anything about reality.
Once you agree on that, we’ll be able to move on to Tim’s argument that your description sucks are modeling the Moon.
No, Willard. You don’t follow. You don’t understand. You don’t know your place. And you just won’t shut up.
There are three types of rigid body motion.
1) Translation.
2) Rotation.
3) General plane motion.
You do not class as a general plane motion that which can be classed as a pure translation or a pure rotation. The ball on a string can be classed as pure rotation, about an external axis. Thus, it is not a general plane motion.
DR EMPTY,
Check your Mahdavi text again,
An object that is in pure rotation is not translating, therefore not moving, therefore not what the Moon is doing.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
You’re asking too much out of a mere semantic argument.
We’re not trying to “class” types of motions. We’re trying offer a realistic model of the Moon’s behavior. You can’t just look in a handout for that.
It would help if you had a glossary. There are not many concepts to define: rotation, translation, orbit, revolution, spin. A good glossary would show how the concepts are interconnected.
If you cheat a bit you should find out how the concepts of rotation and translation are mostly interchangeable. But don’t cheat!
The ball on a string is in pure rotation about an external axis, so of course it’s moving! An object doesn’t have to translate to move. Rotation can be a form of motion from one location to another, about an axis, bob.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
You’re conflating description and reality.
The movement of a ball on a string can be described in many ways.
Open your mind.
As usual, we get to a logical contradiction from DR EMPTY,
“An object doesnt have to translate to move.”
No contradiction, bob, you appear to have lost your mind. An object can move via rotation. It can move from location A, to location B, via rotating about an axis that is external to the body. It does not have to translate to move.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Motion is just an isometry of a metric space.
I’m not wrong. In fact I am obviously correct.
In the following image, the object is moving from one location to another via rotation about an external point:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Rotation_illustration2.svg
QED
“Since you should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation, you should not describe the motion as 1). ”
DREMT clearly understands that a ball on a string CAN BE described as a General Plane Motion, per his favorite Kinematics textbook, Madhavi.
That book also clearly states that a ‘pure rotation’ is motion in which all parts move in CIRCLES around an axis.
Then why does he he blatantly contradict his own favorite textbook (and all others) when he claims the Moon in its elliptical orbit, can be described as in ‘pure rotation’?
He should understand that the Moon’s motion can ONLY be described as a general plane motion, IOW a TRANSLATION on an ellipse plus AXIAL ROTATION.
Of course, DREMT has shown that he simply is not capable of honesty on this point, for that would be admitting that he is a spinner, which he cannot do.
> In the following image
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Take a circle C. Rotate it on its center.
Has it moved?
The image in the picture has rotated about an external axis, Willard, and has moved. That is what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about rotating objects on their own axes.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Every isometry can be written as a composition of three or fewer reflections.
Willard, the image in the picture has moved from one physical location to another. bob was arguing that an object has to translate to move:
"An object that is in pure rotation is not translating, therefore not moving"
He was wrong.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Your figure has one point that has not moved.
The object has moved, Willard. Every part of the object. About the external point O.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
The concept you’re looking for is displacement.
The object has rotated about point O, Willard. The image file is named rotation and it comes from the Wiki entry on rotation.
Here, Kiddo:
“Check your Mahdavi text again”
Perhaps Mahdavi isn’t the only cricket park in town.
“There are three types of rigid body motion.
1) Translation.
2) Rotation.
3) General plane motion.
You do not class as a general plane motion that which can be classed as a pure translation or a pure rotation.”
DREMT obviously cares VERY MUCH about getting these things precisely right.
Per Madhavi, our Moon fits ONLY in category # 3.
Then WHY does DREMT erroneously insist it is a #2?
Because he cares VERY MUCH about getting these things precisely right, UNLESS it proves him absolutely wrong.
I have not referred to Madhavi in this discussion. As I said, the notes on general plane motion etc were from Brown University and the rotation image is from Wikipedia.
> I have not referred to Madhavi in this discussion.
Wait, Kiddo: are you throwing MADHAVI under the bus?
No, not at all.
Then your “I have not referred to Madhavi in this discussion” fizzles out, Kiddo.
For Bob clearly prefaced his remarks with “Check your Mahdavi text again.”
Where is it anyway? I never can find it.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
DR EMPTY.,
You fucked it up again:
“In the following image, the object is moving from one location to another via rotation about an external point:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Rotation_illustration2.svg
QED”
You dropped the clause “angular displacement” from the source, otherwise know as lying.
That motion is a displacement plus a rotation.
Or to use Mahdavi’s terms, a translation plus a rotation, or general plane motion.
Loser
Wrong, bob. Here is the source article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_(mathematics)
As you can see, under the image is written:
“Rotation of an object in two dimensions around a point O.”
It is just rotation. Not translation plus rotation.
DR EMPTY,
Still fucked up, you are referencing a mathematical definition of rotation.
That’s not the topic under discussion.
Try Astronomy.
“Rotation and revolution
Main article: Orbital revolution
While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis. Moons revolve around their planet, planets revolve about their star (such as the Earth around the Sun); and stars slowly revolve about their galaxial center. The motion of the components of galaxies is complex, but it usually includes a rotation component.”
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
and from the same place
“Stars, planets and similar bodies all spin around on their axes.”
As it says, all planets and similar bodies, like moons all spin on their own axes.
This discussion was about the ball on a string, bob, though that Wiki article on rotation you just linked to is definitely not your friend, re the moon.
The ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. It is rotating about an external axis, just like the object in the Wiki image. Since that is a pure rotation, you should not describe the motion of the ball on a string as a general plane motion.
A far simpler argument is that the ball on a string cannot rotate on its own axis, due to being held in place by the taut string.
Either way, your earlier proof most definitely went poof.
Thanks for the link, Kiddo.
Quick question. This motion:
isn’t classified in Madhavi.
What is it?
That comes under “rotation”, I think.
Possible. I suppose it depends on the relationship between the fixed point and the axis. A spinning top might involve more than rotation. It’s an interesting example for the Moon because it could help account for libration.
Now, take a look at figure 2. The example at the left is said to be a translation, and at the right a rotation. Suppose we don’t see the axes in both cases. All we see are the motions made by the two bodies.
Do you think it would be possible for the two bodies to make an identical motion using the two different kinds of motions?
Fig. 2(a) is curvilinear translation in a circle, Fig. 2(b) is rotation about an external axis. “Moon on the right”, and “moon on the left”, respectively. You may just have heard me discuss what you are asking a few times (rolls eyes).
P.S: there is no axis with translation.
DR EMPTY,
The object in your wiki article
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_(mathematics)
Is both revolving about point O and rotating around the center of the shape.
So sorry you don’t understand this
> You may just have heard me discuss what you are asking a few times
You discussed it so much that you misunderstand what I’m asking.
Take two objects O1 and O2. Do you it would be possible for them to exhibit the same arbitrary motion M while one rotates and one translates?
bob, you ridiculous clown, it is just rotating about point O. One single motion. Hence the solitary arrow and the labelling “Rotation of an object in two dimensions around a point O.”
Willard, I misunderstand nothing. All you are proving is that you do not follow my arguments, despite claiming that you do. As you should already know, the “moon on the right” could be described as rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating on its own axis clockwise once per orbit…or, as the “Spinners” see it, purely translating in a circle, with no axial rotation. So the answer to your question is yes, sort of, but it is a bit more complicated as it involves combinations of motions.
An object that is purely translating should not be able to be confused with one that is purely rotating (i.e. rotating about an external axis with no rotation about its own axis). The orientation of the two objects remains different throughout.
> I misunderstand nothing
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
You keep repeating your story as some kind of mantra that can answer my question. It won’t. That’s exactly why I ask it.
And you don’t answer it.
Do you even epicycles?
I gave you a full and detailed answer. Which is more than you deserve, by the way.
You forgot the simple answer, Kiddo.
Yes or no?
No, Willard, I did not miss the yes or no:
“…yes, sort of, but it is a bit more complicated as it involves combinations of motions.”
“Yes, sort of” isn’t “yes,” Kiddo.
I want a clear yes.
I don’t care what you want. You’ve got what you’ve got.
> You’ve got what you’ve got.
So I get that you won’t clearly acknowledge that there can be two equivalent descriptions of a motion.
Let’s try a simpler geometric problem:
Can you construct an ellipse with only one rotation?
Ftop_t used Desmos to demonstrate that by rotating an object about an external axis, the movement could indeed form an elliptical shape, or a circular one.
I’d like to see it, for an ellipse is a plane curve surrounding two focal points.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-582080
Thanks. This time I’ll save it somewhere.
Two questions to make sure we see the same things:
There is more than one rotation, right?
The “imaginary stick” represents the “string,” right?
The red dot demonstrates just rotation about the external axis. One single motion.
The green dot demonstrates rotation about the external axis, and rotation about the internal axis.
You can play and pause each of the rotations (external and internal) and view the results.
The “imaginary stick” is just to help with the visualization I think. You can think of it representing the string if you want.
I see. The question was:
Can you construct an ellipse with only one rotation?
It’s trivial to show that two rotations can create an ellipse. It’s in fact a gardener’s trick:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse#Pins-and-string_method
Turn off the internal axis rotation if you need to. Still an ellipse, with only one external axis rotation.
The ball on a string only has one string, Kiddo.
If we abstract elasticity, the string is of fixed length.
If we abstract your body, the end point of that string is the fixed point.
A rotation around that fixed point cannot create an ellipse unless the ball translates on the string.
Your guru created a verbal defense.
I’m not sure I have the patience, Willard.
The ball on a string, which was the original topic of discussion, obviously moves only in a circle, because the string is of a fixed length. The ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, as I hope has now been established beyond doubt.
The moon moves in an elliptical orbit. People arguing against the idea that the moon can be described as rotating about an external axis, and not on its own (and who are instead arguing that the moon’s motion is a combination of translation plus axial rotation), make the point that they think rotation has to occur in a circle. Ftop_t’s demonstration shows that rotation can occur in an ellipse. That is all it was required to do.
People arguing that rotation about an external axis can only occur in a circle need to ask themselves why astronomers, and the Wiki page on rotation, state that orbits are a rotation about an external axis! Do they think astronomers are unaware that orbits are elliptical!?
“Ftop_t used Desmos to demonstrate that by rotating an object about an external axis, the movement could indeed form an elliptical shape, or a circular one.”
Yes FTOP also demonstrated that a triangle has 5 sides.
Only a fool would believe this obfuscation.
FTOP is some dude, another lunatic whose ‘authority’ DREMT defers to.
Neither FTOP nor DREMT can explain how a simulation can refute a basic mathematical definition.
“eople arguing that rotation about an external axis can only occur in a circle need to ask themselves why astronomers, and the Wiki page on rotation, state that orbits are a rotation about an external axis! Do they think astronomers are unaware that orbits are elliptical!?”
People using vague references in Wikipedia to ‘debunk’ Kinematic definitions from textbooks, ought to think twice before using those same textbooks and their definitions to badger people.
> Im not sure I have the patience
I don’t care much what you have, Kiddo, except for geometric intuition, which you lack.
As soon as you admit that you need more than one rotation, you lose. So you will throw whatever roadblock you can, including trolling.
You should stop, but you can’t.
Flop lost as soon as he used caps lock. Only one word. You’re listening?
OBSERVATIONAL.
Sorry for your losses.
"I don’t care much what you have, Kiddo, except for geometric intuition, which you lack."
Projection.
"As soon as you admit that you need more than one rotation, you lose. So you will throw whatever roadblock you can, including trolling."
Nonsense. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
"You should stop, but you can’t."
More projection.
"Flop lost as soon as he used caps lock. Only one word. You’re listening?
OBSERVATIONAL."
Ftop_t just needed to show that rotation about an external axis could occur in an ellipse. He did so.
"Sorry for your losses."
I bask in the warm glow of victory, once again.
> Ftop_t just needed to show that rotation about an external axis could occur in an ellipse. He did so.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
He showed that one could construct an ellipse using many rotations.
Also, this statement:
> if an object is rotating on its internal axis and also rotating on an external axis, all sides of the object will point to the external axis point.
is false.
Proof: See (7) in https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.10833.pdf
"He showed that one could construct an ellipse using many rotations."
No, he didn’t.
"Also, this statement:
> if an object is rotating on its internal axis and also rotating on an external axis, all sides of the object will point to the external axis point.
is false."
No, it isn’t.
> No, he didnt.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-582107
That internal axis rotation can be turned off. It’s still an ellipse.
(If you actually had a clue what you were talking about, you would know that it doesn’t need to be turned off, but never mind, I know there’s no point talking to you).
> No, it isnt.
Strong argument you got there, Kiddo.
Another refutation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-582401
So Bob wins again!
It’s:
1) The moon is translating in an ellipse, plus rotating on its own axis.
Or
2) The moon is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis.
The moon cannot be both rotating about an external axis whilst rotating on its own axis. If it were, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Nothing you have linked to contradicts the above. You wouldn’t know, of course, since you don’t understand any of this.
> That internal axis rotation can be turned off. Its still an ellipse.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. An ellipse that is reduced to one rotation around one fixed point is called a circle.
Besides:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584254
> The moon cannot be both rotating about an external axis whilst rotating on its own axis.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
Willard keeps linking to things that don’t contradict me. Odd.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Mercury rotates 3 times around its axis every 2 times it orbits the Sun. Two rotations.
Same for the Moon.
Everything else is your own damn OBSERVATIONAL problem.
Please carry on embarrassing yourself.
Now you are reduced to insults.
Willard, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY,
“bob, you ridiculous clown, it is just rotating about point O. One single motion. Hence the solitary arrow and the labelling Rotation of an object in two dimensions around a point O.
Except your source also says something different, you didn’t read this part, did you?
“For example, in two dimensions rotating a body clockwise about a point keeping the axes fixed is equivalent to rotating the axes counterclockwise about the same point while the body is kept fixed. These two types of rotation are called active and passive transformations.[citation needed]”
Which means the object is also rotating around its very own axis.
If it were only rotating around point O, it would maintain the same orientation, as in keeping pointed in the same direction.
You don’t understand the stuff you post.
Wrong, bob. Your quote does not in any way mean what you want it to mean. The object in the picture is just rotating about point O. One single motion.
Mahavi and Brown agree that DREMT is precisely wrong about the Moon being in ‘pure rotation’.
Brown
“Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel
planes along CIRCLES centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1).”
And why is DREMT unable to get this right:
“Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.”
I suppose it’s flattering to have a stalker, in a way.
You have made many many statements along the lines of
“From the ‘Non-Spinners’ perspective, an object that is ‘orbiting without axial rotation’ is rotating about the barycenter, and not on its own axis.”
Orbits are elliptical. An object that is ‘orbiting without axial rotation’ is simply Translating along an elliptical path: in Curvilinear Translation, per your sources Brown or Madhavi.
They cannot be ‘rotating about the barycenter’.
If an orbiting object is also rotating wrt the stars, then it is in General Plane motion per Brown or Madhavi.
Then it can only be described as having Translation plus axial rotation.
So your many of your statements along these lines are incorrect, and contradicting Brown and Madhavi. And contradicting your insistence in this thread on getting these things precisely right.
…though it is a shame that my stalker keeps failing to follow what the discussion is about, keeps raising the same point that has been debunked countless times, and keeps acting like I am going to reply directly to him (rather than about him) when he knows that I refuse to discuss anything with him. It’s been well over two years now since I stopped responding to him, it’s just sad that he keeps soldiering on, absolutely desperate for some kind of interaction. Even this he will probably count as some sort of response to him. Why can’t some people just take the hint?
And for two years now this has been a standard evasion tactic.
When you have no answers, when you are caught in straightforward lie, you distract by attacking the messenger.
“keeps raising the same point that has been debunked countless times”
No you havent. This is thoroughly dishonest.
You refer constantly to two textbook sources for Rigid Body Kinematic definitions that you insist others should follow.
They both are absolutely clear: a rotation is circular around an axis.
If you have ‘debunked’ this then you are claiming that both of these authoritative sources are wrong.
Bullshit.
We still should celebrate creativity, Nate.
Moon Dragons created their imaginary fortress by twisting the definition of a circle until it breaks into absurdity.
Why can’t some people just take the hint?
Because Moon Dragons can’t understand MikeR’s demonstrations, Kiddo.
I get ’em, fine. Just disagree.
Did I mention that according to DREMT, the Moon has no axis, axial tilt, axial precession, or poles?
None of these work for non-spinners, so they don’t exist, or theyre illusions or some such nonsense.
"Moon Dragons created their imaginary fortress by twisting the definition of a circle until it breaks into absurdity."
Anyone arguing that an orbit is a rotation about an external axis is doing so then, apparently.
“Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.”
But people will do it anyway..
I’m done arguing. Will be back to get the last word, as necessary.
[KIDDO] Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.
[ALSO KIDDO] I think the airliner argument is a particularly good one.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. None.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Not wrong, not Kiddo.
What’s a circle, Kiddo?
Your mum.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Here could be one:
The path created by a ball on a string that (uniformly) spins around a center C.
OK, Willard.
Flop’s efforts were valliant, Kiddo.
You’re just a parasite.
You’re just another sore loser.
Check how Flop needs to stretch the string, Kiddo:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/slq7zwdqxj
See? That’s called a translation.
God, you are clueless.
Click the play button on Line 30. Watch what happens. Now pause it. Watch what happens.
With the button paused, the triangle is only rotating about an external axis. With the play button pressed, the triangle is rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis.
Understand the difference, finally?
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Check your own example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation#/media/File:Rotation_illus.svg
The two red lines are the same length.
That was Flop’s trick.
You don’t half talk some rubbish.
Well done, Kiddo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
Thanks to your trolling efforts, the Moon Dragon position can be shot down by the first sentence of a Wiki entry.
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
“In mathematics, an isometry (or congruence, or congruent transformation) is a distance-preserving transformation between metric spaces […]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometry
“I’m done arguing.”
I don’t blame you. Reality is a bitch. Facing up to it is worse.
“Will be back to get the last word, as necessary.”
Yes indeed. 5th grader victories are the best you can hope for.
HAVE THE LAST WORD
have the last word
for today
i will reply tomorrow
but also the next day
and so on and so forth
until i have the last word
over all, forever
i always win
*that’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo*
I’m sorry for your argument loss…
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting”
The statement is equivalent to
‘A circular orbit is a rotation and is an orbit’
But not all orbits are circular nor rotations.
Hint: Circles are ellipses, but not all ellipses are circles.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
…but I’m happy with the win.
Except that it’s your loss, Kiddo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_%28mathematics%29#In_Euclidean_geometry
Not in the least. This discussion was about the ball on a string. Are all the particles of the ball moving along concentric circles? Yes. So the ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own. It is very helpful for you to keep supplying quotes that prove the ball on a string is in pure rotation. Please continue.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
The discussion was about Bob’s “Check your Mahdavi text again.”
A ball on a string is just a ball on a string. Nothing else. It does not move by itself. However you make it move, it is not a rotation. What is done to it can be interpreted as such, but only if you describe it properly.
You’re getting distracted by your own metonymies.
Shall we start over again?
Wrong, as always, Willard. The discussion was moved onto the ball on a string by bob, who claimed he had a “proof” that it was rotating on its own axis, and that nobody had refuted it, not the “Soft Spinners”, nor the “Non Spinners”. I took it upon myself to offer that refutation. In fact, I have offered two refutations, one simple, and one more complex involving general plane motion vs. pure rotation etc. The ball on a string is most definitely rotating about an external axis, and not on its own. I am satisfied that I have proved that beyond any doubt.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
[K] There are three types of rigid body motion…
[B] Check your Mahdavi text again[.] An object that is in pure rotation is not translating, therefore not moving, therefore not what the Moon is doing.
[W] That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. You’re asking too much out of a mere semantic argument.
[K] The ball on a string is in pure rotation about an external axis, so of course it’s moving!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-804583
It is you who reintroduced the ball on a string in this exchange.
Perhaps are you confusionating motion and movement?
I am correct in both my account of the discussion and about the ball on a string.
Pretty strong argument you got there, Kiddo.
Be seeing you.
Not for a few days, but I will be back soon.
https://media.giphy.com/media/10MhRblMbDOt2g/giphy.gif
#2
OK, Willard.
Manual pingback:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-817749
Willard, please stop trolling.
Bindidon found another link he can’t understand. And, just like the other idiots, he wouldn’t understand it if you explained it to him!
He reminds me of RLH, Norman, Dud, and the rest — they know how to use a keyboard, but have no clue about science.
You are the one with no clue about science. You just use the word to sound intelligent.
Is rotating 1.5 times per orbit an example of “tidal locking”?
“The effect arises between two bodies when their gravitational interaction slows a body’s rotation until it becomes tidally locked. Over many millions of years, the interaction forces changes to their orbits and rotation rates as a result of energy exchange and heat dissipation. When one of the bodies reaches a state where there is no longer any net change in its rotation rate over the course of a complete orbit, it is said to be tidally locked. The object tends to stay in this state when leaving it would require adding energy back into the system. The object’s orbit may migrate over time so as to undo the tidal lock, for example, if a giant planet perturbs the object.
Not every case of tidal locking involves synchronous rotation. With Mercury, for example, this tidally locked planet completes three rotations for every two revolutions around the Sun, a 3:2 spinorbit resonance. In the special case where an orbit is nearly circular and the body’s rotation axis is not significantly tilted, such as the Moon, tidal locking results in the same hemisphere of the revolving object constantly facing its partner. However, in this case the exact same portion of the body does not always face the partner on all orbits. There can be some shifting due to variations in the locked body’s orbital velocity and the inclination of its rotation axis.”
Translation: Everything can be said to be “tidally locked”!
That ain’t science.
DIY, Pup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkk-Ch5YX2w
Clint R: If those are your translation skills then there is no surprise in what you think.
RLH found another source he couldn’t understand. (How many times have we seen this?)
But this time, he’s embarrassed to identify his source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
That’s funny enough, but RLH doesn’t understand that to stop a moon from rotating requires a torque. Tides don’t produce a torque.
Tides exist, we know that. But tides are not magical forces.
I predict RLH will not be able to understand this simple concept.
“RLH doesnt understand that to stop a moon from rotating requires a torque.”
What caused the Moon to start rotating?
“Tides exist, we know that.”
What loses energy to create the tides?
That’s step…
Alright, I’ll allow it.
Big of you. Idiot.
RLH’s source (Wikipedia) clearly indicates gravity produces a torque. That’s funny enough, but then there is this: “For the other case where B starts off rotating too slowly, tidal locking both speeds up its rotation, and lowers its orbit.”
Since Moon is rotating “too slowly”, we should expect it to speed up its rotation and move closer to Earth.
The things they have to believe to be in that cult….
Gravity cannot produce a torque on a purely spherical body. It can create tides in the ground (and the oceans) that make the object non-spherical though. That dissipates energy through friction which cannot be recovered.
Here is some good stuff for Eben… to be classified in the category
” It’s the Sun, stoopid ”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/16/climate-scientists-accuse-the-ipcc-of-cherrypicking-datasets-which-support-their-alarmist-narrative/
J.-P. D.
“On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCCs upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASAs ACRIM sun monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.</strong"
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351901488_How_much_has_the_Sun_influenced_Northern_Hemisphere_temperature_trends_An_ongoing_debate
If you’ve read any of that paper, I’m curious what you think of their attribution approach to arrive at the implication you’ve highlighted.
My apologies, that quote came from https://electroverse.net/new-study-23-experts-in-the-fields-of-solar-physics-and-climate-science-contradict-the-ipcc/.
Which aspects of either the original paper or that reporting were you suggesting we should look at?
“Conclusion.
In the title of this paper, we asked, How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? However, it should now be apparent that, despite the confidence with which many studies claim to have answered this question, it has not yet been satisfactorily answered. Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress.”
I agree.
> Which aspects of either the original paper or that reporting were you suggesting we should look at?
That’s step 2.
Search for “attribution approach.”
Why don’t you search for ‘being an idiot’. You might learn something. Probably not.
“If you’ve read any of that paper, I’m curious what you think of their attribution approach to arrive at the implication you’ve highlighted.”
An idiot has to use others words without adding any of his own. Idiot still.
I certainly don’t need to show the request that you’re trying to dodge, dummy.
But I like it.
U are an idiot.
.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.chatelaine.com/living/politics/canada-election-2021-climate-change/
The Globe IS cooling at present Has been for at least the last 6 months. Get over it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w3t7PtLNmGoFvBfAbxvHC4yFuIOy1BSs/view
You keep repeating an irrelevant inference that you won’t support with a statistical test, dummy.
… and, not quite suprisingly, the comment’s author does not seem to have really, 100% understood what I meant with that graph.
J.-P. D.
You showed (possibly unintentionally) that what I was saying was true. That global temperatures from all major temperature series have been in decline for the last few months.
“Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes.”
” You showed (possibly unintentionally) that what I was saying was true. That global temperatures from all major temperature series have been in decline for the last few months. ”
Absolutely wrong.
This graph was designed to show one thing only: that for all relevant surface temperature series, the temperature decrease in 2021 wrt 2020 has, on average over the five series, itself decreased over the months.
As I wrote somewhere upthread, that did not happen for the lower troposphere, however.
I was right: you did not understand the graph.
Bindion: So showing the main land based temperature series demonstrates a decline shows that temperature have not declined. Got you.
Are you saying that UAH, RSS and AIRs don’t show the same thing?
You are saying that although temperatures have declined, that declination is decreasing. Does not alter what I said, does it.
> Are you saying that UAH, RSS and AIRs dont show the same thing?
Step 2.
Idiot.
Step 3.
U are still an idiot.
No U
No U are the idiot.
No U are stuck at Step 3 of your One Trick, Pony.
U are still the idiot here.
Nope.
But U, however…
Nothing changes that U are an idiot.
Nein.
Du.
Du are an idiot too.
Nein.
Du bist, dummy.
U and Du are an idiot.
That would be U, then.
U are the idiot. ‘Tis plain to see.
No.
U.
U
are
the
idiot
How can the truth be irrelevant? Inconvenient maybe.
110 / 11 = 10
Idiot.
Should I continue to list irrelevant facts until you get the point, dummy?
Here’s for you:
https://climateball.net/but-truth/
Is it relevant that you are an idiot? I think so.
The truth is not a fact to Willard.
Well, actually, truth is not a fact, dummy.
Putting words in mouth is part of Step 1 of your One Trick, Pony.
If the truth is not a fact, is it a fiction?
That instance of Step 2 posits a false dilemma, dummy.
Think. Does the world contain other objects than facts and fictions?
Does the world contain other idiots than Willard?
See, dummy?
That is your fiction.
U are an idiot Willard.
Here, dummy:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
Is a fact a truth?
Asking if a truism is tryue joins Step 1 and 2 of your One Trick, Pony.
You yourself provided the best response to that kind of trick: and?
U are an idiot.
You really are not choosing your moments well for cranking up to Step Three, dummy.
That’s OK. I only have an idiot to deal with.
Imagine if such person could prove you wrong on relevance, truth, factiveness, and trendology, dummy.
And that’s just the blunders you made this evening!
When did you blunder into being an idiot? Or were you always like that?
I also forgot the blunder about recon skills.
Sorry about that one, dummy.
U are still the idiot.
No U
Still U as the idiot.
You’re blundering on consilience as we speak, dummy.
You’re blundering on as an idiot does.
So you say, dummy.
Whereas I show your blunders every day.
No-one reads your idiotic ramblings.
Ken says:
August 17, 2021 at 9:57 AM
“The theorem looks interesting. Basically you’re saying the blackbody theory doesn’t work if the black body is rotating while getting all its energy input from a point source… “
– No, I am not saying the blackbody theory doesn’t work, right the opposite – the blackbody theory works – here we apply the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law to every infinitesimal spot at every infinitesimal instant…
The New equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1 – a) S (β*N*cp.)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
is the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law applied to rotating sphere irradiated by parallel solar beams.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hmmm.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58248725
Perhaps, but snow is white.
There’s no perhaps about you being an idiot.
No U
U are the idiot here.
Afraid not.
U are.
Nope. U are the idiot.
No U
Sill U as the idiot.
That would be U
Nope. U are the idiot for sure.
U
U are indeed an idiot.
Nope.
But U, dummy, are blundering on facts once more as we speak.
U don’t change from being an idiot.
No U.
U are an idiot. Who keeps repeating themselves.
Bad news for the Warmistas?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Arctic sea ice extent currently looks quite robust, like in 2017/18.
Wait & see. Because in 2019, exactly the inverse had happened:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
In 2019, the sea ice extent was lowest both in Arctic and Antarctic.
J.-P. D.
Warmistas live in the real world, just like koolostas.
Slower Arctic ice melt is good news for us all.
Hey,
You “Moon Spin” people versus you “Moon Doesn’t Spin” people, if either of you were proved right, what difference would it make?
Not much : )
Moon clearly is NOT rotating about its axis. So the benefit of the discussion is to show how devoted to their cult the idiots are. They don’t know the science, but willingly accept whatever they are fed, as long as it comes from cult sources.
They are unable to think for themselves, and unwilling to learn.
It’s the same in other areas of anti-science, such as the AGW nonsense.
“Moon clearly is NOT rotating about its axis.”
Science and scientists disagree with you. The Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.
How many times a day are you required to repeat that chant?
As many times as you claim otherwise.
Your problem is, your chanting does not cancel reality.
You two remind me of Javert. I can’t decide which one of you two is, or maybe both.
Stephen, thank you for your unsolicited opinion.
Do you have any interest in science, or is trolling it for you?
Javert would never do the Poll Dance Experiment, Pup.
What are you waiting for?
Willard and his ilk have turned this into a troll page.
Kiddo, Pup, Gordo, and Mike Flynn were here well before me, Troglodyte.
Were you whining back then!
willard…”Kiddo, Pup, Gordo, and Mike Flynn were here well before me, Troglodyte”.
***
This site has not seen a troll like you in the past 5 years. D*C was banned for much less. At least he posted viable scientific theories.
Thank you for the kind words, Gordo.
Please don’t touch the furniture on your way out.
“your chanting does not cancel reality.”
Neither does yours. Nutter.
Stephen Anderson
The “spinners” view is based on conventional physics, as used in everything from aeronautics to engineering dynamics. It gives a mental and mathematical model of the world which allows it to be analysed and used.
The “non-spinner” world view does not describe reality and does not give the same leverage. Essentially it is superstition rather than science.
The “Hard Spinner” view is that the ball on a string etc is rotating on its own axis, along with the moon. The “Soft Spinner” view is that the ball on a string etc is not rotating on its own axis, but is instead rotating about an external axis (though they still think the moon rotates on its own axis).
Funny that this “Spinners” view that is supposedly based on conventional physics, should be divided into two camps that think completely opposing things.
You are just completely deluded if you think that anyone other than a very few nutters think you are correct.
As a “Soft Spinner”, RLH, the question is, how many of the “Hard Spinners” can be convinced that you are correct, and not them?
Nutters will always think that they are right even when they are wrong.
So the “Hard Spinners” are “nutters”? That’s a big strong. If you try your hardest, you can maybe change their minds, I’m sure.
Please stop playing dumb, Kiddo.
…”a bit strong”, that should have read.
DREMT is a nutter for sure.
Save your energy for arguing with the “Hard Spinners”.
With a nutter like you, reasoning is beyond hope of a result.
Bit rude. Maybe tone it down a bit when you argue with the “Hard Spinners”.
I find you can be as rude as you like with nutters. Doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference.
OK then.
Wrong Ent. The “Spinners” view is based on centuries-old astrology. Conventional physics easily proves that view wrong. Your spinner cult can’t even come up with a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You couldn’t solve the simple problem about the orbiting barbell. You found some nonsense, but didn’t realize it had nothing to do with the problem. You ended up falling flat on your face, trying to cover your escape with: “You don’t give enough information to do the calculation for your barbell, so I’ll let you do it.”
You’re still making the same mistakes. You can’t learn.
Idiot.
Of the Moon Dragons only Kiddo tries to present something that looks like a position, Pup.
Instead of pretending to have a position, do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Report.
DREMT is a nutter for sure.
You are back to resorting to insults, I see.
With a nutter like you, reasoning is beyond hope of a result.
Have you tried reasoning?
There is no reasoning with nutters like you.
I’m not convinced you’ve tried. You seem to be more keen on insults.
You continue to insist that even NASA is wrong. You are definitely a nutter.
You seem to be more keen on insults.
Here’s the trick of our One-Trick Pony, Kiddo:
1. Almost suggest something;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. Feeble try at insulting
Willard will always be an idiot.
–Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2021 total: 56 days (24%)
2020 total: 208 days (57%)–
Still got a spot
–Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 4.77×1010 W Cold
Max: 49.4×1010 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×1010 W Cold (02/2009)–
It’s cold, but not the coldest
I might be losing faith about the Max,
but it matters but Mars and not really
about the Moon.
bobdroege
Thanks for having avoided hair splitting :- )
A few lines about:
” The exact location of the center of mass of the Moon remains a mystery. ”
*
From a paper I downloaded years ago and have reread one more time today evening:
History of development of selenodesy and dynamics of the Moon in Kazan
Rizvanov N.G. and Rakhimov L.I.
Engelhardt Astronomical Observatory, Kazan, Russia
selena.sai.msu.ru/Symposium/kazan.pdf
I found back to S. Habibullin’s work he made together with the two colleagues above:
Coordinates of the centre of the figure of lunar marginal zone
https://tinyurl.com/ww8e6h6m
Maybe that ‘slightly dry’ stuff is of interest to you.
J.-P. D.
Love your cites, Binny.
Keep ’em coming!
“Retroreflectors are devices which reflect light back to its source. Five were left at five sites on the Moon by three crews of the Apollo program and two remote landers of the Lunokhod program.[1] Lunar reflectors have enabled precise measurement of the Earth–Moon distance since 1969 using lunar laser ranging.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon
The Retroreflectors are significant factor in improving the use the Moon as measuring instrument for physicists.
It seems like it should possible to improve it better, and I wonder if and how this will done with next crewed landing on the Moon.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
Month on Month chart for UAH showing each month in one year against the same month exactly a year before.
I predict that Bindidon will not see its significance.
There still is a 460 TW energy imbalance.
Woefully Ignorant Wee Willy,
Complete nonsense. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. This is because it loses more energy than it gains from the Sun – unless you , Ken Rice, and Kevin Trenberth manage to overturn the laws of thermodynamics.
You SkyDragons are a strange lot – you don’t like reality, so you substitute your fantasies!
None of you appear to have the faintest understanding of the physics involved.
You just point blank refuse to accept that the Earth cooled from the molten state – no GHE involved at all.
Pack of fools!
Mike Flynn,
Melody Faker,
Your conundrum isn’t hard to solve–
You conflate two time scales!
Aw shucks!
Whacky Wee Willy,
Don’t appear more stupid than you are, if you don’t have to.
If the temperature has fallen, it has fallen. Slowly, quickly, cooling is cooling.
You nutters apparently believe that slow cooling is “heating”, or some similar sort of nonsense.
A fall is a fall is a fall, dummy! Even your delusional mate Ken Rice might agree with me. Ask him if the Earth has cooled. Mind you, he might be as delusional as you, and claim the Earth has actually heated up after getting even cooler – due to SkyDragon magic, no doubt.
Buzz off, dimwit. Compose another meaningless comment. Then come back. You can run, but you can’t hide!
Mike Flynn, Manichean Flipper,
You say–
“apparently believe that slow cooling is “heating””
Back to silly semantic games, are you?
Take it from Jamie and Gordon–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Crmgt-VlNk
No, not Gordo. Gordon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
A 460 TW energy imbalance that allows the Earth to cool for 6 months at least.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
You presume that UAH indicates if the Earth cools or warms.
That might not be sound, considering what we know about energy imbalance.
So you don’t accept that ALL temperature series show that the Earth has cooled for the last 6 months or so. Despite Bindidon’s graph showing just that.
That’s step 2, dummy.
An indicator is an indicator is an indicator.
Two indicators are better than one.
Consilience of evidence wins.
An idiot like you is always an idiot.
See, dummy?
As soon as you get caught saying stuff, you get back to Step 3.
So…
No U.
U are the idiot.
“You presume that UAH indicates if the Earth cools or warms.”
Well how else would you describe global temperatures? Warmer or colder?
That’s step 2, dummy.
Anomalies are still positive, so there’s warming.
The energy imbalance isn’t all in the troposphere.
UAH isn’t the Swiss army knife of Climateball, you know.
Month on Month they are not.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
Less profit is still profit, dummy.
Not if costs outweigh the profits.
rlh…”“Why does a small band of scientists and campaigners persist in denying the link between HIV and Aids, when the evidence that they are wrong is overwhelming? “”
***
We are not talking here about a small band of nobodys, we are talking about the scientist who won a Nobel for discovering HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier. If anyone knows anything about HIV, it has to be Montagnier. He now claims HIV does NOT cause AIDS and that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system.
I am tired of posting scientific information on this subject only to have it rejected by ignoramuses who have done no research of their own. I am posting this info for your appraisal because you have demonstrated good understanding of statistics theory which can be a damned hard subject to understand, never mind master. However, your insight into the physics I have posted on the Moon rotation problem has left me aghast. I fail to understand how someone with your background cannot offer a scientific rebuttal.
Here’s a good article on the entire HIV/AIDS scene by Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR method used on both HIV and covid tests. Compare what he has to say with the following 1 hour video featuring an interview with Luc Montagnier.
https://davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Mullis_Truth-Vs-Medicine.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyPq-waF-h4&ab_channel=houseofnumbers
In the interview, the interviewer pumps Montagnier on virus purification, and Montagnier dodges it in every such manner. Montagnier mentions Dr. Barre Sinoussi, who was a member of his HIV team. She sat on a panel at the Louis Pasteur Institute which devised a method for discovering a virus. It was the gold standard till Montagnier came out with his inferential method which is still used with covid.
If he had the virus, why would he need such a convoluted method? Isolation means to separate, and that is the basis of Koch’s Postulate and the Louis Pasteur Institute method. Montagnier is claiming another meaning.
The LPI method, based on Koch’s Postulate, requires that a suspected infectious agent be injected into a sucrose solution with a density gradient. That means the solution has been carefully prepared so the sugar is more dense at one end of a test tube than the other. The density gradually changes from one end to the other.
When the mix is spun in a centrifuge, if a virus or virus particles are present, they will settle out in the gradient at a specific density gradient. Montagnier refers to that in the interview. The viral particles will be seen as a dark band in the solution. That material is extracted, prepared as a very thin sample about 100 billionth of a metre then viewed by an electron microscope.
The sample has to be that thin or the electrons cannot penetrate it. The EM micrograph is like an xray in that the image depends on where the electrons got through the sample and where they did not to strile the target screen. The micrograph is also in black and white. So, where do they get the fancy pictures of coloured viruses on the Net, in 3D? And how can they tell that the image is a virus when many virus particles (vesicles) have the same shape and appearance?
Montagnier’s EM operator and Montagnier himself, admit they found no HIV virus in the purified material. Montagnier then nattered something about certain HIV particles being too small and that even though the virus could not be seen, it was there in a ratio of 1 to 1000. Conjecture?
His reference to HIV not being the cause of AIDS came in a book he published later. Still, in the video, he explains that we all encounter HIV many times in our lives and that if our immune systems are healthy, we will fight it off. Mullis claims the same thing in his article.
Dr. Stefan Lanka has proved to a German court that insufficient scientific evidence exists to prove HIV exists. These guys are not lightweights, Lanka discovered the first virus in the ocean and Mullis invented the PCR method and was working on a process to teach the immune system to ward off anthrax at the time of his death.
Montagnier discusses part of that method (LPI) but admits essentially that when it came to the requirement that a virus be seen on an electron microscope he as much as admits he saw no HIV virus. At 52:13 of the interview this statement appears on the screen…”
“We have never seen virus particles [HIV] in the purified virus [gradient]. What we have seen all the time was cellular debris , no virus particles”. That statement is from Dr. Charles Dauget, who operates the electron microscope for Montagnier and Barre Sinoussi.
When the interviewer pumps him some more, asking if an electron microscope photo is important, Montagnier tells him it is not, even though it is a requirement of the Louis Pasteur Institute method, designed in part, by his team member, Barre Sinoussi.
Then the interviewer asks him what the point is in doing purification. Montagnier replies that it is required to ensure you have a real virus.
Ta da!!!! You need to follow the entire LPI method to ensure you have a real virus.
Did Montagnier do that? No!!! Has it been done with covid? No!!!
So, how do they know they have a real virus in either case?
Montagnier talks a good deal about a circular method around that. At no time does he claim he has seen a virus, purified a virus, or isolated a virus. He talks about isolating proteins BELIEVED to be from a virus. However, he explains that the proteins are inferred from with a cell, and not found in the LPI method procedure.
“He now claims HIV does NOT cause AIDS and that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system.”
If he claims that, he is wrong. By far and away the majority (+99%) of doctors disagree with him.
https://blog.rsb.org.uk/what-makes-hiv-so-dangerous/
“However, your insight into the physics I have posted on the Moon rotation problem has left me aghast. I fail to understand how someone with your background cannot offer a scientific rebuttal.”
Tell me what you understand about inertia. And what it was that started the Moon rotating in the first place. Now reduced to 1 rotation per revolution/orbit by tides and friction.
Nothing in orbital mechanics determines an orientation during an orbit.
RLH, there is NO evidence that Moon ever rotated. That is just your imagination. Cult beliefs ain’t science.
What we know for certain is Moon is NOT rotating NOW.
You continue to exhibit your ignorance of orbital motions: “Nothing in orbital mechanices determines an orientation during an orbit.”
The resultant of two vectors causes the change in direction of an orbiting body, which then results in the orbit. It’s the same motion as a ball-on-a-string.
All other planets/moons rotate. Why is the Earth’s Moon so different?
Moon is no different than any other moon that does not rotate. There are over 20 such examples of such moons of other planets.
Clint R,
All those other Moons are rotating as we can see all sides of them from Earth.
bob doesn’t understand any of this. He’s still confused about “reference frames”.
A 300# motorcycle is roaring down the highway at 70 mph. An observer on one side of the motorcycle would see the wheels turning clockwise. An observer on the other side would see the wheels turning counter-clockwise.
In bob’s crazy world of “reference frames”, he would conclude the motorcycle is not really moving, since the motions of the wheels “cancel out”.
He just needs to stand in front of the oncoming motorcycle. Maybe then he could learn something….
Clint R,
“In bob’s crazy world of “reference frames”, he would conclude the motorcycle is not really moving, since the motions of the wheels “cancel out”.”
No, I wouldn’t conclude that.
Would you please stop flapping your gums, waving your arms and make a coherent argument.
That’s a lot to ask of a utter nutter peanut butter sandwich cookie, but how about you take a crack at it?
And it’s not my crazy world of reference frames, that’s standard physics, which you would understand if you had ever studied physics from an accredited institution.
Have the orderlies let you out of your straight jacket yet today?
bob just needs to stand in front of the oncoming motorcycle. Maybe then he could learn something.
Maybe not….
Try this, Pup:
https://youtu.be/iginxrFn3jg?t=115
Alternatively, do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Report.
Ah, that’s it,
Clint R, did indeed stand in front of a moving motorcycle and got a closed brain injury, that explains it.
Thanks for the pointer to the video, Bob.
If you think about it, the astronaut’s experiment shows tidal locking in reverse.
Willard, bob, please stop trolling.
rlh…”The nose-tail axis maintains a constant altitude yet it points in every direction of the compass throughout an orbit wrt the stars.
What hold an aircraft aloft? Lift.
What direction does it operate in? Opposite to gravity.
What direction does the nose-tail axis maintain? Right angles to gravity.
Does the Moon have such a vector. No.
Is your example useful for the Moons orbit. No.”
***
Above that reply you asked why NASA would apply to nuts.
***
Ok, the gloves are off.
Before you go calling someone a nut, counter the following explanation scientifically to see who is the real nut. I have challenged you before and you have lacked the guts to reply. Based on your statements above I can see why you are afraid to reply.
Any dimwit can see the difference between the airplane’s orbit and the Moon’s orbit. The Moon orbits with zero air resistance but the airliner requires motors to drive it through air with resistance. The wings act against the air resistance to create a different pressure above than below, therefore the plane lifts.
Is that the best you’ve got to counter my comparison between the lunar orbit and the orbit of an airliner?
You stabilize the plane at 35,000 feet, presuming no up- or down-drafts. just a plane at constant velocity holding a constant altitude. How do you think it maintains a constant altitude? By balancing the force of gravity against the uplift created by the wings.
Do you actually think that by maintaining a constant altitude that the plane will fly off on a tangential direction unless you make further adjustments? No. You don’t have to adjust for anything, gravity is a field and the plane is passed off from gravity vector to gravity vector, with their being a bazzillion gravity vectors in the field. As long as the lift balances gravitational force, the plane will follow an orbital path.
When you fly over a tangential plane (any immediate portion of the Earth’s surface) you can look down from the plane window and see the ground is relatively flat. We know that is an illusion, because it gradually curves to form the spherical surface of the planet. However, it curves very gradually over about a 25 mile distance.
For all intents and purposes, that plane is performing rectilinear translation around the entire Earth, tangential plane by tangential plane. Since the surface is curved, the plane’s path is a continuous curve. Therefore the translation must be referred to as curvilinear translation, despite the myopic and idiotic examples given in many textbooks for curvilinear translation.
There is no problem holding the plane at a stable altitude horizon to horizon, so why should there be a problem as the planet curves beyond the horizon? Come on, man, how the heck did you get a degree if you cannot understand something as stupid simple as this elementary physics?
The Moon does exactly the same thing, only at a much higher altitude. The Moon does not require lift!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In lieu of motors it has a constant linear momentum. However, gravity acts on the Moon in exactly the same way it acts on the airliner. As the Earth curves, the Moon remains at the same instantaneous altitude. The gravitational field is uniform and applies the same force to the Moon at each instant of its orbit.
In other words, the Moon’s momentum is in balance with gravitational force, although not equal in equivalent magnitudes. The ratio is in favour of the Moon’s momentum, however, since it has the greater influence. If it’s influence was too great, the Moon would break free of its orbit and shoot off on a parabolic path. If it was too small, the Moon would spiral into the Earth.
The dynamics between space and an atmosphere are obviously different. In space, once you set a body in motion, it will continue along that straight line until it encounters another force, like the gravitational field of another body, or it collides with a body large enough to change its momentum.
The Moon is essentially in space. It has been given a straight-line momentum and has encountered Earth gravitational field, a force. That force has bent its path from a straight line into an orbit. When I look up at the Moon some nights I offer a small prayer that it does not collide with a body of significant mass. If it does, and it loses sufficient momentum, it will come crashing down on our heads.
Before it encountered Earth, it was traveling in a straight line. Whether it was rotating about it’s own axis at one time is immaterial. If it was not rotating and flew by with the same face toward us as faces us now, and given its current mass, linear velocity, and altitude, it would continue in orbit as it did in the straight line. In other words, it would continue to translate with no rotation, as it does now.
Gordo,
TL;DR
Please ask Kiddo to vouch for your argument.
This obsession with the moon – and the thousands of words typed about it – indicates a serious psychological condition.
Or Alzheimers.
That actually would be a good enough reason for me.
But Kiddo is mostly trolling.
My stalker thirsts for more interaction.
No U
See?
Indeed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-803896
Yes, and now you are getting the attention you so craved. I am enabling you. I will stop.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
The point was that planes use aerodynamical forces to fly. The Moon does not. Therefore suggesting that planes have anything to do with the Moon is idiotic at best.
And if you cant see the logic in that, then you are a nutter.
RLH, if the plane were far enough out in space (to avoid the aerodynamic effects of the atmosphere), and had the appropriate forward linear speed to remain in orbit, the nose of the plane would always face in the direction of instantaneous travel. It would orbit, without rotating. It’s the same motion as Moon.
Or, a ball-on-a-string.
“if the plane were far enough out in space (to avoid the aerodynamic effects of the atmosphere), and had the appropriate forward linear speed to remain in orbit, the nose of the plane would always face in the direction of instantaneous travel. ”
Wrong. It would face towards a fixed star there being no force to make it rotate.
And that brings us right back to your ignorance of orbital motions and your denial of reality.
You’re making no progress. You can’t learn. You’re braindead.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
You are a ‘flat earth’ or equivalent nutter.
“Any dimwit can see the difference between the airplane’s orbit and the Moon’s orbit. The Moon orbits with zero air resistance but the airliner requires motors to drive it through air with resistance. The wings act against the air resistance to create a different pressure above than below, therefore the plane lifts.
Is that the best you’ve got to counter my comparison between the lunar orbit and the orbit of an airliner?”
Apparently so, that and calling Gordon a “nutter” is the best RLH has got.
You’re right, Kiddo.
It would be better if our Hall Monitor asked Gordo to PST.
My stalker thirsts for more interaction.
I know that the “who has the last word in an Internet debate, wins” rule is a stupid one, Kiddo.
But it is what Dragon cranks like you depend on in your work. That is why the whole responding thing upsets you so much. See you soon.
Both you and Gordon are nutters.
You have no substantive response to Gordon’s comment.
Do you agree with Gordo’s comment, Kiddo?
“Kiddo?”
To whom are you referring? Address your question to me respectfully, using my correct full name, or simply “DREMT”, and I will answer.
Please stop playing dumb, Kiddo.
It makes your trolling too obvious.
Address your question to me respectfully, using my correct full name, or simply “DREMT”, and I will answer.
Do you agree with Gordo’s comment, pretty please with sugar on it?
Other than that I would describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as rotation about an external axis rather than curvilinear translation (though I do get where he is coming from), yes I agree. In fact I think the airliner argument is a particularly good one.
“rotation about an external axis” is normally called an orbit. Caused by gravity. Does not effect or cause an orientation during that orbit.
I have only one word for you and Gordo, Kiddo.
Just one word.
Are you listening?
Phugoid.
RLH, an object that is “rotating about an external axis”, without rotating about its own center of mass, keeps one side always oriented towards that external axis, whilst it moves. That is just what the motion “rotating about an external axis” involves.
“an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, keeps one side always oriented towards that external axis, whilst it moves.”
An object attracted by gravity to an external point, orbits that point as described by Newton and Kepler. It is not required to be oriented to face that point, which was not described by either of them.
I am just stating a fact about rotation around an external axis. If you wish to retract your statement that "“rotation about an external axis” is normally called an orbit", and replace it with "translation in a circle/ellipse is normally called an orbit", please do.
“I am just stating a fact about rotation around an external axis.”
Which is distortion of what orbiting is. It’s called a revolution or orbit, not a rotation.
You yourself said:
"“rotation about an external axis” is normally called an orbit."
RLH can’t learn.
“It is not required to be oriented to face that point, which was not described by either of them.”
If the orbiting body has no axial rotation, then one side will always face the inside of the orbit. This was discovered by Newton. It is why the ball-on-a-string is used often in academia as a model. This has been explained to RLH over and over, but he just can’t learn.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
That’s why this is so much fun.
** phugoid (plural phugoids)
(aviation) An aircraft motion where the vehicle pitches up and climbs, decreasing speed, and then pitches down and descends, increasing speed.
-wiki **
He was doing some phugoids to gain some speed.
Also from the wiki:
–Neologism created in 1908 by the British aerodynamics expert Frederick W. Lanchester, from Ancient Greek φυγή (phugḗ, flight) and εἶδος (edos, fashion, sort, kind). In the glossary to his book Aerodonetics, Lanchester explains his coinage thus:
“PHUGOID THEORY (Author), from the Greek φυγή and εἶδος, lit. flight-like: The theory dealing with longitudinal stability and the form of the flight path. Hence also Phugoid chart, Phugoid curve, Phugoid oscillation, etc. (Ch. II.) The appropriateness of the derivation is perhaps diminished by the fact that the word φυγή means flight in the sense of escape rather than the act of flying in the present signification.” —
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/phugoid
“If the orbiting body has no axial rotation, then one side will always face the inside of the orbit.”
You made that up and cannot find any real scientists to support that point of view. Newton, Kepler and all the rest disagree with you. Certainly NASA does as they have made clear.
“If the orbiting body has no axial rotation, then one side will always face the inside of the orbit.”
Wrong.
It seems to me that a hypothetical analogy can be created to support both views regarding moon rotation. Take, for example, the following scenarios:
1. You are standing on the edge of a carousel directly north of the center, facing north. The carousel starts to spin. You do not make any effort to rotate. Thus, the carousel pulls you in an orbit where your back faces the center of the carousel at all times. You face directly north at the northern point of the orbit and directly south at the southern point.
2. You again stand on the carousel facing north. This time, however, when the carousel moves you rotate your body in the opposite direction at a speed that causes you to complete one full spin as the carousel completes one full spin. Unlike example #1, as you orbit around the carousel, you are now facing directly north at all times. Your back faces the center at the northern point and your front faces the center at the southern point. At some point during the orbit, every part of your body faces the center.
3. Now, imagine, there is a separate track that forms a complete ring around the carousel. You step off the carousel and stand on a platform attached to the track, facing north. You notice the platform has a small arrow pointing north. The platform moves along the track such that the arrow always faces north. Allow yourself to be carried along without spending any effort to turn your body. Similar to scenario #2, your body will face north at all times, with your back facing the center at the northern point and your front facing the center at the southern point. However, unlike in #2, you are not rotating in order to maintain your orientation.
4. Take another trip on the platform ring around the carousel. This time rotate your body as the platform moves in the same direction of the movement so that you complete one full spin per trip around the carousel. In doing so, similar to #1, your back will face the center of the carousel at all times. Unlike #1, however, you are now rotating around your own axis.
Of the above, #1 and #4 have the same characteristics as the moon. In both cases, you orbit the carousel with your back facing the center at all times. In scenario #1, you are not rotating about your axis; in scenario #4, you are rotating at a 1:1 ratio.
Based on observation alone, it is impossible to determine whether the moon does not rotate (#1) or whether it has a tidal locked rotation (#4).
The answer to the debate therefore cannot be determined merely by creating opposing analogies. Rather, it requires a deeper understanding of what is causing the moon orbit. Is the moon standing on a gravity platform that carries the moon along as the center of the platform (the Earth) spins, or is the moon an independent moving body that is confined by gravity to a track as the moon travels and spins around the Earth?
(Note: If you find the scenarios are insufficient, consider two more. For a scenario #5 and #6, repeat #3 and #4 but instead of having a moving platform, walk along the track, the first time stay facing north, which will require you to walk backward and sideways at times. The second time turn your body naturally as you walk so that the same shoulder always points toward the carousel).
1) Orbiting, without axial rotation.
2) Orbiting, with axial rotation.
3) Orbiting, with axial rotation (platform is rotating).
4) Orbiting, with person rotating in exact opposition to rotating platform.
Moon is “1”. It’s the same as a ball on a string.
A ball-on-a-string is the the same as anything that orbits something else.
It is not orbiting anything.
> The answer to the debate therefore cannot be determined merely by creating opposing analogies.
Bingo.
Gordo, your analogy about an aircraft flying at a fixed altitude therefore following the curvature of the earth in an orbit like path ignores a basic fact.
That is, the aircraft has a pilot, or, as is often the case, a control system which substitutes for the pilot. The pilot maintains a desired altitude by changing the control surfaces called “elevators” to cause the necessary rotational motion of the craft to compensate for the small curvature of the flight path around the Earth. The physics of flight in the atmosphere is totally different from the orbital dynamics of lunar orbit which occur outside the atmosphere. The Moon does not experience aerodynamic lift or drag.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27603/do-pilots-adjust-the-aircrafts-flight-path-to-allow-for-the-curvature-of-the-ea/27604
DREMT, I’m surprised to see Swanson continuing to make a fool of himself. He’s done it so many times. I guess he just can’t learn….
None of them can!
Go tell Kerbal programmers that they do not understand velocity, gravity, orbits and rotations.
Swanson, if the plane were far enough out in space (to avoid the aerodynamic effects of the atmosphere), and had the appropriate forward linear speed to remain in orbit, the nose of the plane would always face in the direction of instantaneous travel. It would orbit, without rotating. It’s the same motion as Moon.
Or, a ball-on-a-string.
“the nose of the plane would always face in the direction of instantaneous travel. It would orbit, without rotating. Its the same motion as Moon.”
As noted before, the TEAM is completely unable to leave behind the erroneous idea that space motion must be just like terrestrial motion.
Sorry space vehicles don’t need wheels, legs or wings. They don’t need to POINT in the direction they are travelling.
Why is this so hard for you guys?
Troll Nate, maybe if you try again —
“…if the plane were far enough out in space (to avoid the aerodynamic effects of the atmosphere)…”
pups, you morons still don’t get it. The rotation of a vehicle (actually, a satellite) outside the atmosphere is a function of the history of the torques applied to said satellite. If the satellite had an initial rate of rotation which constantly presented one face toward the Earth, that rotation might continue. You morons continue to assume that that rotation rate is always going to occur, which is false as there are subtle torques which have an effect on any non-spherical body, such as solar pressure.
There’s no reason to expect that the “nose” of said satellite would always point along the orbital flight path and this would certainly be false for an elliptical orbit.
Swanson, gravity does NOT produce a torque on Moon.
Abuse your keyboard all you want, but gravity does NOT produce a torque on Moon.
You don’t have a clue about orbital motions. That’s why you didn’t respond to the easy “barbell” problem.
pups, your reading comprehension sucks, moron. Where did I mention anything about the Moon in my post?
The discussion is about Moon. I keep it that way so idiot trolls can’t distract and pervert.
Gordo was talking about aircraft flying, Pup.
Even Kiddo likes it.
I keep it that way so idiot trolls can’t distract and pervert.
I know that Kiddo should stop trolling, Pup, but he can’t:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-804005
Cut him some slack. He’s doing great these days.
I keep it that way so idiot trolls can’t distract and pervert, as Dud attempts here.
“Troll Nate, maybe if you try again
‘if the plane were far enough out in space (to avoid the aerodynamic effects of the atmosphere)’
Yes, no problem with that!
“the nose of the plane would always face in the direction of instantaneous travel. It would orbit, without rotating. Its the same motion as Moon.”
There is where u F*ked it up.
You simply declare that the plane would behave just like a plane in air!
FYI there is no air in space and wings serve no purpose!
Wrong, troll Nate.
I didn’t “simply declare that the plane would behave just like a plane in air”. You’re trying to pervert my words.
I said: “the nose of the plane would always face in the direction of instantaneous travel. It would orbit, without rotating. It’s the same motion as Moon.”
What do you plan to pervert next?
I have only one word for you, Pup.
Just one word.
Are you listening?
Phugoid.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-805749
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-805857
Willard, please stop trolling.
maguff…”#BREAKING Texas Gov Greg Abbott Tests Positive For Being A Smug Reckless Anti-Science Piece Of Garbage”.
***
Where’s your proof that the tests are valid? Do you know anything about this at all, or just opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble? Or are you yet another weenie appealing to authority?
In the UK SAGE has suggested the current Covid-19 test has 99% specificity and sensitivity.
“appealing to authority”
Gordon appeals to constant paranoia.
swenson…”Oh well, what would an old Greek with a strange name like Archimedes know?”
***
Ask Christos, he’s Greek. What say, Christos? Does the Archimedes principle hold true? Some climate alarmists think that ice floating in water will raise the water level when it melts.
I guess alarmists think that ice floating on the Arctic Ocean was shipped in there by cargo ship after being made in Duluth, Minnesota. I actually drove through Duluth early one morning a long time ago, on the way from Winnipeg to Detroit.
Sea ice buttresses land ice and keeps it cold.
Once the sea ice goes, the melting of land ice will accelerate.
That is where the rise in sea level will come from.
EM,
Nope. Sea ice floats. Buttresses precisely nothing at all. Does a floating oil tanker stop a small tug from pushing it along? As to keeping land ice cold, are you sure you are awake? You sound like you might be dreaming.
Maybe you are confused about sea ice, and glacial ice (which holds nothing back – it floats too!).
The rise and fall of sea level depends on crustal:movements in the main. If enough orogenic lift occurs, ocean basins increase in volume – conservation of mass. If enough displacement occurs, all the Earth’s frozen water could melt, and sea levels would still fall.
Sea levels rise and fall. Continents dance around. The impact of GHGs is completely unknowable. Maybe more than a butterfly peeing in Brazil, or maybe not.
Still sure that sea levels will rise?
Yes, Mike Flynn, Mother Floater.
Sea levels will rise:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Witless Wee Willy,
The loonies at NASA climate have no clue. They have only recently admitted that land subsidence causes perceived sea levels to rise.
As to the rest of your comment, your appeals to the authority of NASA fall flat.
You are as silly as the dim-witted Trenberth, who believes that oceans are heated by radiation from CO2! Are you and Ken Rice as stupid as Trenberth?
Have you found out what happens when GHGs “trap” heat?
Kevin Trenberth mistakenly believes that there is heat “trapped” in the oceans. What do you think happens to the “trapped” heat there?
You really are an idiot, aren’t you? You can run but you can’t hide.
Mike Flynn,
Mileage Forgotten,
Here you go–
https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/what-sea-level-rise-means-australia
It’s not chemical engineering, but I hope you can grok that!
Worried Wee Willy,
Have you found out what happens when GHGs “trap heat” yet?
Or do just intend to continue avoiding providing an answer because you know it will just make you look stupid?
Run, Willy, run! You can run, but you can’t hide!
You are an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
I know you like Doritos.
Next time we’ll talk about Doritos, I’ll tell you.
Be well.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Sea ice buttresses land ice and keeps it cold.”
Maybe ice shelves are kept cold from the land:
“Arctic ice shelves are restricted to several archipelagos fringing the Arctic Ocean and to a few Greenland fjords. The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf is the largest at about 400 km2. Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves have expanded and contracted during the Holocene. The Ellesmere Ice Shelf developed about 5500 years ago in response to Holocene cooling. ”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-024-1101-0_1
“The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf is the largest ice shelf in the Arctic, located on the north coast of Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada.”
Overcast
26 F
16:00
Climate Ellesmere Island
https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/historyclimate/climatemodelled/ellesmere-island_canada_5947838
Most of time this island is quite cold. But it was warmer in early part of our Holocene when there was ice free artic waters.
stephen…”I will continue to be exposed and expose others. This behavior will give me and the people I expose the best chance to survive”.
***
That’s true, the human immune system has not suddenly gone AWOL. It’s working just fine. 99.9% of any population are not bothered by covid.
I may have encountered it a couple of times since January 2020 but scared it off with large doses of vitamin C. The minute I sense viral symptoms, I hit it with C and the symptoms abate within an hours or so. I may feel the effect for a few days but I keep drowning it with C. One thing that stands out is the lack of secondary infections like runny noses, coughing/sneezing, etc.
Should you get bit on the butt by it, here’s some advice. Just advice, you obviously have to research on your own. Keep a large supply of vitamin C on hand, preferably the powder form as ascorbic acid. If you can’t deal with the acidity, you can buffer it with baking soda, magnesium, calcium, etc., till it becomes a salt, like sodium ascorbate.
For normal daily usage, I mix about two slightly heaped 1/2 teaspoons of C to one heaping 1/4 teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate. That’s about 4 to 5 grams depending on how high it is heaped. I take that every morning and 3 x 1/2 teaspoons in the evening. I have a mix of 2 x 1/2 teaspoons that I sip through the night when I awaken to go to the bathroom.
Linus Pauling advised that it’s not how much you take it’s how high you keep your blood level pumped with C. Taking smaller doses regularly in a day is better than taking one huge dose once a day.
The mix fizzes in water and mixes well, although magnesium or calcium don’t mix quite as well. You can get the powder premixed as calcium ascorbate or magnesium ascorbate, or just chew the chewable tablets (sodium ascorbate). About 10 X 500 mg chewables = 5000 mg = 5 grams.
At the first sign of infection, take enough C so that you must rush to the toilet in an hour or so (bowel tolerance level). That’s usually about 6 to 8 grams (6000 to 8000 milligrams) but it could be more if you are ill. Follow that up every 4 hours till the symptoms abate significantly.
Don’t quit taking C all at once…taper off gradually over several days. I never taper off, C is a mainstay in my diet.
Vitamin C will kill any virus stone dead. It was used by a Dr. Klenner in the late 1940s to treat polio and it has been used intravenously to treat far more serious maladies.
The studies done so far have indicated that Vit C does not prevent an infection of Covid. Catching it does reduce Vit C in the body but that is not quite the same thing.
rlh…”The studies done so far have indicated that Vit C does not prevent an infection of Covid. Catching it does reduce Vit C in the body but that is not quite the same thing”.
***
What studies? Besides, C is not meant to prevent a viral infection it is meant to kill the virus, which it does effectively. C is a powerful antioxidant and it has a direct effect on the immune system. It’s no magic elixir, but used in conjunction with common sense and good health habits, there is little doubt that it works against a viral infection, when taken in the proper dosage at a bowel-tolerance level.
Put another way, if you stop taking C altogether you’ll be dead in a month or two. It helps create collagen the glue that sticks cells together. A virus is nothing more than an inert blob of genetic material and apparently C has a strong effect on it.
I remember Linus Pauling and Scottish surgeon Ewan Cameron using 10 grams of C on terminal cancer patients at the Vale of Leven Hospital in Scotland. They had modest success with at least one person going into full remission but the overall positive note was that all people had an improvement in their quality of life. People who would normally be in pain at the end were suffering no pain. People who had sunken into depression rebounded.
The Mayo Clinic claimed to have reproduced the study with a Dr. Moertell. He claimed no effect from the C. When Pauling contacted him about the study, Moertell revealed that they had used only 250 mg of C, some 40 times lower than the dosage prescribed by Pauling and Cameron.
He also revealed that he’d kept terminal cancer patients on chemotherapy whereas Pauling/Cameron had stopped chemo. An astounded Pauling asked why he would continue chemo with terminal cancer patients. Moertell replied they wanted to appear to be doing something.
You can take anit-vitamin C studies with a grain of salt, not worth the paper they are written on because they are written by paradigm junkies who believe C is a waste of money.
Pauling, on the other hand, was the leading authority in chemistry for the 20th century. He also had 10 years of direct experience in the medical field at the invitation of the US government. During that time he managed to identify the cause of sickle cell anemia.
maguff…”
R(t) = t^2i + 2tj where i and j are unit vectors
R'(t) = 2ti + 2j
Wrong!
Since you did not apply the chain rule of differentiation you got the wrong answer.
The correct answer to your own problem(!) is:
R'(t) = 2ti + t^2(di/dt)_+ 2j + 2t (dj/dt) ”
***
I specified that i and j are unit vectors. In what kind of vector calculus do you differentiate the vector component as in dj/dt? Are you daft? Chain rule not required.
The longer Robertson’s comments, the dumber he appears.
He has no real knowledge of whatever but nonetheless, he desperately tries to become the main contributor to this blog …
How ridiculous!
His ‘ideas’ are all plain wrong, made out of stuff he picks on contrarian web sites.
All he is able to do is to distort, discredit, denigrate, and… lie.
His lies about HIV’s co-discoverer Luc Montagnier are disingenuous and dishonest.
And his nonsense about vitamin C as anti-virus are absolutely disgusting.
The best punishment for his lies would be to send him for a year to Afghanistan or Pakistan, two countries where poliomyelitis could not become eradicated due to the talibans’ and other mollahs’ ignorance.
J.-P. D.
Sorted out why it is bad to use already rounded figures in any subsequent calculations yet?
Now YOU really behave like an arrogant twat, a superficial and condescending retired elementary school teacher, and not like a real engineer.
You perfectly know that the difference between the rounded values and those computed out of subhourly stuff is absolutely insignificant compared with the differences between average/mean and average/median.
But you persist in putting your little findings ahead.
All you do since now about two weeks is a cowardly attempt not to repeat the job I did: because you know full well that all of your criticism would then fizzle out.
Stop smalltalking about tiny details, and start working on the real stuff.
J.-P. D.
“You perfectly know that the difference between the rounded values and those computed out of subhourly stuff is absolutely insignificant”
There is a difference which will only come to light when figures conspire to cluster around the 0.05c point. They will round up or round down depending on the particular combinations.
Such as the ones you found.
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
You can’t even admit that you are in error, not USCRN.
You are the arrogant twat. Suggesting others could not get the data. Could not draw graphs. Could not do maths. Could not be a ‘real engineer’.
You don’t even know some very basic stuff to do with already rounded figures and their dangers.
“All you do since now about two weeks is a cowardly attempt not to repeat the job I did: because you know full well that all of your criticism would then fizzle out.”
Sure you know better than all of the statistical text books. Arrogant twat that you are.
So you tell me. What is the reason behind Tminmax and Taverage being different on the various site for site specific based reasons.
No handwaving on this now. Real actual observations.
The trick of our One-Trick Pony:
1. Almost suggest something;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. Feeble try at insulting
Still makes you an idiot though.
.
RLH
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
Month on Month chart for UAH showing each month in one year against the same month exactly a year before.
*
” I predict that Bindidon will not see its significance. ”
I see! You are in predicting nearly as good as I am…
*
You gave, with the chart linked to above, the best possible confirmation for… a possible lack of significance of your claim
YEAR MO GLOBE
2020 01 0.42 2021 01 0.12
2020 02 0.59 2021 02 0.20
2020 03 0.35 2021 03 -0.01
2020 04 0.26 2021 04 -0.05
2020 05 0.42 2021 05 0.08
2020 06 0.30 2021 06 -0.01
2020 07 0.31 2021 07 0.20
Oh look. Month on month this year is less than last year (so far).
I tried to give a hint on the fact that a sequence like this had appeared TEN times before in UAH’s lifetime, but you preferred to discard it:
name | year
—–+——
uah6 | 1982
uah6 | 1984
uah6 | 1989
uah6 | 1992
uah6 | 1999
uah6 | 2006
uah6 | 2008
uah6 | 2011
uah6 | 2017
uah6 | 2018
uah6 | 2021
The same thing happened with RSS, as well as with surface series (GISS, etc) in the same period, albeit not as pronounced:
name | year
—–+——
giss | 1982
giss | 1984
giss | 1989
giss | 1999
giss | 2003
giss | 2011
giss | 2017
giss | 2021
*
But nonetheless, GISS’ and UAH’s difference plots seem to have, despite differing themselves by a lot, some nice little thing in common:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Uc6rYcnb9pnRTUkj_TDJPIB4H5tMOAXY/view
I am sure you will discover ‘the thing’ since you have “learned statistics” :- )
J.-P. D.
“I tried to give a hint on the fact that a sequence like this had appeared TEN times before in UAHs lifetime”
So what? Does that alter what I said. No. You are an arrogant twat.
A sequence like yours has appeared ten times since 1979. That is an average of once every 5 years.
None of the previous sequences were followed by an end to global warming.
Your subtext is that the current sequence means global warming has stopped, which is Climateball, not science.
I never said that a 6 month downwards trend would end GW. I just responded to the fact the stories are being written as though temperatures were continuing to rise, year on year. They are not at present. Get over it.
> I just responded to the fact the stories are being written as though temperatures were continuing to rise, year on year.
You’re burning down your own strawman, dummy.
“Written as though” does not belong to the world of facts, btw.
The fact is that the world is cooler now than it was 6 months ago. Get over it.
Your fact is irrelevant, dummy.
There’s nothing to get over.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Monthly_Mean_Global_Surface_Temperature/graph.txt
July 2020 0.91C
January 2021 0.81C
July 2021 0.92C
Cooling?
Except that none of the last seven months are warmer than the latest month, therefore
Cooling?
I don’t think so.
See the chart at the top of the page.
Bob: You are wrong.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
ET you are wrong.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
Willard: You as an idiot are always irrelevant.
RLH,
You just posted a graph that confirms that the latest month, July 2021 was warmer than the preceding seven months.
Just like the data table at the top of the page.
Well now, isn’t that special?
“I never said that a 6 month downwards trend would end GW.”
Good. But you clearly are excited about it.
“I just responded to the fact the stories are being written as though temperatures were continuing to rise, year on year.”
The stories are about extreme weather events in the warm NH and relating these to climate change of the last few decades, and according to you, it hasn’t ended.
There is no inconsistency there.
Your focus on short term noise is a red herring.
“You just posted a graph that confirms that the latest month, July 2021 was warmer than the preceding seven months.”
Again, so what. Does not make the claim that I stated untrue.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
Shows quite clearly that we are still below the 0 line.
“Good. But you clearly are excited about it.”
No. I am just fed up with people not being prepared to acknowledge that fact. This month is still lower than the same month a year ago. As were all of the months in this year so far.
What to say if that trend will continue for the rest of the year or not?
“Your focus on short term noise is a red herring.”
How can a truth be a red herring?
The trick of our One-Trick Pony:
1. Almost suggest something;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. Feeble try at insulting
Willard being an idiot as usual.
3.
RLH,
Below the zero line does not indicate cooling.
That is an arbitrary line, of no significance to the question of whether or not it is cooling.
When comparing this month to a month a year ago, 0 means there was no change. Below that means that it is lower this year.
One would expect not to have to explain this to people.
RLH,
“When comparing this month to a month a year ago, 0 means there was no change. Below that means that it is lower this year.
One would expect not to have to explain this to people.”
The zero point is determined by taking the average of a certain period, then all the data points get that average subtracted from their value.
You don’t determine if it is cooling or warming by comparing two data points, you do a regression.
Taken any statistics have you?
“I just responded to the fact the stories are being written as though temperatures were continuing to rise, year on year”
I think you made up that fact. And people here are not interested in “stories,” they are interested in the science. Dunno why you think your focus is useful on this board. A reduntant effort based on a straw man.
Nor does anyone here imagine that global temps are rising year on year. How about get interested in something we don’t know.
“How can a truth be a red herring?”
The question suggests you don’t know the term.
A red herring is an irrelevant fact or non-fact.
“The zero point is determined by taking the average of a certain period, then all the data points get that average subtracted from their value.”
Do you read or think? In a month on month comparison such as this, then Jan last year is compared to Jan this year. Thus the 0 means there is no change for this year, month on month.
No averages needed or used.
“people here are not interested in stories, they are interested in the science.”
Tell that to Willard with his constant ‘GLOBAL COOLING’ links/stories, to whom this response is typically made.
“A red herring is an irrelevant fact”
How can the FACT that, month on month, this year is cooler than last year be irrelevant? When that is all I have stated.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
> How can the FACT that, month on month, this year is cooler than last year be irrelevant?
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.2):
0. Almost suggest something;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
“When that is all I have stated.”
Then you stated it for no purpose? To make no point?
MY point is that noise is always present in the temperature record.
The long-term GW trend MUST have noise on it that departs above and below the trend line, often due to ENSO.
Unless and until there is a sustained departure outside the normal range of variation around the trend, the departure is not providing us evidence of any change in GW.
“MY point is that noise is always present in the temperature record.”
So a 6 months trend (visible in all temperature series) is only noise. How long does it have to continue for it not to be such?
“the normal range of variation around the trend”
Define the normal variation that you will accept.
“is only noise. How long does it have to continue for it not to be such?”
As noted, “Unless and until there is a sustained departure outside the normal range of variation around the trend”
You like stats. You should be able to figure this.
As to trend, the trend over some period of time has an error bar due to this noise.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
The error is reduced with longer period. Pick a period, say 20 y.
To claim a change in trend is significant, it should depart from the previous trend by more than the error bar.
For GISS, for 20y trends, that hasnt happened yet since ~ 1970.
RLH,
“Do you read or think? In a month on month comparison such as this, then Jan last year is compared to Jan this year. Thus the 0 means there is no change for this year, month on month.”
But that’s not what we were discussing.
We were discussing whether or not it is cooling, not whether a particular month was warmer, cooler, or the same as another particular month.
And even if the difference between two particular months was 0, that still doesn’t mean you can say for sure whether or not it is cooler, warmer or the same.
Like I asked, ever take statistics?
“since you have ‘learned statistics'”
Are you suggesting that you are self taught in that along with all the other stuff as well?
Heres the trick of our One-Trick Pony:
1. Almost suggest something;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. Feeble try at insulting
That covers it.
Here is Willard’s way of being an idiot. Just write things.
3.
Oh look. A count again. Want to go higher?
Not a count, dummy.
And that’s 2.
Numbers then. Still not impressed.
Back to 3.
Still makes you an idiot.
Moar 3.
More idiot.
and on and on
Nothing changes from you being an idiot.
.
Self taught, aha.
I learned Simula67 at the beginning of the 70ies (together with a lot of other things, like Automata theory, compiler and compiler compiler engineering, etc).
I learned C++, CLOS, Prolog as engineer during courses financed by our firm.
I never learned statistics.
*
By the way, I recall you having written something like
” C is not a native OOP language ”
What a wonderful, teachy evidence.
Near the end of the 80ies, we wrote stuff like
object = (Object *) objectClasses->createInstance(Object);
or
if (object = (Object *) userSelectsObject())
object->transformObject(object, userInteractionPanel->matrix));
And that HAD to be written in K&R C, Mister Teacher RLH. Not in ANSI C, let alone in C++.
OOP, Mr. RLH teacher, is not primarily a consequence of the syntax and semantics of programming languages. It is first and foremost a philosophy.
A philosophy in which the strict separation of data and procedures that was customary in early programming languages has been abolished in favor of an object world in which the data and the methods processing them have been brought together.
As in… C, oh yes: for the beginning of the 70s, a simply ingenious integration of Algol68 and Simula67.
And you name me an ‘arrogant twat’.
Superb.
“C is not a native OOP language”
There is a difference between C and C++ you know.
“C++ supports object-oriented programming, but OO is not intrinsic to the language. In fact, the main function isn’t a member of an object.”
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1635583/is-c-completely-object-oriented-language/1635600
C++ is an extension of C. Not C itself. Idiot.
“C++ contains a ‘C’ dialect as a subset, permitting a purely procedural style of code.”
‘Main’ in C and C++ (and C# now you come to mention it) are just the entry points for code. A lot of things happen before and after that function to make things OK.
Binny’s point still holds, dummy.
There’s a reason why we say “oriented.”
rlh…”Main’ in C and C++ (and C# now you come to mention it) are just the entry points for code. A lot of things happen before and after that function to make things OK”.
***
Same with Windows. Winmain() is called after initialization and it’s essentially ends in a message loop, which loops till an exit instruction is received. Before the message loop is reached, all the windows are created then displayed with ShowWindow().
Exactly, Gordo.
Which means that PL flamewars are complete waste of time.
Oh, wait.
“Same with Windows.”
Windows runs a lot more than just WinMain though. I use command prompt applications that use Main (in C#).
…
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(“Something”);
…
Willard: You are always a waste of time/space.
“Binnys point still holds, dummy.”
No it doesn’t idiot.
willard…”Which means that PL flamewars are complete waste of time”.
Yes..but flaming is often good fun. It relieves stress as well.
As I have said to Binny, I could just as easily sit down with him (or you) and have a good laugh over a beer, or coffee. He doesn’t get it, he thinks I hate his guts, just because I occasionally call him an idiot.
I often have a good laugh over his attempts to assassinate my character. By laugh, I don’t mean a laugh of superiority, just a happy laugh of amusement. I admitted to myself a long time ago that I’m an ****ole and any attempt to demean such an image is met with amusement. Of course, it’s not enough to settle for being an ****ole, I think one must strive to understand and be a better person.
Solved that problem long ago by getting rid of my character (ego). It’s a burden. So is belief. Integrity is another matter but if you wear integrity as a holier-than-though image, it’s not integrity. Scientific integrity to me is the desire to understand, especially in the face of paradigms and those who try to shove them down my throat.
I try to understand science by going to the root and to the source of the theories, like Clausius and the 2nd law. I have little time for contrived theories based on consensus, convoluted mathematical proofs with no physical basis, and absurd theories like the Big Bang.
I take exception to the persecution of scientists for expressing their views. I also take exception to the SOBs behind the persecution. That’s why I have so much trouble with climate alarmists. I don’t mind someone like you offering your personal views, it’s the people you represent to whom I object.
Got it, Gordo.
Just make sure that you get that Richard might be using this to play the tough guy against Binny, oblivious to the fact that he’s just a dot net coder.
Willard: You are just an idiot.
rlh…”Windows runs a lot more than just WinMain though. I use command prompt applications that use Main (in C#)”.
***
Of course it does. However, if you trace into a Windows app using windbg or a similar debugger. the app code is called from kernel32 or ntdll.dll. In older apps the function that ultimately called the Windows app code was baseprocessstart(). If you broke on that and traced some code you’d reach a call to the app’s start of code which precedes winmain() with a load of code.
Once in the app’s code, it goes through a lengthy initialization process. It examines environment variables and the likes and sets up and initializes memory space. It also reads the files PE header to get the size, etc. After initialization, there is a call to winmain().
Since this is a normal call, it requires a RET.
In winmain() there is a lengthy series of windows creation routines that culminate in the ShowWindow() function. When it executes, the windows appear.
However, all Windows activity for that app takes place within Winmain(). You can’t exit Winmain() till the wm_exit command is called.
I am familiar with the console window version, although I have traced through only a few of them. There is a 32-bit debugger called Softice that will allow you to trace through all Windows code, even the kernel code at ring0. Windbg prevents access to kernel code. I have been trying to find out if there are exceptions to that but thus far no one seems to know. Makes no sense that a Windows debugger put out by Microsoft would not trace through kernel code. Then again, I guess they are try to hide their code.
BTW…there is a free version of the IDA disassembler that will allow you to see assembly code for an app. It identifies winmain() in Windows apps.
Gordon: I know and understand the complexities of WinMain, its startup, operation and conclusion.
As I say, I often use 64 bit Console Applications which serve a lot of my needs. Does graphs, SQL and a lot more.
Time to release a second version:
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.2):
0. Almost suggest something;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
My thanks!
Idiot.
“I learned Simula67 at the beginning of the 70ies (together with a lot of other things, like Automata theory, compiler and compiler compiler engineering, etc).”
Oh really! At which School/College/University?
“I learned C++, CLOS, Prolog as engineer during courses financed by our firm.”
Hmm. I have taught quite a few of those type of courses. Never long enough to get any real programming knowledge imparted in my humble experience.
“I never learned statistics.”
That is rather too obvious.
You are still an arrogant twat. That comes across clearly in everything you say.
” Oh really! At which School/College/University? ”
I learned that in a German university. Which one doesn’t play any role here.
” That is rather too obvious. ”
Thanks for this intelligent, humble remark. And you name me an ‘arrogant twat’ ???
Who was busy all the time with compiler construction, graphics and database access projects had no time to learn statistics, nor did he feel any real need to do.
Would you learn statistics during the implementation of an experimental programming language dedicated to compiler construction? I guess: no.
And thus I admit: I never learned that stuff.
You, RLH, never admitted anything on this blog. You are ALWAYS right, what makes you pretty good similar to Robertson and Clint R…
As you never admit you are wrong, even when dealing with rounded figures and USCRN, it is obvious that you are arrogant. It shows through.
P.S. I have admitted when I was wrong here in the past. Unlike you who never does such a thing.
“Would you learn statistics during the implementation of an experimental programming language dedicated to compiler construction?”
No. I studied statistics as part of my MSc.
I was taught Algol 60 in the ’70s too. Taught it formally. Along with a lot of other computing related stuff.
So, write yourself a program that shows a radial line rotating about 0,0. Earth is at 0,0 and the Moon is a circle at the end of the radial line. Include two tangent lines, one where the near side of the Moon is intercepted by the radial line and another where the radial line extends out the far side.
Write the program so the two tangent lines trace out orbital paths as the radial line rotates. Better, still include another radial line for the Moon’s centre. Now you have three concentric circles traced out by the near side, the COG, and the far side.
As the radial line turns with the Moon at its end, try to clear your mind of all the crap you have ingested and LOOK. It is blatantly obvious that the Moon is not rotating about its COG/axis and that it is translating like a car on a roadway.
I have met Englishmen and Kiwis (New Zealanders) who are so thickly stubborn, that once they form an idea in their minds they cannot bring themselves to see beyond it.
But all Englishmen know when a nutter approaches such as you.
rlh…”But all Englishmen know when a nutter approaches such as you”.
***
Au contraire, most Englishmen are nutters, look at the Royal Family and the other nobs who kiss up to them. Monty Python’s success was largely based on lampooning them. John Cleese comes from such a background and he found it hilarious (department of silly walks).
When people believe they are of royal blood or of aristocracy, they have serious mental issues. Then there’s your type, who is given absolute proof of a claim and who refuses to even look. Your rebuttal is an ad hominem attack without the slightest effort to give a scientific rebuttal.
Gordon: You are just a nutter.
rlh…”Gordon: You are just a nutter”.
***
That would be Mr. Nutter to the likes of you.
That is you getting above yourself.
rlh…”That is you getting above yourself”.
***
Are you working on that program yet? Should be a pioce of cake to someone with your background. Just a rotating radial line with a circle on the end of it with a couple of tangent lines.
I’m thinking you could start with the radial line along the x-axis, then get it to rotate. Manipulated polar coordinates should enable it to rotate.
Then add a couple of perpendicular lines separated by the diameter of the circle representing the Moon. You would not actually need a circle, the tangent lines represent it.
Don’t you see that, just visualizing it?
As you cannot correctly specify the app, why would I want to get involved.
Let’s start off with a Moon of some considerable mass. Get it orbiting the Earth about once every 27 days. Then try and figure out what force would make the Moon revolve on its axis so that it wasn’t still pointing at a fixed star..
rlh…”Then try and figure out what force would make the Moon revolve on its axis so that it wasnt still pointing at a fixed star..”
***
Not following what you mean by ‘still pointing at a fixed star’. What is pointing at a fixed star?
As the Earth, rotates, it is claimed the N-S axis points at the star Polaris. Polaris is so far away that even though the Earth orbits the Sun along a decently large orbital path, it still points at Polaris, or at least, in the vicinity of Polaris.
If you visualize the Earth’s orbital plane, the lunar orbital plane is at an angle of about 5 degrees to it. If the lunar axis is considered to be perpendicular to the lunar orbital plane, unlike the Earth, where its axis is inclined to the Earth orbital plane, that axis should point to the stars.
If that’s true, then the Moon is orbiting on the lunar orbital plane with its axis extending 90 degrees from the plane. So, what is pointing at the stars? As the Moon orbits, its axis will trace out a small circle, that will become vanishingly smaller if a star is far enough away. So the axis may point at a star.
However, the face that always faces the Earth is pointing along the lunar orbital plane toward Earth. There is only gravitational force acting on that side and the only other motivating force is the Moon’s linear momentum. I call momentum a pseudo-force, since it requires a real force to establish it and and equal and opposite force, applied over time, to terminate it. If that momentum is resisted by a mass of significant size, the momentum becomes a force.
There are no known forces acting to cause or support rotation about the lunar axis. In fact, all that is necessary for an orbit is gravitational force and a momentum of a mass sufficient to overcome the tendency of gravitational force to accelerate the Moon toward Earth.
“Not following what you mean by still pointing at a fixed star. What is pointing at a fixed star?”
A mass at rest (without rotation) always remains pointing at where it was when it started. See Newton. What causes it to change from that orientation? An orbit around another body alone wont change that.
Remember, orbits and orientation are 2 separate things.
“If the lunar axis is considered to be perpendicular to the lunar orbital plane”
False premise. The Moon’s axis is tilted 6.7 degrees to the perpendicular line out of its orbital plane.
The Moon spins on this tilted axis while orbiting the Earth. If it weren’t, then what is the meaning of its ‘axis’?
Sorry Nate, but that’s all nonsense from centuries-old astrology. Moon does NOT rotate. It only orbits. That’s why we only see one side of it from Earth.
It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string.
“Its the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string.”
A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits.
Bindidon: Have you decided that you or USCRN is wrong in the monthly/daily averages?
Do you understand the problem with using already rounded figures?
Do you expect them to be different (sometimes) in the last decimal place because of that well known problem?
As below
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
Clint R
“Orbiting barbell”
Reminds me of the Forward Mass Detector.
Robert Forward’s extensive work in the field of gravitational wave detection included the invention of the rotating cruciform gravity gradiometer or ‘Forward Mass Detector’, for Lunar Mascon (mass concentration) measurements. The gravity gradiometer is described in the well-known textbook Gravitation by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler. The principle behind it is quite simple; getting the implementation right is tricky. Essentially, two beams are crossed over and connected with an axle through their crossing point. They are held at right angles to each other by springs. They have heavy masses at the ends of the beams, and the whole assembly spun around the common axle at high speed. The angle between the beams is measured continuously, and if it varies with a period half that of the rotation period, it means that the detector is experiencing a measurable gravitational field gradient. “
No significance to the barbell problem, Ent.
But there’s no harm in trying to learn.
It’s relevant to the Poll Dance Experiment, Pup.
That’s why it’s so much better.
It’s also more fun!
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny…” C is not a native OOP language
“OOP, Mr. RLH teacher, is not primarily a consequence of the syntax and semantics of programming languages. It is first and foremost a philosophy”.
***
You really like to expound on things you know nothing about. C++, an OOP language, was used to build C++ by its creator, Bjarne Stroustrup. He based C++ on C. One of the major differences between C and C++, as explained by Stroustrup, is the ability to define your own ‘types’ in C++, such as classes. C is restricted to pre-defined types like int, char, struct, etc.
But, why listen to me when the author lays it out for us?
By Bjarne Stroustrup, the creator of C++…
“C++ is a general purpose programming language designed to make programming more enjoyable for the serious programmer. Except for minor details, C++ is a superset of the C programming language. In addition to the facilities provided by C, C++ provides flexible and efficient facilities for defining new types. A programmer can partition an application into manageable pieces by defining new types that closely match the concepts of the application. This technique for program construction is often called data abstraction. Objects of some user-defined types contain type information. Such objects can be used conveniently and safely in contexts in which their type cannot be determined at compile time. Programs using objects of such types are often called object based. When used well, these techniques result in shorter, easier to understand, and easier to maintain programs.
The key concept in C++ is class. A class is a user-defined type. Classes provide data hiding, guaranteed initialization of data, implicit type conversion for user-defined types, dynamic typing, user-controlled memory management, and mechanisms for overloading operators. C++ provides much better facilities for type checking and for expressing modularity than C does”.
Please, Gordo:
“Programmers should be free to pick their own programming style, and that style should be fully supported by C++.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B
Don’t overthink this.
What do you as an idiot know about programming?
> Why not quote the whole thing to put you tiny bit in context?
To emphasize the point I want to make, dummy.
I leave irrelevancies to you.
The trick of our One-Trick Pony:
1. Almost suggest something;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. Feeble try at insulting
2 & 3
U are an idiot.
3.
Still an idiot though.
2+3+3+3
U are still an idiot though.
Idiots are just idiots.
Incorrect.
Sometimes they’re also 74 years old.
Willard is just an idiot. Whatever his age.
&c
Willard is just an idiot.
…
Nothin has changed. U are still an idiot.
….
Willard: Still an idiot.
,
Now we have commas. What will the idiot do next?
,,
Why not quote the whole thing to put you tiny bit in context?
“Throughout C++’s life, its development and evolution has been guided by a set of principles:
It must be driven by actual problems and its features should be immediately useful in real world programs.
Every feature should be implementable (with a reasonably obvious way to do so).
Programmers should be free to pick their own programming style, and that style should be fully supported by C++.
Allowing a useful feature is more important than preventing every possible misuse of C++.
It should provide facilities for organising programs into separate, well-defined parts, and provide facilities for combining separately developed parts.
No implicit violations of the type system (but allow explicit violations; that is, those explicitly requested by the programmer).
User-created types need to have the same support and performance as built-in types.
Unused features should not negatively impact created executables (e.g. in lower performance).
There should be no language beneath C++ (except assembly language).
C++ should work alongside other existing programming languages, rather than fostering its own separate and incompatible programming environment.
If the programmer’s intent is unknown, allow the programmer to specify it by providing manual control.”
> Why not quote the whole thing to put you tiny bit in context?
To emphasize the point I want to make, dummy.
I leave irrelevancies to you.
U are an idiot.
The trick of our One-Trick Pony:
1. Almost suggest something;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. Feeble try at insulting
Still makes you an idiot.
“To emphasize the point I want to make”
To diminish the context it which it was said more like.
OOP occurs in many languages. C++, which is widely used, just happened to be one of the first.
As it is a extension of C, you can maintain a procedurally based approach if you so wish. Does not make C++ not an OOP language. Idiot.
> Does not make C++ not
That’s a strong claim you got there, dummy.
Willard: Your main claim is to be an idiot.
.
Willard, being an idiot. continues on with his idiotic ways.
z
Robertson
Stop boasting about things you know only via the Internet.
You behave every day a bit dumber.
And I forgot to add that the very best here is that you, Robertson, very probably NEVER wrote even one line of code in whichever language, let alone would you have any idea of what software engineering means.
I wrote C++ classes at a time you didn’t even know anything about all that.
You are such a dumb ass, Robertson.
J.-P. D.
But forgot that you should not use numbers that are already rounded and expect precise results.
binny…”you, Robertson, very probably NEVER wrote even one line of code in whichever language…”
***
I learned Fortran at university and have used assembler to program microprocessors. Have even programmed hexadecimal machine code into a processor, one byte at a time. I have used Basic as well, in computer applications.
My main use of assembler, however, is in reverse engineering. I can read the assembly language in a disassembled executable or dll fluently. I can trace through live assembler code with ease.
Not bad at reading C/C++ and I have written very simply programs using both.
I use K&R as required as well as Stroustrup’s C++ reference.
There are excellent references for Windows like the books written by Mark Russinovich, David Solomon, and Alex Ionescu. Books like that explain Windows code and how the kernel is implemented.
TAMPA, Fla. — “SpaceX is proposing to use Starship to rapidly deploy its second-generation Starlink constellation,…
the revised scenarios for Starlink Gen2 aim to spread satellites more evenly across nine to 12 inclined orbits to provide denser polar coverage for rural subscribers, as well as national security and first responder customers, to make the network’s performance more consistent.
SpaceX said it prefers the configuration that uses its heavy-lift Starship rocket because it would allow satellites to enter service “within a matter of weeks after launch, rather than months.” The company recently accelerated work at its Starbase test site in Boca Chica, Texas, to prepare for Starship’s first orbital flight.
The Starship-enabled Starlink configuration comprises 29,988 satellites at altitudes of between 340 and 614 kilometers, across nine inclined orbits.”
https://spacenews.com/spacex-wants-to-give-starship-lead-role-in-revised-second-gen-starlink-plan/
So, Starlink is still in beta testing [though many customers are quite happy because it give them better access to internet than they get otherwise- and much cheaper and better other Satellite internet access. But it appears the beta testing allowed them make another generation of satellite which address various issues they had. So it seems have more beta testing with Gen2, and I would guess at some point make Gen3.
I am waiting, but at some point, maybe after some Gen2 beta testing is done.
I don’t need it, but I have never been happy with any of the cable companies. And idea I could move anywhere and have good access, with same system, is nice aspect. I don’t like any kind of monopoly in terms a solution for decades. But it seems we kind of already have one, and having the “existing order” being forced to be competitive should a good over the next decade or two.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
There are 25 countries that are deemed most vulnerable and least ready to adapt to climate change, according to the ND-Gain Index. Fourteen of these are mired in conflict a testament to the limited capacity of countries in conflict to adapt to a changing climate. People enduring conflict are among the most vulnerable to the climate crisis and the most neglected by climate action. This is a trend that humanitarian organisations like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) are committed to reversing.
https://www.icrc.org/en/Climate-change-conflict-humanitarian-response
The Globe HAS</strong been cooling for the last 6 months or so. Get over it.
The trick of our One-Trick Pony:
1. Almost suggest something;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. Feeble try at insulting
Willard just ignores inconvenient facts.
3 x 3 = 9
Still an idiot I see Willard.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.2):
0. Almost suggest something;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Willard, being an idiot, continues on with his idiotic ways.
z
Lets us talk about real recent cooling in UAH6.0 LT, by using a more appropriate source than the last 6 months which are by far not sufficient:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y1eQ1D9uuRj8hm8G1iNv97NHH0TOINsL/view
It was thought years ago as a way to compare data around the two recent El Ninos (1997/98 & 2015/16), in order to explain that the latter was not the strongest one, even if the UAH data shows it as such.
The two periods were thus superposed and plotted relative to their respective begin.
We can see how strong is the recent cooling since the beginning of 2020, when compared with the similar period after the 1998 El Nino event.
But this is only valid for UAH which is known to differ from all other series.
What should now be done is to generate a similar graph for RSS4.0 LT, GISS, or Had-CRUT.
J.-P. D.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
You can write your stubborn teenie stuff as long as you want, RLH…
doesn’t matter.
J.-P. D.
Sure. I have written and debugged some seriously long business applications. I curate some fairly big current SQL databases too.
Taking the time to populate and validate those is taking some a while. I have an application right now that is downloading the NCEI database locally to a SQL server for instance.
I already have one for Meteostat and USCRN.
binny…”You can write your stubborn teenie stuff as long as you want, RLH doesnt matter”.
***
At least he writes programs, unlike you, who is nothing more than a number-cruncher who uses Excel incorrectly.
I suspect that validation is not your strong suit. Your debacle with USCRN proves that.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.2):
0. Almost suggest something;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Willard, being an idiot. continues on with his idiotic ways.
RLH
” Your debacle with USCRN proves that. ”
Debacle? What debacle, RLH?
You still were not able to exactly replicate what I did
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-801142
and hence woefully try to divert using microscopic differences you boast up as the main aspect.
You are manipulating the blog here, by insinuating I would
– think USCRN is wrong and I would be right;
– compute wrong numbers.
I do NOT, and you perfectly know that, RLH.
1. I NEVER AND NEVER claimed that USCRN would be wrong.
2. My averages of the available hourly data made available by the USCRN team are, after a correction (using LST instead of UTC – my bad, I have clearly admitted my mistake) absolutely correct.
I have never been interested in subhourly data, as the hourly data is perfectly sufficient for our evaluation purposes.
You introduced the subhourly stuff, in the ridiculous and dishonest intention to woefully discredit my programming activity.
You show it yourself: the difference between hourly and subhourly evaluation of a day is 0.02 C !!!
You have forgotten that the difference between average and mean temperature for a station’s lifetime varies by dimensions more.
Until now, you were so busy with discrediting me, that you were still not able to challenge what I did!
Where is your global USCRN average on a hourly basis, RLH?
Where is it ???
Without doing exactly what I did, you will never be able to prove me wrong.
J.-P. D.
As below
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
“You show it yourself: the difference between hourly and subhourly evaluation of a day is 0.02 C !!!”
Either side of the -6.75c figure which in one case will round up and the other round down. Thus creating the 0.1c difference you claim is so important. It’s not. It is just an artifact from the rounding.
But no, you are so stubborn and arrogant that realizing your mistake is quite beyond you.
” USCRNs own daily average showing -6.70
can only be due to the use of (e.g. subhourly) data having some higher precision. There is no need for any tedious evaluation of subhourly data to understand this.”
It’s rounding, not precision that is the culprit. But you knew that right?
You still stay on your microscopic argument concerning your laughable 0.02 differences, instead of starting real work challenging me…
Where is your global USCRN average, based on the official USCRN hourly data, RLH?
Where is it ???
Show us that you are able to exactly replicate my job!
Without doing exactly what I did, you will never be able to prove me wrong.
But… I’m afraid you won’t do that work, RLH.
Because you perfectly know that you would obtain exactly the same results as what I obtained.
That is the reason why you permanently, cowardly discredit me on the base of your irrelevant subhourly data.
This is YOUR debacle.
J.-P. D.
“You still stay on your microscopic argument concerning your laughable 0.02 differences”
So you admit that very tiny differences around the x.x5 mark will make a 0.1c difference in the Daily rounded outcome?
And that will make using the Hourly figures wrong when compared to the Daily by just that amount.
Thus making all of your calculations suspect at best.
You still haven’t answered the most important question. Given that a particular station will show an almost constant offset when comparing Average to Tminmax, why is that?
https://imgur.com/2JTFms4
Monahans 6 ENE
https://imgur.com/gyiSntI
Arco 17 SW
https://imgur.com/0aSaVD1
Brigham City 28 WNW
https://imgur.com/2ba7uZP
Buffalo 13 ESE
https://imgur.com/zr3mK4e
Lewistown 42 WSW
https://imgur.com/QoYV4su
Stovepipe Wells 1 SW
https://imgur.com/cRVf9hu
Tok 70 SE
You still havent answered the most important question.
Given that a particular station will show an almost constant offset when comparing Taverage to Tminmax, why is that?
binny…”The longer Robertsons comments, the dumber he appears.
He has no real knowledge of whatever but nonetheless, he desperately tries to become the main contributor to this blog
His ideas are all plain wrong, made out of stuff he picks on contrarian web sites”.
***
Binny follows this ad hom attack by calling RLK a woman’s private part. My ‘ideas’ come from eminent scientists like Rudolf Clausius, Neils Bohr, R. W. Wood, David Bohm, Stefan Lanka, Peter Duesberg, Linus Pauling, to name a few. I have also studied the electronics and electrical fields at university and in countless courses outside university. I am forever studying physics, math, chemistry, and any science that is of interest.
Of course, science is currently on a downhill slide because egotists have cornered the market so to speak and express science through establish paradigms. A paradigm itself is not science, in fact, it is the antithesis of science. Science should be open with objective people (not just qualified scientists) being heard.
This is all foreign to Binny,who consoles himself with an on-going appeal to authority. I feel disappointed that RLH, with a Master’s degree, tends to follow Binny’s lead with the appeal to authority.
Binny finds it astounding that some scientists, like Cassini and Meier, may be wrong. Even Newton. His heart probably goes into palpitation when I suggest that Einstein was wrong about time. In this case, Einstein is wrong about time being a variable and Newton was right that it is absolute.
I find that interesting. A noted scientist like Newton, who performed his own experiments, thought time is absolute, yet, Einstein, who did no experiments but worked everything out through thought experiments, visualized a world in which time can change with velocity. I think that is Einstein’s greatest blunder, since we humans DEFINED time based on the rotation of the Earth and Einstein missed that completely.
Of course, we did not define time till 1939 or so and Einstein’s theories were developed before that. Whatever possessed him to think time had a physical reality?
In a moment of utter stupidity, someone on Wikipedia defined time as follows:
“Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future”.
They follow that with an equally absurd statement…
“Time in physics is operationally defined as “what a clock reads”.
Then more brilliance…
“Generally speaking, methods of temporal measurement, or chronometry, take two distinct forms: the calendar, a mathematical tool for organising intervals of time,[18] and the clock, a physical mechanism that counts the passage of time”.
Duh!!! and Doh!!!
The past is an illusion maintained by memory cells in the human brain. The future is a projection of the past. That leaves only the present, which is all we ever have.
No such thing as time to measure!!!!
Of course, many of us insist on reaching into our memories to produce a past, then project that old information as a future. The IPCC excels at such illusion-based thought processes.
Einstein and the idiots writing the Wiki piece on time fail to grasp that clocks are not measuring anything but the rate of rotation of the Earth. All clocks are synchronized to Earth’s rotation. The newer method of time generation is the atomic clock but its basic time unit, the second, is based on the rotation of the Earth.
You see, Binny, I observe, and that confuses the hell out of you. You cannot conceive that the human brain, even yours, is capable of observing nature directly. Any one using observation cannot possibly find a phenomenon called time because there is nothing to find.
Go on, try to find it.
Until you get that, you will never understand me or anyone who bypasses consensus to see what is actually happening.
RLH is so properly English and stubborn that he cannot bring himself to observe. Disappointing, but that’s the way it is for many humans.
RLH is perfectly capable of observing you are a nutter.
Snow cover in the NH (week 31)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uBLq_FlpeaYvwf4eCcF6a2Hjgj0KqQBO/view
No comment, except that 2020/21 looks, with about 24.4 Mkm^2 on yearly average, exactly like 2019/2020.
No food for Warmistas / Coolistas… sorry!
J.-P. D.
Source
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/wkcov.nhland.txt
I just pick one sentence out of a long, long sequence of trash:
” Einstein and the idiots writing the Wiki piece on time fail to grasp that clocks are not measuring anything but the rate of rotation of the Earth. All clocks are synchronized to Earths rotation. ”
*
This is so unimaginably dumb that you really need a few seconds to believe a person having a brain could ever write such nonsense.
But… keep cool, you all.
Because the author of the nonsense is, one more time, … the dumb ass nicknamed ‘Gordon Robertson’, who endlessly fills this blog with posts whose length becomes more and more inversely proportional to their intellectual content.
No engineer on Earth would believe that Robertson has ever learned any kind of engineering, let alone that he would have worked as an engineer anywhere at any time.
*
Let us simply reply with what UK’s National Physical Laboratory writes, in the context of a little article about (oh oh)… Louis Essen:
” In 1967, the definition of the second was changed to its current form based on a particular transition in caesium atoms.
Previously, the definitely of the second was based on the rotation of the Earth, so its duration was difficult to determine accurately and varied unpredictably with time.
*
Et maintenant, il est temps d’aller dormir.
J.-P. D.
Agreed. LOD (Length of Day) is well known to be erratic.
https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/UT1LOD.html
https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/LODgps.html?nn=12932
I just pick one sentence out of a long, long sequence of trash:
” Einstein and the idiots writing the Wiki piece on time fail to grasp that clocks are not measuring anything but the rate of rotation of the Earth. All clocks are synchronized to Earth’s rotation. ”
*
This is so unimaginably dumb that you really need a few seconds to believe a person having a brain could ever write such nonsense.
But… keep cool, you all.
Because the author of the nonsense is, one more time, … the guy nicknamed ‘Gordon Robertson’, who endlessly fills this blog with posts whose length becomes more and more inversely proportional to their intellectual content.
No engineer on Earth would believe that Robertson has ever learned any kind of engineering, let alone that he would have worked as an engineer anywhere at any time.
*
Let us simply reply with what UK’s National Physical Laboratory writes, in the context of a little article about (oh oh)… Louis Essen:
” In 1967, the definition of the second was changed to its current form based on a particular transition in caesium atoms.
Previously, the definitely of the second was based on the rotation of the Earth, so its duration was difficult to determine accurately and varied unpredictably with time.
*
Et maintenant, il est temps d’aller dormir.
J.-P. D.
Ooops?! I thought the blog’s scanner had rejected the comment!
So what.
I does that occasionally. Not report a post that is.
RLH mentioned before that difficulties may be encountered after rounding.
As a matter of interest, Edward Lorenz came back from lunch in the midst of running simulations generating weather patterns. To save a few keystrokes, he rounded a previously generated number, and restarted the simulation.
Oh dear! Rounding caused massive divergence. Lorenz was smart enough, and curious enough, to try to find out why. He has been credited with discovering deterministic chaos. As the IPCC acknowledged , the chaotic nature of the atmosphere makes it impossible to determine future climate states.
All from a rounding.
SkyDragons beg to differ, and say rounding makes no difference to the big picture. More fool them!
As a matter of even more interest, Richard Feynman had no need for chaos to state that future states of the atmosphere are unpredictable. Just applying the uncertainty principle at the quantum level, leads inexorably to the same conclusion.
Once again, SkyDragons beg to differ. They cannot show any experimental results to the contrary, but they don’t accept the scientific method anyway, if the judges reasons for dismissing Michael Mann’s “expert witnesses” recently are valid. Bad luck for Naomi Oreskes, and the other bumblers, who thought they were so clever.
And on it goes.
Chaotic predictions are very dependent on starting conditions and granularity.
RLH,
Well, that was completely uniinformative , wan’t it?
Are you disagreeing with something that you can quote, or just being silly for the sake of it?
I was agreeing that Chaotic systems mean that any starting conditions will effect the outcomes.
My, you are touchy.
A pot of water heating up on a burner has lots of unpredictable turbulence going on inside it.
That is like weather.
And yet its rate of heating up is quite predictable and reproducible.
That is like Global Warming.
Nate, I’m glad to see you’re using a burner to heat up water. Some idiots believe they can heat water with ice cubes!
Keep learning.
N,
Maybe you disagree that you can heat up water from the top, like SkyDragons claim. Or not.
You are full of crap. Even the IPCC stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
You disagree, but you can’t say why. That is because you are an idiot.
Now tell me how you would distribute thermometers inside that pot, and at what spacing, in order to determine from the chaos/turbulence what the bulk rate of temperature rise is.
The distribution of heating varies from the ‘equator’ to the ‘poles’.
One ‘end’ of the pot has to be without any form of heating for at least part of the ‘year’.
> Now tell me
Y tho
Willard U are just an idiot.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.2):
0. Almost suggest something;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Shortest responses
0. And?
1. And?
2. Y tho
3. No U
Willard U are just an idiot with idiotic responses.
The first two are yours, dummy.
All of your response are idiotic.
z
No U.
My, you are touchy.
Whereas you are just an idiot.
No U
z
.
,
Idiot.
.
1.
Only a fool or an ignoramus would expect global average temperatures to always increase year-on-year. There is an underlying upward trend, but the internal variation is large enough that many years will be cooler than the one before.
Can you give published examples of this fallacy or is this another of your straw men?
Addressed to you, RLH.
“There is an underlying upward trend”
There is currently an underlying upward trend, decade wise. Projecting that unchanged into the future, near or far, is not scientifically based as such.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/global-n*c*d*c.jpeg
(remove to *s)
EM,
Over the past four and a half billion years, the Earth has cooled.
Underlying downward trend, would you say?
Mike Flynn,
Mack Face,
Entropy does not refute AGW.
Sorry!
Willard, please stop trolling.
EM,
Oh, I see. [sarcasm].
The GHE only heats sometimes.
For four and a half billion years, the GHE couldn’t stop the Earth cooling. But now it can. Is that it? [more sarcasm]
Are you retarded, or do you assume that everyone else is?
Mike Flynn,
Macaroni of Fibs,
Do you even seasons?
Joy!
Willard, please stop trolling.
OK. So we’re 2/3rds the way through the month. Any suggestions as if this month is going to be cooler or warmer than last month?
I say cooler.
Last month was a record, the highest of any month on record. I would be surprised to see two such records in successive months.
It certainly wasn’t the highest anomaly on record. As any browsing of past anomaly records will show.
c.f.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/giss-1.jpeg
Tricky one RLH , there have been a load of Temperature records set around the Globe in August, it will be interesting to see.
On August 14, 2021, temperatures rose above freezing on the summit of Greenland for only the third time this decade. But for the first time on record, rain fell at @NSF Summit Station. Read the full Greenland Today report: https://bit.ly/3ka9oAp
Whilst we are at it, add to your suggestion why it is that you think it is true.
My cooler suggestion is based on comparing this months day by day anomaly measurements with the same day last month.
If the total is lower, then this month will be cooler.
This August is running well above August of 2020.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2021-08-19.gif
Thus the 12 month running mean looks like it will rise.
As that was not the question I asked…
I asked if this month (Aug) will be cooler than last month (Jul).
I use this
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2021-08-19.gif
to produce that assessment. If you move this month back one month and do a day to day comparison then this month seems to be lower than last month. YMMV.
Thanks a look at the first graph here, the GISTEMP seasonal cycle.
For geographical reasons the warmest baseline is in July, the peak of the Northern Hemisphere Summer.
July of 2021 is the warmest July on record. This will be the warmest month on record of the month with the highest baseline.
July 2021 is the the highest absolute average temperature of any month measured by GISTEMP since 1880.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
“For geographical reasons the warmest baseline is in July, the peak of the Northern Hemisphere Summer.”
Anomalies already include seasonal/hemispherical differences.
I’m not talking about anomalies here, I’m talking about raw data.
Based on the actual surface temperatures, July 2021 is the warmest month ever recorded.
“July 2021 is the the highest absolute average temperature of any month measured by GISTEMP since 1880.”
The question is, is it the highest anomaly for July, not its absolute temperature.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/giss-1.jpeg
“Im not talking about anomalies here, Im talking about raw data.”
On one hand, everybody wants to deal in anomalies. Then, when it suits them, they decide that absolute temperatures are much more important.
Anomaly July
2019 0.94
2020 0.91
2021 0.92
So how is it that the anomaly was higher in 2019 but this year was stated to be higher in absolute terms?
Station data anomalies for July 2019, 2020 and 2021 were 1.2,,1.08 and 1.23.
We would need tosomeone at GISS or NOAA, but the record is probably based on the station data.
The “warmest (absolute) month on record” statement came from NOAA in conjunction with their July monthly update, so it’s true for their data set, not necessarily so for others.
The quote was
“July 2021 is the the highest absolute average temperature of any month measured by GISTEMP since 1880.”
which is obviously false. From their own figures,
“Derived from the MERRA2 reanalysis over 1980-2015. We show how much warmer each month of the GISTEMP data is than the annual global mean. Graph data: The 1980-2015 seasonal cycle anomaly in MERRA2 along with the 95% uncertainties on the estimate of the mean.”
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
GISS Anomaly July
2019 0.94
2020 0.91
2021 0.92
“Anomaly”
A-N-O-M-A-L-Y
“The quote was
“July 2021 is the the highest absolute average temperature of any month measured by GISTEMP since 1880.””
How can the absolute be the highest when the anomaly isn’t?
The highest July on record was only for NOAA, Not GISS.
The differences are tiny and well within the error.
Also GISS covers more of the Arctic than NOAA.
So you are saying that the quote
“July 2021 is the the highest absolute average temperature of any month measured by GISTEMP since 1880.”
is not true.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/giss-1.jpeg
“P.S. Aren’t you supposed to included a url?”
Idiot.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.2):
0. Almost suggest something;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
RLH asks:
Because the absolute data includes the seasonal cycle which is removed to calculate the anomalies. As you may have noticed, the seasonal cycle in the NH peaks in summer and the NH also contains most of the land mass, which tends to be warmer than the oceans.
But it is still impossible for the absolute to be higher and the anomaly not.
“As you may have noticed, the seasonal cycle in the NH peaks in summer and the NH also contains most of the land mass, which tends to be warmer than the oceans.”
Any seasonal or hemispherical differences are already baked into the anomaly.
RLH wrote:
No. You are forgetting that the anomalies are the result of removing the zonal averaged seasonal temperature cycles. Those averages are different in the tropics compared with that at higher latitudes and also differ over land and water. The SH has a muted seasonal cycle because of the large fraction of area covered by oceans. Area weighting gives the tropics and sub-tropics the most weighting when computing the global average.
You will need to look at the actual data to prove your claim.
I predict a question from Richard.
I did. GISS anomaly July data shows 0.94 for 2019 and 0.92 for 2021.
GISS Anomaly July
2019 0.94
2020 0.91
2021 0.92
“Area weighting gives the tropics and sub-tropics the most weighting when computing the global average.”
They are the biggest in area, so need the bigger weightings.
GISS does all that in their global anomaly figures.
I don’t need to predict Willard is an idiot. Everybody already knows that as a fact.
You have to decide in the 6 months ahead of the end point of the green trace in this plot are higher or lower than the 6 months behind to determine if the green trace will rise or fall. It is not about a single month. There are 12 of those in a year.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2021-08-19.gif
In a 12 mo running mean, when a new month is added, the same month a year before is dropped. All other months in between are still included in the mean , and don’t matter.
At the end of August we can calculate the new 12 mo mean by
New Mean = Old Mean + (August 2021-August 2020)/12
Yes I realized that after I posted.
Still recon that this month will be lower than last month and the same month last year.
But there is always next month as well.
“this month will be lower than last month and the same month last year.”
You seem to only see what you want to see.
Not in oz4caster. First 2/3 August is well above same in 2020. And you can clearly see 12 mo trend line has been increasing.
And if the next few months are lower than a year ago because we are moving into a La Nina?
I note you do not challenge the “this month will be lower than last month” part.
> add to your suggestion why
The trick of our One-Trick Pony:
1. Almost suggest something;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. Feeble try at insulting
When you want an idiot to appear, ask Willard.
3. Feeble try at insulting
U are sill an idiot Willard.
.
Still an idiot Willard.
..
Willard is still an idiot.
…
Now the idiot is counting in dots. Well done.
…
.
Still makes U the idiot Willard.
…
..
…
..
.
What I have discovered is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
It states that “Planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law should be applied to every infinitesimal spot at every infinitesimal instant
The New equation theoretically calculates planets’ mean surface temperatures very much close to the satellite measured.
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
The New equation is the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law applied to rotating sphere (planet) irradiated by parallel solar beams.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
And this model was thoroughly debunked.
“The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law should be applied to every infinitesimal spot at every infinitesimal instant”
It completely disagrees with the SB law. Christos is in deep denial.
Nate,
So if the Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law was derived from integrating Plank’s radiation formula, and if you understand what an integral is, how can what Vournas is saying be in complete disagreement?
ye it is derived but it can’t be differentiated and applied backwards again, some important information is lost in that procedure
Thank you Stephen for your support!
coturnix:
“ye it is derived but it can’t be differentiated and applied backwards again, some important information is lost in that procedure”
What I have suggested is that every infinitesimal spot is considered as a blackbody with its own instant emission temperature. The planetary total IR emission (W) is found as:
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Please also visit Ron Clutz’s blog “The Science Matters” article “How to calculate planetary temperatures”:
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
As of the current forecast I am dead center in the hurricane Henry landfall path.
Stay safe.
Hope you’re well prepared.
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2021/08/20/tropical-storm-henri-path-hurricane-watch-storm-boston-weather-forecast-massachusetts-cape-cod-nantucket-new-england/
I am surrounded by solar panels , as such I’m well protected so nothing bad can happen here, besides , I didn’t move to a house sitting in a bowl to get washed away by a flood.
Sea level rise not so much of a problem?
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=10017
“This satellite data with seasonal effects removed shows a stable trend of ~3.3 mm/year. At this rate we would expect a sea level rise by 2100 of only a further 26 cm.”
“Global mean sea level (GMSL) increased by 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25] m over the period 1901 to 2018 with a rate of rise that has accelerated since the 1960s to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr-1 25 for the period 2006–2018 (high 26 confidence). Human activity was very likely the main driver of observed GMSL rise since 1970, and new 27 observational evidence leads to an assessed sea level rise over the period 1901 to 2018 that is consistent with 28 the sum of individual components contributing to sea level rise, including expansion due to ocean warming 29 and melting of glaciers and ice sheets (high confidence)”
Willard repeats others words and accepts without question that all is doom and gloom looking forward.
P.S. Aren’t you supposed to included a url?
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_TS.pdf
I took the quote from your own cite, dummy.
But ‘forgot’ to include
“However if you look at the actual measurement data made by tidal gauges and satellite altimetry, then you find something quite different.”
The Only Trick of Roys One-Trick Pony (v.2):
0. Almost suggest something;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
You just do your usual trick of not including the relevant part. Well done. Idiot.
No U, dummy.
Still makes U the idiot.
Nope.
U
1.
Or is it accelerating?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise
Clive did what Richard usually frowns upon:
“If instead we extrapolate the satellite data forward to 2150 assuming a continuous linear rising trend”
I did not say I believed in the projection. The only thing I might comment on is that he says that it is not on a rising curve to infinity.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.2):
0. Almost suggest something;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Willard is still an idiot. No change there.
The Only Trick of Roys One-Trick Pony (v.2):
0. Almost suggest something;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
” a rising curve to infinity. ”
It would probably be sigmoid.
For various reasons including a limited amount of land ice available to melt and that we are unlikely to see a global annual average above 25C.
However it is probable that we are still in the exponential growth phase and the limiting factors haven’t kicked in yet.
Willard, being an idiot. continues on with his idiotic ways.
3.
Still an idiot Willard.
No U
Still makes U the idiot.
z
1.
RLH says: Sea level rise not so much of a problem?
Are you saying that straight lines derived from linear regression predict the future?
Nope. I am bringing others papers/comments to your attention.
The Only Trick of Roys One-Trick Pony (v.2):
0. Almost suggest something;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Willard, being an idiot. continues on with his idiotic ways.
f(3)=3
Still an idiot Willard.
moar 3
Still makes U the idiot.
No U
1.
I don’t understand why people feel such a need to explain that a recent month is ‘warmer than evah’.
Here are, from the GISS L+O data, the 10 ‘warm’est July month since 1880:
2019 7 0.94
2021 7 0.92
2020 7 0.90
2016 7 0.85
2018 7 0.82
2017 7 0.81
2009 7 0.74
2015 7 0.73
2011 7 0.70
1998 7 0.66
Sorry, but… are we REALLY discussing here about differences of 0.02 C?
*
What seems more interesting is that the last 20 years host 19 of the highest GISS anomalies since 1880; if there was no warming, we should have a mix of all 14 decades instead.
This is no GISS ‘feature’. The same namely holds for the 20 highest anomalies within the entire surface record of Japan’s Met Agency, which started 1891.
Last not least, the UAH record contains now 43 July months; the upper 22 in a descending sort of the July months host 17 of the years after 1999, instead of 11.
J.-P. D.
There is a difference between warming since last year (or 2) and warming in general which seems to escaped your attention.
RLH
Nobody was telling here about ‘warming since last year’.
Except you, because you are totally fixated on showing us its absence during the last 6 or 7 months.
Thus, your guessing about what does ‘escape my attention’ or does not, is rather redundant.
So why are stories being written and highlighted that say that the world is experiencing the ‘highest whatever’ when that is plainly not true.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.2):
0. Almost suggest something;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Willard as an idiot gives his usual contribution = nothing.
No U
Willard as an idiot gives his usual contribution = still nothing.
No U, dummy.
Still means you are an idiot. Nothing changes that.
Oh no.
U
1.
rlh…”There is a difference between warming since last year (or 2) and warming in general which seems to escaped your attention”.
***
Binny suffers from attention deficit disorder as well as suffering from an on-going appeal to authority. However, several scientists have noted that general warming is not as linear since 1850 as many expect.
There is little doubt that it is warmer now than in 1850, at the end of the Little Ice Age, but there is amply proof that temperatures in North America were significantly warmer in the 1930s than they are now. If that was the case for the 1930s, it seems plausible that was the case globally, unless there was some mysterious event occurring that warmed North America only.
Right on, Gordo.
There is amply proof that it was really hot in BC a few weeks ago. So it seems plausible that it was the case globally, unless there was some mysterious event etc.
So you agree with Gordon on everything do you?
Reread my comment, dummy.
1.
Earth being in a 34 million year Ice Age.
A concept of reincarnation on Earth.
It seems understandable that some people want to think it is warmer than evah, even if there is no evidence to support it.
The only temperature record we can trust is UAH. Before that, who knows?
I would not trust any of them, they’re all models that are measuring the desired value only very indirectly and are highly parametrized. The only thing i’d trust would be a direct observation of the vegetation. Vegetation doesn’t lie, tomatoes don’t ripen in the arctic and dryas doesn’t grow in tropics.
Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is not Climateball. Climateball is the BEST.
Willard is an idiot.
3.
Willie’s so profound.
But Frank Zappa is the PROFUNDEST.
Willard is just an idiot.
Richard is 74 years old.
tELL ME HOW MUCH YOU’RE PAID FOR WRITING THIS, AND WILL TELL WHAT KIND OF A POLITICAL WHORE YOU ARE.
no
Idiot.
I doubt you get many visitors to your propaganda site. You’ll just have to keep trying here. Not many converts?
Troglodytes tend to doubt anything not made of foil, Stephen.
A gun-carrying troglodyte, your worst nightmare.
Photo or it does not exist.
1.
Idiot.
1 again.
Richard = idiot.
1 still.
“Sorry, but are we REALLY discussing here about differences of 0.02 C?”
When it multiplies by rounding to changes of 0.1c, yes. That’s the problem with using already rounded figures. But you know that right?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-809185
rlh…”A mass at rest (without rotation) always remains pointing at where it was when it started. See Newton. What causes it to change from that orientation? An orbit around another body alone wont change that”.
***
I doubt this will do any good but it helps me clarify things in my own mind.
Picture an Earth with ‘no Moon’. Still rotating, still orbiting the Sun in the ecliptic (the orbital plane of the Earth around the Sun).
Out of some part of space, the Moon is approaching the Earth at an altitude conducive to orbit without crashing into the Earth.
The Moon has a large X on it to indicate the side that currently always faces the Earth. As the Moon passes the Earth, that X is facing the Earth. It is not rotating, if it was, the X would turn partly away from the Earth as it passed, if the lunar speed was low enough.
There are four possibilities for the Moon, depending on its angle of approach, it’s momentum, and its altitude. If it’s momentum is too great to enter orbit, it will break the gravitational force and shoot off on a hyperbolic path, ultimately returning to a straight line. If the momentum is a bit lower, it still breaks gravitational force and shoots off on a parabolic path.
The thing to note about a hyperbolic and parabolic path is that both tend toward a straight line as they approach infinity. If the momentum is just right for the altitude, the linear momentum of the Moon is bent into an elliptical or circular orbit. If the momentum is too low, we don’t want to think of the repercussions…not pretty.
The point is, no adjustments have to made with a body like the Moon, moving in a straight line with a constant velocity to enter Earth orbit. That applies to spacecraft as well and that’s why I used the example of the airliner. As long as it maintains a constant linear velocity, enough to produce the proper airfoil lift to counter gravity, the airliner will maintain a constant altitude in orbit.
That’s because gravity acts like a continuous field of force vectors right around the Earth. The interaction between each successive force vector and the Moon’s linear momentum is the same, therefore the Moon stays at the same altitude, with the same face pointed at the Earth. Each force vector serves to bend the lunar path of linear momentum enough to form a circle/eclipse.
Consider the airliner again, once the airfoils have been trimmed to give it enough lift to keep it at a specific altitude, it can fly right around the Earth at the same altitude without altering anything. The only way it can gain or lose altitude is by increasing/decreasing motor speed, and/or adjusting the wing air foils to rise/drop. To rise, however, requires more power from the motors. Gravity does the rest, keeping it always at the same altitude relative to the surface.
That’s all there is with the lunar orbit: a linear momentum of the Moon, and a gravitational field on the Earth. Nothing more is required. The gravitational field simply alters the Moon’s linear momentum, second by second, resulting in an orbital path.
Remember, there is no air resistance out there to affect the momentum of the Moon. With the airliner there is plenty of air resistance and motors are required to propel it. Fortunately, the same air resistance supplies lift at the airfoils (wings).
Back to your change in orientation. If you had the Earth at 0,0 and the Moon at 5,0, the X would be facing 0,0 along the x-axis. If there was no gravitational force, the Moon would proceed along the x = 5 ordinate, from – infinity to + infinity with that X facing along the x-axes.
With gravity, the gravitational field would begin bending the Moon’s linear path into a curved path. As it passed 5,0, the motion, for a circular orbit, could be represented by a radial line from 0,0 to 5,0 (R = 5). At 5,0 the Moon’s motion is perpendicular to that radial line, along a tangent line to a circle traced out by the tip of the radial line with length, R = 5.
Ten degrees above the x-axis, the radial line has its x-coordinate at R cos (10 degrees) and it’s y coordinate at R sin (10 degrees). That’s at x = 4.92 and y = 0.87. There is a new tangent line along the circle through that point representing the new direction of the Moon linear velocity and its orientation has changed wrt the x-axis.
Move the radial line till the angle = 45 degrees. x = R cos (45 degrees) and y = R sin (45 degrees)…x = 3.54 and y is the same at 3.54. The Moon now is moving on a tangential path with a different orientation angle wrt the x-axis.
Go to an angle of 90 degrees. x = R cos (90 degrees) = 5×0 = 0 and y = 5×1 = 5. The radial line is now pointing straight up the y-axis, and the Moon is moving along a tangential line parallel to the x-axis.
You can see that the orientation of the tangent line at 5,0 has changed through 90 degrees while the X has always pointed at 0,0.
If the Moon had rotated in any way about its axis, which is sticking straight out of the x-y plane, that X could not possibly still be pointing at 0,0.
I have just given you mathematical proof, using tangent lines to represent the near lunar face, that always points at the Earth, that the Moon is translating along an orbital path and not rotating about its axis.
If you like, I can work out the angles of the tangent line at each angle the radial line makes with the x-axis.
You can do it another way by calculating the equation of the tangent line from the equation of a circle, by differentiating the presumed circular orbit with R = 5. The equation of the tangent line is the first derivative of the circle equation with R = 5 at any point on the circle.
The tangent line at any point on a circular orbit is always perpendicular to a radial line to the circle AND it represents the instantaneous direction of the Moon. That’s why the Moon appears to be rotating wrt the stars but it’s not because it is not rotating about a local axis. It is simply translating around a circle like a horse or a car translating around a circular track.
Or a wooden horse bolted to a MGR or a ball attached to a string.
correction…”The gravitational field simply alters the Moons linear momentum, second by second, resulting in an orbital path”.
should read…
“The gravitational field simply alters the Moons path of linear momentum, second by second, resulting in an orbital path.
Sir, I would recommend that you read Newton’s ‘The Principia’. That might help you ‘clarify things in your mind’ on the subject of the gravitational oddities of our earth-moon system.
Until you have it figured out might I suggest you don’t post any more meaningless incoherent drivel about the moon.
There are some 4000 comments on this link that have nothing to do with climate and too many of them have your handle on it. You’re getting to be a bore almost as bad as Willard the Dullard. I can only hope its not intentional trulling.
Ken
Thank you for this comment.
” I would recommend that you read Newtons The Principia. ”
Robertson never reads such things: that would be ‘appeal to authority’.
And when he exceptionally does, you see that he is not even able to read it correctly: he manages to mix plain text and foot notes.
He is convinced that his own thoughts about everything, together with all what he picks out of contrarian literature, matter more than real scientific results.
*
I don’t appreciate Willard, but those who reply to his boring, redundant, egocentric stuff aren’t even a little bit better.
Finally, Ken: when I read your sentence:
” Youre getting to be a bore… ”
I must ask you: since when do you visit this blog?
Robertson is endlessly boring us since many years…
Regards
J.-P. D.
Ken, it would help if you would identify something that Gordon got wrong. Was there some part you didn’t understand?
By not addressing the science, you appear as just another uneducated control-freak, like Norman or Bindidon, who attack people that don’t believe as they believe.
Gordon, like you, is a ‘flat earth’ (or equivalent) nutter.
Clint R
You are not correct. I have much more actual education in science than you will ever have. I will also consult textbook science on issues I am ignorant on. I do not subscribe to your foolish false physics and illogical conclusions. You are a stupid person who has yet to make a rational post.
You insult people continuously and troll their posts but you never make valid or logical points. Most are really stupid conclusions.
You are obsessed with a ball on a string. Over an over. Have you tried yet to move a can around another in a circular path? Let me know if you can accomplish moving a can in a circular path around another and keep the same side of the can facing the center can without rotation. Make a video and post it. I would be curious how you accomplish this.
Norman, how many times have we explained to you the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”?
You can’t learn.
ken…”Sir, I would recommend that you read Newtons The Principia. That might help you clarify things in your mind on the subject of the gravitational oddities of our earth-moon system.
Until you have it figured out might I suggest you dont post any more meaningless incoherent drivel about the moon”.
***
Go shove it up your Scottish hooter. Until you go to university and actually do engineering problems involving orbits, take your own advice and stop posting.
My post is a direct reply to RLH who asked for input.
If you have a scientific rebuttal to my post, then post it. Otherwise, awa ben the skullery.
What I am posting is off-topic but it is being done by me and several other non-spinners to reveal the abject stupidity of the spinners, who are also climate alarmists. This is about revealing the ignorance of climate alarmists whose sole purpose posting here is to denigrate the work of Roy and John Christy of UAH.
“If you have a scientific rebuttal to my post, then post it.”
I have. Now come up with an answer about retrograde burns being needed to enter an orbit.
Gordo wrote:
All that “off topic” crap just to denigrate those with scientific understanding and praise S & C?
But, you’ve inadvertently shot yourself in the foot. Your starting point is an X-Y grid which is apparently fixed in the stars, else, you could not have jumped into computing the orbital trajectory. Thus, you are making your calculations using an inertial reference system. Applying that same X-Y-Z coordinate system and placing the origin at the center of the Moon, one can clearly observe that the Moon rotates about the respective Z axis because the radial line from the Moon to the Earth, which is fixed in the Moon, rotates as the Moon orbits.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
“The Moon has a large X on it to indicate the side that currently always faces the Earth.”
The Moon could have a face with a large X on it and no revolution about its own axis as it approached Earth. The X would then be pointing at a fixed star, not Earth.
As the Moon enters an orbit around Earth (that would require some velocity changes, unspecified, in order to do that) then, unless some force acted to create a revolution, that face would continue to face a fixed star as before.
Simple (rotational) inertia. Consult Newton.
Unless you are suggesting that somehow the Moon was already revolving on its own axis and that quite coincidently was exactly the same as the orbital revolution it then achieved.
RLH does not understand orbital motions. He couldn’t solve the simple problem, and he has no workable model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
He has no understanding of the basic physics, so he just mentions “Newton”. He claims: “…unless some force acted to create a revolution, that face would continue to face a fixed star as before.” But RLH does not realize gravity is the “force”. That’s why the ball-on-a-string is such a good model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
He doesn’t understand any of this, and he can’t learn.
“RLH does not understand orbital motions.”
Nor do Kerbal programmers either it seems.
pups doesn’t understand that it doesn’t have a “model”, just a ball-on-a-string analogy which is useful to teach other kids about orbital motion. pups “model” only works for circular motion whereas orbiting bodies follow elliptical paths. Furthermore, apparently pups can’t understand that rotation and translation are independent dynamics and that gravity may induce rotational torque as well as centripetal force on a body.
The Moon’s orbit is not circular and thus the view of the Moon from the Earth is slightly different depending on what point around the orbit one happens to view it. That difference in view is the result of the Moon’s rotation rate being a constant with one rotation each orbit.
Troll Swanson, you would have some credibility if you were able to demonstrate ANY knowledge of the issue.
* You have no model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
* You did not know how to solve the simple problem with the barbell.
* You do not understand the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string, and that it demonstrates one side will always face the inside of the orbit, as does Moon.
* You falsely believe gravity can produce a torque on Moon.
* You don’t understand lunar libration.
And, you can’t learn.
For the nth time, Pup–
Moon Dragons are the ones who are supposed to come up with a model of orbital motion without axial rotation.
Adults work for their claims.
No one pays any attention to you the first time, much less the nth time.
Yet here you are, Stephen.
pups, Learn some physics and please stop trolling.
E. Swanson, couldn’t solve the simple problem.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742984
But, he trolls really well.
pups wrote:
Studying science is a lot more interesting than fishing for empty replies from morons. It’s obvious that the Moon rotates once an orbit, except to pups and other cultist who can’t be bothered with learning physics.
E. Swanson, it’s obvious that Moon does NOT rotate. That’s why we always see the same side of it. It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string.
You should be more interested in science than in your cult beliefs. But that requires some maturity and appreciation for reality.
“Its the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string.”
Which is not related to orbital mechanics. At all.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
Clint R: You’re still wrong.
If we go to computer models/games try
https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Main_Page
Click on each body and notice the difference between
Sidereal orbital period
and
Sidereal rotation period
(where present)
“If the momentum is just right for the altitude, the linear momentum of the Moon is bent into an elliptical or circular orbit.”
No it won’t. It requires some retrograde velocity changes to achieve an orbit.
RLH, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Your thinking is “retrograde”!
Don’t do orbital calculations much do you?
“Upon reaching the lowered periasis (at orbital height), burn retrograde until apoapsis falls to the desired altitude.”
RLH has no idea what he’s talking about.
He can’t even construct a responsible comment.
It is apparent that you know nothing about orbits. Want to define periasis and apoapsis?
And retrograde and prograde.
Hint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_and_prograde_motion
Sorry. Spelling mistake.
Periapsis and apoapsis
As stated, RLH has no idea what he’s talking about.
He can’t even construct a responsible comment.
I note you do not reply with any substance.
So I take that to mean you do not understand big words (even when spelled correctly – the actual spelling mistake was from the quote and I didn’t catch it).
“The point is, no adjustments have to made with a body like the Moon, moving in a straight line with a constant velocity to enter Earth orbit. “
Capturing a moon (or artificial satellite) is a tricky business! An object that is far away and “moving with constant velocity” needs a HUGE adjustment; needs to lose a LOT of energy to fall into orbit. This is similar to space craft sent to explore other planets, that need to fire rockets to slow down when they get to a planet — or else they would swing past and fly off into space again.
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/8795/how-do-moons-get-captured
Another Wandering Wee Willy comment in full, demonstrating his mental acuity –
“Do you even seasons?”
I suppose I could respond “Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don’t.”, and let Wee Willy figure it out.
Wee Willy is sloppier than your average idiot. I hope no average idiots are offended by being compared to Wee Willy.
Mike Flynn,
Maladroitness Felt,
Enjoy:
https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf
Woeful Wee Willy,
So some delusional fool says he doesn’t like a chaotic system? Who cares? Even the IPCC accepts that the atmosphere acts chaotically.
Appealing to some idiot’s opinion is about as silly as Michael Mann’s attempt to get dimwits like Naomi Oreskes accepted as expert witnesses recently.
It is difficult to establish who is more stupid – you, Michael Mann, or Ken Rice.
Try to present some facts, Wee Willy. Accept reality. It won’t hurt you physically, just your pride.
Off you go now. Give it a try.
“Seasonal cycles are remarkably linear-looking.”
Seasonal cycles are remarkably cyclic. All year round.
Thus spake our cycle nut.
Idiot.
Idiot.
1.
3.
Exactly.
If the climate was as chaotic as the denialist suggest, then the random variation would be much larger than the seasonal variation and we would not see seasonal cycles.
UK Winter average 0.9c (Feb)
UK Summer average 11.7c (Jul)
That’s nearly an 11c degree swing (on average).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_United_Kingdom
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Seem pretty cyclic to me. Do you differ at all?
Or are you saying that the typical range of ‘chaos’ is greater than 11 degrees?
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
1.
No U.
1 again.
Mike Flynn,
Maldistributed Filibuster.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Another wondrous comment from Witless Wee Willy (in full) –
“Mike Flynn,
Mack Face,
Entropy does not refute AGW.
Sorry!”
Profound, or profoundly stupid? Looks like stupidity to me.
Willard is an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Misrepresenting Familiar.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Why are COVID cases exploding in the highest vaccinated states?
Why are COVID cases exploding in Israel, the highest vaccinated country?
Think, Stephen.
You can read Christos’ crap, I’m sure you can answer that question yourself.
Willard, please stop trolling.
COVID cases are probably ‘exploding’ because the lockdown measures are lifted and COVID is being allowed to run its course. Vaccine doesn’t confer immunity; merely resistance.
Further, there is a lot of discussion about how diagnosis of COVID is reached. The fact of flu being nearly eradicated is suspect. How many flu cases are misdiagnosed as COVID?
Finally, I’m noticing that every time I go shopping I am getting short term sniffles and coughs. My immune system is not up to date with the latest versions of all sorts of viruses due to lockdowns measures.
My opinion. Probably wrong.
” My opinion. Probably wrong. ”
No, Ken. Certainly NOT.
*
” Finally, Im noticing that every time I go shopping I am getting short term sniffles and coughs. ”
Where do you live?
In Germany we have been (LUCKILY) obliged to wear FFP2 masks when shopping, in restaurants, in movie theaters and on public transport for well over a year.
Maybe that’s exactly why we
– (1) didn’t notice anything of what you report above, and
– (2) had, as opposed to earlier, not a bit of Influenza-based disease :- ))
J.-P. D.
” How many flu cases are misdiagnosed as COVID? ”
Zero dot zero percent.
The diseases behave in hospitals fundamentally different.
J.-P. D.
JD, does that include the guy that died in a motorcycle accident and the guy that was struck by lightning on his roof, both listed as Covid deaths?
You really are naive.
Ask any of the families of those who died from Covid and see what responses you get.
Is Willard telling anyone to think, an oxymoron?
Willard is an idiot. Oxymoron is beyond his ken.
“only 58% of Israel’s total citizenry is fully vaccinated. Experts say that’s not nearly high enough.”
” the rate of serious cases among unvaccinated people over age 60 (178.7 per 100,000) was nine times more than the rate among fully vaccinated people of the same age category”
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/08/20/1029628471/highly-vaccinated-israel-is-seeing-a-dramatic-surge-in-new-covid-cases-heres-why
Nate,
You’re always spinning a leftist agenda. Like Chic says, a master obfuscator.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
It rained at the summit of Greenland’s ice sheet for the first time in recorded history.
See below.
Which is only since 1950.
“It was the heaviest rainfall on the ice sheet since record keeping began in 1950”
Idiot.
See below.
About which we only know accurate data since 1950 or so.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
1.
Global Temperature for July 2021 is 0.77C
The average temperature was 0. 77C in July up by by 0.08C from June. Despite this small rise, 2021 is still on track to be the coldest year since 2014. After 7 months the average global temperature so far is 0.66C.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=10030
See above.
Idiot.
It’s not like we have been observing that particular summit for a very long time.
“It was the heaviest rainfall on the ice sheet since record keeping began in 1950”
Idiot.
“Greenland is one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change, which has consequences for the whole planet.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4av8mg/it-rained-at-the-summit-of-greenlands-ice-sheet-for-the-first-time-on-record
About which we only know accurate data since 1950 or so.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Willard:
1. When observed he is an idiot, continue doing idiotic things.
3. When countered, try to insult
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Annual-July-2021.png
One of the trolls provided this quote:
“That remaining 460 TW is the problem we’re facing. That excess energy, trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is heating up the planet. That is the Earth’s energy imbalance, or in other words, global warming.”
The 460 TW is a bogus figure. It comes from imagination, estimates, assumptions, and incompetence. Earth does NOT have an “energy imbalance”. If it warms, it emits more energy to space.
But, I can’t leave it alone based on the fact that so many trolls here believe fluxes add. Regardless of the physics, that has been explained to them, they still “believe”.
So since they are convinced fluxes add, really cold ice emits about 275 W/m^2. The Greenland ice sheet is about 1.7 million sq kilometers.
(275 W/m^2) * ((1.7)(10)^12 m^2) = 468 TW
The Greenland ice sheet is “heating the planet”!!!
On average, Pup training days makes him loses 500 cal.
Every time he does the Poll Dance Experiment he loses 750 cal.
PUP CANNOT BE TRAINING DURING HIS TRAINING DAYS!!!1!
Dud, when you have NOTHING, just babble.
That will impress your followers, like E. Swanson.
Of course, to the rest of us, you’re just a 14 year-old punk, not permitted to leave your basement.
(As usual, I won’t be responding to your next stalker blab.)
“when you have NOTHING, just babble.”
I thought that was what you did.
You just made a simple arithmetic mistake, Pup.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint R
Fluxes do add you are not smart enough to understand it even when explained to you numerous times. You hold on to stupid ideas and reject anyone who gives you the correct reasoning.
Your point on Greenland Ice demonstrates your illogical thought process. Though most other posters see your glaring irrational thinking, you are impressed with such poor display of intelligence.
I am very sorry you are so stupid. I wish I could help you learn but you are extremely arrogant in your stupid mind and will never consider your ideas are dumb.
The Greenland ice would emit the energy away from the surface so it would not be “heating the planet” anyway. Dumb point from a dumb person.
Here is a quote for you:
https://tinyurl.com/d8ptn6sn
Norman, thanks for confirming your cult beliefs.
I see you’ve forgotten your previous losing encounters with reality. “Time heals all wounds”, as they say….
You are the one in the tiny, tiny cult of ‘flat earth’ believers.
Clint R
There were not “previous losing encounters with reality”.
The actual reality is that you can’t understand logical arguments and conclude, when you see one, that it is not reality. I have witnessed this when the very knowledgeable Tim Folkerts offers you sound physics and very rational and logical thoughts you claim he is perverting science or whatever you stupidly respond with.
Your definition of reality is whatever you have made it up to be. Like the Moon is not rotating on its Axis because of a ball on a string (your only point in the stupid long debate you lack creative intelligence to come up with any new ideas). You think fluxes cannot add (not sure why even when posters have explained clearly that you get more light on a surface when you turn more lights on, a really dumb position to cling to).
You can’t understand that radiant energy from a cold object CAN be absorbed by a warmer one. Not sure why this one baffles you. It is heat that does not flow from cold to hot which is currently understood to mean NET energy. You can’t grasp that the NET energy or HEAT that transfers from a hot object does directly depends upon the energy a colder object transfers to the hotter object.
You make stupid irrelevant points about ice cooking turkeys. I am not sure why since it has nothing to do with the real properties of heat transfer. You just are too dumb to learn the real physics and peddle your fake ideas for unknown reasons.
If you opened a textbook on heat transfer and read it you would learn how stupid your points really are. Since that will never happen you will continue to act like you know things.
N,
Just tell me, then, what happens when water absorbs the radiation from ice. As far as I know, nothing at all.
In other words, you are saying that things occur which have no effect at all, cannot be measured, and cannot be observed.
Such things are normally referred to as fantasies. Just like that fantasy the GHE – cannot be observed, cannot be measured, and has no effect at all.
You don’t need to appear sillier than you are, but by all means try, if you wish.
So since they are convinced fluxes add, really cold ice emits about 275 W/m^2. The Greenland ice sheet is about 1.7 million sq kilometers.
(275 W/m^2) * ((1.7)(10)^12 m^2) = 468 TW
The Greenland ice sheet is “heating the planet”!!!
You still are making a simple arithmetic mistake, Pup.
Dud, even Norman can do the simple math. You know less about this than Norman!
If you weren’t a useless troll, that would concern you.
(Don’t expect a response.)
I am sure Norman knows about commutativity, associativity, and distributivity, Pup.
You need to reconnect your mind to your body. Focus on the Pole Dance Experiment.
Swenson
The IMR water absorbs from ice surrounding it does have an effect.
Here are the observable measurable effects. They are conditional, it depends upon what state was before or after the ice surrounding the water.
One case is that the surrounding temperature, before the addition of a solid ice sphere, was the same. Then you would observe any difference.
If the ice was blocking a warmer surrounding (than it)then the water would cool and you could measure the change.
if the ice was blocking a colder surrounding (than it) the water would cool at a slower rate the if the ice was not there. Less heat would be lost to the surroundings.
Norman provides another example of his “logical arguments”, wherein he attempts to pervert reality.
He starts off with “IMR”, just to add to the humor.
Clint R
I would be “EMR” that is a typo. Electromagnetic Radiation.
You get really excited when someone has a typo. Jump on it like a flea to dog. That does not help your lack of logic or rational thought. It also does not help your incredible ignorance of established physics.
You can’t understand what I wrote so you cover your ignorance by finding a typo. Congrats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBNxGZP49ls
The arithmetic error is revealed with your “heating the planet,” Pup.
Try again.
Wrong again, Norman.
You’ve been trying the same thing for months. You can’t face reality. When faced with a simple question, like months ago, you bail. Want to try again?
In that same scenario (everything in the room is at 32F), can the second ice cube ever raise the temperature above 32F?
a) Yes
b) No
Time to bail….
Clint R
In your situation the answer would be No, the additional ice cube in that situation would not raise the room temperature.
I am not sure what that case has to do with what I am saying.
The rate of HEAT loss (energy lost in transfer) of a hot object depends upon the temperature of the colder surroundings. The closer the surrounding temperature is to the hot object temperature the less heat the hot object will lose which can be easily verified by making graphs of the rate of temperature change.
This is stated clearly in the heat transfer equation which is established physics. The skeleton equation has modifiers for real world application but it is used extensively all the time.
https://www.engineeringenotes.com/thermal-engineering/heat-transfer/coefficient-of-radiant-heat-transfer-thermal-engineering/30883
Well Norman, you finally had to admit the obvious. Adding an ice cube cannot increase the temperature above the temperature of the first ice cube. Your extraneous blah-blah means NOTHING.
It gets worse for you.
Adding a 1000 ice cubes can’t increase the temperature. Because fluxes don’t add like that. Billions of CO2 molecules emitting to the surface can’t raise the surface temperature over that of one CO2 molecule.
I predict you can’t learn from this, and will try to pervert reality.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Simple, Pup: do the Poll Dance Experiment in an igloo!
Dud spouts that nonsense all the time. That’s because he has NOTHING.
He can’t even learn how to spell “pole”.
Clint R
We have already been over this ground. You are being stupid about it for reasons of your own.
If you add 1000 ice cubes at 32 F you will have much more radiant energy in the room than previous. The fluxes ARE adding, you are not able to process these points, the mass is also increasing. You increase the energy but you are also increasing the mass so the net gain is zero.
You have already tried this stupid logic with two containers of water at near freezing you pour both into a larger container. You note that the energy is doubled but the temperature does not go up. I explained, quite clearly, that you doubled the mass so you did two things simultaneously. You did add energy but you also added mass.
With the ice cubes you added a lot of energy to the room, but at the same time you added mass.
You can never understand this and I do not know why it perplexes you so. I think most can grasp these simple concepts but to you they go over your head and you get easily confused and form irrational conclusions based upon the very limited thinking ability you possess.
Norman, the point is more ice cannot raise the temperature more than less ice. You’re still having trouble with that simple concept. And that’s because you don’t understand physics.
All of your bogus claims, insults, and rambling blah-blah amount to NOTHING.
clint r…”One of the trolls provided this quote:
That remaining 460 TW is the problem were facing. That excess energy, trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is heating up the planet. That is the Earths energy imbalance, or in other words, global warming.”
***
That’s actually a quote from Trenberth posted by me and re-quoted by some troll. As I pointed out, Trenberth doesn’t understand the difference between heat and electromagnetic energy. In one part of the phrase he talks about trapped EM and in the other he relates that to heat, as in global warming. In essence, he thinks GHGs are trapping heat.
A greenhouse with a glass roof can trap heated molecules of air, which is heat, but GHGs have no means of doing that. That’s the basis of AGW and the GHE, pseudoscience.
RLH wrote earlier (in relation to Moon’s orbit) –
“No it wont. It requires some retrograde velocity changes to achieve an orbit.”
If velocity is accepted as consisting of speed and direction, then yes, the force of gravity alone produces the necessary change from straight line to elliptical motion. I’m not sure about what “retrograde” means in this context.
The fact remains that the Moon falls towards the Earth continuously, with an acceleration of about 1.27 mm/sec, which is almost exactly compensated for by its speed of about 1.02 km/sec, resulting in its present orbit.
Like anything free falling towards the Earth in a vacuum, the “bottom” of the object keeps facing the COG of the Earth. Why should it not? Even if the Moon was originally rotating around an axis perpendicular to its orbital place, the body would eventually stop spinning, due to small inhomogenities in its composition.
It really makes no difference, if the discussion hinges on the viewpoint. The motion of the body remains unchanged.
“Like anything free falling towards the Earth in a vacuum, the ‘bottom’ of the object keeps facing the COG of the Earth. “
No. Like anything free falling toward the earth in vacuum, the object keeps spinning with its initial initial angular momentum. With no torque to provide an angular acceleration, the object retains its initial angular velocity.
If I drop a ball so that it has no initial rotation with respect to the stars, it will fall always keeping the same side facing the same ‘fixed stars’. If the ball has an initial angular velocity with respect to the ‘fixed stars’ it will continue to fall with that angular velocity.
Tim,
You may choose to disagree with Newton, and use your own interpretation of physics, of course.
I mentioned nothing about “angular velocity”, and I notice that you have not specified which “angular velocity” you refer to.
The Moon is falling towards the Earth, continuously. The force which causes this is gravity. The Moon presents the same face to the COG of the Earth because it is falling – as would a cannonball or a piano.
As to “fixed stars”, the view from such stars normal to the Moons orbital plane would show the Moon orbiting the Earth, apparently fixed to it by an invisible string between a fixed point on the Moon, and the Earths COG. From such a viewpoint, only one hemisphere would be seen.
Waffling about points of view is just silly. From your fixed stars, the Moon also appears to lurch from right to left, and back again, while simultaneously pulsating backwards and forwards. Are you really stupid enough to believe this is caused by gravity, or possibly celestial beings, as was commonly held in Newton’s time!
“The Moon is falling towards the Earth, continuously. The force which causes this is gravity.”
The motion you describe indeed covers its orbit.
“The Moon presents the same face to the COG of the Earth because it is falling as would a cannonball or a piano.”
This is false. Orbit and orientation are not connected.
at all. Indeed the Moon could spin at any rotational velocity around its axis it liked and it would not effect its orbit at all.
Swenson, I am using very basic laws of Newtonian Mechanics:
Net force = mass x acceleration
Net torque = moment of inertia x angular acceleration.
I claim there is no net torque on a falling cannon ball. Do you disagree?
I claim there is no angular acceleration for a falling cannon ball. Do you disagree?
I claim that a falling cannon ball that starts with a given angular velocity with respect to the ‘fixed stars’ will fall with that same angular velocity. Do you disagree?
This is all in accordance with Newtonian Mechanics.
“would show the Moon orbiting the Earth, apparently fixed to it by an invisible string between a fixed point on the Moon, and the Earths COG.”
Sort of. The ‘fixed point’ on the moon would be its COG. The string would stretchy. And the string would pass intangibly though the solid bulk of the earth and moon.
Or they would see the moon orbiting due gravity — a much simpler, much more universal explanation.
“From your fixed stars, the Moon also appears to lurch from right to left, and back again, while simultaneously pulsating backwards and forwards. “
You lost me here. The moon would ‘lurch’ or ‘pulsate’ as it sped up and slowed down around its elliptical orbit. And yes, I believe the elliptical orbits are caused by gravity. The moon would NOT ‘lurch’ or ‘pulsate’ as it rotated on its own axis. People on a lunar colony would see the stars move at a constant angular rate across the sky, and aliens on a distant planet would see the surface of the moon moving at a constant angular rate as well.
Folkerts, skip your usual blah-blah. Moon is NOT rotating, it’s only orbiting. It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string — the same side always faces the inside of the orbit.
See, that’s reality. No blah-blah needed.
A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits. NOTHING.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
Clint R: You are still wrong.
“The Moon is falling towards the Earth, continuously. The force which causes this is gravity. The Moon presents the same face to the COG of the Earth because it is falling as would a cannonball or a piano.”
No science, no logic, no common sense here from Swenson.
Maybe he should watch some basketball games to see that a launched basketball rotates any which way if it is launched with rotation… or not at all on its arc into the basket.
Falling doesnt change its orientation or cause it to rotate.
Like the cannonball or the Moon, a basketball has no front or back that needs to point in the direction of motion.
Nate,
Maybe you would appear to be less idiotic if you could actually try to disagree with what I said.
You have created a series of strawmen, and put words in their mouths.
Basketball games? Have you lost your mind?
The Moon falls towards the Earth. Its initial speed in a straight line almost exactly balances its fall per second, resulting in an elliptical orbit. If you don’t believe in gravity, or Newton’s explanation of why the Moon doesn’t fall to Earth, or why the Earth doesn’t fall onto the Sun, good for you!
You can join the rest of the idiot brigade, the pygmies who snap at the ankles of the people who provide them with things like light, power, food, transport, computers and all the rest.
Keep yapping and snarling, Nate.
You describe an orbit. Not an orientation.
“The Moon falls towards the Earth. Its initial speed in a straight line almost exactly balances its fall per second, resulting in an elliptical orbit. If you don’t believe in gravity, or Newton’s explanation of why the Moon doesn’t fall to Earth, or why the Earth doesn’t fall onto the Sun, good for you!”
This is AGAIN explaining what we all know about orbits.
No one is disagreeing with this!
You are explaining NOTHING WHATSOEVER about orientation or rotation of the Moon, or cannonballs, or any sphere falling in gravity.
We keep telling you this and yet you keep repeating the same irrelevant thing.
What is your problem?
“if you could actually try to disagree with what I said.”
“The Moon presents the same face to the COG of the Earth because it is falling as would a cannonball or a piano.”
is what RLH and I disagree with, because there is no logic or science to back it up.
An example is a thrown basketball falling into a basket. It has no need to face the Earth, be oriented any particular way, or rotate toward the Earth.
It just falls.
Yup. Its orientation is unchanged by the fall.
Swenson gets it right again.
Well then that settles it! Riiiight?
Swenson gets it right again.
Thus we can all see that the TEAM requires no logic or evidence to declare things ‘settled’.
#2
Swenson gets it right again.
Oh you are responding to me. Not very consistent are we?
#3
Swenson gets it right again.
rlh…”Gordon, like you, is a flat earth (or equivalent) nutter”.
“””
In other words, you are too damned stupid to reply to proper orbital mechanics. Your ignorance is to deep to understand.
I understand orbital mechanics quite well. It is obvious that you do not.
You even think that entering orbits can be achieved by getting things ‘just right’.
Try telling that to any Apollo astronauts that they don’t have to do a retrograde burn to achieve just that outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_insertion
Solar Cycle progression – preliminary
The Sun activity basically tanked for the whole month, no termination event, no ramp up
https://i.postimg.cc/NMWRDZ4h/number-of-c-m-and-x-clas.png
“It was found that generally all predictions suggested that Solar Cycle 25 will be similar to or lower than the current cycle. Moreover, all works predicted Solar Cycle 25 will peak
around the year of 2023-2024.”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1231/1/012022
rlh…”If the momentum is just right for the altitude, the linear momentum of the Moon is bent into an elliptical or circular orbit.
No it wont. It requires some retrograde velocity changes to achieve an orbit”.
***
You are talking about a powered spacecraft which is trying to control its velocity, slowing it, or increasing it to match the required orbital velocity on a specific planet at a specific altitude.
Any body like the Moon is captured by a larger planet, or star, by sheer luck. It has to enter the gravitational field of the larger plant with a critical linear velocity at a critical angle at a critical altitude. Gravity holds the body at a critical altitude and the critical momentum prevents the body accelerating toward Earth.
In another post you claimed the Moon was in freefall. That is nonsense. Freefall is a reference to a body acceleration toward Earth. There is no movement whatsoever toward Earth by the Moon.
With the airliner example, it maintains orbit as an equilibrium between a downward gravitational force and an upward lift caused by air rushing around the airfoil. With the Moon, it maintains altitude as an equilibrium between lunar momentum and gravitational force.
I explained this in detail, if you cannot understand the physics then just say so. Instead, you go rushing off to Google and come up with inanities like retrograde motion.
Come on, man, stifle your ego and discuss science.
Gordon, capturing moons (or artificial satellites) is a much trickier business than you seem to think. Without some major interaction with the planet’s atmosphere or a different moon (or rocket engines for a spacecraft), a chunk of rock will either crash of swing past the planet and just fly off into space again.
For example, you could start here: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/8795/how-do-moons-get-captured
tim…”Without some major interaction with the planets atmosphere or a different moon (or rocket engines for a spacecraft), a chunk of rock will either crash of swing past the planet and just fly off into space again”.
***
I covered all that, Tim, in a previous post. It all comes down to the linear velocity of the body and to being significantly above the atmosphere of the planet. If it’s moving too fast it will shoot past but it will be bent off its path on a hyperbolic trajectory. If the velocity is lower, it will shoot by on a parabolic trajectory but it will still have its path bent into a curve by gravity.
If the linear velocity is just right, it’s path will be bent into an elliptical or circular orbit.
I know this is hard to take in because this kind of behavior does not happen in our atmosphere. It would be catastrophic if a body the size of the Moon passed through our atmosphere.
Not only would the compression of air be a major problem, there would be rises in ocean tides that would prove to be instantaneous and catastrophic. There may also be electrical discharges between the bodies.
Tim…as I was writing the last reply to you, the work of Velikofsky came to mind. His work was so controversial it was banned in 1950 although I found it immensely entertaining when I first read it. I repeat, ‘entertaining’, because I don’t know what to make of the claims laid forth by Velikovsky. He covers in detail what we are discussing here about a planet coming too close to another planet, and the drastic results.
However, he was proved right about the surface temperature of Venus back when scientists calculated it ‘should be’ about 17C. That temperature would give credence to the runaway greenhouse effect claimed for Earth.
It is worth reading the author’s intro in Wolds in Collision which I have linked to below. In the intro, there is a quote from a magazine as follows…
“…offhand misquotations, efforts at suppression of the books containing the theories, and the denial of the right to rebut opponents in professional journals that Dr. Velikovsky encountered indicate that far more was going on than mere challenge to established ideas. What the Velikovsky affair made crystal clear … is that the theories of science may be held not only for the truth they embody, but because of the vested interests they represent for those who hold them”.
Not much appears to have changed since 1950.
https://ia800609.us.archive.org/8/items/B-001-014-474/B-001-014-474.pdf
“If the linear velocity is just right, its path will be bent into an elliptical or circular orbit.”
You are wrong. In order to enter an orbit a velocity change is needed.
If you doubt that, then I suggest you try using Kerbal Space Program and try and reproduce what you claim. You will fail. Unless you provide some retrograde deceleration the approaching body will just fly past.
This is because, as the body approaches, it is subject to the acceleration of gravity that adds to its forward velocity.
Not done much real orbital work have you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_insertion
“In another post you claimed the Moon was in freefall. That is nonsense. Freefall is a reference to a body acceleration toward Earth. “
A dropped ball is in free fall (ignoring air, of course).
A ball thrown upwards or sideways is in free fall.
A ball dropped or thrown on the ISS is in free fall.
A bullet pushed forward at 300 m/s by a gun is in free fall (after leaving the gun).
An artificial satellite pushed forward at 16000 mph by a rocket is in free fall (after the rockets stop firing)
And the moon is in free fall.
““There is no movement whatsoever toward Earth by the Moon.”
If you cannot understand the physics then just say so. This is really BASIC stuff, covered in every freshman physics class (and most high school physics classes for that matter). Stifle your ego, read a freshman physics text, and learn about acceleration in circular motion.
Once you come to understand that the moon IS accelerating toward the earth (high school physics), maybe then you have a chance to learn the basics of circular orbits (freshman university physics) and eventually more general orbital mechanics (senior university physics).
He understands it all full and well. He’s a crisis actor hired by the warmmongering agenda activists to portray a climate ‘skeptic’ in order to give them a bad name by association.
No, that’s Richard.
1.
@ willard
who’s richard?
RHL. Search for “Richard” on this page.
Willard is an idiot who is stuck as 1 in his responses.
To provide cot with the information he requested falls out of your trick, dummy.
Two forces act on the moon: forward momentum and gravitational attraction between earth and moon.
Moon is in freefall. Its forward momentum means that it won’t hit the earth and instead orbits around the earth/moon barycenter.
The ‘front’ end of the moon continually faces the direction of angular velocity; the moon is not rotating around anything. Try thinking of a football shaped moon if it helps to get the picture; the pointy end always faces the direction of travel.
Ken
” The front end of the moon continually faces the direction of angular velocity; the moon is not rotating around anything. ”
Even not about its polar axis? Really?
J.-P. D.
Really!
It’s not hard to understand, JD. Moon has the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string. The same side always faces the inside of the orbit.
A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits. At all.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
You are still wrong Clint R.
Not even around polar axis.
Ken
” Not even around polar axis. ”
Thus, for you, the Moon observation and its evaluation work done in 1748-1749 by Tobias Mayer (published 1750 in German), in which he computed, among other things, Moon’s rotation period
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
is simply worthless?
And then, is the recent description in English of Mayer’s work by Steven Wepster, in which everybody can see how exactly Mayer computed also the inclination of Moon’s rotation axis wrt the Ecliptic (look at section 9.5.1, ‘Locating the rotational axis’, page 173)
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
in your opinion worthless too?
Ken, if you can prove that, then you are really a great person.
J.-P. D.
If you managed to make earth disappear, the moon would continue at a tangent to the original orbit. The pointy end would continue to face forward. There would not be any rotation about any axis.
Alternatively:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6BXaGEuqxo
As the Moon currently rotates on its axis once every 27 days or so, without the Earth that rotation would continue.
The fixed stars, the Sun and the rest of the Universe would agree.
Moon orbits, it does NOT rotate.
The Moon both orbits around the Earth and rotates on its own axis. Only your tiny, tiny band of non-scientists think otherwise.
“Moon orbits, it does NOT rotate.”
The Sun and the fixed stars differ with you on that.
How else do you get a sunrise on the Moon?
Moon orbits, it does NOT rotate. It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string. One side of the ball always faces the inside of the orbit, and the other side always faces outside the orbit.
So as Moon orbits Earth, Sun will illuminate all sides of it during a complete orbit.
A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits. NOTHING at all.
Gravity does not act like a string does, not even in the simplest of conditions.
“Two forces act on the moon: forward momentum and gravitational attraction between earth and moon.”
Only one of these is a Force.
“Moon is in freefall. Its forward momentum means that it wont hit the earth and instead orbits around the earth/moon barycenter.”
Yes.
The front end of the moon continually faces the direction of angular velocity; the moon is not rotating around anything. Try thinking of a football shaped moon if it helps to get the picture; the pointy end always faces the direction of travel.”
The Moon has no front.
THe Moon is not like a football travelling thru air. It has no air resistance.
If one end always faced in the direction of travel, it would not have the Longitudinal Lunar Librations that it has, which is explained by a constant spin and a non-constant orbital angular velocity.
Wrong troll Nate.
The “front” of Moon is its leading side as it orbits. It’s like the “front” of a car.
And lunar libration has been explained several times, but you can’t learn.
The leading edge of the Moon is not like a car. At all.
You are wrong, as always, Clint R.
How about “the leading edge always leads”?
You’re still always wrong Clint R.
“The ‘front’ of Moon is its leading side as it orbits. Its like the ‘front’ of a car.”
The Moon is not like a car. It has no wheels to make it turn. It has no need to POINT in the direction of its motion.
Why is it so hard for you to mentally grasp that the Moon does not move like Earth-bound vehicles?
After the Moon passes perigee, going its fastest, its rotation lags behind and the ‘front’ faces a little outward.
After it passes apogee its rotation is ahead, and the ‘front’ faces a little inward.
So the Moon does not always point in the direction of motion.
“And lunar libration has been explained several times, but you can’t learn.”
Nope. Never has been.
But feel free to show us.
Ken joins the “Non-Spinners”. Is there 14 of us on here now? I lose count.
Not this Ken?
“Ken says:
August 23, 2021 at 5:12 PM
So, yeah, youd be facing different stars even as you are not rotating.”
He’s perfect for the TEAM!
Ken joins the “Non-Spinners”. Is there 14 of us on here now? I lose count.
I count one. All the others are only Moon Dragon curious.
It’s about 14.
Hurricane Henri update, moving north a little over 20 mph over very warm 84 degree water, scheduled to hit my house dead on center in 18 hours
https://youtu.be/n3IJhTIfdoU
eben…hope you get through it OK. Got a basement? Shutters? Your part of the world is not exactly where you’d expect a summer hurricane.
To the contrary, not unusual, the last good one we had in 1985 Gloria
about New England hurricanes
https://bit.ly/3j5HZju
The average low for August in Vancouver, Canada is 14C. We have already recorded lower temperatures this month. Could this summer set records for both highs and lows? If so, will some alarmists try to relate that to anthropogenic warming? Alarmists normally claim that cooling is predicted by AGW.
The prediction for tonight, Saturday, August 21, 2021 is 13C and that is followed on consecutive nights by 13C,11C,11C,13C, and 13C.
A month ago, the average low was around 28C. What happened to all the heat? Oh, I forgot, it has moved over to Greenland, causing it to rain on mountain tops.
Great stuff this anthropogenic warming, it moves around at will.
“Great stuff this anthropogenic warming, it moves around at will.”
You are surprised that we still get weather?
With more heat and energy in the system, one might expect it to move around even more.
Except that, for this year at least, we have less heat/temperatures in the system than we did last year. But still we get the GW stories as though the reverse was actually true.
Temperatures only give you a small part of the system.
Be it GISS or UAH or any of the others.
And I thought temperatures measured heat. In the air, water and the rest.
RLH 8:43am, temperature is not a measure of heat. Thermometers measure the average KE of the object’s constituent molecules at the measurement point. Heat is a measure of the total KE of the object’s molecules.
Crickets.
“Thermometers measure the average KE of the objects constituent molecules at the measurement point. Heat is a measure of the total KE of the objects molecules.”
i.e. Heat = Mass * temperature.
Are you suggesting the mass changes?
“i.e. Heat = Mass * temperature.”
No. Read my 10:55am again.
“less heat/temperatures in the system”
Meh
The ocean contains most of it and that hardly changed.
Indeed. In the most part, the oceans are very cold. A lot colder than most of the land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ocean_water
“Deep ocean water makes up about 90% of the volume of the oceans. Deep ocean water has a very uniform temperature, around 0-3 °”
The upper ocean contains > 90% of the heat ADDED to the system in the last half century due to GW.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/
But the upper ocean contains just 10% of the total mass/volume of the oceans (see above).
And?
The atmosphere contains much less..where are you wandering with this?
Clint R
Across the population there’s a 1 in 70 chance of dying per year. That is 1 in 840 per month or 0.12%.
That will be the false positive rate for deaths from Covid under the “28 daya” criterion.
Of the 130,000 UK deaths from Covid you would expect 156 false positives due to other causes of death.
Is is even possible to die by any other means than Covid?
For those who don't get it (I am looking at you Bindidon in particular) if you round things to, say, the nearest 1/10th of a degree c (or f), then you can only claim ±0.1c accuracy. This occurs even if you only use the rounding on an internal boundary.
If you doubt this, fill an array of any size, 100, 100, 1000000, etc. and make half of it 10.5. Make the other half 10.4.
Now change just one of the 10.4s to 10.5 and watch the rounded output (to a 1/10th) change.
That should be:-
Now change just one of the 10.5s to 10.4 and watch the rounded output (to a 1/10th) change.
This is not necessarily correct. The average can be more accurate than the accuracy of any given data point!
In the spirit of your challenge, I just generated 1000 random numbers in Excel between 10-11. I also rounded these numbers to 2 decimals, 1 decimal, and finally 0 decimals (ie simply “10” or “11”).
* The average was 10.50438.
* The average was 10.50435 when first rounding to 2 decimals
* The average was 10.50430 when first rounding to 1 decimals
* The average was 10.49 when first rounding to 0 decimals
Repeating several times gave similar results. Roughly, the average is accurate to 2 more decimal places here than the level of rounding. Even when rounding to only 10 or 11, the average was typically good to within +/- 0.01 of the correct value.
It gets trickier in ‘the real world’ (rather than pure random numbers that are correctly rounded every time), but results can show remarkable sensitivity to change even when the instruments themselves have limited accuracy. Small signals CAN often be pulled out of large noise.
> The average can be more accurate than the accuracy of any given data point!
Good luck trying to convince Richard of that basic statistical fact.
“Good luck trying to convince Richard of that basic statistical fact.”
Good luck in finding measurements that are only subject to random errors that are normally distributed.
It’s quite easy to observe the propagation of nonsense in Climateball:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/propagation-of-nonsense/
1.
“* The average was 10.50438.
* The average was 10.50435 when first rounding to 2 decimals
* The average was 10.50430 when first rounding to 1 decimals
* The average was 10.49 when first rounding to 0 decimals”
Thus proving my point.
10.50 ±0.01 makes 10.49 (or vice versa)
“if you round things to, say, the nearest 1/10th of a degree c (or f), then you can only claim 0.1c accuracy. “
I *did* ’round things’ to the nearest 1/10th (0.1). But I can claim an accuracy of about 0.001 in my average. Rounding and then averaging gives ALMOST EXACTLY the same result as simply averaging the raw data here. This is MUCH different and MUCH better than your claim.
Even when I rounded to the nearest integer, the average was correct to within 0.01 almost all the time.
When I went up to 10,000 rows of data, the average become
“I *did* round things to the nearest 1/10th (0.1)”
But only had one run on random data. Hardly a proof of anything.
Do you dispute what I said about 100, 1000, etc. data that is half full of xx.5 and half full xx.4?
How fragile the rounding then becomes? It could be as little as 0.000000001 that effects things then.
See below
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
Notice how one rounds up but the other down when taken to 0.1 rounding?
The daily figure then becomes -6.7 or -6.8.
0.1 accuracy as I claimed.
P.S. If using random numbers, you will need an awful lot of runs (not just one) to get the inaccuracy.
That is why I constructed things as they were.
With each individual run, I can get the exact inaccuracy between the ‘true average’ and the ’round then average’. I gave an example of that. No repetition needed for this.
And you might have missed “Repeating several times… ” in my post. I did repeat the runs in excel (it takes about 1 second to do this). It only takes a relatively small number of runs to establish the spread in the inaccuracies. The one I chose was representative of typical runs. Some runs had averages farther from 0.50000, but they still had strong agreement between the ‘true average’ and the ’round then average.
See below
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
Notice how one rounds up but the other down when taken to 0.1 rounding?
The daily figure then becomes -6.7 or -6.8.
0.1 accuracy as I claimed.
Ah. You seem to be rounding AT THE END. Yes, if you only write the answer to +/- 0.1, then it can only be accurate at best to +/- 0.1.
But that is bad technique. Like measuring to +/- 0.001 inch with a micrometer, but only writing the answer to +/- 0.1 inch. You are simply throwing away information. If you have an answer like -6.76 and CHOOSE to only record -6.8, then the large +/- 0.1 inaccuracy was your choice, not a fundamental property of the data or statistical calculations.
This is quite different from recoding 100’s of data points to +/- 0.1 and then saying the average is also only good to +/- 0.1. This is simply wrong.
“Do you dispute what I said about 100, 1000, etc. data that is half full of xx.5 and half full xx.4?”
Yes, I dispute it!
With 50 values of 0.4 and 50 values of 0.5, the average is 0.45. The standard deviation is 0.050. The standard error of the mean is 0.05/(100)^0.5 = 0.0050. It is common to give error bars as 2 standard deviations. If this represented some sort of actual data with some sort of variations, This would result in a ‘correct average’ of:
0.450 +/- 0.010
Switching one value from 0.4 to 0.5 results in an average of …
0.451 +/- 0.010
Writing these answers as either “0.4” or “0.5” is sloppy data analysis. We could fairly write both of these as 0.45 +/- 0.01. In other words, there is no difference in the outcome if you change 1-4 of the numbers. Experimental data and calculations should ALWAYS indicate the units and the uncertainty!
“With 50 values of 0.4 and 50 values of 0.5, the average is 0.45”
Switch just one of those 0.5s to 0.499999999999 and see what rounding you then get.
As below
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
Notice how one rounds up but the other down when taken to 0.1 rounding?
The daily figure figure, rounded to the nearest 0.1, then becomes either -6.7 or -6.8.
A 0.1 accuracy as I claimed.
And those are all USCRN calculations. Not mine.
“Switch just one of those 0.5s to 0.499999999999 and see what rounding you then get.”
My whole point was that arbitrarily rounding to some number of decimal places is BAD DATA ANALYSYS. “Significant digits” should never be used for anything quick and dirty approximations.
Switch one of those 0.5s to 0.499999999999 … and I still get
0.45 +/- 0.01
*That* is how any competent analysist should present the answer. Forcing a single digit answer is sloppy and misleading. The average in this case SHOULD be written with more significant digits than the data that was inputted!
“Ah. You seem to be rounding AT THE END. Yes, if you only write the answer to +/- 0.1, then it can only be accurate at best to +/- 0.1.”
But that is exactly what USCRN does with its figures. Produces Daily and Hourly averages that are rounded to 0.1 accuracy.
“My whole point was that arbitrarily rounding to some number of decimal places is BAD DATA ANALYSYS.”
Go tell USCRN then. They are the ones who produce those figures to that accuracy.
“[USCRN] produces Daily and Hourly averages that are rounded to 0.1 accuracy.”
I don’t know about their original data and analysis. All I have is what you posted here. And here the averages are displayed to two decimal places.
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
Or maybe those are *your* averages and they only posted:
Daily Average = -6.7 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.8 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.7 Count = 288
I could just as easily posted
And here are the averages are displayed to one decimal places from USCRN.
Daily Average = -6.7 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.8 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.7 Count = 288
as that is what USCRN actually posts.
Bindidon went to 2 decimal places so I did too. That showed the reason why there was a 0.1c difference.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-801227
is my original post on this topic
“2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.7 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.8 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.7 Count = 288
where the rounding error is 0.1 but the SubHourly agrees with the Daily.”
“Small signals CAN often be pulled out of large noise.”
Only if the errors/noise are purely randomly distributed (i.e. white noise). I have done quite a bit of recovery of signals below the noise floor myself. All only work if we have pure white noise added.
… or with pink noise. Or periodic noise. Or any number of other specific sorts of noise on top of the signal. For instance, your brain can focus on one particular conversation with wildly varying noise that is not pure ‘white noise’.
If the noise contains information that is in the same frequency band as the signals you seek, other methodologies are need, such as FEC, CRC or the like, to distinguish good from bad.
More generally, if noise N contains signal S, some method M will be needed to extract it.
RLH
” For those who don’t get it (I am looking at you Bindidon in particular) … ”
That is so perfectly typical for you, RLH.
*
I didn’t round anything during the generation of the mean/median/average comparisons, you permanently discrediting supergenius!
I rounded only once the hourly data to 0.1 C for short, in a completely different step, in order to compare, for the CRN Kenai station,
– the daily average of USCRN’s hourly data
with
– USCRN’s daily data, as you can see here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WjAdT5r_6R7Pu9xEmxBChZpg7N8YkML3/view
The comparison starts with yearday 245 in 2010, and ends with yearday 200 in 2021 (Aug 1, last CRN download).
This time, unlike in the previous graph
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fNnL7PsaHjYXcibgF8cLBdWnGdV0qC0H/view
all days lacking data (in either USCRN hourly, my daily averaging of it, or USCRN daily itself) were discarded.
Of the remaining 3898 days comparing hourly averaging and daily, about 530 differ by -0.1 or +0.1 (the tiny spikes on the black line); the rest is identical.
The resulting series show, apart from their optical similarity even greater than before, the following OLS estimates in C / decade:
– daily averaging of CRN hourly: 2.53026 +- 0.52923
– CRN daily: 2.53026 +- 0.52896
Even 5 digits after the decimal point aren’t enough to obtain a difference between the estimates! And 2 common datdp for standard errors over absolute data are unusually much.
*
With graph and data above, we all can see how ridiculous your pathetic trials to discredit me in reality are.
You are intellectually moving down to the coin/MGR/ball-on-a-string level of the Lunar spin Ignoramuses.
*
May I moreover remind you, supergenius RLH, that you were the one
– who suddenly began to divert off our comparisons of hourly data, by unnecessarily going down to USCRN’s subhourly level
– instead of doing your job, namely a complete evaluation of the hourly data of all USCRN stations, from 2002 till now, in order to compare it with what I did?
Should you finally have enough balls to do that, so please don’t forget to exclude all days with an incomplete hour data sequence!
That is the only way to avoid unduly differences between our evaluations of daily mean, median and average, isn’t it?
Output of daily data in yearday form, please, and with 2 datdp, that should be enough!
*
Stop smalltalking and boasting about your tiny bits, RLH, and start doing real work (feel free to use your subhourly data stuff, no problem for me).
Mais… comme chaque fois, j’ai un petit doute de voir arriver quoi que ce soit, n’est-ce pas?
J.-P. D.
“I didn’t round anything during the generation of the mean/median/average comparisons, you permanently discrediting supergenius!”
No, you arrogant twat. USCRN rounded their Hourly data for you to the nearest 1/10th of a degree (as they say on their site). From their sub-hourly (or better) data. Therefore using their Hourly data as you do instead of calculating it for yourself will lead to just the errors I have discussed.
e.g.
As below
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
Notice how one rounds up but the other down?
But you are too arrogant to read things closely or understand any of it.
Plus you still haven’t answered the real question.
Why is it that a given station will be almost a constant offset between Tminmax and Taverage?
Unless you know the answer to that, all the rest of your suppositions and calculations are moot.
See https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-806776 and below.
There will generally be an offset in mean, median, and min/max average if the probability distribution is asymmetric. However, if the asymmetry is time invariant the expectation value of the offset bias is constant.
If the asymmetry is time invariant this bias nominally cancels when using anomalies.
I demonstrated this with a limited set of real station time series a couple weeks ago.
That is not the question of interest. Why is that different stations in the USCRN network show a fairly constant offset between Tminmax and Taverage? They range from from +0.69 to -1.36 which is quite a margin. Why is that possible.
What, other then blind indifference, means that is not important also for all the use of Tminmax in climate?
“There will generally be an offset in mean, median, and min/max average if the probability distribution is asymmetric.”
The difference between Tminmax and Taverage will not be as constant as it is on the USCRN sites. The holds true day after day, month after month and year after year.
RLH
I’m not interested in what you arrogant twat consider moot.
Stop smalltalking and boasting about your tiny bits, RLH, and start doing real work (feel free to use your subhourly data stuff, no problem for me).
J.-P. D.
I am doing just that right now. I am trying to find the answer to the question I have posed you. Why is it that the various 138 stations differ in an almost constant fashion between Tminmax and Taverage?
It is not elevation, latitude or relative humidity so far. I am now looking at the daily temperature profiles to see what enlightenment that brings.
RLH
One day, even people like Robertson will understand why you permanently avoid doing your job, and discredit me instead…
J.-P. D.
At no time will you admit you are wrong. Just go on with attempting to give me orders without considering your own faults.
I am not in the slightest bit interested in OLS comparisons, especially with data that contains errors, unless you can tell me which of the various sites are in error on Tminmax, which way and by how much.
USCRN, with its meticulous stations and methodology, shows that Tminmax and Taverage differ by from +0.69 to -1.36 over their 138 active stations (excluding their experimental and closed ones). This directly from their own data.
“That is the only way to avoid unduly differences between our evaluations of daily mean, median and average, isnt it?”
Well USCRN produces daily mean (Tminmax) and average (Taverage) in their own figures so not really that much work their.
So why is it that they are different again?
Here we can see the technical level of people like Robertson, wo wrote August 19, 2021 at 5:46 PM (he meant RLH and me there)
” At least he writes programs, unlike you, who is nothing more than a number-cruncher who uses Excel incorrectly. ”
*
Oh I love such comments.
If you are aware of Excel’s maximal abilities even on a desktop PC with 16 GB and a 2.5 GHz quad core, you might pretty good imagine what would happen to you when you try to download the entire USCRN hourly data (it’s about 23.5 million lines) into a spreadsheet.
Wonderful.
That gives us an idea of what kind of data Robertson did ever ‘process’… and of the size of the greatest program he ever managed to write in whichever language.
J.-P. D.
Figured out the accuracy you can attach to data that is rounded to 1/10th of a degree yet? Such as the USCRN Daily and Hourly data.
RLH
” Such as the USCRN Daily and Hourly data. ”
You seem to be a person with an unmoving mind:
August 19, 2021 at 4:25 PM
The Globe HAS been cooling for the last 6 months or so. Get over it.
Yes, RLH: try to get over it!
And start the global CRN averaging job, using the subhourly data.
No problem for me :- ))
J.-P. D
Are you not in the slightest bit curious as to why Tminmax and Taverage is different across different stations?
“The Globe HAS been cooling for the last 6 months or so. Get over it.
Yes, RLH: try to get over it!”
I am. It is others who are not. All I did was state the obvious fact which others then contested.
As I have said many times, USCRN already provides Daily and Hourly Tminmax and Taverage as part of their data. No work, other than downloading, is required for those fields.
It shows a nearly constant difference between the 2 per site, based on a site by site unknown cause.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Just to the east of Waverly, the town of McEwen was pummeled Saturday with 17.02 inches (43.2 centimetres) of rain, smashing the state’s 24-hour record of 13.6 inches (34.5 centimetres) from 1982, according to the National Weather Service in Nashville, though Saturday’s numbers would have to be confirmed.
A flash flood watch was issued for the area before the rain started, with forecasters saying 4 to 6 inches (10 to 15 centimetres) of rain was possible. The worst storm recorded in this area of Middle Tennessee only dropped 9 inches (23 centimetres) of rain, said Krissy Hurley, a weather service meteorologist in Nashville.
“Forecasting almost a record is something we don’t do very often,” Hurley said. “Double the amount we’ve ever seen was almost unfathomable.”
Recent scientific research has determined that extreme rain events will become more frequent because of man-made climate change. Hurley said it is impossible to know its exact role in Saturday’s flood, but noted in the past year her office dealt with floods that used to be be expected maybe once every 100 years in September south of Nashville and in March closer to the city.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/at-least-10-killed-in-tennessee-flash-floods-dozens-missing-1.5556635
“GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE”
The globe is indeed cooling when comparing this year to last so far. In fact, some assessments have it that this year will be the coolest since 2014!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-808060
Idiot.
1.
Keep being an idiot who thinks that errors propagate.
1 again.
That is not the question of interest.
Deny all you like. It is still 1.
At no time will you admit you are wrong.
You just keep on being at 1.
All I did was state the obvious fact which others then contested.
Still at 1 aren’t you.
Richard is a nutter and unable to think logically.
Willard, who is the original one trick pony, is still at 1.
That’s your silliest No U so far, dummy.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Annual-July-2021.png
willard…”Just to the east of Waverly, the town of McEwen was pummeled Saturday with 17.02 inches (43.2 centimetres) of rain…”
***
It’s weather, Willard, summer weather.
Here is Vancouver, Canada we are a degree or two below the low average for August. That’s a month after we supposedly hit records for highs in June. BTW, we also set a record for the coolest day in June.
Weather, Willard!!!
AGW increases extremely wetter events, Gordo.
You got nothing against that.
willard…”AGW increases extremely wetter events, Gordo.”
***
Let’s talk scientific method. All you have are unvalidated climate models.
No problemo, Gordo:
https://climateball.net/but-science/
Pick a line.
(C)AGW has obviously increased this year even though the temperatures have decreased from last year (and 2019).
“But CAGW” has actually decreased, since contrarians are losing ground and they main pushers of that meme.
I said Earth absorbs a lot of energy. And it absorbs a lot energy because Earth has an Ocean.
No CO2 levels which Earth has ever had, has caused Earth to absorb a lot of energy. Or what causes Earth to absorb a lot of energy is due to Earth having an ocean.
Ah, let make this clearer, the Earth ocean absorbs a lot of energy from sunlight.
If you put Earth ocean into Venus, the water will absorb a lot of heat of Venus, and the water will not absorb much of the energy from the Sunlight.
So have myth of Venus once having ocean, if Venus had an ocean it would not absorb energy from sunlight.
So, myth is Venus had a ocean and had runaway greenhouse effect.
Part of reason the Earth’s ocean absorbs a lot of the energy of sunlight is because it’s a large ocean.
The believers of the fantasy that Venus had ocean, are not falsely saying Venus had a large ocean like Earth has.
What If Earth had a small ocean which is falsely said, that Venus had?
The first thing is that such a small ocean could not cover 70% of the planet surface.
I said Earth absorbs a lot energy compared to an Ideal thermally conductive blackbody. Which a model of spherical object which would absorb as much of the energy of the sun as anything “imaginable”. Not stupidly imaginable, as there is no limit to that, but in accordance what is known about reality.
So ITCB {Ideal thermally conductive blackbody} absorbs 340 watts vs Earth’s 240 watts. It happens that 70% of 340 watts is 238 watts. If ITCB only covered 70% of spherical surface, it would no longer absorb the most sunlight possible.
Likewise if my statement is the ocean is the cause of earth absorbing more sunlight energy than any other planet, then reducing how big the ocean is would mean it covers less the 70% of the surface.
OR if our ocean only covered 50% of earth surface, it reduces it’s effect of causing Earth to absorb as much of the sunlight.
Another factor is where the ocean is. Most sunlight reaches a sphere where the sunlight to is reaching the surface at a higher angle than 45 degrees.
Or with our tropics most of sunlight reaching at 45 degree or closer to zenith as compared to rest of the world. And so 40% of Earth surface which is the tropics, receives more than 1/2 of sunlight reaching Earth. Or 40% of surface gets more sunlight than the 60% of the rest of the World.
So having the ocean in the portion of Earth surface which gets the most sunlight, matters.
And our ocean covers about 80% of the tropical zone.
If our ocean only covered 50% of tropical zone, the ocean would absorb a lot less sunlight.
Another aspect of large ocean is it’s sheer volume. Because of large volume of our ocean, per 1 C degrees of temperature the heat content is equal to about 1000 degree of 1 C temperature content of our atmosphere.
And this is roughly why I say Earth average temperature is not the air, but the average temperature of the entire ocean, which is about 3.5 C
Or if earth average temperature was our atmosphere, we would not need 30 years to measure it.
{I would say 30 years is not enough, but human lifetimes are short, and can see why the least amount time would seem more desirable.}
So, with all that I said above.
The Big Question regarding climate science, is NOT what causing Earth to be warm.
The Earth is cold.
We are in an Ice Age.
The Big Question is, what causes global cooling?
There are obvious clues.
The location of Antarctica is obvious. And everyone knows it.
Our Ice Age is called Late Cenozoic Ice Age but it’s also called:
the Antarctic Glaciation.
Our Age is marked by the cooling of Antarctica
What caused Earth to cool 34 million years ago is interesting and could be practical in finding out more details.
But the Bigger or More Important question is what has caused the more recent cooling.
Very recent in terms of the Little Ice Age.
And also recent in terms of last million years or so.
BREAKING NEWS
“At his rally in Alabama on Saturday night, Donald Trump heard the unusual sound of booing and jeering aimed his way, after he told supporters: I recommend taking the vaccines. ”
What a traitor! Next he will be telling us to take action on climate change!
I too recommend you take the vaccine.
Your choice. And that is what Trump intended too.
ken…”I too recommend you take the vaccine”.
***
On what grounds? Where’s your scientific evidence?
You know nothing about orbital mechanics yet you’re willing to sling ad homs over it. I am willing to bet you know absolutely nothing about viruses or how these fraudulent vaccines are claimed to work.
“You know nothing about orbital mechanics”
That’s a bit strong from someone who does not understand how orbital insertions work and thinks you just need to ‘get the approach velocity right’ in order to enter an orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_insertion
Well, it’s Trump’s vaccines.
Hardly news, he would recommend that people should
take his vaccines.
“Everyone” agrees that Trump has a huuge Ego.
Many say if Twitter didn’t block his account he would
talked more about vaccines and since he good at selling
stuff, more people would have more eager to immediately
get the vaccine.
Or Twitter folly might reduced the amount
vaccines taken by about 10 million people.
Or Twitter, not war, kills more people.
Taking the vaccine is unnecessary for many. There are several treatments for the virus. Hydroxychloroquine and zinc, vitamin D combination work pretty well. When my wife and I had the virus, we took Quercitin, zinc, and vitamin D and sailed through it fairly easily. Quercetin is a zinc ionophore like hydroxychloroquine. If you have a comorbidity like obesity or COPD, I think it might warrant taking the vaccine.
“Hydroxychloroquine and zinc, vitamin D combination work pretty well.”
No serious medical professional would recommend only those over a vaccination.
You don’t know what you are talking about. They absolutely would. As a matter of fact, historically, if there is a remedy for a disease, no serious medical professional would recommend a vaccine. They absolutely would. They absolutely would. Vaccines are inherently dangerous.
rlh…”No serious medical professional would recommend only those over a vaccination”.
***
No serious medical professional would recommend untested, modified RNA, especially from companies who have been fined billions of dollars for lying about their products and who have been given immunity from prosecution for the so-called vaccine.
You lie. Covid exists. The tests work. The rest of your opinion is bullshit.
“Vaccines are inherently dangerous.”
Sure. And Polio doesn’t exist.
If you are certain [got tested a few times and people you live with
had covid] then that acts like vaccine- which is suppose to activate your immune system. Though there is uncertainty regarding recovery from covid [or there could be long term effects from it] therefore in might make sense to vaccinated. I got Johnston and Johnston and so needed just 1 shot. And I had no side effect from it. My brother got another kind and it had some pain in arm for first day and had to get two vac shots {hurt his arm both times}.
A bit pain in arm is not much of side effect, I was expecting, but there was zero pain for me.
But another thing is even if got vaccined or had it, it could better to get another booster vaccine at some point. I probably will within few months- either Johnston booster or maybe:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-08-astrazeneca-hails-trial-results-covid.html
“The drug, made from a combination of two antibodies, was initially developed as a treatment for those who had already been exposed to the disease.”
Who’s Johnston?
johnson and johnson vaccine
stephen…”Who’s Johnston?”
A company that has been fined over 3 billion dollars for various offenses. Do yourself a favour, stay away from any product claiming the heal or prevent covid. Help your immune system do its job by keeping healthy, not running yourself down, and getting lots of sleep.
These convicted felons have been given immunity from prosecution for covid.
https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/johnson-and-johnson
stephen…”Who’s Johnston?”
A company that has been fined over 3 billion dollars for various offenses.
https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/johnson-and-johnson
It is odd that people are hyper concerned about the risks of vaccines that have already been tested on hundreds of millions of people, but have no concerns about taking relatively untested supplements without a doctor’s guidance.
“Quercitin
“What are the risks of taking quercetin?
When you take it as a food, quercetin is likely safe. As a supplement, quercetin may be safe if you take reasonable amounts for a short time, such as 500 milligrams twice a day for 12 weeks. Taken longer, the risks are unknown.
Side effects. Quercetin may cause headache or tingling in arms and legs. Other side effects may occur if you receive quercetin treatment by IV (intravenously).
Risks. Kidney damage may result from high doses. If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, do not take quercetin as a supplement. You may get too much, especially since quercetin is in so many foods.”
Nate, did you know that you can drink enough water to cause serious problems?
Quercetin and Hydroxychloroquine have both been around a while. You’re very odd, Nate, and you counter your own arguments. Quercetin is untested, but mRNA vaccine isn’t? Goofball.
“Quercetin and Hydroxychloroquine”
Have not been proven to stop Covid infections or diminish the results when infected.
There are numerous stories around that say that they do, but no studies that actually say so.
“When my wife and I had the virus”
Glad you had a better experience with it. But you do have to acknowledge that many many had it much worse and many died.
You probably heard about this guy, who also felt like he didnt need the vaccine, and encouraged many others to think the same. Of course, at the end he regretted all of this.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/radio-host-regretted-vaccine-hesitancy-dies-covid-79582607
Now troll Nate, in order to not be perceived a “cherry-picker”, you need to also report on all the un-vaccinated people that were “exposed” to Covid, but 1) Never had any symptoms, or 2) Had symptoms, but recovered quickly.
Then, you can report all those that got the vaccination and subsequently died.
I won’t hold my breath….
“need to also report on all the un-vaccinated people that were ‘exposed’ to Covid”
Stephen’s post was his personal, anecdotal evidence. I simply offered an alternative to that.
Why do I need to do research that you demand?
Feel free to find it and show to us.
You accuse me of reporting anecdotal evidence; then, you report anecdotal evidence. Goofball. My point is authoritarianism isn’t the answer to COVID. People need to be responsible for their own health and decisions. We don’t need Big Brother.
Thanks for admitting that anecdotes ain’t science.
It’s like someone said, “If this were a real pandemic, we would know it”.
“You accuse me of reporting anecdotal evidence”
Clearly you don’t know what anecdotal evidence means.
Unless, you never went to public school, you were required to get numerous vaccines as a kid.
Anecdotaly, did any of them cause you lasting harm?
Anecdotaly, did you get Polio? Did you get Measles?
Thanks vaccines!
“My point is authoritarianism isnt the answer to COVID.”
In the Covid instance the govt is not requiring any vaccines.
Stop hyperventilating!
“Thanks for admitting that anecdotes aint science.”
You can learn!
Meanwhile the science is out there, but you pretend there isnt any.
The government ain’t requiring vaccines? You either have your head in the sand or up your arse. And, you’ve never read about detrimental effects to children of many vaccines? And, these were vaccines that went through clinical trials and were heavily studied before public rollout. These haven’t been.
And, I understand the need for many vaccines: Hepatitis, Polio, Small Pox, Flu, Rabies, etc. COVID? No. There are cures.
“Stop hyperventilating”?
Nate is the poster child for leftist oxymoronic utterances.
It’s the left who hyperventilates. “Get the vaccine!” “Wear a mask!” “We’re all going to die!”
Stephan P Anderson,
You claim
“There are cures.”
No there are not, 4.4 million people have died.
There are treatments of various effectiveness at a rather high cost, and there is a “free” vaccine and inexpensive masks.
Bobdrodge,
Yes, there is. If they are administered correctly there are cures. Hydroxychloroquine and zinc have to be administered early. There is a doctor in NY who has extensive data on several thousand patients who had Hydroxychloroquine and zinc administered early. You can’t use hydroxychloroquine by itself. It is a zinc ionophore. It doesn’t do anything by itself.
There is still no evidence that masks do anything to prevent the spread of viruses. There is evidence of harms.
Stephen,
Sorry I misspelled your name.
My company just put out the word today, vaccinate or leave the company.
I don’t think they are a bunch of lefties.
And here is the real deal on hydroxychloroquine
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22446-z
“We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine”
A lot of companies are setting themselves up for ‘wrongful dismissal’.
“There is still no evidence that masks do anything to prevent the spread of viruses.”
So all surgeons should just give them up now.
Bob,
Do you know anything about that “study?” It wasn’t really a study. Did you know they didn’t use zinc in those clinical cases? Hydroxychloroquine and Arythromyacin don’t do anything by themselves. You have to have zinc. Zinc interferes with the RNA polymerase transcription much like Remdesivir. It would help if you went to this study recently released in January. This was an actual study.
https://principia-scientific.com/the-american-journal-of-medicine-now-recommends-hcq-for-covid19/
“A lot of companies are setting themselves up for wrongful dismissal.”
A lot of people are setting themselves up for lawsuits based on causing infection to others.
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(21)00092-9/fulltext
The American Journal of Medicine Responds
“The article that the Brazilian government quotes as proof of the efficacy of HCQ was posted in PubMed before studies demonstrated that HCQ does more harm than good. “
“The government aint requiring vaccines? You either have your head in the sand or up your arse.”
Nope, they are not requiring Covid vaccines. Thats why I said you need to stop hyperventilating and listening to right-wing media misinformation.
“ouve never read about detrimental effects to children of many vaccines?”
Ive read that Jenny Mccarthy believes in such because she ‘has a PhD in Google’
There was one study that linked vaccines to Autism that was immediately debunked and in fact involved fraud. But the internet never forgets.
“And, these were vaccines that went through clinical trials and were heavily studied before public rollout. These havent been.”
The COVID vaccines did go through clinical trials, and have since been tested on ~ 1 B people. Adverse effects have been miniscule compared to the benefit of saving countless lives.
The point is this, instead of making your health decisions based on politics, just talk to your doctor… make decisions based on advice from medical professionals.
Nate,
You need to run out and tell all the Federal workers, airline employees, government contractors, etc. that “Nate says they don’t have to take the vaccine.”
Also, Biden doesn’t want you talking to your doctor. He doesn’t want Americans making informed decisions based on their best interests. He wants to compel them to take the vaccine.
“Biden doesnt want you talking to your doctor. ”
Where do you get this crap?
Then defy government tyrants and talk to your doctor. It’ll be a win-win for you.
This is an assault on your liberty?
“Federal workers will be required to sign forms attesting theyve been vaccinated against the coronavirus or else comply with new rules on mandatory masking, weekly testing, distancing and more.”
People have the liberty to quit their job if they don’t like the conditions. Companies are also doing it.
Its called incentivizing.
COVID is a threat to health and life. It has f*d up businesses, education, and the economy.
We’d like this to be over.
You?
Principia Scientific or Nature
Take your pick
Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off
michael…”Donald Trump heard the unusual sound of booing and jeering aimed his way, after he told supporters: I recommend taking the vaccines.
***
I enjoyed Trump for his irreverance but his advice on covid was pathetically misinformed. The only smart thing he said was that Fauci should be fired.
If Gordon were in charge, all the scientists would be fired.
NASA, NOAA, NIH, EPA, FDA, and the rest at universities.
There would be a great purge. Like one of Stalin’s.
Like Mao’s cultural revolution.
There are too many scientists. The more scientists, the more political. It used to be difficult to get a PhD, now, not so much.
Sure, give the nerds a swirly.
America has always had less respect for science than other countries, while casually benefiting from all that science has provided.
Previously, support for funding science in Congress was bipartisan.
Not anymore. Now being anti-science is a badge of honor on the right.
The left only uses “in the name of science” when it is convenient to advance their agenda. The left is more anti-science than anyone. The left ignored and outright attacked many legitimate cures because Trump mentioned them.
“The left is more anti-science than anyone.”
Really? Gonna go with the ‘I know you are but what am I’ juvenile projection.
I am reminded of Gary Larson cartoon ‘Laboratory Peer Pressure’
I am more inclined to try Ivermectin horse deworming paste than I am inclined to take vaccine. Weird but true.
I still recommend taking vaccines … but only after you have done your due diligence and are giving ‘informed consent’ to getting the jab.
I’m going to wait. There is too much censorship by facebook and youtube; there is too much glib discussion of vaccine mandates by our government; to be sure of getting all the information needed to get to the point of ‘informed consent’.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/23/fda-horse-message-ivermectin-covid-coronavirus
“You are not a horse,” it said. “You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”.
I can’t get Ivermectin for humans without a prescription.
Doctor won’t give Prescription of Ivermectin as a Prophylactic against COVID.
There are papers claiming 86% efficacy in preventing COVID. Other papers disagree. We the people don’t get a choice.
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx
Ok so look at that paper and hopefully understand the risk/benefit analysis.
Then look at many papers on the vaccine trials and understand the risk/benefit analysis.
Then decide, leaving politics out of it.
https://www.nwahomepage.com/news/gov-hutchinson-discourages-using-ivermectin-for-covid-19-symptoms/
“I am more inclined to try Ivermectin horse deworming paste than I am inclined to take vaccine. Weird but true.”
Indeed weird. Why do people distrust public health medical professionals but trust weirdness from Facebook and Youtube?
“Im going to wait. There is too much censorship by facebook and youtube”
What are you waiting for? To be informed by Facebook? Its only been tested on ~ 1 Billion people.
If you get sick and end up in the hospital, what treatment will you expect/accept? Experimental antibody treatment? Intubation?
Either read medical journals (and understand them) or just talk to your doc.
It seems you are willing to let others get the vaccination while you benefit from lower infection rate.
The reason we are stuck in COVID swampland is because too many people are still waiting to get vaccinated.
binny…”If you are aware of Excels maximal abilities…”
***
Binny misses the point…again!!! Ever heard of GIGO…Garbage In Garbage Out. Excel is only as good as the user.
I have witnessed the graphs you provide showing UAH comparing favourably to GISS and NOAA. Utter fiction.
> Excel is only as good as the user.
It can be a lot worse tho.
You might like:
https://theconversation.com/the-reinhart-rogoff-error-or-how-not-to-excel-at-economics-13646
entropic…”Of the 130,000 UK deaths from Covid you would expect 156 false positives due to other causes of death”.
***
None of you who appeal to authority figures will bother fact-checking the following. That shows up in the way you cling to absurd theories like catastrophic anthropogenic warming and the myth that the Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit.
132,000 are claimed to have died in the UK actually and with a population of 67 million the percent of deaths is 0.197 or ~0.2.
In Sweden, with a population of 10.23 million there have been 14,668 deaths (0.14%), most of them involving seniors in rest homes. Sweden admits they messed up by not isolating the seniors sooner but at no time did they go into lockdown. Therefore, the UK with a full lockdown had roughly the same percentage of deaths as Sweden, with no lockdown.
Here in British Columbia, Canada, 1700+ people have died out of a population of 5.2 million. Last time I worked that out it came to about 0.03%. For the first six months of 2020 we had no lockdown either and the number of deaths remained fairly constant compared to post-lockdown.
Here in BC we have one of the largest Chinese population outside of China, and during 2020 many were flying back and forth between BC and China.
Why???
Some scientists have claimed covid ran out of steam by mid-2020.
The UK went into lockdown based on misinformation from an unvalidated computer model, created by Neil Ferguson of the Royal College. This guy’s predictions have been a major embarrassment, never mind a disaster, since 2002. He has been so wrong it would be laughable if the conditions were not so serious.
Here is an article on Ferguson applying to Canada only.
https://www.iedm.org/the-flawed-covid-19-model-that-locked-down-canada/
Politicians world-wide have egg on their faces for following Ferguson’s stupid model predictions. So, they have to inflate the numbers so they won’t look so stupid. That is particularly true in the US where Fauci is now the leading advisor on covid. He adopted the recommendations of Ferguson and he helped invent the first PCR test for HIV. He has a lot of face to lose if he doesn’t get the number of deaths in the US close to Ferguson’s dumb predictions.
It’s an egregious lie that 132,000 have died of covid in the UK. The covid tests don’t test for covid, they test for strands of RNA claimed to be from covid. There is a consortium of lawyers in Germany currently launching class action suits, claiming the tests are fraudulent.
The test is called the RNA-PCR test. The inventor of PCR, Dr. Kary Mullis, called Fauci a liar for claiming a test based on the PCR method can test for a virus or an infection. Fauci helped invent the PCR test for HIV because no one could find the virus using an electron microscope. Mullis was adamant that PCR could not amplify a virus that could not be seen on a electron microscope.
The problem with the photos of HIV posted on the Net is that no one but an expert can tell the difference between a virus and virus particles. One expert, Dr. Stefan Lanka, has claimed none of the photos of modern viruses like polio, HIV, or measles are legitimate. He explains photo by photo what is seen, and nothing in the photos is a virus.
The inventor of the RNA-PCR test for covid, Christian Drosten, has admitted he did not isolate covid physically, he inferred it based on an alleged genetic fingerprint. Drosten is being sued for making fraudulent statements about the tests.
Question: If they don’t have the actual virus, how do they know the RNA used in the tests comes from covid? If they had the virus…the real, physical virus…there would be no need for the RNA-PCR test. They could simply test for the virus genetic material.
And please don’t say they have the covid genome. That is another lie. They have only a few strands of RNA alleged to be from a virus and they synthesized the alleged genome using a computer model to patch the genome together piece by piece.
Think that’s a conspiracy theory? Then explain why scientists argued for 50 years over the genome of the measles virus? If they had the measles virus, they’d have the genome and there would be no need to argue over what it looked like. Dr. Stefan Lanka convinced a German High Court in 2016 that no scientific evidence exist to prove there is a measles virus.
Therefore, covid has never been physically isolated, so the claims of covid deaths are unfounded. There is no proof anywhere that anyone died of covid, they died of pneumonia and other issues unrelated to covid.
They MAY have died of covid, but there is no scientific proof that the virus exists. And there is no test that can test for covid and no vaccine, because the vaccines are based on the same fraudulent science.
I am fully aware of what I am claiming. People world-wide have died of a contagion and it was ‘inferred’ by scientists in Wuhan, China that the contagion was ‘associated’ with a virus. That makes sense only in that people are dying of lung infections…aka pneumonia..and one cause of pneumonia is a virus.
The Wuhan scientists have admitted they did not physically isolate a virus. The inventor of the RNA-PCR test for covid, Drosten, admitted the same.
I am not claiming the tests are fraudulent, I’ll leave that to the experts. However, several experts, including the inventor of the PCR method, have said they are fraudulent.
“It’s an egregious lie that 132,000 have died of covid in the UK. The covid tests don’t test for covid, they test for strands of RNA claimed to be from covid. There is a consortium of lawyers in Germany currently launching class action suits, claiming the tests are fraudulent.”
Every one of the families of those who died from Covid will dispute that it is a lie. They have watched as their relatives have tried to breath and failed. None of them would give you a passing word for your stupid position.
Likewise for the court case. It will fail. There is way too much actual information about Covid, its effect, the virus, the tests and and there effectiveness for it to win.
Wait and see.
There is discussion about all cause mortality rates. According to Ivor Cummins there is no change reflected in the data that indicates COVID is a pandemic. The data shows a huge spike for 1918 Spanish Flu. That data suggests most of the people alleged to have died from COVID would likely have died anyhow.
The interesting bit is how death attributed to flu have plummeted. I wonder how many deaths attributed to COVID were actually flu. There has been a lot of incentive to report death as being due to COVID. The most egregious example (unverified) is someone struck by a bus who happened to have COVID being reported as dying of COVID. (No indication of how or why there would be a test for COVID)
There is a paper describing how science has two paradigms: the COVID model projections and the COVID empirical data. There is massive disagreement between the model projections and the empirical data. A story which is similar to the climate change claptrap. Here is link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353837019_A_TALE_OF_TWO_SCIENTIFIC_PARADIGMS_CONFLICTING_SCIENTIFIC_OPINIONS_ON_WHAT_FOLLOWING_THE_SCIENCE_MEANS_FOR_SARS-COV-2_AND_THE_COVID-19_PANDEMIC
” there is no change reflected in the data that indicates COVID is a pandemic.”
False.
Some deaths can be placed in different categories, but that can’t change the fact that in most countries there are huge peaks of excess deaths during the last year or so, that just happen to align with COVID infection peaks.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-53078368
If not COVID then what?
tim…”There is no movement whatsoever toward Earth by the Moon.
If you cannot understand the physics then just say so. This is really BASIC stuff, covered in every freshman physics class (and most high school physics classes for that matter)”.
***
OK, Tim, some freshman physics. f = ma.
Newton II says roughly that a force applied to a mass will accelerate the mass till the force is removed. What does acceleration say, Tim? It says, that if a force is applied to a mass, the mass will change its velocity per unit time in the direction of the force. Change of velocity tells us the change of position per unit time.
So, here you have the Moon, with force acting on it straight toward the Earth’s centre. That means, according to you, the Moon should go into free fall toward the Earth’s centre.
Does it? Nope. Does it even move toward the Earth in any way, which would require moving to a lower orbit. Nope.
Let’s go back to Newton II. Newton left one thing out of the equation, the force has to be large enough to move the mass. If I lean on a concrete wall, applying all the force my body can muster, the wall does not move. In that case, Newton II doesn’t work.
We engineers are thankful for that fact when designing bridges. If the force due to gravity of a bridge span on a pier applied as per Newton II, we’d be in a lot of trouble.
For that reason, engineering physics is divided in Statics and Dynamics. Actually, we take two physics courses, the other being general physics. Statics is about static equilibrium where opposing forces are equal. Dynamics is about moving bodies.
You have to understand, Tim, that the relationship between the Moon’s linear momentum and gravitational force is far more complicated and not something you find in the atmosphere.
Newton is actually written: zF = ma, where z = sigma = (sum of the). So F is the sum of the forces applied. In the atmosphere we must included air resistance in the sum, and that resistance would slow the momentum of the Moon. We don’t want that.
In space, it’s a different story, and the physics has to adjust to the lack of air resistance. We know that a body passing another body in space can be bent out of its linear path by gravitational forces. As I stated earlier, the degree of bend depends on the momentum of the passing body. The higher the linear momentum the more a passing body approaches a straight line. The less the momentum the more it approaches a curved line.
As the momentum decreases to a critical value, the passing body will be pulled into an orbit, circular or elliptical. The point to note is that all this motion is translation, the orbital motion in an elliptical or circular orbit is translation.
Translation explains how the Moon can keep the same face pointing to the Earth without rotating about its axis. It’s the same as a horse or car moving around a track, a wooden horse bolted to a MGR, or a ball attached to string and swung around someone’s head.
How you spinners can try to get around the fact that a car on an oval track is rotating about its COG is beyond me. We know what happens when a car rotates around its COG, we call it ‘a 360’, a reference to the number of degrees it rotates about its COG. How you can claim a ball attached to a string under tension is rotating about its COG/axis, is another mystery.
Time for an ego-check, Tim. In fact, if you want to understand this, dump the ego and use some choiceless awareness. When you see it, a light will go on. As long as you insist on living in a virtual world of reference frames you will never see it.
A rotating body about an axis must have an angular velocity about that axis. If the Moon had such an angular velocity it would be impossible for it to keep the same face pointed at the Earth. Show me how it is possible for it to rotate while keeping the same side pointed at the Earth. I have asked repeatedly and no one can supply the physics, freshman or otherwise.
Gordon,
People talking about “fixed stars” never actually name those stars, so no one has the faintest idea of what they are really trying to say. For example from a “fixed star” looking at a lunar pole, the lunar orbit looks quite circular, and only one hemisphere can be seen.
From a “fixed star” aligned with the orbital plane, the orbit appears to be an infinitely flattened ellipse – a straight line, and the Moon appears to move from end to end, and appears to rotate. An illusion.
However, from the Moon, an observer positioned on the surface closest to the Earth, would see the Earth essentially directly overhead at all times. This is as it should be, as the Moon is falling towards the Earth, and the observer is on the closest part of the Moon to the Earth’s surface, ie., the “bottom” of the Moon. Not the top, not the side – the bottom. The portion closest to the surface.
But, hey, does it make a blind bit of difference to man or beast?
Not really.
A fixed star is all the stars that are in the direction a non-rotating body is travelling in. i.e. it remains fixed as being ‘straight ahead’ or 5 degrees to the horizontal or whatever. Therefore the body concerned has no rotational energy relative to those stars.
It is presumed that these stars are sufficiently far away (i.e. treated as being at infinity) that no parallax effects will be noticeable from movement forward.
RLH,
And in the case of a rotating body (such as the Moon is claimed to be by some, in respect to those “fixed stars”) – if it is rotating, how do you determine the direction of travel?
And if not rotating, would not the part facing the direction of travel be called the “front”?
As to having “no rotational energy relative to those stars”, why would energy be relative to a star? Do you actually understand what you are saying?
I don’t believe so, but of course others may think differently.
Let me ask you a question.
If you were sitting at the ‘pole’ (‘North’ or ‘South’) on the Moon, would you rotate as you travelled around the Earth?
Would you, at some point, be travelling backwards to your direction of travel in the orbit?
If you rotate then there is inertial energy in that rotation.
I would suggest a better scenario would be to sit at the point facing direction of travel. Is there any point in time the pointy end changes? No, so the moon is not rotating with respect to its mass.
“I would suggest a better scenario would be to sit at the point facing direction of travel.”
So you would be facing towards different stars each hour. And yet somehow not rotating in the process.
Wiki says: There are two types of angular velocity. Orbital angular velocity refers to how fast a point object revolves about a fixed origin, i.e. the time rate of change of its angular position relative to the origin. Spin angular velocity refers to how fast a rigid body rotates with respect to its center of rotation and is independent of the choice of origin, in contrast to orbital angular velocity.
The discussion about moon is Orbital Angular Velocity. Moon is point object revolving around earth which is the fixed origin.
So, yeah, you’d be facing different stars even as you are not rotating.
“So, yeah, you’d be facing different stars even as you are not rotating.”
OMG
“So, yeah, you’d be facing different stars even as you are not rotating.”
OMG
OMG what? That you are not rotating with respect to the fixed point that you are orbiting?
We’re talking moon orbiting earth. We don’t give a tinker’s damn about the stars; they do not influence the moon’s course.
“So, yeah, youd be facing different stars even as you are not rotating.”
So you are rotating wrt the fixed stars then.
“OMG what? That you are not rotating with respect to the fixed point that you are orbiting?”
Ken,
To know if something is rotating or not, you need more than just a point, like the center of the Earth, you need a 3D frame of reference with e.g. fixed x,y,z axes.
All of astronomy, astrophysics, aerospace engineering, etc uses the stars, because they represent a fixed, inertial frame of reference.
If an new planet or asteroid is observed in a telescope, and it is observed to be rotating at some rate, it will understood by all that its rotation rate is with respect to the stars, not some nearby other object that may not even be visible.
And another thing, if an object is rotating wrt the stars there are measurable physical consequences of that rotation on the surface of that object- centrifugal forces, coriolis forces, for example.
Heck we have a gyroscope in our phone that can detect it.
Swenson,
You are not Sirius, are you?
When Swenson says dumb, erroneous things, and gets called out on it, he has no answers and simply runs away.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-809110
Lets face it, Trolls like Swenson just declare their own ‘truths’ and don’t need logic or evidence to back it up.
Troll Nate, the reality is you don’t have a clue about the motions involved. Anything that doesn’t fit into your cult beliefs is “dumb” and “erroneous”. You actually believe a ball-on-a-string is rotating about its axis!
You believe that ball-on-a-string means something different from any solid body, such a rod, bump on the surface, whatever. It does not.
“Anything that doesnt fit into your cult beliefs is ‘dumb’ and ‘erroneous’.
If it wasn’t dumb and erroneous, then he could easily provide logic and facts to back it up, wouldnt he?
He didn’t. He couldn’t.
Moon is definitely “falling”, Nate. That’s how gravity works.
Surely your cult accepts gravity?
And right on cue comes the very same STRAWMAN that Swenson uses over and over and over.
No one has claimed that the Moon isn’t falling, dimwit!
What we are disputing is
“The Moon presents the same face to the COG of the Earth BECAUSE IT IS FALLING as would a cannonball or a piano.”
That is the declared ‘truth’.
That aint science.
Nate,
Are you stupid or just unable to comprehend English?
You wrote –
“What we are disputing is
“The Moon presents the same face to the COG of the Earth BECAUSE IT IS FALLING as would a cannonball or a piano.”
That is the declared ‘truth’.
That aint science.”
I suppose you want people to believe that a free falling body such as the Moon (or Newton’s cannonball, or . . . ), will magically rotate due to the force of gravity!
You are an idiot. All your disputation does not change a single physical fact. You might even be stupid enough to “believe” in a GHE which you can’t locate, can’t describe, can’t measure, and can’t demonstrate experimentally.
Maybe you could start ranting about basketball games and blankets.
“I suppose you want people to believe that a free falling body such as the Moon (or Newton’s cannonball, or . . . ), will magically rotate due to the force of gravity!”
Indeed they won’t. So they will not be constrained to ‘face Earth’ as they move around it.
“I suppose you want people to believe that a free falling body such as the Moon (or Newtons cannonball, or . . . ), will magically rotate due to the force of gravity!”
No, never said anything like that. I said falling objects just fall.
Try to focus. You claim falling objects do more than just fall:
“The Moon presents the same face to the COG of the Earth BECAUSE IT IS FALLING as would a cannonball or a piano.”
Where is the logic? Where is the science behind this declared ‘truth’?
“So, here you have the Moon, with force acting on it straight toward the Earth’s centre. …
Newton is actually written: zF = ma … “
You seem to accepts Newton’s 2nd Law. And you just said there is a net force due to gravity acting toward the center of the earth.
The only possible conclusion is that there must also be an acceleration toward the center of the earth.
*******************************
“That means, according to you, the Moon should go into free fall toward the Earth’s centre.
Does it? Nope. Does it even move toward the Earth in any way, which would require moving to a lower orbit. Nope.”
There is a very famous drawing created by Newton. https://images.theconversation.com/files/53821/original/qkp9f6gr-1405382050.jpg
If you drop a cannonball from that tall mountain, it falls, accelerating toward the center of the earth.
If you push the cannonball forward slowly, it is accelerating toward the center of the earth, landing a bit in front of the base of the mountain.
If you shoot the cannonball forward faster, it is accelerating toward the center of the earth, landing even farther in front of the base of the mountain.
If you shoot the cannonball forward fast enough, it is accelerating toward the center of the earth, but never ‘lands’ because the earth is curving downward just as fast as the ball is curving downward.
Also Gordon,
If you don’t trust me or Newton, you could always listen to Clint.
“Moon is definitely “falling”, Nate. Thats how gravity works.”
Or listen to Swenson:
“The Moon is falling towards the Earth, continuously. The force which causes this is gravity.”
Pretty much everyone — spinner and non-spinner alike — knows the moon is accelerating toward the earth.
Here we see another example of Gordo’s delusional physics. While Gordo claims that orbiting is a function of momentum, it’s the velocity of the body in question which determines the orbit’s characteristics. Whether one is addressing a satellite with a very large mass, like the ISS, or one of those new “micro” satellites now being deployed, the same velocity is required to achieve orbit. Both would need the same velocity to escape the Earth’s gravitational pull.
Gordo continues to be confused, giving an analogy of a car rotating about it’s CG while on a race track but ignoring the same description of the rotation of the Moon. Gordo notes that “…a car rotates around its COG, we call it ‘a 360’, a reference to the number of degrees it rotates about its COG”, but fails to understand that those 360 degrees of rotation are measured against a coordinate system fixed against some local reference frame. In the larger case of satellites, that reference frame is an inertial one fixed to the background stars, which appear motionless. When the moon’s orientation is measured against the stars, it is clearly found to be rotating. The Moon rotates once an orbit, just as a car traveling around a race track rotates once each lap.
Gordon,
The Moon has to turn to keep the same face towards the Earth.
You can watch it, at full Moon the Moon is facing the Sun, at new Moon the Moon is facing away from the Sun, so it has to turn from facing the Sun to facing away from the Sun and to do that it has to have angular velocity.
Which it has, because it is turning.
Angular Velocity is not the same as Rotation.
Since Bob keeps telling that to Kiddo, I think it’s safe to say that he knows.
Complete BS, Willard.
Ken,
That’s right, angular velocity also applies to revolving, the Moon has two different values of angular velocity.
Wrong bob. Moon always faces the inside of its orbit. As it orbits around Earth, it presents different sides to Sun. That’s what cause lunar phases. Moon is orbiting, but NOT rotating.
It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string.
You mean a ball-on-a-string attached to a dimensionless fixed point, Pup.
“It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string.”
A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits. NOTHING at all.
clint r,
“it presents different sides to Sun.”
Correct, and it can’t do that without rotating on its axis.
What part of this do you fail to understand?
bob, please stop trolling.
DR EMTPY,
Please stop posting bullshit on this blog.
I can ask, it’s a free country.
Unless you want to move to Afghanistan.
bob, please stop trolling.
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(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 Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ 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)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ 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.
Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C 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
Thoroughly debunked…This reality ignored.
Thanks for confirming the validity of CV’s work, troll Nate.
Your worthless flak is always indicative of both your ignorance and your devotion to your cult.
You are the one in the tiny, tiny cult. Calling others that is just your denial.
What is Earth’s average surface temperature?
It varies, hour by hour, even second by second or faster.
“Thanks for confirming the validity of CVs work, troll Nate.”
Well, where were your rebuttals when I pointed out several glaring flaws in his work..one being that it horribly fails to agree with observations.
So your opinion is, once again, absolutely worthless!
Nate
“Well, where were your rebuttals when I pointed out several glaring flaws in his work..one being that it horribly fails to agree with observations.”
Please, Nate, start considering Earth as a planet, like every other planets…
Earth is a planet, it happens we live on its surface, but it is still a planet.
The “glaring flaws” are based on flat earth theory “observations”.
You strongly believe Earth has uniform surface temperature of 288K.
Earth*s 288K is the average (mean) surface temperature. Please reconsider your wrong opinion that Earth has a uniform surface temperature 288K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Are you saying Nate is a “flat-Earther?” I believe you’re on to something.
“The ‘glaring flaws’ are based on flat earth theory ‘observations’.
Nope, just observations by various satellites, including CERES. No Flat Earth involved.
“You strongly believe Earth has uniform surface temperature of 288K.”
Nope I never said that. This is a lie.
Your theory fails by a wide margin to calculate the actual observed average radiant emission from Earth (240 W/m^2).
“You find the Earth emits ave 112 W/m^2.
According to SB law (it is) much much higher, ~ 387 W/m^2 for an airless sphere with Earths actual T distribution.
The atmosphere and GHE reduces that to 240 W/m^2”
We have been over this ad-nauseam. You don’t pay attention.
Nate,
You saying so doesn’t “debunk” a damn thing. Te doesn’t work for the Earth or the Moon. Vournas has found an equation that does.
Nate
“You find the Earth emits ave 112 W/m^2.
According to SB law (it is) much much higher, ~ 387 W/m^2 for an airless sphere with Earths actual T distribution.”
I find the Earth emits ave 112 W/m^2 for an airless sphere with Earths actual T distribution and mean surface temperature T=288K
You find ~ 387 W/m^2 for an airless sphere with Earths uniform surface temperature T=288K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“You saying so doesnt ‘debunk’ a damn thing. ”
True. But Christos saying so doesnt make it true.
Thats why I showed satellite observations that disagree completely with his theory.
He offers no explanation for this.
Feynman says: if your theory doesnt agree with observations or experiment, its wrong. Its that simple.
You haven bothered to look at any of it. Yes?
So you should understand that your opinion is therefore worthless!
Christos, you have no credibility anymore.
” People talking about fixed stars never actually name those stars, so no one has the faintest idea of what they are really trying to say. ”
I’m wondering about some people being absolutely unwilling to understand things they easily could search for.
Maybe they prefer to keep ignorant of these things, in order to better discredit the work of people using the concept?
*
” For example from a ‘fixed star’ looking at a lunar pole, the lunar orbit looks quite circular, and only one hemisphere can be seen. ”
No one ‘looks from a fixed star’ in astronomy. Sheer nonsense.
The contrary is the case: while observing motions of celestial bodies ‘in the near’, i.e. within our local planetary system around the Sun, we need to calculate these motions with respect to a point which does not appear to move with respect to what we observe.
The stars we can see are all so far from us that their place in the sky appears fixed (unless we would observe them over a very long period, e.g. 20,000 years, due to Earth’s axial tilt).
Thus, when astronomers look at a point e.g. on the Moon’s or the Sun’s surface and want to know how it moves independently of our Earth’s motions (orbit and rotation), they note a star’s position in the sky at the same moment.
Newton had understood this perfectly.
He wrote, in Book III of his Principia Scientifica, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV:
” Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h 56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. These things appear by the Phaenomena.
The spots in the sun’s body return to the same situation on the sun’s disk, with respect to the earth, in 27 1/2 days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25 1/2 days. ”
He knew that when you look from Earth at the same sun spot at a given moment and note the position of a star you select at the same moment, it takes 27.5 days to see the spot again at the same place; but at that time, the star you selected is no longer at the same place.
J.-P. D.
The “fixed stars” aren’t reliable when discerning “orbiting” from “rotating”.
It must have been very confusing for astrologists centuries ago.
You can easily orbit a body whilst still remaining pointing at a fixed star.
It is impossible to do the same whilst rotating (unless at the poles/axis of rotation).
There’s no way I would attempt to untangle that nonsense.
That’s why the ball-on-a-string is so useful. It’s easy to understand, except by idiots.
Ball-on-a-string is only useful for ball-on-a-string and nothing else, despite your continuous assertions.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
You’re still wrong Clint R.
“Theres no way I would attempt to untangle that nonsense.”
Clintionary
Untangle –
When the simplest and most basic concept gets lost and tangled in the dense goo in Clint’s head, and requires days to then untangle… but that never happens.
” The fixed stars arent reliable when discerning ‘orbiting’ from ‘rotating’. ”
Thus, according to your ‘knowledge’: it is impossible to discern ‘orbiting’ from ‘rotating’ when observing e.g. Jupiter, Mars, Venus and the Sun, right?
” It must have been very confusing for astrologists centuries ago. ”
Oh yes! Flatearthist Clint R is so terribly right.
Especially when noting that ‘astrologist’ Mayer computed in 1749, for Moon’s rotation period: 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11 seconds, and 49 sixtieths of a second.
In decimal days, that gives 27.321665 days.
The current value for Moons rotation about its polar axis, computed through evaluation of Lunar Laser Ranging data, is 27.321661 days.
*
Oh, were all these ignorant ‘astrologists’ confused centuries ago!
They were exactly as confused as are all these modern ‘astrologists’, who are so incredibly dumb that they even trust thousands of series of Lunar Laser Ranging data!
J.-P. D.
And, by the way, Clint R: many thanks for insulting even… Isaac Newton!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, Newton was the one that verified gravity changes the direction of Moon. It’s the same motion as a ball-on-a-string.
A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits. NOTHING.
Wrong, Clint R.
As he wrote his Prop. XVII, Theor. XV, Newton had already understood what Flatearthists like you never will manage to understand: namely that gravity alone can’t explains Moon’s motion completely.
He understood that the Moon has, like all celestial bodies, a spin it inherited from its original position within Sun’s accretion disk, as the Sun was a protostar.
If the Moon had no spin, then
– Tobias Mayer would have written in his treatise that the Moon has no spin;
– ditto for Lagrange, Laplace, Beer/Maedler, Habibullin etc etc;
– and the LLR data would tell us exactly the same.
J.-P. D.
All wrong, Bindidon. You need to study Newton’s work with inventing calculus, where he demonstrated how gravity would affect an orbiting body. Gravity “holds” the body, allowing its direction to change. It’s similar to a ball-on-a-string. A non-rotating body like Moon would still not be rotating under the effect of gravity.
The people you mentioned were all working with libration, which has NOTHING to do with axial rotation.
And I have no clue how you believe LLR has any connection to axial rotation. LLR has to do with the distance measurements to Moon.
You don’t understand any of this.
[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.
” Gravity “holds” the body, allowing its direction to change. It’s similar to a ball-on-a-string. ”
That, Clint R, is a pure pseudoscientific invention.
*
” A non-rotating body like Moon would still not be rotating under the effect of gravity. ”
Once again:
” As he wrote his Prop. XVII, Theor. XV, Newton had already understood what Flatearthists like you never will manage to understand: namely that gravity alone can’t explain Moon’s motion completely. ”
*
” And I have no clue how you believe LLR has any connection to axial rotation. LLR has to do with the distance measurements to Moon. ”
You are the one who does not understand anything here.
And do you know why you don’t understand, Clint R?
It is due to the fact that you reject any paper about such things before reading even the abstract of it.
Otherwise you could grasp that people having 1000 times more scientific education than you could ever accumulate, can process LLR data recorded over years, and are able to discern Moon’s spin within that data, and even tiniest irregularities within the spin (the physical librations, due partly to Earth’s gravitational field, and partly to the effect of huge asteroid impacts).
The result of such analysis is, as I wrote above, perfectly comparable with what an astronomer like Tobias Mayer was able to discover 270 years ago – with far simpler observation tools, and much less complex processing methods.
*
Recently, you admitted to be so dumb, so stubborn that you wouldn’t even visit any observatory in order to learn what astronomy in fact is!
That tells us on this blog everything about the deep level of your denialism.
You live in constant fear of discovering something that would collapse your pseudoscientific stance like a house of cards.
J.-P. D.
Clint R
” Gravity ‘holds’ the body, allowing its direction to change. It’s similar to a ball-on-a-string. ”
That, Clint R, is a pure pseudoscientific invention.
*
” A non-rotating body like Moon would still not be rotating under the effect of gravity. ”
Once again:
” As he wrote his Prop. XVII, Theor. XV, Newton had already understood what Flatearthists like you never will manage to understand: namely that gravity alone can’t explain Moon’s motion completely. ”
*
” And I have no clue how you believe LLR has any connection to axial rotation. LLR has to do with the distance measurements to Moon. ”
You are the one who does not understand anything here.
And do you know why you don’t understand, Clint R?
It is due to the fact that you reject any paper about such things before reading even the abstract of it.
Otherwise you could grasp that people – having 1000 times more scientific education than you could ever accumulate – can process LLR data recorded over years, and are able to discern Moon’s spin within that data, and even tiniest irregularities within the spin (the physical librations, due partly to Earth’s gravitational field, and partly to the effect of huge asteroid impacts).
The result of such analysis is, as I wrote above, perfectly comparable with what an astronomer like Tobias Mayer was able to discover 270 years ago – with far simpler observation tools, and much less complex processing methods.
*
Recently, you admitted to be so dumb, so stubborn that you wouldn’t even visit any observatory in order to learn what astronomy in fact is!
You live in constant fear of discovering something that would collapse your antiscientific stance like a house of cards.
J.-P. D.
“Gravity holds the body, allowing its direction to change. Its similar to a ball-on-a-string.”
Gravity is not similar to ball-on-a-string in any way.
Dang, JD is so flummoxed that he’s using the same comment TWICE!
Likely he hasn’t had enough math to know that 2 * 0 = 0.
What does 2 / 0 equals?
“The fixed stars” is simply short-hand for “a reference frame that is not rotating”.
Determining ‘absolute translation’ is impossible. If you are in a closed room, there is no way to tell if you are “stationary” or “moving at constant velocity”. An object rolling across the floor in a straight line at constant velocity will continue to move across the floor at constant velocity. Light will move at the same speed in all directions. There is no experiment to tell the difference between “zero velocity” and “constant velocity.”
On the other hand, it IS possible to determine ‘absolute rotation’. If you are in a closed room, it IS possible to tell if you are “stationary” or “rotating at constant angular velocity”. If I roll a ball across the floor and the room is rotating, the ball will appear to curve toward one side.
If I sit in a closed room on the moon and roll a ball, it will curve (albeit by a very small amount). The moon has an absolute rotation rate of 1 revolution every 27.3 days.
Nice blah-blah, Folkerts.
Is the ball-on-a-string rotating about its axis?
a) Yes
b) No
I predict you can’t answer correctly, without your usual blah-blah.
Define what axis a ball-on-a-string rotates around. How is that different to a rigid body of the same dimensions? Say a rod or a bump on a surface.
A merry-go-round ride rotates on its axis. I could stand in the middle of the merry-go-round, tie a string to any of the rides, and the string would stay fixed to one side as long as I moved in the center about my axis. However, the ride is still rotating about its axis. If I’m facing east initially and then halfway through the ride, I am facing west; the ride had to move about its axis because it is pointing in the opposite direction.
Question:
Is the merry-go-ride a rigid body?
Is it therefore the same as a-ball-on-a-string?
Or the same as a rod with the equivalent dimensions?
Or an extreme bump on the surface of a large circle?
Are they all not the equivalent things?
All rotating about a single point.
No orbiting involved.
You appear to understand “rotation”, Stephen. Now understand that “orbiting” is a different motion. Earth both orbits AND rotates. Moon only orbits.
So the Moon does not orbit the Earth. I bet that is news to everybody.
And the Moon does not rotate once per orbit of the Earth. That will be news to everybody as well.
On the other hand, you could just be wrong.
Thanks for misrepresentating me, RLH.
That’s more proof you have NOTHING.
You are still wrong Clint R. Nothing changes that fact.
Yes is the correct answer.
The no answer has been refuted a thousand times.
A ball on a string is rotating. The earth is rotating. The moon is rotating.
Thank you for a brief, concise answer, TF.
Unfortunately, it’s wrong.
If the ball were rotating, the string would wrap around it. You’re still confusing “orbiting” with “rotating”. The two motions are different.
And your example of rolling a ball across a floor on Moon is also wrong. You make the same mistake as you did with Foucault’s Pendulum. Neither the rolling ball nor the pendulum can distinguish between “orbiting” and “rotating”.
Clint,
What if you were standing on the Sun observing the Earth. You would see that the Earth rotated daily, correct? Then, what if the Earth’s rotation started slowing down so that it only rotated once every 365 days. Is the Earth rotating or orbiting then?
Pup is rotating. His pole dance is rotating. His igloo is rotating.
Only Moon Dragons are not.
Yes Stephen 10:49am as Willard points out, Clint R remains confused, only if the ball were inertially rotating more or less than once on its own axis per rev., THEN the string would wrap around it.
Stephen, if Earth slowed its rotation to where it would not be rotating, then it would not be rotating. A non-rotating body always has the same side facing the inside of its orbit.
But that’s not what Stephen asked Clint R, you remain confused about inertial rotation, Stephen’s Earth is still inertially rotating once per rev.
Clint,
At what point would it not be rotating? If the ride continued to point east then it wouldn’t be rotating? But, if halfway around it was pointing west, then it would be rotating.
Stephen, are you confusing your examples? One involves Earth not rotating, and now you’re talking about “rides pointing east or west”.
I’m not sure what your question is.
It’s called a thought experiment, Clint. Like Einstein used the elevator, I hoped by using amusement rides that you might understand.
“A non-rotating body always has the same side facing the inside of its orbit.”
No it doesn’t.
Okay Stephen, you’re switching back to the MGR. I’m just trying to get in the right “thought experiment”.
So now we’re on the MGR. What is your question?
Just scroll back.
Add the Coriolis effect to the long list of physical effects denied By Clint R and Gordon Robertson.
It doesn’t make them wrong about AGW.
It doesn’t make their opinion correct, either.
Given their poor record on other aspects of science I would not rely too strongly on their opinion of AGW.
Better to go by the evidence.
Berry, Salby, Harde’s, et. al. opinions are correct.
That’s your opinion, Troglodyte.
Unless it’s the opinion of your gun?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Coriolis Effect? Moon has no Coriolis Effect.
You are really getting desperate, Ent!
At 1 rotation in 27 days, the Moon has indeed a Coriolis effect due to that rotation. It is just quite small.
Still no response from TF yet.
He’s working on his 1000-word blah-blah….
Yours is a little shorter maybe, but still just blah-blah.
Clintionary.
Blah blah –
1. Science that Clint doesn’t get.
2. Science that proves Clint wrong.
3. Basic physics.
That’s so cute, troll Nate.
Maybe you will get an extra cookie at your next cult meeting.
Nate is a slayer, Pup.
You’re the cranky Dragon troll.
Willard’s like a little yapping dog, running around hoping somebody pays him attention.
If only you had a gun, Troglodyte.
I do have guns. I’ve put down many yapping dogs.
Thank you, Troglodyte:
https://archive.vn/AgbUw#selection-201093.0-201159.48
Willard, please stop trolling.
Regardless of whether or not the Moon is rotating relative to an observer on Earth, it is rotating relative to the inertial reference frame and there will be a detectable Coriolis effect on the Moon’ surface.
Correct Ent. The Coriolis Effect is not part of the discussion. It’s just another desperate distraction.
“desperate distraction.”
Not at all.
“Is the Moon rotating relative to the inertial reference frame?” is a separate question to “Is the Moon rotating relative to the Earth?”
Because of the Moon’s rotation relative to the inertial reference frame the Coriolis effect will occur. Foucault pendulums and gyroscopes will behave as they do on Earth, but at a slower rate because the Moon rotates every 27 days instead of every 24 hours.
In the reference frame of an observer on Earth the Moon presents one face and appears not to be rotating. Unfortunately this is just an appearance because the physical tests for rotation of a body show that the Moon is rotating.
Ent, if you’re trying to find a meaningful reference frame for Moon, use its orbit. If the ball-on-a-string confuses you, use Moon’s orbit. Just consider a train on an oval track. The train is not rotating “relative to its track”, so it is not rotating. Moon is not rotating relative to its track, so it is not rotating.
Thank you. You stick to your reference frame and I’ll stick to mine.
If that may console you, EM, here’s the song that NG uses to explain the Coriolis Force:
https://youtu.be/fXJCeooQWPc
Source:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/28/ng-s-audit/
The oval track exerts two forces on the train.
1) It puts a side-force on the train to change its direction of movement.
2) It puts a torque on the train to rotate the aspect, the direction in which the train is facing.
If this analogy genuinely applies to the Moon, please explain the two forces changing its direction of motion and it’s aspect.
No Ent, the track only exerts one force on the train. (In our perfect little model, we ignore nasty things like friction, etc.) The track allows for the reactive force representing the centripetal force due to gravity.
With the ball-on-a-string, the centripetal force would be the tension in the string.
I think not.
If you measure the sideforce on the axles of a 4-wheel train, you find a greater sideforce on the front axle.
If centripetal force was the only force acting, then the force on each axle would be equal.
If centripetal force and torque are both acting, then the front axle would experience a greater sideforce, which is what railway engineers observe in curves.
That’s why Pup needs to do the Poll Dance Experiment, EM.
Ent, when you get confused just simplify things.
Consider a unicycle wheel confined within a curved, narrow track. There is only one centripetal force.
It’s like a ball-on-a-string, or Moon.
And how is it confined, Pup?
Willard, please stop trolling.
As titled
https://i.postimg.cc/nLzqtknj/solar-cycle-comparison.png
Gordon,
maybe you have this information:
In what direction were the Apollo spacecrafts’ modules launched from lunar surface to?
Was it towards lunar East, or it was towards lunar West?
Vournas
I won’t go into that once more, but think you’ll find a lot of details here:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/nasa58040.pdf
Robertson never would show such a document, because somewhere it mentions Moon’s rotation about an interior axis.
J.-P. D.
JD, did you find another link you can’t understand?
Just provide the page and paragraph were you believe “it mentions Moon’s rotation about an interior axis”, and I’ll help you to understand.
I don’t need your help to understand anything, Clint R, and… I’m pretty sure you know that.
Just provide the page and paragraph.
I have a much better corner for you, where you can best cultivate your manic compulsion to deny.
Look below!
Just provide the page and paragraph, JD.
You don’t want to add dishonesty to your incompetence, do you?
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
“The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still. Scientists call this synchronous rotation.”
https://airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/images/5317h.jpg
christos…how’s things in Greece? The Nazis in British COlumbia, Canada are launching a covid vaccination campaign. Josef Goebbels would be very happy.
“In what direction were the Apollo spacecrafts modules launched from lunar surface to?
Was it towards lunar East, or it was towards lunar West?”
***
Christos, it’s the same on Earth. A spacecraft is launched on a hyperbolic path to account for the escape velocity of the Earth. I imagine the same applies on the Moon and the direction would depend on the path required to meet with the mother ship in orbit around the Moon.
I imagine as well, they’d want to time it so they could take advantage of light from the Sun.
Sorted out the velocity changes needed to enter an orbit yet?
Is Biden saying, “that was four days ago” comparable to Hillary saying “what difference does it make?”
Why does the left attract narcissists and sociopaths?
Why does the Right attract bigots, liars and demagogues?
The leftists have the market cornered on bigots and liars too.
Troglodytes form a very select captive market:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NWSA
No, bigots and liars are characteristics of narcissists and sociopaths. They are almost exclusively from the left.
Sociopaths are overrepresented among CEOs.
They’re not the hippies troglodytes like to punch every day, Stephen.
What has politics or religion to do with science?
Lunar West.
See the orbit diagram here.
https://www.universetoday.com/63758/13-things-that-saved-apollo-13-part-12-lunar-orbit-rendezvous/
Apollo orbited the Earth anticlockwise and the Moon clockwise because an engine failure on the way to the Moon would leave the spacecraft on a circumlunar free return trajectory.
This would automatically return the spacecraft to Earth and reentry without the need for major course corrections.
This paid off when an oxygen tank exploded on Apollo 13 and they followed a free return trajectory.
Noice.
That was back in the day when NASA was a superb engineering and science organization.
Now, it a completely different story.
NASA is not wrong about rotation, revolution and orbits.
“when NASA was a superb engineering and science organization.”
And yet even then they understood the Moon’s orbit and rotation on its axis. And thankfully so.
Troll Nate, JD Bindidon tried the same trick. But, he got caught:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-811525
Maybe you want to hitch your wagon to JD?
Hint: It is not the engineering/science part of the original NASA that perverts science. It is the new National Anti-Science Administration that perverts science.
Here’s what we can find on NASA’s website, Pup:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4709
If there’s something you don’t understand about this model, just ask. Or better: do the Pole Dance Experiment.
So the old and good NASA believed the Moon did not rotate on its axis?
When did they switch? Was there an announcement? A news conference? Did you find some documents?
Can you quote some Apollo engineers discussing the non-spinning Moon?
Or not.
Willard, please stop trolling.
There is a lot of confusion about “reference frames”.
If the origin of your reference frame goes through the center of mass of the ball, or moon, it will appear as though the ball on a string, or moon, is rotating on its own axis. “Zoom out” that reference frame, by having the origin at the other end of the string – at the center of revolution – or going through the Earth, and you gain the necessary perspective to see that the ball on a string is rotating about the central point, and not on its own axis. Or the moon is rotating about the Earth, and not on its own axis.
A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits. Nothing at all.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
rlh…”A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits. Nothing at all”.
***
RLH, you are being serious obtuse. We know the ball on the string does not represent the lunar orbit, we invoked it only to demonstrate that a ball rotating on a string about someone’s head cannot rotate about its own axis, due to tension on the string.
The same applies to a car circling a track, a wooden horse bolted to a MGR, a human running around a track, or an airliner either orbiting the Earth in the air or taxiing around an imaginary runway on the Equator.
Consider a person running a 1/4 mile track. He/she runs down the straight portion and no one could disagree that he/she is performing rectilinear translation without rotation. When he/she enters the curved portion, he/she is still translating, but on a curve. I call that curvilinear translation although some silly textbooks define CT using implementations that have no practical value, for reasons uknown.
The point is, that a person’s orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap but his/her same side will always point to the centre of the track. Just like the Moon.
Spinners are arguing that the person rotates 360 degrees on his/her axis/COG over a lp, which is utter nonsense. To rotate about one’s COG while running, one would have to be running backwards at some point.
We used such movements in soccer training while lapping the field. You had to be fairly agile to rotate from a forward running motion to running backwards, then rotating back to running forward.
“We know the ball on the string does not represent the lunar orbit”
So why claim that it does?
” a ball rotating on a string about someone’s head cannot rotate about its own axis, due to tension on the string.”
Good, and yet you admit the ball on the string is a poor model for the Moon.
It is precisely the string, attached to the ball that makes it different. And it is the string that prevents it from rotating independently.
Not so for Moons and planets. Earth is a perfect example that being in an orbit does not constrain rotation AT ALL.
Objects in orbit can have any rotation rate, and obviously do.
There is SPECIFIC type of orbit called a 1-1 Synchronous Orbit, defined by a rotation rate that matches the orbital rate, and the Moon’s orbit is this type.
Obviously if a 1-1 Synchronous orbit was synonymous with ORBIT, there would be no need for the special name.
Obviously there are other types of Orbits that are not synchronous, like the Earth’s around the sun, yet these are without a doubt still ORBITS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbits.
So what defines an orbit? What makes an orbit an orbit?
It cannot be the specific rotation rate that makes an orbit an orbit. It is the path thru space followed by the object, its trajectory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
Thus it is unfathomable that The TEAM insists that an ORBIT is somehow equivalent to a 1-1 Synchronous Orbit.
It makes little sense.
Nate, you can ramble and obfuscate all you want, but you can’t change reality. Moon is NOT rotating. It is only orbiting. It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string.
Blah blah declared ‘truth’, no science, no answers, boooring..
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
So I thought this was settled science… the Moon does NOT rotate upon it’s own axis when referenced from our perspective (the Earth).
Put a string between the center mass of both the earth and the moon…and after just two days… guess which body is wrapped up in string (hint not the moon). there is not really any other point to make about the moon and the sun… the moon and mars…or the moon and any other body in the universe….
martina…”So I thought this was settled science the Moon does NOT rotate upon its own axis when referenced from our perspective (the Earth)”.
***
Or from any other reference frame. A body that is not rotating about its axis in one reference frame does not begin rotating because the reference frame is changed. Only a force can start it rotating.
The rotation observed is an illusion. If you draw a radial line from the Earth’s centre, that is, of course, free to turn through the Earth because it is imaginary, like any reference frame, it intercepts the near face of the Moon on an orbital circle at a perpendicular tangent line. As the radial line turns, the tangent line changes orientation and that change in orientation has been presumed to represent rotation about the Moon’s axis.
The fact that the far face has the same tangent line perpendicular to the radial line, and that the far face tangent line moves in parallel with the near face tangent line, proves that. At no time does the far side ever stop being the far side, an impossibility with a rotating body.
“{The Moon does not rotate} from any other reference frame.”
Bollocks. So there is no Sunrise or Sunset on the Moon. Give me a break.
More crap from Gordo, who wrote:
Gordo’s profound ignorance of dynamics continues. He still can’t grasp that there’s a difference between a local reference frame and an inertial reference frame. A coordinate system fixed to the Earth is a local reference frame, which is the reason that gimbaled gyros appear to rotate and the Coriolis Effect appears.
HERE’s an EXAMPLE from the engineering world where the concept of inertial reference frame is vital.
E. Swanson, it is you that cannot understand.
You couldn’t solve the easy problem with the barbell. You ran from it.
And you still don’t understand that “inertial reference frame” can NOT tell the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”.
And, you can’t learn.
A reference frame attached to the stars/Sun can.
Martin,
Put a string between the center of mass of the Sun and the Moon.
In kryptonite?
You had better attach it to frictionless bearing at those centers then otherwise wrapping is going to happen very quickly, the Earth rotates about 27 faster than the Moon orbits Earth. And the Sun rotates too. About 1.997 km/s. The Moon revolves around that about 365/27 time per orbit.
So the string is between the earth and the moon… not sure why one would want to put the string along a point of reference that they are not on. No rotation on it’s axis(moon).
Just because the moon would see sunlight on all sides of it’s surface does not equate to it rotating on it’s axis.
Maybe I’m off-bass but wouldn’t you agree that a spinning top out in space rotates on it’s axis…once it stops spinning it will still get sunlight to shine on all sides of it (if it orbits the sun like our moon does.)…it no longer is spinning but orbiting. attaching that imaginary string during it’s spinning and measuring the ‘wraps’ produces a completely different result that when it just orbits w/o spin.
Martin: If the Sun can see all sides of the Moon, it is rotating according to it.
Martin: Does the Moon Orbit the Sun or the Earth?
https://www.wired.com/2012/12/does-the-moon-orbit-the-sun-or-the-earth/
RLH – Correct , and that is the point… the Moon does NOT rotate on it’s axis. Simple and basic experiments will show you how you seem to be misleading folks on your opinion of an object rotating on it’s axis and one not:
Let’s say you could take a quarter and spin it in such a way that it will keep spinning on the floor for days on end… then lets take a dime ..and do the same thing right next to the quarter… and take another dime and let it just lay there…flat with one side facing the earth…er… (quarter mind you). In that ‘eco-system’ it proves that one dime is spinning on it’s axis the other ..er (the moon) is not.
Now take a silver dollar and place it opposite the dimes and the quarter – does not really matter how far.. then move that silver dollar (hopefully an 1853 Carson City Morgan dollar) around both the quarter and dimes…. or move the quarter and times around the dollar- it basically makes no difference) only one dime is in rotation upon it’s axis… the other dime is in motion but not in rotation upon it’s axis. This is the point – one might want to quibble that just because the sun shines on both sides of a sphere it must mean it is rotating on it’s axis… well the sun also shines on both sides of my muddy boots I left out on my driveway yesterday after picking beets…and I assure you that every time i checked on them… they have not moved upon their own ‘center mass’.
1853 Carson City Morgan dollar. Nice!
But Martin, this is too complicated.
My wife (not a scientist) figured this out holding a coffee cup with her right hand to represent the Moon and using her left fist as the Earth.
She orbited the coffee cup around her fist, keeping the handle always toward her. That is easy. And it was obvious to her that she was simply moving the cup in a circle around her fist. The cup was NOT rotating on its axis.
Then she tried to keep the handle of the cup always pointing to the fist as she orbited the cup. This is not easy to do, but it makes clear that the handle of the cup needed to be rotated around the cup’s axis as it orbited.
But it drove home the point for her that the Moon needs to rotate on its axis to keep the same face to the Earth.
Nate – Ah I see your problem now… (and your wife’s problem) had your wife been smart enough to keep the handle of the coffee mug pointed to her hand then you both would have been able to see that the coffee mug did not rotate on it’s axis at all.
Sadly your cute and simple example shows the flaw that all here see… the moon does not face the sun …it faces the earth (her hand in this case) Now I know you probably meant to say that but I can only go by what you stated.
Your wife’s dizzy trip around the mug shows no axis spin of the mug at all ( in fact if she glued the mug to the table she would better be able to grasp the lack of axil rotation of the mug as she danced around the table upon which it sat).
Please take some time to explain this to her… and if need be get some glue or tape to better show that the mug is basically just pegged to facing the earth whilst you both spryly dance about the table.
Martin,
I have no idea what you are trying to say. It makes no sense.
To mimic the Moon keeping the same face to the Earth, she must keep the handle of the mug (Moon) always pointed to her fist (Earth).
It was obvious that this required the handle to rotate around the Mug.
To anyone but a partisan, this illustrates that the Moon rotates on its axis.
This could not be any simpler!
Nate – Sorry for having to belabor the point. No way no how does the moon rotate upon it’s axis in reference to the earth. I believe we both agree to this point as it is shown over and over (and over). The mug’s handle will always point to the earth no matter how much dancing one does about a table.
Now to address your attempt to expand the frame of reference to include the sun…sure you can say that the sun shines on all sides of the moon….well if the moon is NOT spinning on it’s axis when referenced to the earth then how can it be claimed that it is now somehow spinning on it’s axis in reference to the sun? Can you show how that a non-spinning object is also spinning? (take the example of a marble spinning right next to a marble that is glued to the floor – one can show the differences between the two.)
Martin,
“Now to address your attempt to expand the frame of reference to include the sun”
The frame of reference that Astronomy, Astrophysics, Aerospace Engineering, and anyone dealing with space, is the stars, which represent a fixed, inertial frame.
The Moon is rotating on its axis wrt the stars.
In the demo with the cup, the room represents the stars inertial frame and the handle of the cup is rotating around the cup wrt the room.
The cup is orbiting the fist, simply by moving along a path around it. Same goes for planets in orbit.
It is clear to anyone doing the experiment that it requires an EXTRA motion to make the handle always point to the fist. That extra motion is axial rotation.
The Moon has that as well.
Nate- you would need to show exactly your math ( lol ‘show your work’ reference) when you say wrt the stars.
you see … you interpretation goes against all those fancy big words you used Astro this asto that etc….
for your view to be correct then your ‘spinning moon’ actually is spinning at many many different speeds and different axi…or is it axesses or axlesses…hmmmm you see for your view to be remotely correct you have to conjure up multiple frames of references… and yes… I agree indeed it is factual to then (and only then) claim that there is the appearance of some axil rotation… but once you put the math to it ..you then see how it is not what you are purporting it to be…. axil rotation is pretty constant…your interpretation of it is wildly inconsistent.
So No… sorry the moon does not rotate upon it’s axis at all in relation to the earth… it holds a static spin…. all other examples are simply orbital examples at differing rates and not axil spin.
Martin,
Are you on an acid trip? Seems like it.
martin…sorry…no disrespect intended by addressing you as Martina. Seems we had a female poster at one time called Martina.
Ha…did not even notice that one no ill will on this side.
No, no acid trip at all just pointing out the obvious.
for example can you and i agree that the earth rotates on it’s axis? Yes I believe we can. can we agree that it is a pretty constant rate? yes I bet that we’d agree on that too.
But now here you go with trying to claim that the moon rotates on it’s axis too… well we both agree 100% that it does not rotate on it’s axis in relation to the earth…
And here is where you now try to claim that the moon somehow does rotate on it’s axis IRW ‘the stars’ …. if that were true you would need to show that the moon has a constant rate of rotation with the bodies around it… you can’t…therefore it looks like your idea of axil rotation is basically playing fast and loose with definitions.
> well we both agree 100% that it does not rotate on its axis in relation to the earth
Speaking of playing fast and loose with definitions!
“…you would need to show that the moon has a constant rate of rotation with the bodies around it…you can’t…”
Actually the obvious can be shown Martin. The moon rotates on its own axis under the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (containing the Diviner mission package – a body around the moon) in a polar orbit so the instruments can view the ~entire moon surface rotating into, and out of, a view of those instruments under the spacecraft in its orbital plane:
“The spacecraft remained in this elliptical orbit for 28 days, long enough for the moon to completely rotate. This allowed full coverage of the surface by LROC’s WAC (Wide Angle Camera).”
https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/l/lro
Nice.
That condemns Moon Dragons to silly definition games!
“And here is where you now try to claim that the moon somehow does rotate on its axis IRW the stars ”
Well actually its science, astronmy, physics claiming it.
“if that were true you would need to show that the moon has a constant rate of rotation with the bodies around it ”
Hmmm. If you’re driving down the highway at 65 mph, and other cars nearby are going 65, then are you going 65 with respect to these cars? If so, how come you keep seeing them next to you?
Your car’s speed is measured relative to a ‘fixed’ frame of reference, which is at rest. You don’t have the same speed relative to other moving cars.
In space the fixed frame is the stars, which are considered to be at rest. All motion of planets, and rotations, are measured relative to that rest frame.
Ifvyou measure relative to other moving bodies, like Earth, you get a different result.
Martin,
How do you know if you are on a rotating planet?
You look up and see the reference frame, the stars, going around in circles around your planet’s N. pole.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeKZtRoWsAArx_E?format=jpg&name=medium
This is what you see on the Moon near its N. Pole, just a lot slower.
dremt…”the ball on a string is rotating about the central point, and not on its own axis”.
***
That should be obvious to an objective observer. The fact that it is not obvious to alarmist in general, on this blog, demonstrates that they are incapable of objective observation of global warming/climate change.
“dremt’the ball on a string is rotating about the central point, and not on its own axis’.
***
That should be obvious to an objective observer.”
A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with the Moon’s orbit of Earth. NOTHING at all.
RLH keeps saying that because he, unlike many of the “Spinners”, realizes that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.
A ball-on-a-string is the same as any other (semi-)rigid body like a rod, bump on the surface and many others.
So you realize that it is not rotating on its own axis, meaning you disagree with many of the “Spinners”.
A rigid body can be considered to rotate about many axis depending on where on the body you stand. For instance, if I stand at one end of a rod I will see things rotating about me. If I stand at the other end likewise. Which is the ‘true’ axis of rotation?
The one true axis of rotation for the ball on the string is at the other end of the string to that which attaches to the ball, in other words it is right at the center of the revolution.
And if standing on the ball’s surface you would see what? The point which you consider to be the rotation point moving around you.
In fact if the ball was attached to an equal sized ball on the ‘other’ end, both ‘ends’ would then see exactly the same.
No, you would not. If standing on the side of the ball facing inwards towards the axis of rotation, you would see the axis of rotation always ahead of you, remaining fixed as you rotated around it, surroundings whirring past you. If standing on the other side of the ball, facing outwards, you would see your surroundings whirring past you, but you would never see the axis of rotation.
“In fact if the ball was attached to an equal sized ball on the ‘other’ end, both ‘ends’ would then see exactly the same.”
And it would change nothing about the one true axis of rotation, which would be in the center of the ball that the other ball is rotating around.
If there were 2 equal balls then the center of rotation would be the center of the string.
If the two balls were rotating around a central axis, yes.
If one ball was rotating around the other ball, then no.
You have a way of seemingly deliberately missing the point.
“A ball-on-a-string is the same as any other (semi-)rigid body”
Yep and the Moon-Earth system is not a Rigid Body at all, so you are right RLH, rigid-bodies are red herrings.
The Moon is itself an independent rigid body, which is orbiting on an ellipse and rotating on its axis.
It is highly appropriate to discuss its rotation on its axis and translation of its COM, since that model is applicable.
Anyone foolish enough to try to force the Moon-Earth system to fit a rigid body model will find all sorts of facts they cannot explain, like libration, axial tilt, axial precession, lunar poles, etc.
“If one ball was rotating around the other ball, then no.”
It the 2 balls were the same size/mass then they would rotate around the barycenter which would be at the center of the string.
Nate, this is just ANOTHER example that you can’t learn.
The ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The same side of the ball always faces the inside of the orbit. You keep trying to claim that model is more than it is, so you can shoot it down. You do that because you have NOTHING.
Where’s your model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
You have NOTHING. Your troll tactics don’t work. They amount to NOTHING.
Did I say “You have NOTHING”?
RLH is determined to miss the point.
On the contrary I continue to insist that orbital mechanics and normal physics supports the idea that the Moon orbits the Earth once every 27 days or so and rotates on its axis once per orbit.
“You have NOTHING”
If you say it loud enough you might even convince yourself. You convince no-one else.
“The ball-on-a-string is a model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’.
I know this is the mantra that you have to say 47 times a week, but no one except the TEAM of Morons uses the term “Orbital motion without axial rotation”
An orbit is just the path thru space which has nothing to do with rotation rate of the orb.
The Moon’s orbit is a 1-1 synchronous orbit. It is just one type of orbit.
It is not ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ because it has an axial rotation rate that matches its orbital rate.
Troll Nate, that sounds so sweet. Your cult will be proud of you.
But, it’s not reality.
Where is your model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
Here
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-814405
The first case, with handle of the coffee cup always pointed in the same direction toward the one holding it.
It is evident to any non-partisan trying this that the cup is not rotating on its axis but is orbiting.
Clint sez “Wheres your model of orbital motion without axial rotation?
You have NOTHING.”
So I gave you something.
And?
Crickets…
On the contrary, RLH, you continue to miss the point that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation.
…in the accelerated frame which RLH doesn’t miss unlike DREMT.
No, in any reference frame. You just do not understand rotation.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
It is you who does not understand rotation.
Check back Flop’s trick.
Shut up.
How does it feel not to get the rotation trick anymore, Kiddo?
Myself and ftop_t were in complete agreement regarding rotation. He proved mathematically that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation. I am more certain than I am that 2+2=4 that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation. You can trot out as much BS as you like, I will live my life and die absolutely certain that I am correct about that. So stop trolling me and shut up.
You still don’t get it, Kiddo, do you?
Flop’s trick is to hide a translation in what he calls a rotation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-806537
Rotation is an isometry.
You lost.
OMG Flop thought an elliptical was a rotation, but he wasnt able to find the ONE TRUE AXIS for it.
We are talking about the ball on a string, which moves in a circle, Willard. It has only one axis of rotation. I won.
And I’m talking about the mathematical concept of rotation, Kiddo. You can’t get more “2+2=4” than that!
How many ball-on-a-string extend their string, btw?
DREMT said previously of a ball on a string.
“1) and 2) are different ways to describe the same movement.
However, 1) would be classed as a general plane motion. 2) would be classed as a pure rotation.”
Agree! (1) is translation on a path plus axial rotation
(2) is a pure rotation around a center. They both work!
However in 1. the axis is at the center of the ball in 2, at the center of the (circular only) orbit.
How is it that:
“I am more certain than I am that 2+2=4 that the ball on a string has only ONE axis of rotation. You can trot out as much BS as you like, I will live my life and die absolutely certain that I am correct about that.” ?
Now of the two different ways to describe the movement, which, for planetary motion, would be called a 1-1 synchronous, circular orbit, with zero axial tilt,
only (1) is universally applicable to all types of orbits, that are either elliptical, non-synchronous, with axial tilt, or a combo of these.
Thus astronomy, astrophysics, and aerospace engineering chooses (1) to describe ALL orbits.
And it would make NO SENSE to use (2) to describe the rare, purely circular, 1-1 synchronous orbit, with zero axial tilt, and (1) to describe all others, when clearly (1) WORKS FOR ALL.
It continues to be perplexing why the TEAM insists this use of (1) to describe the Moon’s orbit is horribly wrong and must be changed!
Even though it is not in a circular orbit and has very non-zero axial tilt.
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, Willard. I won.
With regard to the Moon’s orbit you have lost, as has the entire TEAM.
Now show some integrity and stop pushing an erroneous model for the Moon’s orbit.
> I won.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Pure rotation isn’t one rotation plus one translation.
You could turn that translation into rotations if you want 🙂
The ball on a string is a case of pure rotation, Willard. There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string. Concede that, and we can discuss the moon, if you wish.
An ellipse contains more than one rotation, Kiddo.
Here’s where Flop reappeared in your argument:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-806430
Ellipses do not come into the discussion unless we are talking about the moon, Willard. To discuss the moon, all you have to do is concede that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation.
Let me remind you how this “conversation” started, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-804553
Please stop tying yourself into knots.
The conversation started long before that erroneous comment from bob.
Concede that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, and we can discuss the moon.
It’s worse if you back track the exchange, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-757344
That’s when you switched to Madhavi and to “pure rotation.”
This is not Hegel or Husserl. Your evasions are not that complex to follow.
…and you cannot describe the motion of the ball on a string as a combination of a translation plus axial rotation because general plane motion should not be used when pure rotation applies (as per the notes from Brown). The ball on a string is a case of pure rotation. There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string. Concede that, to go on and discuss the moon.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
I absolutely can describe just about anything using rotations and translations.
That’s, like, kinda the point of calling it general motion!
Well that is just one of the many things that you are wrong about, Willard.
It’s a theorem, Kiddo.
Sure, Chasles’ Theorem. The trouble is, if you break down all motions into the sum of a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass, and apply that to what should be a pure rotation, you essentially do away with the concept of pure rotation altogether. Hence the notes from Brown.
Which why I cited Tim’s “gold star” comment.
Further on he adds:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-757344
I doubt you can prevent the Moon from spinning just because it’s simpler. It’s far from simple to come up with a non-spinning mathematical model of the Earth-Moon system.
Henry tried, if memory serves well. Have you found back his arguments?
“Concede that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, and we can discuss the moon.”
How bout this?
Concede that your model of the Moon’s motion makes no sense, never made sense, and is completely wrong, and then you can discuss balls on strings all you want, never to be be bothered by me about the Moon anymore.
The ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. It is a case of pure rotation about an axis that is external to the ball. The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation. You keep wanting to go on and discuss the moon. I will not do so until you concede the point about the ball on a string.
“You keep wanting to go on and discuss the moon. I will not do so until you concede the point about the ball on a string.”
Its not about truth, facts, any thing like that.
Its about ‘winning’ some sort of bizarre game.
> The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation.
Bold comment there, Kiddo.
Here’s a counterpoint: we can describe the ball on a string with as many axes of rotation as we need for the purpose at hand.
Do you really believe that your hand holds and spins the string without moving? If you want a realistic model of that movement, you’ll have to take your hand and arm’s movement into account. It won’t be a mere fixed point anymore.
Do you really believe that you can only describe the motion from one perspective? If you want a model of it in a CAD design software, it might be cool to be able to describe it from an external view. The fixed stars perspective is useful for that.
Please stop trolling and be constructive for a change.
“Here’s a counterpoint: we can describe the ball on a string with as many axes of rotation as we need for the purpose at hand.”
Then you do not understand what an axis of rotation is. The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, that is external to the ball. Concede to proceed.
DRsEMT refers to the MozziChasles’ theorem. That theorem applies to rigid bodies, which sort of fits your ball-on-a-string, but not to the Moon, as the Earth-Moon system is not a rigid body. And, your ball-on-a-string can still rotate around the radial axis, i.e., around the string. Let your ball hang down without swinging it and it can easily exhibit that rotation if a torque is applied.
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, that is external to the ball. Concede to proceed.
…in the accelerated frame.
No, Ball4. From any reference frame, the reality is that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, that is external to the ball.
> the reality is
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. Your argument is purely geometric: at best what you say could be reduced to a rotation is a rotation. Reality goes beyond geometry.
You need to think like a physicist.
I’m right. Smug grin of victory.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
What you’re looking for is uniform circular motion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWj1ZEQTI8I
When *you* are rotating a ball on a string, its motion is neither.
The ball on a string has one axis of rotation, that is external to the ball. I know that I am correct. Smug grin of victory.
The object in the elliptical orbit rotates inertially with r~1 unit once per rev. of 0,0 so ftop_t has proved DREMT wrong & long ago defeated as Willard pointed out above:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/slq7zwdqxj
DREMT “knows” the object is not rotating on its axis because DREMT is observing from the accelerated frame of the object.
Thatis where you are wrong, Kiddo.
We are dealing with something OBSERVATIONAL (h/t Flop). You can’t proclaim by fiat what it is.
Ellipse = talking about the moon.
To go on to discuss the moon with me, all anyone needs to do is concede that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, external to the ball – regardless of reference frame.
So you finally concede that the ball on a string has nothing to do with the Moon, Kiddo?
I’m glad you do, for now we can proceed:
https://youtu.be/mWj1ZEQTI8I?t=481
Is the observer on the ball experiencing a pull or a push?
I concede nothing, Willard. To move onto discussing the moon, or indeed anything else, you first need to concede that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, that is external to the ball – regardless of reference frame.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Either the ball on a string is related to the Moon’s rotation or it’s not. You just said that the ball on a string has nothing to do with the Moon’s rotation.
If you cut the string from the ball, would the ball rotate, yes or no?
Sorry, Willard. We’re strictly on a concede to proceed basis, here.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. Around this time:
https://youtu.be/mWj1ZEQTI8I?t=760
Walter concedes:
> I realize that the orbits are not nicely circular.
Do you?
His lecture on orbits is also interesting.
Oh, and if you can tell me what happens to the ball when we cut the string, that’d be great.
Discussed a thousand times, Willard. Sure, the ball might rotate on its own axis after release.
"The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different."
Has the fact that there’s no real string attached to the ball ever been discussed?
If so I suppose you found a way to reject what follows from:
P1. If we cut the string of a ball on a string it would spin.
P2. The Moon is like a ball on a string except it has no string.
The ball on a string has one axis of rotation, external to the ball. That’s that. To move on from that, just concede the point.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Repeating your claim does not suffice to support it.
I have provided endless support in countless previous discussions. The matter is settled.
…in favor of the moon rotating on its own axis once per rev. as ftop_t showed long ago.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You have nothing else going for your Dragon act, so of course you will continue to push that peanut.
Two desperate trolls keep trolling me. Sad.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You’re the one trolling with your Moon Dragon crap.
Please stop.
“Then you do not understand what an axis of rotation is.”
But DREMT is more confused..he thinks one can somehow be defined WITHOUT any circular motion around it..
Willard, please stop trolling.
“The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.”
OMG, sometimes we need to pause and take note of the beauty of perfectly crafted ridiculousness.
Rotation is defined by ‘tangential velocities of parts of the body’ being different.
Such motion IS EQUIVALENT to angular motion.
So what DREMT is saying is
‘Rotation is not due to rotation, but due to rotation”
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Who?
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
You were replying to Nate, Kiddo.
That’s where you were wrong.
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
rlh…”Quercetin and Hydroxychloroquine
Have not been proven to stop Covid infections or diminish the results when infected.”
***
Vaccinating someone who is already sick is beyond stupid, yet that’s what the poobah’s are doing. They are also treating sick people with antivirals that are known to cause kidney and liver failure, leading to death, serious blood disorders, that can lead to death, and most ironically, with HIV the antivirals can leads to AIDS.
Might as well treat yourself, much safer. I don’t think drugs are required, it has been proved in the past that bowel tolerance level doses of vitamin C, taken several times a day, will terminate any viral infection. There is nothing special about covid other than its intensity.
You cant return people from the dead either (mostly) and people are dying from Covid everyday.
Some of them are people who believed your crap. Most of them get to say they were wrong before they die.
The very best, most hilarious moment I ever experienced on this blog, concerning this endless lunar spin discussion, was when I presented the following picture last year:
https://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/Fig%2023%20sml.png
and the blog’s greatest genius wrote about the picture
” They are not using rotation in the same sense you mean it. From a spacecraft approaching the Moon, it would appear to turn, but the turning is not about a local axis, it’s due to the Moon’s angular momentum in its orbit.
If a spacecraft went into orbit around the Earth, just outside the Moon’s orbit, it would always see the same face of the Moon. If the Moon was turning on a local axis, the spacecraft would see every side of the Moon.
It appears as if NASA and other luminaries are confused by this illusion. ”
The wonderful power of compulsion to deny.
J.-P. D.
binny…” They are not using rotation in the same sense you mean it. From a spacecraft approaching the Moon, it would appear to turn, but the turning is not about a local axis, its due to the Moons angular momentum in its orbit”.
***
You are responding to physics you clearly don’t understand. You still don’t understand the difference between libration and rotation and you fully support the nonsense from Meier that a centrifugal force exists in the lunar orbit.
The little circle at the top of the Moon in your diagram indicating local rotation is wrong. I don’t care if it was drawn by NASA or Einstein, it is wrong. I have proved that using radial lines and tangent lines and you have failed to follow that logic. I have not called you an idiot for nothing.
I said a spacecraft approaching the Moon would see what appeared to be rotation but it is an illusion based on the changing orientation of the side they are viewing. The Moon is moving in its orbit at roughly 1 km/sec. By the time a spacecraft sees it till the time it reaches the Moon, the Moon will have traveled thousands of kilometres in its orbit.
However, once the spacecraft is in the vicinity of the Moon, close enough to go into orbit, it will see no lunar change in orientation. There will definitely be no local rotation as indicated by the circular arrow in your diagram.
“You are responding to physics you clearly dont understand.”
To say that the Moon is not rotating is not physics, but instead being a nutter. Part of a very tiny, tiny, clique of people who think that the science everybody else knows is suspended just for the Moon.
Robertson
” You still don’t understand the difference between libration and rotation… ”
Really? Really?
Do you understand the difference between
– optical, apparent libration (latitudinal, longitudinal, diurnal)
and
– physical, real libration (forced, free)?
I’m not quite sure, to say the least…
*
” … and you fully support the nonsense from Meier that a centrifugal force exists in the lunar orbit. ”
Never did Tobias Mayer even mention any centrifugal force.
What however is 100 % sure is that you permanently invent things fitting to your egomaniac narrative.
J.-P. D.
JD, you are the master of inventing things. But, you got caught, again:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-811525
You never will find that page and paragraph, because you “invented” your story.
Exceptionally, you are right, and I have to apologize for my mistake.
The file I intended to link to was this one:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/nasa_tn_d_2795.pdf
The hint on lunar rotation goes from end of page 5 till beginning of page 6.
There you see:
” … and the moon rotates at an angular rate of approximately 13.2° per day, … ”
*
However, I perfectly know how you tick, and for sure you will be the one who soon will invent something to deny the fact, like does your friend-in-denial Robertson all the time.
J.-P. D.
Sorry JD, but you’re STILL “inventing”.
There’s a BIG difference between implying that the original NASA needed to know about any bogus lunar axial rotation and finding another link spouting your cult’s nonsense.
Quit accusing others of what you do consistently.
The cult is yours and not NASA.
WTF are you complaining about Clint?
This is a pretty clear NASA doc.
It pretty clearly IS talking about the lunar rotation rate.
Nothing Bogus here. NASA does not agree with you.
Oh well, you lose some, you lose some more.
Troll Nate, see why you’re a troll?
You can’t understand any of the science. You just suck down whatever your cult feeds you.
The ball-on-a-string beats everything you’ve got, because you’ve got NOTHING.
“whatever your cult feeds you.
The ball-on-a-string beats”
Clearly Clint feels no need to back up his claims.
Just repeats the Mantra for the 50th time.
Houston. We has a problem. One of the trulls from Roy’s website is rotating the moon again.
Only the nutters think that it is not rotating.
entropic…
“In the reference frame of an observer on Earth the Moon presents one face and appears not to be rotating. Unfortunately this is just an appearance because the physical tests for rotation of a body show that the Moon is rotating”.
Later…
“The oval track exerts two forces on the train.
2) It puts a torque on the train to rotate the aspect, the direction in which the train is facing”.
***
In your first statement above, you have it exactly backward. The Moon appears not to be rotating because it is not rotating. The physical test for this confirms it and I have laid it out in detail using a radial line and tangent lines to the Moon’s near and far face.
In your comment about the train, which is related in a way to lunar motion, there is no torque applied by the tracks on the wheels. Torque is the result of a dynamic force and the wheels and track are pretty well in static equilibrium, due to the flanges on the wheels that overlap the rails..
A train going straight on rails and approaching a curve, wants to keep going straight in the same direction it was moving along the straight track. There is a force applied to the rails by the wheels in a direction facing outward along a radial line to the curve (centrifugal). However, the rails resist that force and guide it along the curve.
Something else is vitally important. The rims on the wheels are tapered (1 in 20) so they taper from the outside of the track face to the inside. Because the wheels are welded to the same axle, they must turn at different rates to turn but at the same angular velocity of the axle.
That is accomplished by the linear momentum of the wheels pushing both wheels to the outside of the bend so that the outside rail is located at the larger diameter end of the taper and the inside rail meets the smaller diameter end of the taper. So, the outside wheels can move faster than the inside wheels on the curve.
Unfortunately, on a straight portion of track, the taper causes the wheels to ‘hunt’ for a centre position, causing the entire car to move back and forth laterally. At higher speeds, this can cause problems, like a derailment.
This is an important analogy to lunar motion. Like the rail car, the Moon is always trying to move in a straight line. Gravity acts on the Moon like the rails at a curve, although the actions are different. The Moon maintains it’s altitude because there are no forces large enough to move it closer to the Earth. At the same time, the gravitational field is constant, therefore the force on the Moon is a gradual bending force that bend it’s linear momentum into a curved path.
That’s what you are mistaking for local rotation. The tangent line to the near face is constantly changing direction but so it the tangent line for the far face, and in parallel.
“The Moon appears not to be rotating because it is not rotating.”
The Moon appears to be rotating because it IS rotating.
Re:
The elevator, the rocket, and gravity: the equivalence principle
Information about the principle that Einstein took as a starting point for developing his general theory of relativity
See:
https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/equivalence_principle/
So, I am wondering if you could tell the difference.
Between 1 gee acceleration and Earth’s gravity.
And mean by tell the difference, is would living person
notice biological changes. Or would it feel different.
Or Would effect a child’s development in the womb- have a effect
biologically.
So artificial gravity made by space station is usually about Centripetal Force. Ie:
“A centripetal force (from Latin centrum, “center” and petere, “to seek”) is a force that makes a body follow a curved path. Its direction is always orthogonal to the motion of the body and towards the fixed point of the instantaneous center of curvature of the path.”
So this different than acceleration in one direction, and one can certainly feel the difference is this kind of artificial gravity vs “real” gravity. The general idea is if make circle big enough you will feel less of difference. Or your sense of balance can tell.
Of course if surgically remove that ability, it might prevent someone feeling dizzy, but it’s also easy tell the difference in other ways. So to go over sense of balance, wiki:
The sense of balance or equilibrioception is the perception of balance and spatial orientation. It helps prevent humans and nonhuman animals from falling over when standing or moving. Equilibrioception is the result of a number of sensory systems working together: the eyes (visual system), the inner ears (vestibular system), and the body’s sense of where it is in space (proprioception) ideally need to be intact.”
{And I am not recommending such surgery as kind of mad solution}
rather my point is perhaps human body is “designed” for real 1 gee gravity and will be effected in ways other than confusing the brain’s sense of balance.
Another aspect is we don’t know how life is effected if it has real 1/3rd of Earth gravity.
Anyhow I was considering making traveling in straight line with acceleration kind of artificial gravity for a space station- as there is certain advantages to it. Which lead me to ask, is it more like real gravity than using the Centripetal type of artificial gravity.
And also whether Centripetal type of artificial gravity when made bigger, so it doesn’t mess with sense of balance, will actually be the same, biologically, as real gravity.
In terms of news, it seems NASA is looking at adapting to loss balance. Spinning people at short distances and basically the brain getting use to it. And it seems a brain could do this, in same way people can trained to ignore just about anything, and I am wondering about the rest of the body.
gbaikie…”would living person notice biological changes..”
***
Are you referring to something like the Twin Paradox, an absurdity wherein one of a set of twins leaves Earth at the speed of light, only to return and find his twin has aged considerably while he has not?
Such an absurdity was actually supported by Einstein, although he stopped short of endorsing time travel. It’s absurd because humans do not age according to time but due to biological changes in cells. Those changes don’t happen because time passes, they happen due to biochemical processes.
If a dumb human comes along and wants to measure how long it takes for cells to alter and die, he can establish an artificial unit such as the second, which he bases on the rotation of the Earth. As such it is a constant and cannot change, therefore a twin traveling at the speed of light would age at the same rate as his twin on Earth.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice pseudo-science.
My apologies to Sir Walter Scott…From Marmion: A Tale of Flodden Field. About the Battle of Flodden Field (1513) where good Scots were slaughtered by the Sassanachs (Saxons).
…..
Yet Clares sharp questions must I shun;
Must separate Constance from the nun
Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
A Palmer too!no wonder why
I felt rebuked beneath his eye:
I might have known there was but one
Whose look could quell Lord Marmion.
….
I once put it to an aboriginal friend of mine that aboriginals should not feel put upon by Whites, that we have been doing it to our own for ages. I was referring mainly to the atrocities committed on the Scottish people by pre-English barbarians from the south.
Then there were the Vikings, Whites who were not fussy about the colour or race of people they slaughtered.
–Gordon Robertson says:
August 23, 2021 at 10:29 PM
gbaikiewould living person notice biological changes..
***
Are you referring to something like the Twin Paradox, an absurdity wherein one of a set of twins leaves Earth at the speed of light, only to return and find his twin has aged considerably while he has not?–
Not really.
But to get to speed of light any time soon, requires high acceleration. Or artificial gravity. Could artificial gravity stop aging?
Or does natural gravity cause aging, and since artificial gravity is not exactly the same as natural gravity. It could appear as though you have gravity but you don’t.
Of course it’s also possible that without natural 1 gee gravity, one might age faster.
What mostly mentioning is that NASA our space agency has not done any testing of the long term effects [which one could say 1 week is long time or say months are a long time, or one year is a pretty long time} whatever long time, NASA hasn’t done it, and NASA has wanting to send crew to Mars for decades. Have utterly failed and it’s been the wrong goal. But Musk who wants to live on Mars, and is one richest person in the world, is going to make it possible for NASA to send crew to Mars.
And looks we going to go blind into Mars, it’s more adventure that way, and might be the best way {because if you tested, and you are stupid you might just confuse yourself} BUT that would not be in accordance with what NASA generally likes to do. Some upon reflection, might say it’s rather reckless.
” The general idea is if make circle big enough you will feel less of difference. Or your sense of balance can tell. ”
Excellent idea. Let’s build a Ringworld!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringworld
” The Ringworld is about one million miles (1.6 million km) wide and approximately the diameter of Earth’s orbit (which makes it about 584.3 million miles or 940.4 million km in circumference), encircling a sunlike star. It rotates to provide artificial gravity 99.2% as strong as Earth’s from centrifugal force. The Ringworld has a habitable, flat inner surface (equivalent in area to approximately three million Earths), a breathable atmosphere and a temperature optimal for humans. Night is provided by an inner ring of shadow squares which are connected to each other by thin, ultra-strong wire. “
Right, I read the sfi when I was teenager, and everyone assumes such artificial gravity would work just like Earth gravity, my question is, does it?
Or crew spend 6 months in ISS, and do lots exercise, but when return to Earth they spend months recovering from the lack of earth’s gravity.
I would tend to think this kind of artificial gravity does mostly work, but there is no evidence it does.
And I think our space agency should do some tests, as it pretends it’s going explore Mars, fairly soon.
“To get Earth-like gravity, the Ringworld would need to spin at nearly three million miles per hour.”
1211228.6489346263 m/s or about 1211 km/sec and we are going about
30 km per second.
The problem is not so much speed as impossible amount structural needed to hold something so large and massive together
Anyhow, 1211228.6489346263 m/s from
http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/SpinCalc.htm
is close to 3 million, it’s about 2.7 million mph.
And jumped or allowing one leave the outer part of it would put you well over solar escape velocity and considering the Oberth effect, would make star travel easier. Maybe you could even use chemical rockets.
It been long time since I read it, it probably a lot less enjoyable reading, now.
Anyhow as general rule with sfi, making material impossible strong was “allowable”.
What might be crazier, but I think is quite a bit easier to do, is make a really cheap “space station” with artificial gravity.
So, I use modified Falcon-9 {cheapest launch on the planet at the moment] and add 30 meters to it’s second stage height- continue with diameter of it: 3.9 meter, and have this cylinder, mostly empty.
But make floors and doors in the floors and have about 10 floor and a roof which could conical to have less Max Q pressure.
And keeping the second stage connected to it, launch to GTO and raise perigee to 1000 km.
Now, this orbit goes thru all the Van Allen belts, and within an orbit or two this radiation should kill people. But it does not have people in it yet. Before launching it, one could fill one the 10 rooms with radiation shielding, and monitor how much radiation the room gets. But idea is when crew go to station, they will add whatever type radiation shielding would significantly lower radiation, or get bring the perigee up so it’s not going thru the Van Allen belts. But one does have a lot radiation outside of Earth gravity- so one going to need to add shielding against radiation.
And the other thing crew trip will need to do is spin it.
But my idea is just put it up there and do rest later.
So SpaceX or Musk does this. And Elon can consider it as like putting a greenhouse on Mars- but much cheaper and faster.
So Musk could put it up there and leave it up there for 500 years, at cost of rocket fuel, and second stage [which is not reused] and can reuse the first stage rocket.
Now Musk could start immediately actually making into station and/or allow anyone else to make it into an artificial gravity. Any and all Nations launch to GEO and first do GTO.
The end result is you want to test Mars gravity with duration stays, by part the first part up there, other parties could get involved.
Making an unfinish station, gives something the crew could, for the months of time, one need to test mars gravity. So it could be space tourists who want the experience in doing this kind of work. It could encourage NASA to do artificial gravity research.
But at moment, SpaceX has busy schedule, trying to make the starship work, doing this should not too much of a distraction from the most important project.
Or maybe later, you repeat it, and tie the two of them together.
stephen…”Its called a thought experiment, Clint. Like Einstein used the elevator, I hoped by using amusement rides that you might understand”.
***
That was E’s downfall, using kinematics and ignoring the forces and masses involved. By using pure kinematics and regarding time as ‘the hands on a clock’, he managed to give time a reality it does not have. Time is a definition based on the rotational period of the Earth. Why E. did not know that is the question.
E. thought time had the same physical reality as force and mass, and fooled himself, in his thought experiments, that it could change with velocity. For some reason, he equated time to the mechanical mechanism that drives a clock. However, a clock is a machine that is usually synchronized to the rotation of the Earth. If it’s not, it eventually gives a different time than other clocks.
If a clock speeds up or slows down, that has no relation to the second which is a constant defined by the rotation of the Earth. If Einstein is channeling this I’d appreciate him checking in to discuss what he was thinking about.
Einstein would’ve been purged in first week under Chairman Robertson.
nate…”Einstein would’ve been purged in first week under Chairman Robertson”.
***
Not so, Natesy. Under Chairman Robertson, scientific observation and skepticism, based on the scientific method, would be returned to its rightful place. Every scientist and layperson would be free to challenge scientific views without fear of reprisals from narrow-minded, bigoted, paradigm-junkies.
What you don’t get is that we already live in the kind of world you have mistakenly portrayed under Chairman Robertson.
“Every scientist and layperson would be free to challenge scientific views without fear of reprisals from narrow-minded, bigoted, paradigm-junkies.”
Already here. Your free speech allows you to say or write anything not actively libellous.
Unfortunately there are standards. If your criticism is coherent, consistent and consistent you will be listened to and might change some minds.
If they fail the 3Cs test we are equally free to ridicule your ideas or ignore them.
Since most of what you write fails the 3Cs test, you are mostly just ignored. After years of reading your unrealistic notions I now skim quickly over your comments or ignore them completely.
I hate this ******* spell checker!
Coherent, consistent and consilient.
The ball-on-a-string model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” is consistent and consilient with established physics and many “.edu” sites.
You can’t get anymore coherent that that!
Indeed you can, Pup:
https://people.astro.umass.edu/~tripp/a101fall08/lectnotes/a101lect13_f08.pdf
Where do you read “witout axial rotation”?
Willard, please stop trolling.
A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits. NOTHING at all.
It is not the equivalent of gravity in any way.
“Time is a definition based on the rotational period of the Earth.”
Does LOD (Length of Day) exists and if so, why does it vary?
” However, a clock is a machine that is usually synchronized to the rotation of the Earth. ”
Do you start suffering under Alzheimer, Robertson?
*
Replicated from a comment above
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-804947
Let us simply reply with what UK’s National Physical Laboratory writes, in the context of a little article about (oh oh) … Louis Essen:
” In 1967, the definition of the second was changed to its current form based on a particular transition in caesium atoms.
Previously, the definitely of the second was based on the rotation of the Earth, so its duration was difficult to determine accurately and varied unpredictably with time. ”
Robertson reminds me more and more my (sock puppet) lady Rose’s uncle Kurt 12 years ago… the same mixture of contrarianism and oblivion.
J.-P. D.
I’m curious Gordon. Have you accepted yet that the moon is accelerating toward the earth?
I’m curious Folkerts. Have you accepted yet that the ball-on-a-string is not rotating?
Well an Einstein way of saying it would be moon stays at constant velocity traveling thru a changing {Manifold??] of spacetime.
But I think Gordon who thinks Einstein is some kind of fraud, would be stuck with the Moon is accelerating
Monday Nino outlook update
https://i.postimg.cc/8CZhdg50/20210817-nino-summary-4.png
Eben…you seem to have survived the hurricane. How’d it go?
Nothing happened , it was all hype as usual
USA 10 Dead, More Missing After Record Rainfall and Catastrophic Floods in Tennessee
*
Only 10 people died!
That’s nothing, guys ‘n dolls, move along
Maybe Bidendong is not too good with geography and doesn’t know the Hurricane Henri was like thousand kilometers away from Tennessee when they got flooded and had nothing to do with it, or his eyes are so crossed he saw the hurricane coming right over them.
https://i.postimg.cc/1XgqY8Wg/ankle-biter.png
Eben
I perfectly knew that.
What I wrote was just a reply to your dumb
” … it was all hype as usual ”
That you wouldn’t understand such an evidence doesn’t wonder me at all.
Stay tuned, Eben!
J.-P. D.
Wrong JD.
You got caught trying to pervert reality, again!
Hurricane Henri aftermath
https://i.postimg.cc/sgRzH6mJ/henri.png
RLH a asked earlier –
“Let me ask you a question.
If you were sitting at the ‘pole’'(‘North’ or ‘South’) on the Moon, would you rotate as you travelled around the Earth?
Would you, at some point, be travelling backwards to your direction of travel in the orbit?
If you rotate then there is inertial energy in that rotation.”
No, of course not. If I was rotating, then the Earth would pass through my field of view. Of course, it wouldn’t.
No, of course not. If I was facing in the direction of forward motion, this orientation would not change, travelling around the orbit.
As to “inertial energy in that rotation”, do you mean rotational kinetic energy, or something similar?
Maybe you are confused. Rotational energy about an object’s axis of rotation might be more appropriate, and for the Moon, the axis of rotation would pass through the centre of mass. And, of course, you cannot compute this rotational energy – because there is none!
Neither gravity nor linear speed have anything to do with rotation about the Moon’s axis. The Moon is just a large more or less spherical object in free fall. Not rotating, just falling towards the surface, moving quickly enough that it winds up never reaching the surface. Just remember the Earth’s surface is spherical, not flat.
If it is free fall, then it may or may not be rotating about its axis. Nothing about free fall dictates an orientation to the direction of travel.
RLH,
You wrote –
“Nothing about free fall dictates an orientation to the direction of travel.”
True, but if you are under the thing which is falling, and no matter how many times you look up, you see the same picture with the same orientation, then nothing is rotating around any axis orthogonal to the line of travel, or around the line of travel itself.
The Moon is travelling in a straight line, but the force of gravity acting at right angles produces an elliptical orbit. Any residual rotation has been dissipated – just as a pendulum eventually remains still, pointed towards the Earth. Disturb it as much as you like, gravity eventually prevails. As has happened with the Moon, and may eventually happen to the Earth – given enough time.
“True, but if you are under the thing which is falling, and no matter how many times you look up, you see the same picture with the same orientation”
And if the object that is falling has a significant horizontal velocity compared to you? Sufficient to orbit your location. Why should the object start rotating to ‘face’ you then?
RLH,
You wrote –
“Why should the object start rotating to face you then?”
It doesn’t. It “faces” the COG of the Earth. If you are moving quickly enough across the surface to remain between the COG of the Moon and the COG of the Earth, then the Moon is falling directly towards you. However, you are travelling on a great circle, and moving away from from the Moon precisely as quickly as it is falling towards you.
Just as Newton figured out. Works for me.
[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.
“It faces the COG of the Earth.”
Why would it do that?
“Why would it do that?”
Because it is NOT rotating.
…more or less than once per rev. on its own axis inertially.
“Because it is NOT rotating.”
If it is not rotating then it points at a fixed star.
No, if it is not rotating on its own axis then it points towards Earth. Just like an airliner circumnavigating the globe. Bottom always oriented towards the ground, and not rotating on its own axis.
…and not rotating on its own axis more or less than once per rev.
Incorrect, Ball4.
“No, if it is not rotating on its own axis then it points towards Earth.”
What makes it do that?
An absence of anything to cause axial rotation.
“An absence of anything to cause axial rotation.”
But there is a cause for rotation? What is it?
The airplane elevators inducing the spin on its axis of once per Earth rev. This effect is unknown to DREMT and Clint R but well known to pilots flying at a certain altitude during the rev.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27603/do-pilots-adjust-the-aircrafts-flight-path-to-allow-for-the-curvature-of-the-ea/27604
“The aircraft is usually flown at an altitude that maintains constant ambient pressure (by pilot or autopilot, as the case may be).”
Probly because the pilot or the autopilot did not spin enough balls on a string.
Troll somebody else, Willard. I will not respond to you further on this sub-thread.
More droppings of declared ‘truths’ from Swenson.
Meanwhile he has left a trail of dung that he failed to clean up.
He claims falling objects do more than just fall. They also start rotating, for no reason whatsoever:
‘The Moon presents the same face to the COG of the Earth BECAUSE IT IS FALLING as would a cannonball or a piano.’
Where is the logic? Where is the science behind this declared ‘truth’?
“Not rotating, just falling towards the surface”
” presents the same face to the COG of the Earth”
To keep the same face to the center of the Earth would it not need to turn continuously???
Turning continuously but NOT rotating…
Hmmmm
Nate wrote –
“He claims falling objects do more than just fall. They also start rotating, for no reason whatsoever:”
Nate is a dimwit, trying to put words in my mouth. He went on to write –
“To keep the same face to the center of the Earth would it not need to turn continuously???”
No. Nate has confused rotating about an internal axis with rotating about an external axis, as in orbital motion.
Probably confused enough to be absolutely certain that the GHE exists! He is obviously delusional.
“Nate has confused rotating about an internal axis with rotating about an external axis, as in orbital motion.”
Revolution in an orbit is different to rotation about an axis.
RLH,
Apologies from any confusion. Sloppy terminology on my part.
The Moon traces out an ellipse (more or less) as it orbits the Earth, falling continuously. It does not rotate about any internal axis,
[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.
“It does not rotate about any internal axis”
So how does it get Sunrise and Sunset? And don’t tell me by rotating about an external axis, that is instead revolution about a barycenter.
It gets Sunrise and Sunset by orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis.
Orbiting is a revolution, not a rotation.
The moon is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis.
Wrong. The Moon rotates once on its own axis per revolution/orbit around the Earth.
Wrong. The moon only orbits. The Earth both orbits and rotates on its own axis. The moon is engaged in “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
“The moon only orbits.”
False and moronic.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-812546
“The moon is engaged in ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’.
This terminology simply does not exist.
DREMT has been asked to find it many times, and failed every time.
The Moon is in synchronous orbit. The Moon has a 1-1 synchronous orbit. That is real terminology.
A 1-1 synchronous orbit is not defined anywhere as ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’
This is completely made up.
Nate, your blah-blah only says “orbiting” is not the same as “rotating”. That’s what we’ve been saying all along.
There are TWO different motions, unrelated.
Earth both orbits AND rotates. Moon only orbits.
The Moon both orbits the Earth and rotates on its own axis.
As everybody but a tiny, tiny clique of ‘flat earth’ non-scientists agree.
“orbital motion without axial rotation” means one face always pointing to a fixed star.
“Orbital motion without axial rotation” is movement like the “moon on the left” in the below gif:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“Spinners” think it is like the “moon on the right”. That’s the difference. Nothing to do with “reference frames”.
According to Newton, the Moon on the right shows orbital motion without axial rotation.
Moon on left has angular momentum about R and r. Moon on right has angular momentum only about R.
RLH and Ball4 are both wrong, as usual.
Clint R: No it is you who are wrong and your tiny band of nutters will never convince real scientists that you understand things better than them.
“‘Spinners’ think it is like the ‘moon on the right’. That’s the difference.”
So the TEAM admits that their approach is, at best, purely semantic.
All of established science and engineering uses the ‘spinner’ approach. It meshes well with standard Kinematics which separates Translation from Rotation. It has worked well for 300 y to describe planetary motion. It can explain all the details like libration and axial tilt with ease.
Keplers Laws and Newton’s solution for planetary orbits have nothing in them about planetary rotation rate or planetary orientation. Their solutions find only the path thru space that an orb follows. That is an ORBIT.
Separately from its orbital parameters, a planet can rotate or not. It can have a fixed orientation to the stars or the center or none. Newton got this, as did all that followed.
The TEAM feels like their way of naming things is somehow ‘better’ in their opinion. But if its just semantic, a convention, like which is plus and which minus on a battery, then its not worth changing, is it?
If it aint better for physics, and it aint better for Astronomy, or Engineering then why the hell would anyone care to change it?
Just cuz it makes the TEAM feel better??
They just don’t listen, Clint R. That’s their problem. They read a “trigger word” and it causes them to cough up some standard response. But they are not really paying attention to what is being said.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Troll somebody else, Willard. I will not respond to you further on this sub-thread.
“cough up some standard response”
We are waiting for you to give us a sound, logical, fact-based response… a sensible reason for science to switch to your POV.
But we never get that.
All we get back is declared ‘truths’ in the form of Mantras repeated over and over and over, as if the repetition of alt-facts is all that is needed to turn them into facts.
“To keep the same face to the center of the Earth would it not need to turn continuously???
“No. Nate has confused rotating about an internal axis with rotating about an external axis, as in orbital motion.”
Sorry, you are erroneous.
Keeping the same Face to the Center requires TURNING CONTINUOUSLY.
You thus claim that simply the act of falling causes an object to start TURNING CONTINUOUSLY.
FALSE, but lets go on.
TURNING CONTINUOUSLY is known as ROTATING. Regardless of axis!
You thus claim the simple act of falling causes an object to start ROTATING.
Newton has explained the only known cause for rotation to start is TORQUE.
The simple act of a sphere (like a cannonball) falling in gravity produces NO TORQUE.
You thus claim that the simple act of falling causes an object to start rotating without any known CAUSE.
This is erroneous.
QED
If this simple logic is too much for you then pack your bag of tricks and go home.
Wrong, Nate.
“Turning” is NOT axial rotation. The two motions are not the same. A racehorse turns, but is not rotating about its own axis.
If you understood physics, you would know the vector addition is different. But, you don’t understand physics. And, you can’t learn.
A racehorse turns inertially, but is not rotating about its own axis in the accelerated frame attached to the horse.
Correct. Horse is not rotating, Moon is not rotating.
Clint R now agrees correct with the horse and moon accelerated frame view; now understands it is DREMT that is wrong.
Ball4 is on drugs, again.
“‘Turning’ is NOT axial rotation. ” says Clint.
So a sphere like a cannonball fired horizontally is falling. And according to Swenson, it will automatically start TURNING to face The Earth.
Turning is rotation. So just the act of falling will cause it to start rotating? Yes?
How? Why?
Nothing is touching the sphere. Gravity acts thru the COM of the sphere, so as you well know, no torque will be applied to it.
According to your BFF Newton, rotation starting up would require a torque, ON THE SPHERE.
What is your logic or physics to account for this turning? I look forward to your explanation, Clint.
“What is your logic or physics to account for this turning?”
AFAIK Newton didn’t write anything on the subject in his example cited. At the time of Newton, cannonballs had recently changed from stone construction to iron ball construction to knock down castle walls & be fired into a phalanx of enemy soldiers critically maiming them. Cannonballs were not actually shot into orbit.
Back then, fabrication for diameter of the rough iron ball included some “windage” to be enough less than the diameter of the cannon so during the travel down the cannon barrel random torques would be applied and the resultant ball spin would be random. The Austrians became adept at machining cannons to sell to the French to shoot cannonballs at the Germans.
Over time, the French and Germans found random spin was induced in the balls causing some “drift” from target randomly due the Magnus effect. So, cannons became “rifled” to induce a certain cannonball spin for which the Magnus effect could be compensated and single enemy soldiers more accurately “picked off” and eventually hitting battleships over the horizon.
Ball4, the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” positions goes beyond reference frames. Why can’t you see that?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-812928
From your own source, Kiddo:
“This is more of a physics question rather than an aviation question. While other answers have addressed the question from the aerodynamics point of view, let me try answering it from a physics perspective: frame of reference.”
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27603/do-pilots-adjust-the-aircrafts-flight-path-to-allow-for-the-curvature-of-the-ea/27604
You’re trolling. Please stop.
That source is not a discussion of the difference between the "Spinners" and the "Non-Spinners" positions, though. If it were, it would note that the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” positions goes beyond reference frames.
Now: troll somebody else, Willard. I will not respond to you further on this sub-thread.
Correct Willard, non-spinners, per DREMT’s article, reveal they observe from the accelerated frame of the ball, moon, cannonball, fixed mgr hobby horse wrt to mgr, toy train, and airplane when they claim “Orbital motion without axial rotation” for an inertial frame object spinning on its own axis even once per rev.
The non-spinners can’t realize their observational frame discussed is itself spinning without doing experiments as they observe from that frame. It’s all pretty simple 1st course physics, the non-spinner argument was physically lost by the non-spinners at the get go long ago.
The non-spinners are popular though like the walking dead.
Ball4, look at the gif in the comment I linked to. There is a "moon on the left", and there is a "moon on the right". The two moons are moving in different ways, they remain oriented in different ways whilst they move. Regardless of reference frame, these two motions are different.
Now, the "Non-Spinners" see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as per the "moon on the left". The "Spinners" see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as per the "moon on the right". As I just explained, regardless of reference frame, the two motions are different. Therefore "Non-Spinners" see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as a fundamentally different motion than do the "Spinners". So the difference between the groups cannot possibly come down to reference frames, as you assert.
It’s not like the "moon on the left" is just the motion of the "moon on the right" when seen from a specific reference frame, or vice versa. The two are different, no matter what.
Now, the “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the left” as the non-spinners reveal they observe & report while located on the moon on the left in a frame which is itself spinning i.e accelerated as I noted agreeing with Willard.
All straight line and spinning motion is relative DREMT, just employ relativity as learned from a 1st course in college to figure out your link. In some frames our moon spins; in some frames our moon does not spin but our moon’s momentum is still there and has to be accounted for by realizing a particular frame is not inertial for which our moon’s inertial momentum has to be accounted.
Relativity is hard & DREMT repeatedly makes no progress toward understanding even basics of relativity.
The gif itself, with the two moons, is displayed from a viewpoint that is representative of the inertial reference frame. What you see on the screen is an "inertial reference frame" view of the two moons in orbit.
From that reference frame, as from any other, the "Non-Spinners" see the "moon on the left" as "orbital motion without axial rotation", and the "Spinners" see the "moon on the right" as "orbital motion without axial rotation".
Relativity points out from that gif reference frame, as from any other, correctly “Non-Spinners” report the “moon on the left” as “orbital motion without axial rotation” revealing reported by someone ON the surface of the left moon, and the “Spinners” see the “moon on the right” as “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
"revealing reported by someone ON the surface of the left moon"
No. Reported from someone looking at the screen.
> That source is not a discussion
You don’t get to decide that we should discuss your pet strawman, Kiddo. There’s only one Moon Dragon here and it’s you.
All the others are Moon Dragon curious.
It’s you against the world.
…reported from someone looking at the screen from the moon on the left.
True Willard, DREMT can’t get free from relativity, all motion is relative. There is no hedging here. All means ALL.
Ball4 lapses into complete incoherence.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
“AFAIK Newton didnt write anything on the subject in his example cited.”
They are called Newton’s Laws for rotation. They are a logical extension of Newton’s Laws of motion.
But perhaps they were formulated in their present form by by someone else, IDK.
DREMT finds random authorities in all the recesses of the internet.
As long as they shoot something from their hip that he can take out of context and agrees with him, they become his go-to authorities to appeal to.
Apparently Euler developed the extension of Newtons laws to rigid bodies, with rotations, 50 y after Principia.
Which really makes clear that Newton’s derivation of Orbits of bodies could not have included anything about rotation of those (rigid) bodies.
“…reported from someone looking at the screen from the moon on the left.”
Completely nonsensical response. The options are:
1) the reference frame represented by the view of the screen.
2) the reference frame represented by the view from the moon on the left.
3) some other reference frame.
Saying what you said only amounts to 1). It doesn’t amount to 2) or 3). Since I had already corrected you by saying 1) in my previous comment you are not contradicting me by what you have written.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
As usual, no contradiction from what you have linked and quoted.
Nate
Unless you can show alternative data that agrees with you, we will have to go with what has been reported in the science literature.
It has been measured by CERES and other satellites.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/398d1f93-810f-48d2-bccc-c31c861f3f03/jgrd18237-fig-0001.png
red curve is total Outgoing LW radiation. Its mean is ~ 240 W/m^2
from this paper
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD017997
Again, it is your theory, not the observations, that needs revision.
Nate, can you please tell me which part of my theory needs revision?
The calculations I do for every planet in solar system are very much precisely close to those satellite measured What other conclusion one could have other than the theory is correct.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“What other conclusion one could have other than the theory is correct.”
Another justified conclusion is your fudge factor & curve fitting makes Christos’ answer agree with already known results. N&Z did a way better job at curve fitting though.
Your problem, Christos, is your fudged emissivity factor for oblate spheroid of Earth surface does not agree anywhere close to experimental results of those that have actually measured that of the real ocean and land surfaces. N&Z get that right.
You also ignore the IR opacity of an atmosphere which is central to GHE and AGW physics.
Ball4
“Your problem, Christos, is your fudged emissivity factor for oblate spheroid of Earth surface does not agree anywhere close to experimental results of those that have actually measured that of the real ocean and land surfaces. N&Z get that right.”
Ball4, please can you be more precise. What problem, what fudged emissivity factor for oblate spheroid of Earth surface?
Christos, I’ve already been precise in the past, I mean the fudge factor of 0.47 in your 3:17am formula for Tmean.earth needed to compute the thermometer measured result = 287,74K = 288 K.
You don’t need this fudge factor of 0.47 if you include the properly measured emissivity of the atm. looking up from the surface. Once that physics is included in your formula & along with the properly measured emissivity of land and ocean earth surface, the 1LOT properly computes Tmedian for Earth surface ~288K. This has been long known in meteorology which you have yet to learn.
I’ve already given you the ref. to learn about the reasonable and proper use of the 1LOT including the IR opacity of our atm. without fudge factors & using all measured input values to properly theoretically compute Earth Tmedian ~ 288K measured by thermometers.
Ball4
“Christos, Ive already been precise in the past, I mean the fudge factor of 0.47 in your 3:17am formula for Tmean.earth needed to compute the thermometer measured result = 287,74K = 288 K.”
Ball4, the 0,47 is not a fudge factor!
The New equation calculates the planets without-atmosphere mean surface temperatures, Earth included, because Earth has a very thin atmosphere… The atmosphere of Earth is very thin, so when it is neglected the equation still provides precise Earth Tmean =288K temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The 0,47 is your fudge factor, Christos, because it has no theoretical or experimental basis. Our atm. on Earth is not optically thin, it can be near totally opaque (near zero transmissivity) in the IR bands looking through the entire atm.
For instance, from 4 micron to 1 mm absor_ption by water vapor, with contributions from carbon dioxide and ozone, is often so strong that the transmissivity is nearly zero over broad ranges within this band. You miss this effect. One important exception is 812 micron, where transmissivity often exceeds 0.6. Emission by Earth peaks in this region, sometimes called the window region because transmission of radiation from the surface is high. You also miss this effect.
Christos’ 0.47 is entirely missing these atm. opacity physics as you entirely 100% ignore the atm. IR opacity and just arbitrarily add in the 0.47 because it serves to fudge in ignored atm. physics in your flawed use of the 1LOT. As the real atm. opacity varies, your eqn. entirely misses the physical effects of the variation.
You need to learn some 1st course meteorology Christos, this stuff you miss is so basic.
One important exception is 8-12 micron…
Ball4
“The 0,47 is your fudge factor, Christos, because it has no theoretical or experimental basis. Our atm. on Earth is not optically thin, it can be near totally opaque (near zero transmissivity) in the IR bands looking through the entire atm.”
Ball4, the 0,47 is not a fudge factor!
The New equation calculates all the planets without-atmosphere mean surface temperatures… Earth included, because Earth has a very thin atmosphere… The atmosphere of Earth is very thin, so when it is neglected the equation still provides precise Earth Tmean =288K temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“so when (earth’s atm.) is neglected”
As I keep repeating Christos, you admit you neglect IR opacity of Earth’s atm. Therefore, you neglect any changes to the IR opacity of Earth’s atm. and surface median T due ppm water vapor, liquid water in clouds, CO2, and other gases. So, Christos conclusions based on that neglect are unsound and flawed.
You can correct your bogus equation for Tmean.earth simply by acquiring the ref. I have already given you used in 1st course meteorology education. Basic meteorology knowledge will properly add to Christos’ game on a climate blog.
“Nate, can you please tell me which part of my theory needs revision?”
I don’t know how to explain this in simpler terms.
Your theory predicts average emissions, 112 W/m^2, way way smaller than the observed emissions, which are 240 W/m^2.
Your theory predicts average emissions way way smaller than what the SB law gives for Earths ACTUAL temperature distribution neglecting the atmosphere, which was ~ 387 W/m^2. I showed you the calculation.
Your claim that the Earth’s emissivity must be way way smaller than 1 is simply wrong.
Thus your theory is wrong.
QED
Nate
“Your claim that the Earth’s emissivity must be way way smaller than 1 is simply wrong.
Thus your theory is wrong.”
Nate, I do not use the term emissivity in my equation… It is you who divided 112 by 387 and concluded I said that.
What I insist on is that planet does not emit at uniform surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“What I insist on is that planet does not emit at uniform surface temperature.”
I thoroughly agree!
But how does that help you when even the actual, non-uniform temperature of the Earth emits way way way more then your theory predicts it should?!
This is absolutely basic. If you refuse to understand then no one can help you.
Nate,
I find the Earth emits ave 112 W/m^2.
You, Nate, according to SB law (it is) much much higher, ~ 387 W/m^2 for an airless sphere “with Earths actual T distribution.”
I find the Earth emits ave 112 W/m^2 for an airless sphere with Earths actual T distribution and mean surface temperature T=288K
You, Nate, find ~ 387 W/m^2 for an airless sphere with Earths uniform surface temperature T=288K and not with Earth*s actual distribution…
Uniform surface temperature of T=288K means the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is applied to a flat surface…
On the other hand, average surface temperature of T=288K means the Stefan-Boltzmann law is applied to a rotating sphere!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
False.
Go back and look at spreadsheet data I showed you for a non-uniform temps on Earth.
Did you forget all about this discussion?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-787274
Nate
“Did you forget all about this discussion?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-787274 ”
In this discussion you had for every latitude the average latitudinal temperature.
Then you had considered the average latitudinal temperature as a uniform latitudinal temperature and calculated for that uniform latitudinal temperature the Jemit.
It is a mistake to consider a uniform latitudinal emission intensity, because surface doesn*t emit at uniform temperatures but at every infinitesimal spot and at every infinitesimal instant.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/449040793
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445688448
“doesn*t emit at uniform temperatures but at every infinitesimal spot and at every infinitesimal instant.”
Yes, as I explained that makes a miniscule difference to the total emitted. The non-uniformity has to be LARGE to make a difference.
Try this:
Take one mid-latitude band and estimate or look up the ACTUAL diurnal (day-night) T variation. Plug in those T into the SB law. Find the average emitted flux.
Now put the average T into the SB law and calculate the emitted flux.
How big is the difference?
Is that difference going to be enough to lower the emitted flux to 112 W/m^2? A factor of two??
No it will not, not even close.
But please do try the calculation and show us the result.
Nate
“Take one mid-latitude band and estimate or look up the ACTUAL diurnal (day-night) T variation. Plug in those T into the SB law. Find the average emitted flux.”
Take one mid-latitude band and estimate or look up the ACTUAL 24 h T variation. Then approximate each h for 5 minutes intervals T variation. Plug in those T into the SB law.
Repeat for every latitude band. Summarize the total global result. Then divide by the total number of points.
Will you have Jemit.av ~ 387 W/m^2?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You assert, without showing us the evidence, that this will make a significant difference.
But please do try the calculation and show us the result.
Also visit
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/deception-with-emission-spectra-part-1
Nate, you may also visit:
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/decep
tion-with-emission-spectra-part-1
To visit the site one should write the two parts of address together.
I see you are not going to bother to check.
Here is what happens for a latitude band:
If you have a sinusoidal diurnal temperature variation,
T = Tav + dT*sin(2pi*t/24h), t in hours,
then minimum emitted flux will be:
Fmin = sigma*[(Tav-dT)^4] and maximum will be
Fmax = sigma*[(Tav+dT)^4] and average will be
Fav = average over all 24 hourly Fluxes
So lets estimate dT = 10 K. And use Tav = 288 K.
then we find:
Fmin =338.66 W/m^2 Fmax = 447.14 W/m^2 and
Fav = 391.49 W/m^2
Now the average calculated from SB law with Tav plugged in is
F(Tav) = sigma*(Tav^4) = 390.1 W/m^2
So we see a couple of things. When we calculate the average flux using the hourly temperatures we find the average flux is higher than the flux estimated from Tav by 1.39 W/m^2.
SO not much difference!
But interestingly the true Flux is HIGHER than the flux estimated by Tav.
So this cannot help you get any closer to the way too low predicted value of 112 W/m^2
Oh and I realized you may want to incorporate the seasonal T variation. Feel free to try it!
But again, assuming a sinusoidal variation, as above, we will only find a HIGHER true average flux than the value obtained using Tav plugged into the SB law.
So this cannot help you get closer to your way too low prediction.
Nate, you still use the uniform T=288K, not the average.
The average temperature is not (Tmax+Tmin)/2.
You didnt read carefully.
I said “Fav = average over all 24 hourly Fluxes”
No the temperature is not uniform! Just stop with this red herring.
I showed you one latitude band that has Tav 288.
Others have different Tav. The same principles apply to them. The average flux emitted goes up when you account for T variation!
There is no way to get the average emitted flux closer to your prediction by considering the T variation!
Nate
“There is no way to get the average emitted flux closer to your prediction by considering the T variation!”
Exactly!
Nate
“I showed you one latitude band that has Tav 288.
Others have different Tav. The same principles apply to them. The average flux emitted goes up when you account for T variation!”
Thank you Nate
You successfully demonstrated the Hölder’s inequality between integrals concept.
Please visit:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4447774/
“Due to a nonlinearity of the SB law and a non-uniform distribution of the incident solar radiation on the surface of a sphere, the equilibrium temperature (Te) computed from a spatially averaged radiation flux is always higher than the arithmetic average temperature (Tm).”
And how is this fixing your problem Christos?
You still seem to be ignoring the main point, that your model’s predicted flux is 112 W/m^2, which is still way below observations, and way below what SB law says.
That means your model is simply wrong.
If you dont have a concern about this, then you dont understand the scientific method!
Nate, you should have concern about this.
“Due to a nonlinearity of the SB law and a non-uniform distribution of the incident solar radiation on the surface of a sphere, the equilibrium temperature (Te) computed from a spatially averaged radiation flux is always higher than the arithmetic average temperature (Tm)”.
It says planet surface emits less than at blackbody uniform temperature T=288K. Not more, but less.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
” It says planet surface emits less than at blackbody uniform temperature T=288K. Not more, but less.”
Nope youve got it backwards!
Example: Night side uniform 250K, sunny side uniform 300K, Mean 275 K.
sig*275^4 = 324 W/m^2
average(sigma*250^4, sigma*300^4) = 340 W/m^2
The planet actually emits MORE then blackbody at a uniform temperature of T = 275 K.
There are ALSO many things reported in that paper that disagree with your claims.
” The additional warmth provided by GE creates climate conditions that foster life on our Planet by enabling the existence of liquid oceans and providing for a global water cycle”
“It should be pointed out that global climate models intrinsically account for Holders inequality by virtue of being three-dimensional and explicitly resolving the spatial heterogeneity of radiation ab*sor*ption and emission (as well as other energy transport processes) within the context of a spherical geometry.”
Nate
“Nope youve got it backwards!
Example: Night side uniform 250K, sunny side uniform 300K, Mean 275 K.
sig*275^4 = 324 W/m^2
average(sigma*250^4, sigma*300^4) = 340 W/m^2
The planet actually emits MORE then blackbody at a uniform temperature of T = 275 K.”
You propose:
“Example: Night side uniform 250K, sunny side uniform 300K, Mean 275 K.”
If you consider planet as a blackbody surface, then it cannot have two uniform temperatures T1=250K and T2=300K.
Blackbody has only one uniform temperature!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
“If you consider planet as a blackbody surface, then it cannot have two uniform temperatures T1=250K and T2=300K.
Blackbody has only one uniform temperature!”
You are in desperation mode, just throwing bullshit.
You are not making sense. Not debating honestly.
Wasting my time.
Go away, figure this out, fix the problems, come back when you have done so and are ready to face reality.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
The World Weather Attribution group said that the floods in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg were caused by extreme rainfall events that are now between 1.2 and 9 times more likely to happen because of global warming.
https://news.sky.com/story/climate-change-extreme-rain-that-caused-europe-floods-made-more-likely-by-global-warming-scientists-warn-12389075
“GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE”
The globe has indeed been cooling for the last 6 months or more. Get over it.
“Get over it”
You go first:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-810256
You’ll be telling me next that temperatures are not measuring heat.
P.S. Heat = mass * temperature and I don’t think the mass has changed.
> Next you’ll be telling me
No, I’ll be telling you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-804847
Get over it.
1.
“When comparing this month to a month a year ago, 0 means there was no change. Below that means that it is lower this year.
One would expect not to have to explain this to people.”
“Youll be telling me next that temperatures are not measuring heat.
P.S. Heat = mass * temperature and I dont think the mass has changed.”
Well …
1) We must assume you mean “internal energy” = U in these statements, not “heat” = Q. If you are going to discuss thermodynamics, you should use the standard terminology.
So you mean something like
Youll be telling me next that T is not measuring U.
U = m*T
2) Your equation is for CHANGE in U, and is missing the heat capacity.
Delta(U) = Q = m*C*Delta(T)
Or you could integrate from 0K to T, I suppose.
U = ∫mC dT
Tim I was just extending what was said. The claim was that temperature was not measuring heat. All other thing being equal, the temperature does indeed follow the heat applied.
I equated, in this simple example that the composition and mass did not change.
Willard you’re back to 1 again.
When comparing month to month a year ago as I was, then the 0 indicates no change. Minus figures means things went down. Plus figure mean things went up.
Tim: Or if you insist, changes in temperature measure changes in heat applied.
RLH 3:30pm:
“The claim was that temperature was not measuring heat.”
That claim as RLH writes, is correct.
“All other thing being equal, the temperature does indeed follow the heat applied…changes in temperature measure changes in heat applied.”
No. Temperature does not follow the heat applied. Your statement does not make thermodynamic sense either.
—–
Tim at 2:27pm still needs to understand Q is not Clausius’ heat; Q is a rate because any delta(U) process has to occur over unit time.
> Tim I was just extending what was said.
Of course you did:
[GORDO] Great stuff this AGW, it moves around at will.
[NATE] With more heat and energy in the system, one might expect it to move around even more.
[RICHARD] Except that, for this year at least, we have less heat/temperatures in the system than we did last year.
[BOB] Temperatures only give you a small part of the system. Be it GISS or UAH or any of the others.
[RICHARD] And I thought temperatures measured heat. In the air, water and the rest.
[BALL] Temperature is not a measure of heat. Thermometers measure the average KE of the object’s constituent molecules at the measurement point. Heat is a measure of the total KE of the object’s molecules.
“Tim at 2:27pm still needs to understand Q is not Clausius’ heat; Q is a rate because any delta(U) process has to occur over unit time.”
Half correct!
It’s correct that Clausius’ use of “heat” is closely akin to “U”‘ modern use equates “heat” with “Q”.
It wrong that time is involved. Heat, Q, is joules, not watts. Consider the perhaps most familiar heat equation
Q = m c Delta(T).
There is no time component. The heat is the same whether it takes 1 second or 1 hour to warm an object up. See any physics text or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat for details.
[That said, some engineering texts do use “Q” for flow rates measured in watts. But more typically that would be “dQ/dt” or “Q-dot”.]
RLH, I can’t claim to know exactly what you or others meant.
I will say that recent trends in the global lower troposphere temperature would only give part of the story, for a few reasons I can think of.
1) even though the trend is down in recent months, the anomaly is still up overall.
2) The global trend does not tell us how any particular region is behaving.
3) The lower troposphere is only a part of the system. Even if that is down, the temperature of the upper troposphere or the oceans or the land surface could be up. Humidity could be higher or lower.
So yes, the total thermal energy of the lower atmosphere, U, should be very nearly proportional to temperature, T. But I suspect the other people are thinking about issues more like 1 – 3.
Tim: I am just pointing out that like your previous intervention, you miss the points that were made previously.
In this case, the point I made was this year, each month when compared to the same month a year ago was lower. That is a fact that can be easily displayed.
The point was also that the 0 (or +ve, -ve) in this case shows the difference for a given month to a year ago. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Ball4: “No. Temperature does not follow the heat applied. Your statement does not make thermodynamic sense either.”
If heat is applied then temperature goes up (assuming no change of state). If heat is reduced (assuming losses being constant and again no change of state) then temperature goes down.
That is thermodynamically correct.
Willard: 1.
“It wrong that time is involved.”
Tim! The field is known as thermodynamics not thermostatics. You can not pretend that time is not involved in thermodynamics.
Delta(U) is a process and ALL processes go forward in time. Every process of interest in thermodynamics takes time. +Q really is a rate of heating an object thus increasing the object’s measure of constituent total KE over time and thus rightly has units of joules/time. Over the time of interest in your noted delta(U) process, the object acquires an amount of joules increasing its amount of U.
Note I did not invoke the noun: heat. There is never a reason to do so. Ever. Using the term of something that doesn’t exist opens every thermodynamic conversation to fantasy and impreciseness.
“(assuming no change of state).”
Assuming that then RLH should not be discussing weather or climate on a climate blog. There is always plenty of change of state going on in our atm. and surface systems.
If the measure of total KE of an object’s constituents goes up, temperature does not necessarily go up since T is a local measurement. Also, temperature is an avg. and wherever there are averages, there are fluctuations about that average.
> I am just pointing out that like your previous intervention, you miss the points that were made previously.
No U, dummy. Bob’s point was that you can’t know that there is less energy in the system just by looking at your pet thermometer for the shortest period justified disingenuousness can buy. In response, you misinterpreted that point by conflating thermometer and temperature. Ball followed your bait, for even then you were not exactly correct.
However Tim and Ball’s secret handshake will lead to, Tim has the right of it with his “But I suspect the other people are thinking about issues more like 1 3.”
Ball4, I simply can figure out what you are going on about. Yes, all processes take time but that doesn’t mean you always take a time derivative. Sometimes you simply look at the initial and final values — whenever they occur.
Q is 10 joules whether it is at a rate of dQ/dt = 10 W for t = 1 second or 1 W for 10 seconds or 0.01 W for 1000 seconds. Your argument is analogous to saying the distances are rates, because you have to travels at some velocity to move from one point to another.
dx/dt is the rate. Distance, x, is NOT a rate.
dQ/dt is the rate. Heat, Q, is NOT a rate.
Willard says:
August 24, 2021 at 3:50 PM
> Tim I was just extending what was said.
–Of course you did:
[GORDO] Great stuff this AGW, it moves around at will.
[NATE] With more heat and energy in the system, one might expect it to move around even more.
[RICHARD] Except that, for this year at least, we have less heat/temperatures in the system than we did last year.
[BOB] Temperatures only give you a small part of the system. Be it GISS or UAH or any of the others.
[RICHARD] And I thought temperatures measured heat. In the air, water and the rest.
[BALL] Temperature is not a measure of heat. Thermometers measure the average KE of the object’s constituent molecules at the measurement point. Heat is a measure of the total KE of the object’s molecules.–
Quite a list you got there, Willy.
I would say heat in regards to Earth climate is the heat of the entire ocean, which averages about 3.5 C.
Or if round to nearest round number the Ocean is 100% of Earth’s surface heat.
And the ocean surface temperature, is the global surface air temperature. Or land global air temperature results from Ocean global surface temperature. But I would say global surface air temperature is a proxy of Earth’s surface temperature- and it indicates that we are in an Icehouse Climate.
Not a list, gb. More like an informal dialogue:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/06/06/estragon-and-the-expert/
It’s hard to illustrate and analyze how exchanges meander by using more robust tools.
As if theater was onto something.
“Your argument is analogous to saying the distances are rates, because you have to travels (sic) at some velocity to move from one point to another.”
No. Distance is an amount.
Adding an amount of miles though is a process that occurs over time thus is a rate in mph as is adding Q to increase an amount of U (delta U). I will always put time in thermodynamics though I am aware time is absent from textbooks (even most of them) because it is said thermodynamics deals only with equilibrium states of matter.
What is meant by equilibrium? I guess you know it when you see it. Even then, at the molecular level or microscopic level, change is rapid and incessant so you should understand the issue of equilibrium with that view.
Q is everywhere and always a heating rate and every text book I have looked at implies Q is a rate even if it does not explicitly write it out. This hinders students of thermodynamics in ways that have been written about but largely forgotten.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/06/06/estragon-and-the-expert/
I imagine, you think advocating regarding AGW is not very important.
As human decency is rather high bar.
And generally, it must exclude politicians.
“I will always put time in thermodynamics though I am aware time is absent from textbooks “
… and then you are talking about the RATE of heat, dQ/dT. Or the rate of change of internal energy, dU/dt.
… and I can integrate your rates and get back to the actual values.
Both are fine. But both are different. At some point, you will have to integrate over time to get actual changes in temperature, pressure, etc. Just like I can take derivatives and get back to the rate form.
Q = mc Delta(T) <– total, integrated amounts
dQ/dt = mc dT/dt <– rates
Delta(P) = (nR/V) Delta(T)
dP/dt = (nr/V) dT/dt
<i"every text book I have looked at implies Q is a rate "
Again, this would be like saying: ” every text book I have looked at implies x is a rate” just because “dynamics is about motion”.
Position, x (measured in meters) is not a rate. The associated rate is called “velocity” = dx/dt (measured in meters/second).
Heat, Q (measured in joules) is not a rate. The associated rate might be called “heat rate” or “heating power” = dQ/dt, (measured in joules per second, or watts).
“Heat, Q (measured in joules) is not a rate.”
Proper modern textbook: dU/dt = Q + W
So no, Q is not properly measured in joules, Q is properly measured in joules/unit time as Q is properly a heating rate in a process.
Particle kinetic energy is measured in an amount of joules. Clausius’ measure of the total KE in an object then would be sum of the constituent particle KE, a measure of total KE amount in joules which is Clausius’ heat defn. Thus Clausius’ heat is not Q which is a rate (joules added per unit time due a temperature difference) not an amount.
IOW, again, Q is a rate of adding joules over unit time it takes to process a deltaU (dU/dt).
—-
x can be an amount of translational distance.
dx/dt is a rate. An amount of incremental distance added per incremental unit time.
—-
Clauisus’ heat is a measure of amount of the total KE of an object’s constituents.
dU/dt is a rate. An amount of incremental constituent KE added per incremental unit time in thermodynamics.
dU/dt = Q + W so Q and W are properly rates not amounts. There is no heat in an object just like there is no work in an object, only total constituent KE is in there Clauisus defined as heat.
NB: U is also more precisely constituent KE + constituent PE but PE is not KE so is not Clausius’ heat thus is ignored in this.
“Bobs point was that you cant know that there is less energy in the system just by looking at your pet thermometer for the shortest period justified disingenuousness can buy.”
Bob-s point was to ignore the fact that the thermometers show that month on month this year is cooler than last. And somehow conclude that the heat must be hiding somewhere as it wasn’t showing up in them.
“Assuming that then RLH should not be discussing weather or climate on a climate blog.”
So you are saying that in order for the heat to have hidden somewhere from the thermometers, more change of state is happening this year that happened last year.
Without actually saying where.
“But I suspect the other people are thinking about issues more like 1 3.”
And thereby missing the point that I made. Which was quite simply that the thermometers show that this year, month on month, is lower that last year.
Now you might conclude that the ‘extra’ heat is hiding somewhere to not show up in the thermometers but, in that case, please show where that is.
Sure it could be in the 1/000ths of a degree in the deep oceans but, as we cannot measure to that accuracy that is hope and speculation rather than fact.
Global ocean heat content had a significant local minima in 2020 and is now* higher than it was for much of the previous year. This is consistent with the oceans releasing relatively more energy during El Nino positive conditions and absorbing relatively more energy during El Nino negative conditions.
So to be precise, surface temperature and troposphere temperatures are down this year over last, but it isn’t at all obvious that the global energy anomaly is down. In fact, it’s more likely they are up.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/monthly_analysis.html
* “now” being through March 2021 per the data as linked above
“In fact, it’s more likely they are up.”
So not a fact then, but a supposition.
> Bob-s point was to ignore the fact that the thermometers show that month on month this year is cooler than last
Bob already addressed that point:
[BOB] You dont determine if it is cooling or warming by comparing two data points, you do a regression. Taken any statistics have you?
“”Bob-s point was to ignore the fact that the thermometers show that month on month this year is cooler than last”
Bob already addressed that point”
No he didn’t. He ignored it. The claim was simply that each month this year was cooler than the same month in the previous year.
That is still true, despite your attempts to claim otherwise.
RLH 2:54am: “So you are saying that in order for the heat to have hidden somewhere from the thermometers, more change of state is happening this year that happened last year.”
There is no kind of heat hidden anywhere in Earth system, only the changing of the measure of the total KE of constituent particles.
In the case you mention, ice melt is a factor in the thermal energy decadal uptake in Earth system but not a very big one, at all.
See for example Rhein et. al. 2013 found from 1971-2010 the net positive TOA flux of 0.71 +/- 0.1 W/m^2 from 6/2005 – 6/2015 consisted, in part, of 0.03 +/- .01 W/m^2 from ice warming and melt including atmospheric and lithospheric warming.
Willard:
The world has indeed been cooling for the last few months/years.
The recent linear trends of UAH show this.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
Get over it.
Why are you taking the derivative of short term noise, RLH?
You are just going to amplify the ENSO noise, irrelevant to climate change.
Do you really not get that?
I can do the same with week to week weather in my town. The trend will be very high one week, and very low the next.
Those wild trend variations are irrelevant to the long term seasonal trend.
It’s still summer. Fall is still on its way.
“Why are you taking the derivative of short term noise, RLH?”
So first it was 6 months is noise. Now it is 5 years is noise. Make up your mind.
“Its still summer. Fall is still on its way.”
Anomalies, having removed the yearly cycle, shouldn’t care about either.
“having removed the yearly cycle”
Was intended as an analogy.
Weather to seasonal trend, is like ENSO to climate trend.
“So first it was 6 months is noise. Now it is 5 years is noise”
Yes as I showed you previously, the Trend has huge error bar for short durations like 5 y… worse for < 5 y.
If you choose to start your 5 y trend on a rare super El Nino…that qualifies as a cherry pick.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Choose GISSTEMPv4, start date: 2016, end date: blank (which means present)
Trend
-0.159 plus-minus 0.8 deg C/decade.
hopefully this makes clear to you– this downward trend is NOT a statistically significant finding.
Just as this one is not a significant finding:
Choose GISSTEMPv4, start date: 2012, end date: 2017
Trend
0.936 plus-minus 0.87 deg C/decade.
So you admit that it is a cooler globe now than it was in 2016,2019 and 2020, Just that it is not significantly so.
And yet the stories and studies are continuing to be written as though the globe was warming not cooling for the last 5 years.
I would like to establish something. I am assuming that you understand what statistical significance means. Do you?
Do you get that a trend that is small and negative, but much smaller than the error bar on it, is not statistically significant, and what that means?
Otherwise my experience with you is that it will just come up again and again.
Willard
You wrote
” Below the zero line does not indicate cooling.
That is an arbitrary line, of no significance to the question of whether or not it is cooling. ”
This is correct. Departures from a mean only indicate whether they are warmer or cooler than the mean.
But here your argument is secondary.
*
Because when considering e.g. monthly departures: if you find, within a year, n following departures in a row lower than the same monthly departures within the preceding year, then the n months are relatively cooler than those in the year before.
All namely are relative to the mean of the same reference period.
Believe, me: I generate anomalies out of absolute data (temperatures, sea levels, sea ice etc) since years.
However, I can only repeat that this is not necessarily relevant, especially when the same phenomenon was observed many times in the same temperature (or sea level, or sea ice, etc) series.
And it is especially not relevant at all when you observe that the consecutive differences become from month to month less than their predecessor.
Thus it is always better to await the end of the year before stating that it is cooling (regardless whether you observe absolute temperatures or their departures doesn’t matter).
J.-P. D.
> You wrote
Actually Bob wrote it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-804847
As long as we end up understanding one another, you can say whatever you want. My own preference goes to speeking of a temporary slowdown in the acceleration of the warming:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/02/17/only-connect/
Only Connect is important to me in Climateball.
Hey, I completely forgot that Bob had a cameo in that piece!
> Youd think Da Paws dead, but no Javier currently argues at Tonys that the planet is no longer warming. At Judys, BobD tried to reason with him (and a bit more) using statistics. I submit it is both overkill and not enough for ClimateBall we need to connect this kind of analysis with the little things we do in every day life.
Bob’s exchange with Javier is over there:
https://judithcurry.com/2019/02/07/climate-hypochondria-and-tribalism-vs-winning/#comment-889265
I made it very clear, both at the time and subsequently, that I was doing a month on month comparison to a year ago. I made no claims if it had occurred or not before. But that doesn’t stop Willard being an idiot.
Binny was not talking to you, dummy.
1.
willard…”Bobs exchange with Javier is over there:”
***
Bob better no cuss over at Judith’s place as he does here or he’ll find himself over Judith’s knee for an old-fashioned spanking.
Sure thing, Gordo:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/09/ipcc-ar6-wg1-discussion-thread/#comment-957610
Yeah,
I tend to use asterisks or Judy’s has anti cuss software.
Javier is a more talented denier than the current crowd here.
Month to month comparison over a year rarely meet statistical significance requirements.
If you want to make an argument, bring some shit to the table.
Some good strong smelling shit, no weak tea.
“Month to month comparison over a year rarely meet statistical significance requirements.”
It is a fact that each month this year so far (UAH anyway and this is a blog about UAH) was cooler than the same month last year.
“Cooler” rests on an inference, dummy.
That may be true, but
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade”
That measurement that Roy has made is statistically significant, and the ones you have made are not.
Not cooling, still warming.
You might say “you can’t say it hasn’t stopped stopped warming” but then they might take your chair.
and by the way,
this
“The globe has indeed been cooling for the last 6 months or more. Get over it.”
was the claim that I was addressing.
The fact that each temperature measurement for the last 6 months being less than the measurement for each month from a year ago, does not support that claim.
“‘Cooler’ rests on an inference”
Does it now. I thought that if a thermometer was reading lower it was recording a lower temperature.
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade”
What was the linear trend on UAH since 2020?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
Or the linear trend on UAH since 2019?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend
Or the linear trend on UAH since 2016?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
And if you want the 3 plotted together
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend
Really looks like things are looking up.
Play dumb again, dumb dumb?
“Inference” as in “statistical inference.”
Fact as in fact.
I think the inference is that it is probably colder each month than it was in the same month last year.
An inference that isn’t valid is at best a guess.
The facts say otherwise.
The recent linear trends of UAH show this is true.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
Get over it.
As does GISS
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2020/trend
For a little longer than just a few months.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2019/trend
Going back further
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2016/trend
Facts don’t make inferences, dummy.
You can’t make inferences, statistical or otherwise, without facts.
If we had access to the relevant facts without applying statistical inference, there would be no need for statistics in the first place. In fact there would be no difference between a trend and a spurious trend.
The concept of fact isn’t that clear, btw:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
So now YOU decide if a fact is relevant or irrelevant. Makes your outcomes just slightly biased.
The fact that the World Weather Attribution group said that the floods in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg were caused by extreme rainfall events that are now between 1.2 and 9 times more likely to happen because of global warming has very little to do with how YOU interpret two data points.
The FACT that both GISS and UAH say that global air temperatures have been declining since 2016 makes that study interesting to say the least.
“declining since 2016 makes that study interesting to say the least.”
Interesting why?
I think the idea of the extreme weather events like floods or droughts is the Probability of them increases in a warmer world.
A flood or drought that previously was 1/century becomes 5/century.
We have had > 1 C of GW. That is thought to be enough to enhance the probabilities.
The recent, brief, 0.1 C drop is not going to CANCEL these probability enhancements, though it may SLIGHTLY reduce them in regions that cooled (which is not everywhere).
“I think the idea of the extreme weather events like floods or droughts is the Probability of them increases in a warmer world.”
That would be fine if GISS and UAH did not both agree that it is a colder world now than in was in 2016, 2019 and 2020.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2016
RLH,
nice plots, but can you report the statistical significance of your plots?
For UAH since 2019 the uncertainty exceeds the trend, and it’s positive.
For 2020 the uncertainty exceeds the trend.
For 2016 the uncertainty is down to twice the trend, which is negative.
I’ll stop now, if the uncertainty exceeds the trend, you can’t say whether it’s cooling or warming.
That was the jist of my spiel with Javier.
Bob: I was purely observing that the figures were lower. Do you agree on that?
“colder now” is a qualitative statement. Meaningless in physical science.
As explained above, the issue is a quantitative one.
Do you get that 0.1 C colder is small compared to the 1.1 C rise?
This is the ~ 4 y anniversary of Hurricane Harvey in 2017, which was an unprecedented extreme rain event in Houston.
By then it had cooled ~ 0.15 C in the 12mo running mean rom its 2016 peak.
RLH,
“Bob: I was purely observing that the figures were lower. Do you agree on that?”
Oh, is that what you were doing, I must of misunderstood, I thought you were saying it was cooling.
“Do you get that 0.1 C colder is small compared to the 1.1 C rise?”
Do you get that 1 year (or 5) is less than a centaury?
“Oh, is that what you were doing, I must of misunderstood, I thought you were saying it was cooling.”
Very funny. Do you agree that if the figures are lower that is shows that the temperatures recorded are lower? If the recorded temperatures are lower that also means that things are cooling?
Are you saying that the recent figures that GISS and UAH provide have some uncertainty to them? If so, please point me to where that is published.
RLH,
You are on rinse and repeat, no longer listening or debating honestly.
RLH,
“Very funny. Do you agree that if the figures are lower that is shows that the temperatures recorded are lower? If the recorded temperatures are lower that also means that things are cooling?”
No I don’t, if you start with an El Nino, you can get short term cooling that has no statistical significance.
“Are you saying that the recent figures that GISS and UAH provide have some uncertainty to them? If so, please point me to where that is published.”
Please do your own research, if you look hard enough at the GISS website you may find statements on uncertainty.
“The production GISTEMP global mean temperature time series with the total (LSAT and SST) 95% confidence interval calculated in our study for annual mean temperature smoothed with LOWESS with 5-year bandwidth. Anomalies are calculated with respect to the 1951-1980 climatology.”
So it will, come as no great surprise that having done a 5 year low pass filter, information of less that 5 years will not be available.
“You are on rinse and repeat, no longer listening or debating honestly.”
You are also determined that decades of data will absolutely determine the future without acknowledging that recent data is also trending downwards (for now at least).
How long does a downward trend need to exist for it to become ‘statistically significant’ for you?
So will this coming month’s figures be higher/the same/lower than last month?
And the rest of the year?
“How long does a downward trend need to exist for it to become statistically significant for you?”
You asking that means you don’t understand what it means.
Statistical significance is not just for me.
“You asking that means you dont understand what it means.”
It means I was asking for clarification.
“nice plots, but can you report the statistical significance of your plots?”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-816366
You are also determined that decades of data will absolutely determine the future”
Nope never said any such thing.
“without acknowledging that recent data is also trending downwards (for now at least).”
The most recent 20 year trend for GISS is
0.217 plus-minus 0.113 deg C/dec.
So we can be confident of a positive trend over that period.
The most recent 5 year trend for GISS is
0.036 plus-minus o.798 deg C/dec.
The trend is about as likely to be positive as negative.
Willard is stuck at 1.
Richard can’t meet Bob’s question with his One Trick.
“The most recent 20 year trend for GISS is 0.217 plus-minus 0.113 deg C/dec.”
And the most recent 5 year trend for GISS is
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2016/trend
which equates to 0.09 plus-minus 0.054 deg C/dec. if I read GISS correctly.
Willard can’t get away from 1, ever.
“The most recent 20 year trend”
I was quoting the 5 year trend, not the 20.
Keep squirming, dummy.
“which equates to 0.09 plus-minus 0.054 deg C/dec. if I read GISS correctly.”
Where does this error bar come from? It cannot be that small.
You need to use 2016.5 as start because it ends at 2021.5
Cowtan uses a professional fit and cites references for the method, inclu error analysis.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
“plus-minus 0.054 deg C/dec. if I read GISS correctly.”
Where does this tiny error bar come from, RLH?
If you just made it up, that is quite disappointing.
that may actually be good, there are theoretical reasons to expect that the concentration of the convective rainfall may be a pat of an exceedingly powerful nonlinear negative feedback keeping our planet from warming despite the varying forcing. The model-assessed amounts of the hypothetical feedback are actually big enough to fully counter any realistic co2 increases; the ‘bad’ thing is that the feedback is nonlinear, and it seems to only turn on when surface air temperatures (hopefully the dth, not mean, im not sure about this) approach the tropical values 28-30C. See the works of the dr. allison wing, I hope don’t misrepresent her results too much.
Everything that does not kill you mutates and tries again.
Finally you’re gitting it. If the cow ever had a chance, it’d eat you and everyone you love.
To all the people interested in science, I recommend reading this:
The planetary spin and rotation period: A modern approach
A. I. Arbab, Saadia E. Salih, Sultan H. Hassan, Ahmed Agali, Husam Abubaker (2013)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.4720
Arbab is professor for Experimental Physics; his primary hobby is to help exoplanet observers.
*
It is not the first time I present the article on the blog, and thus I perfectly know that all dumb Ignoramuses denying the lunar spin evidently will reject it once more.
Doesn’t matter.
*
The article deals with an interesting link between microscopic and macroscopic world, from which it derives that it is possible to calculate the spin behavior of a celestial body without having knowledge of lots of its characteristics.
It’s a quick shot, but an impressing and beautiful one.
On page 15 you find the number computed by Arbab and his jounger colleagues.
J.-P. D.
binny…”The planetary spin and rotation period: A modern approach…”
***
You posted this already and, once again, it’s a load of theoretical bs. There is no comparison between the rotation of a rigid body and the theoretical spin of an atomic particle, the electron. No one know if an electron spins and its values are +1/2 and -1/2, whatever that means.
The spin of the electron is purely theoretical and was adopted to help explain the behavior of multi-electron atoms as opposed to Bohr’s hydrogen atom with 1 electron and one proton. Spin is quantum theory and it does not apply to the macro world.
Rotation of a rigid body has absolutely nothing in common with quantum spin and anyone who claims it has a relationship is a few bricks shy of a load.
Calling the rotation of the Moon, ‘spin’, in relationship to atomic particles spin is just plain stupid. And anyone who talks about exoplanets, none of which have ever been seen, is just as stupid.
> The spin of the electron is purely theoretical
Not sure what you mean by that, Gordo:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-evidence-that-spin-of-electron-exists
willard…”> The spin of the electron is purely theoretical
Not sure what you mean by that, Gordo:”
***
Electron spin is based purely on mathematical analysis. It is a quantum number, a number that has no counterpart in reality.
When Schrodinger applied differential equation theory to the wave equation, it was for quantum theory related to the hydrogen atom proposed by Bohr. Hydrogen has only one electron orbiting a proton, but the electron, according to Bohr, can jump from its ground state to several different energy levels.
It was theorized that the orbital containing the electron for hydrogen could accommodate only one more electron. When it is filled, you have helium, and another proton is added to the nucleus and also 2 neutrons.
With the next atoms in the series lithium, which has 3 electrons, 3 protons and 4 neutrons. Another orbital has to be added to the hydrogen model and it requires 8 electrons to fill it.
Note the juggling here between atomic number and atomic mass. The neutron was used because it has no charge but can juggle the mass.
A lot of this is smoke and mirrors no matter how much the article praises Dirac. He devised a purely theoretical mathematical equation to explain the varying properties of elements as the atomic number increased.
There are 4 basic quantum number:
…link picked at random, they really go into this theory in organic chemistry…
https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-quantum-number-604629
The quantum numbers describe the theoretical energy levels an electron can live at. Even though people have claimed to have measured this, it is simply not possible to observe or measure it directly. An electron cannot be followed to test its path, therefore quantum theory establishes probabilities in space for where the electron may be found. The probabilities appear as dotted regions shaped like a balloon in some cases.
The spin is just another theoretical addition in an attempt to make sense of atomic shapes. Atoms (elements) after hydrogen become increasingly more complex to describe and theories like spin were devised to explain the changing behavior between them.
Nothing at all to do with rotating rigid body theory.
I might add that using orbital filled with 2, or 8, or 18 electrons makes no sense to me after working in the field. I simply cannot conceive of 8 electrons orbiting a nucleus at the same time. The entire matter is a serious mystery.
Orbital is not a physical description of a real orbit. More a word used to describe the probability distribution of an electron around an atom.
> Electron spin is based purely on mathematical analysis.
My source tells me otherwise:
– The Periodic Table
– ferromagnets
– Electron paramagnetic resonance
– the Stern-Gerlach experiment
– the predictions of the Dirac equation
These are more than mathematical analyses.
willard…”> Electron spin is based purely on mathematical analysis.
My source tells me otherwise:”
***
My point is that no one has ever seen an atom, never mind an electron orbiting it. Even at that, we can measure the flow of electric charges that are carried by electrons. We can use the magnetic field produced by electrons running through a conductor to create an electric motor or transformer.
We can use quantum theory as the basis of electronics but its not required to apply electronics theory.
We don’t know how any of this works at the atomic level therefore the theories of how it works is all mathematical.
Actually, the formation of quantum theory is fascinating to me. The electron was discovered in the 1890s and Bohr used electron theory to form his model of the atom, as did Schroginger when he created the fundamental equation of quantum theory.
Bohr was actually investigating the emission and absorp-tion bands of electromagnetic energy from/into hydrogen. He must have realized that the electrons were emitting and absorbing the EM since he based his theory on electrons.
It was a stroke of genius for Bohr to imagine electrons being constrained to certain energy orbitals and that the hydrogen lines (emissions/absorp-tions) were related to the electron.
However, no matter how well his theory developed over the years, it is still theory. Pauling had to modify the theory to get the shapes of molecules. He knew their shapes roughly from x-ray studies and he modded Bohr and Schrodinger to make the math fit.
The Periodic Table is completely theoretical. It is based on what I stated in my last post, that each element in the table has so many electrons filling so many shells around each nucleus. No on has ever observed that.
Ferromagnetic resonance is measured using macro properties not the actual measurement of electron activity at the atomic scale. It uses microwaves which are created by magnetron and/or klystron tubes that have circular cavities wherein electrons are forced to spin at high resonant frequencies.
All we can do in microwave is measure the frequency of the EM given of by the electrons. No one has ever seen them spinning in the cavities.
With Stern-Gerlach, they PRESUMED electron spin produced the outcome they observed. No one has seen an electron close enough to see if it does spin or not.
You have to be careful with claims from quantum theory. As Feynman said, quantum theory works but no one knows why. It really doesn’t make sense and it may yet be a load of rubbish.
Wouldn’t be the first time a scientists arrived at the wrong theory for a phenomenon.
Like you said the PREDICTIONS of the Dirac theory. Although I know little about Dirac, I am suspicious that he used relativity theory, which is itself nothing but a collection of thought experiments.
I fear, Willard, that you give far too much credence to theory that has yet to see the light of day. Even though I have an intimate understanding of electronics, I take the theory with a grain of salt. I cannot imagine electrons running through a conductor from atomic valence band to atomic valence band.
Since electrons can carry heat as well as they carry electric charge, there is much to understand. That’s why heat travels quickly through a conductor and not an insulator, where electric charge is impeded as well.
Gordon can pretend that we don’t know about electrons and thus the origins of their spin rates. But we know about electrons and to pretend that we don’t is dishonest and foolish. Electrons are not point masses so have other forms of momentum, including quantized angular momentum. The experiments noted by Willard are reasonable proof enough.
No, leptons are not colored however, it’s just that the Pauli principle requires no violation so the imaginary color names were chosen to comply.
> My point is that no one has ever seen an atom
That does not mean that it’s a mathematical abstraction, however. No one has ever seen abstract concepts or even objects. We mostly perceive effects or particular objects, like when a billiard ball hits another on your snooker table.
That just means you’re a nominalist, a doctrine that has more consequences than you may wish to bargain for.
“My point is that no one has ever seen an atom”
Not quite true.
https://www.microscopemaster.com/images/Scanning_transmission_electron_microscopy_la07sr03mno.jpg
Gordon got stuck in 1913, with the Bohr model, it seems, for atomic physics.
Sure it is simple and therefore appealing to the masses. But not really correct.
He got stuck in 1900 for relativity.
Basically any 20th century science that got too complicated for him, is assumed to be wrong.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson said,
“The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you”
Robertson
Your answer was 100 % predictable.
You behave here, like everywhere, just like an ignorant, arrogant dumb ass.
You really don’t know anything (especially concerning the microscopic, let alone the macroscopic world).
You are the one who endlessly fills this blog with absolute bullshit.
What are you compared with guys like Arbab I. Arbab?
An old insignificant person…
J.-P. D.
“The spin of the electron is purely theoretical”
‘Spin’ is a term, not a physical action.
ball4…”No. Temperature does not follow the heat applied. Your statement does not make thermodynamic sense either”.
***
The first law sates that the sum of the external quantities of heat and work must equal the internal quantities of heat and work. Of course, according to Ball4, we must now rewrite the 1st law without reference to heat.
Temperature is a human invention which was invented to measure relative levels of heat. I am sick and tired of modernist, politically-correct fools trying to create a physical world in which gravity is not a force and heat does not exist. Wikipedia tries to avoid saying the word heat but in the end they are forced to use it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermometer
“Many empirical thermometers rely on the constitutive relation between pressure, volume and temperature of their thermometric material. For example, mercury expands when heated”.
then…
“That is to say, when a quantity of heat enters or leaves a body of the material, the material must expand or contract to its final volume or reach its final pressure and must reach its final temperature with practically no delay…”
They admit to a ‘quantity of heat’ but they cannot bring themselves to say that a thermometer measures relative levels of heat. Or, maybe they are just too stupid to get that reality.
In the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT, they are relating the pressure of a gas, it’s volume, the number of gas molecules, and the temperature of the gas. They are all related through the kinetic energy of the gas which depends on it pressure, that is, how many and how tightly packed the atoms/molecules might be.
Kinetic energy is not energy per se but a description of energy in motion. Which energy would that be???? Is it electrical energy? Nope. Chemical energy? Nope. Mechanical energy. Partly. Nuclear energy? Maybe.
The primary energy making it all work is thermal energy, aka heat. With heat, in a constant volume, that is no piston to compress the gas, the only factor that can change pressure and temperature with a constant number of atoms/molecules, is heat.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO CHANGE THE STATE OF A GAS IN A CONSTANT VOLUME WITH N = CONSTANT, OTHER THAN ADDING HEAT.
The T in PV = nRT is a reference to the relative level of thermal energy. Heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms when referring specifically to a gas. Boltzmann and Maxwell, who approched this statistically, claimed that temperature is the average kinetic energy of a gas.
The KE of the gas is heat!!!!!!!! There is no such phenomenon as KE it is a descriptor of ANY energy in motion. The energy is the phenomenon and atoms in motion have kinetic energy, otherwise known as heat. Kinetic means moving.
So, temperature is the average KE of atoms in a gas and the KE is heat. Therefore, according to Boltzmann and Maxwell, temperature is the average thermal energy (aka heat) of a gas.
“… must equal the internal quantities of heat and work.
The thing is, once the heat and work get internalized, there is no way to tell which is which; no way to tell where the energy came from. I could take a piston and compress it and then heat it — or heat it first and then compress it and get to exactly the same final pressure, temperature and volume. The first requires less work but more heat. This makes it pointless to talk about “internal heat” and “internal work”. They both just become indistinguishable “internal energy”.
If you insist on using archaic terminology, you could at least be consistent and shout:
“The KE of the gas is (internal heat + internal work)!!!!!!!!”
PS. Kinetic energy IS energy. It is just as real as chemical energy or electrical energy or nuclear energy. If KE is not energy, then conservation of energy is violated every time an object speeds up or slows down.
You might like the beginning of that video, Tim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly4S0oi3Yz8
Kiddo might like what happens around 2:00.
More precisely Gordon 6:53pm: The total KE of the gas molecules is a measure of the heat!!!!!!!! So, temperature is the average KE of atoms in a gas and a measure of the total constituent KE is Clausius’ heat. Therefore, according to Boltzmann and Maxwell, temperature is the average thermal KE energy (NOT aka heat) of a gas.
Gordon shouts incorrectly: “THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO CHANGE THE STATE OF A GAS IN A CONSTANT VOLUME WITH N = CONSTANT, OTHER THAN ADDING HEAT.”
To prove this wrong to Gordon (and that there is no heat in an object) place a few spoonfuls of water in a small empty plastic bottle filled with air. Let the water and air come into equilibrium with their surroundings and measure T with precision thermometer bulb in the water. Cap bottle. Shake it for all you are worth. Uncap and remeasure T. The water and thus the air in contact will have increased a fraction of a degree. If not, recap and shake harder, for longer.
Here is an example constant P,V,n in which the internal temperature increased without any heat being added. The air/water did not interact with surroundings at a higher temperature (the thick plastic bottle was well enough insulated). Work was done on the water at constant P, constant V, constant n, resulting in an increase in a measure of total KE of the constituent molecules of air and water.
Although shaking the bottle with some water in it does work on the contents, it would be difficult (~impossible) to specify the rate of working in terms of thermodynamic variables. The increase in U could in principle be measured before and after shaking (Q=0) then subtract to find integrated Wtotal but the integrand would be beyond reach.
Gordon, also the temperature increase in the bottle could have come from Q heating rate being nonzero having a component that results from interactions of molecules with radiation. Molecules both emit and absorb radiant energy to/from their surroundings & these processes are vital to the workings of our atm. that gravity has trapped in the big bottle of the Earth system.
ball4..”Molecules both emit and absorb radiant energy to/from their surroundings & these processes are vital to the workings of our atm.”
***
The fly in the ointment there is that the radiators make up only about 0.3% of the atmosphere. N2/O2 store heat but cannot radiate it away at terrestrial temperatures and they make up 99% of the atmosphere. Makes no sense to me that gases making up only 0.3% of the atmosphere control the heat levels.
GHGs can capture only about 5% of surface radiation, so how much of the heat converted to EM (IR) can they radiate away? The surface IR dissipates as the square of the distance and R. W. Wood, an expert on gases, claimed surface radiation would be diminished significantly within a few feet of leaving the surface.
Radiation to space seem like a highly inefficient way to dissipate surface heat. It is not taken very seriously in home heating/heat loss issues since the major focus is in slowing down heat loss by conduction.
I think the problem is far more complex and that many scientists have missed the boat on this. Would not surprise me if it is eventually discovered that very little EM, converted from surface heat, leaves the TOA, and that solar input merely maintains the Earth at it’s theorized +15C.
I can’t see a radiometer flying in a satellite being able to measure radiation at TOA. It would be far to low and they are likely to be measuring the more intense IR near the surface.
In other words, whatever causes the +15C does not need to radiate energy away, it is dissipated naturally within the system through gas expansion and replenished by incoming solar.
ball4…”Shake it for all you are worth”.
***
The scientist Joule got the same effect by inserting a small paddle in a container of water. By agitating the water molecules they produce heat. That’s how he arrived at the mechanical equivalent of heat. Note…’equivalent’, not the same units.
Besides, I specified a gas in a container, not a gas in a container with water. I was referring specifically to the Ideal Gas Law, which applies to gases and not to liquids like water.
I might have added to my statement, removing heat.
But how would you add heat? One way is to heat the container with a flame. The flame has highly agitated atoms/molcules with a much higher KE than the gas. The KE (aka heat) from the flame heats the container and it transfers the KE to the internal gas. That process is also a heat transfer.
Everyone seems to understand it is a heat transfer except Ball4. I think Tim may have sided with him along the way on heat.
“Everyone seems to understand it is a heat transfer except Ball4.”
Modern textbooks all agree that there is no heat in an object, Gordon, just like there is no work in an object.
So please properly explain (without resorting to inventing something paranormal) how heat that is NOT in an object can transfer out of that object to start not being in any other object?
If you follow Clausius’ logic, the measure of the total KE in an object reduces as some of the KE is transferred to a cooler object. The measure of the amount of total KE in the cooler object increases. KE can transfer but the measure of the amount of total KE in a solid object cannot transfer.
And this should begin to help Gordon understand how KE can transfer both ways in any process consistent with 2LOT as universe entropy always increases during the process.
Cool video.
There are a few places I would have encouraged him to use slightly different wording, but overall fun and informative.
tim…”This makes it pointless to talk about internal heat and internal work”
***
You should read Clausius on that since he devised the U in the 1st law. He claimed, before the discovery of the electron, that atoms in a substance vibrate according to the amount of heat in the body. The vibration is internal work and he claimed you can work out the internal heat by observing the macro heat and work.
I think it is ingenuous, if not misleading, to use the term internal energy, unless you mean it as he did, as the sum of internal heat and work.
I can’t stand the use of the word energy as a generic reference when speaking of a specific kind of energy. In climate science, when you confuse electromagnetic energy with thermal energy, it leads to serious misunderstandings, upon which catastrophic climate change is based.
The phrase energy in = energy out can be very misleading since it refers only to electromagnetic energy. Heat cannot leave the atomic world of which the Earth is comprised. However, heat can be dissipated internally in the atmosphere through expansion. Far more complicated than what is inferred.
I have read Clausius. So have innumerable other scientists. We all agree that he was brilliant. But we don’t appeal his authority, nor do we assume everything he wrote was infallible.
We recognize that he did amazing work … and then like all good science, we build on it and improve on it.
The problem, Tim, is commenters and text book authors play fast and loose inventing their own paranormal heat. To some including Clausius, heat is only a measure of amount of KE. To some, heat is a rate Q. Confusing readers & with authors even switching from amount to rate on one page to the next.
It is easy to deal with, just eliminate the term, it is never needed & increases precision if not used.
In thermodynamics, “heat” involves motion. That is, energy is “moving”. So a glass of water does not have “heat”. It has “thermal energy”. I don’t even like to use KE, because that is confusing. “Thermal energy” is easy to understand. You can measure the thermal energy in a glass of water.
Think of “heat” as involving motion, or even a physical distance. To have “heat”, there must be a “come from” place and a “go to” place. “Heat” is TRANSFER of energy.
Thermometers, local and remote sensing, measure ‘thermal energy’ then.
RLH,
Do they really? I thought they were supposed to measure temperature.
What units do you measure “thermal energy” in? Degrees of “heat”?
Seems a bit odd.
The question is then ‘is thermal energy related to temperature’?
In the conservation of letters game, shorten the term for U from therm-odynamic intern-al energy to thermal energy.
Substitute the long form back when a commenter seems to have erroneously used the short form in thermodynamics for U = thermal energy in which the PE term has been assumed not of interest and eliminated to mean a U of interest consisting of constituent KE only i.e. thermal energy.
Temperature is a measure of the avg. constituent KE at the measurement site so if by “related” is meant KE is used in both terms defn. for thermal energy U and temperature T, then, fine, thermal energy is related to temperature, by KE.
Prof. Mark Zemansky, a noted teacher of thermodynamics, long ago asserted thermal energy is “most” ambiguous term employed by writers on the subject (after misuse of heat) so with those expert words published it is best to abandon use of that term too.
“thermal energy is related to temperature, by KE.”
So if KE goes up, temperatures rise also. As does thermal energy.
5:33am, so if avg. KE goes up at the measurement location, temperature measured there rises also. There is not necessarily an increase in total constituent KE (thermal) energy.
tim…” Kinetic energy IS energy”.
***
I have beaten this to death by now but the kinetic in kinetic energy simply means the described energy is in motion. As opposed to that, potential energy means the energy is at rest.
The reason I have beaten it to death is because people like yourself insist on using the term KE without specifying the energy that is in motion.
Same with internal energy. Which energy is internal? If you fail to specify, you can end up confusing the energies and giving certain energy properties it does not have.
For example, some people have claimed that a heat transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it does not contravene the 2nd law as long as the balance of the energies is positive.
The blance of which energies?????
You cannot sum electromagnetic energy and thermal energy to satisfy the 2nd law. Only a sum of thermal energies satisfies the 2nd law. In that respect, a transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface contradicts the 2nd law.
Specify your energy!!!
When I talk about the KE of atoms, I mean it in two ways, both involving motion. One is the angular velocity of the electron in a particular energy orbital. It’s kinetic energy changes from orbital to orbital and the overall effect is an increase or decrease in heat for a mass.
The other is the velocity of atoms in a gas. KE = 1/2mv^2 in both cases.
If you want to claim the energy involved is a mysterious energy that is unnamed, I disagree. The KE of atoms is heat, although it could be claimed to be pressure as well. However, pressure is another human invention that refers to the sum of the individual atoms/molecules of a gas striking the walls of a container.
The point is that in a container of a specific volume, with a fixed number of atoms/molecules, it is the addition or subtraction of heat that changes the parameters. No way to change pressure without adding more molecules of gas or decreasing the volume. Hence the T in PV=nRT is a direct measure of the heat added or removed.
“In that respect, a transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface contradicts the 2nd law.”
Heat (and work) does not exist in the cooler atm. object so how can heat transfer out to anywhere Gordon? And EMR is not heat. Energy in the form of KE and EMR exists in the constituents of the cooler atm. and can transfer out.
The measure of the total amount of KE in the cooler atm. will reduce when radiation is emitted and that radiation can go to space or be absorbed, transmitted, or scattered by any other matter at any temperature.
B,
You wrote –
“Energy in the form of KE and EMR exists in the constituents of the cooler atm. and can transfer out.”
Nonsense. Unless you believe that reducing KE and EMR causes an increase in temperature!
Of course, idiots who believe in a GHE, but cannot find it, measure it, or even describe it, are likely to believe anything.
I suppose you are stupid enough to believe that the Earth is hotter than it “should be”, are you? Maybe you could tell me how hot the Earth “should have been” when the average temperature was over 373 K, before the first liquid water appeared?
Or now. What’s the matter – stuck for words?
Maybe you need to pray for guidance, dummy.
Mike Flynn,
This is not about Doritos.
I know you love Doritos.
Next time we have the Doritos conversation, you’ll know.
Cheers.
Earth is as hot as it should be Swenson.
It was screenname Mike Flynn that did not think so & could not find the readily available GHE defn., but Mike got banned since this blog is not a comedy channel. You should try harder to not be as laughingly stupid as was Mike.
What’s the matter is Swenson stuck for basic physics knowledge? Seems so. That can be cured, being stupid however cannot.
Gordon,
Unfortunately there is a problem with this statement, may be more than one, definitely more than one.
“When I talk about the KE of atoms, I mean it in two ways, both involving motion. One is the angular velocity of the electron in a particular energy orbital. It’s kinetic energy changes from orbital to orbital and the overall effect is an increase or decrease in heat for a mass.”
An electron in an orbital actually has negative energy, or there is that fact that you need to add energy to remove the electron from its orbital.
So what you are saying is as you add energy to the electron in its orbit, it moves faster and faster as it goes to higher and higher orbits, until you add just enough energy to ionize the atom and the electron leaves and has no kinetic energy.
Hmmm, me thinks you are out of your wheelhouse.
b,
You wrote –
“An electron in an orbital actually has negative energy, or there is that fact that you need to add energy to remove the electron from its orbital.”
I don’t believe you even have a wheelhouse to be out of.
Swenson,
Not familiar with Chemistry I take it.
Swenson, you do seem a bit confused. The bohr model calculates the energy levels for Hydrogen as
E = – (13.6 eV)/n^2
Bound orbits — whether electrons or planets — are always negative energy. There is some KE, be even larger negative potential energy.
Tim,
b wrote –
“An electron in an orbital actually has negative energy . . .
A convenient fiction, accounting for certain peculiarities of quantum physics. Something like the square root of minus one is widely used, but doesn’t exist! Any negative number multiplied by itself becomes positive. Imaginary numbers are extremely useful, even though they are – imaginary!
As to planetary orbital “bound energy” being negative, this is a convenient fiction, involving, once again, arbitrary reference points.
Nobody has yet found any exceptions to the conservation of energy. Energy just is.
How are you going finding a description of the GHE, anyway?
Mike Flynn,
Do you believe that numbers exist?
“involving, once again, arbitrary reference points.”
Its pretty clear you are simply being a contrarian here.
Everything in physics involves some sort of “arbitrary reference points”. But the standard for gravitational (and electrostatic) potential is that for two objects far apart, the potential energy is zero. This is pretty intuitive — if two objects are far apart and not exerting any force on each other, then they are not interacting and have no potential energy. Like an unstretched spring exerting no forces has no potential energy.
Read any physics textbook. Or take it up with Bohr, who very clearly calculated negative energies for bound electrons. Or just keep contradicting anything and everything just for fun.
” For example, some people have claimed that a heat transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it does not contravene the 2nd law as long as the balance of the energies is positive. ”
Robertson invents all the time; if necessary, he even invents what people tell.
No one has ever claimed that ” a heat transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it does not contravene the 2nd law “.
That is one more of Robertson’s eternal lies.
What Clausius said in 1887 is that energy can flow from a colder object to a warmer one as it can flow from the warmer object to the colder one; but he stated that the result of both flows always denotes an energy transfer from the warmer to the colder object.
J.-P. D.
Clausius statement:
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.
Ken
Your knowledge about Clausius is exactly equal to that of Robertson. This is not a compliment.
*
What is called the second law of Thermodynamics, has been stated as a principle (but was never proved) by Rudolf Clausius in an article entitled
Ueber eine veraenderte Form des zweiten Hauptsatzes der mechanischen Waermetheorie
i.e.
On a modified form of the second fundamental theorem of the mechanical theory of heat
published 1854 in Annalen der Physik und Chemie Band XCIII Nr 12, pp. 481-506.
To be found in e.g.
http://zfbb.thulb.uni-jena.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/jportal_derivate_00140956/18541691202_ftp.pdf
The exact text (in p. 488) is:
Dieser Grundsatz, auf welchem die ganze folgende Entwickelung beruht, lautet: es kann nie Waerme aus einem kaelteren in einen waermeren Koerper uebergehen, wenn nicht gleichzeitig eine andere damit zusammenhaengende Aenderung eintrift.
i.e.
This principle on which the whole following development is based is: heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another change associated herewith simultaneously happens.
*
But this was not Clausius’ only statement about all that!
*
People always referring to Clausius very first statement mostly ignore his deep knowledge concerning radiation. Here is an example of this knowledge:
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
Braunschweig, 1887
ABSCHNITT XII.
Die Concentration von Waerme- und Lichtstrahlen und die Grenzen ihrer Wirkung.
1. Gegenstand der Untersuchung.
…
Was ferner die in gewoehnlicher Weise stattfindende Waermestrahlung anbetrifft, so ist es freilich bekannt, dass nicht nur der warme Koerper dem kalten, sondern auch umgekehrt der kalte Koerper dem warmen Waerme zustrahlt, aber das Gesammtresultat dieses gleichzeitig stattfindenden doppelten Waermeaustausches besteht, wie man als erfahrungsmaessig feststehend ansehen kann, immer darin, dass der kaeltere Koerper auf Kosten des waermeren einen Zuwachs an Waerme erfaehrt.
i.e.
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
…
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
…
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
J.-P. D.
JD, you seem to want to argue with Ken, but Ken got it right.
Clint R
Thanks for confirming that you are permanently fixated on your contrarian denialism.
Your trivial opinion does not interest me at all.
J.-P. D.
Some people want to ignore that “some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
All of the time.
I’ll put them down in the quoting half a law camp.
JD, your aversion to reality is amazing.
“but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well,”
Clint disagrees with Clausius.
Hmmm, I wonder who is more likely to be right?
Global space economy swells in spite of the pandemic
by Debra Werner — August 23, 2021
https://spacenews.com/space-report-2021-space-symposium/
{{ Linked from: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/ }}
COLORADO SPRINGS – The overall space economy expanded 4.4 percent to $447 billion in 2020 with more nations participating than ever before, according to the Space Foundation’s updated Space Report.
Earlier, Ball4 wrote –
“Modern textbooks all agree that there is no heat in an object, . . . ”
On the other hand –
” . . . the degree or intensity of heat present in a substance or object, especially as expressed according to a comparative scale and shown by a thermometer or perceived by touch”. – Oxford Languages.
Tricky stuff, heat.
Maybe somebody equally as stupid as Ball4 would agree that “Moden textbooks all agree . . . “, but I assume that Ball4 just makes his nonsense up as he goes, hoping nobody will ask him a list of every modern textbook in the world, and how he managed to read them all.
Ball4 just lies. Fantasy, not fact.
Mike Flynn,
Makeshift Flutist.
Swenson,
Terribly confused again, a dictionary, even from Oxford is not a textbook.
Swenson, no object contains a degree or an intensity to transfer out. I’ll assume you are dumb, not stupid, but I’m not entirely sure. Good thing Mike Flynn was banned due to silly, misguided comments like yours.
Carry on, the laughs are free.
Ball4
Swenson IS Mike Flynn.
It is easy to deduce that from the similarity of the comments posted under these two pseudonyms.
At the beginning, Swenson managed to avoid this, but when you suddenly see in a Swenson comment something like ‘put CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer’, then… tout est clair, n’est-ce pas?
J.-P. D.
And if he had been banned, his pseudonym would have been rejected, like it was for Do-ug Cot-ton etc.
Swenson could be a very adept disciple of the infamous seriously physics deficient Mike Flynn. All you can be sure is the screenname Mike Flynn has disappeared from the blog likely banned.
And of course, you should know who sophist DREMT & Clint R really are after their other screen names were likely banned quite a while ago, just sayin’. Sock puppets do the strangest imitations of the puppet masters.
Now return to our regularly scheduled comedy show…that sometimes has a science based commercial break.
I have never been banned.
True, DREMT screenname is still here unbanned. It was earlier screenname of the DREMT puppet master not posting here anymore.
I have never been banned. What name do you believe I used to post under?
What was your previous nick, Kiddo?
Haven’t had one here.
That better be right, Kiddo.
What’s it to you? You don’t call people by their screen names anyway.
We see too much censorship of science. I’m glad Dr. Spencer allows an open forum.
I guess you could make a case against the profanity of bobdroege, or the never-ending effort of Willard and RLH to attract attention to their blogs.
But even those antics are viewed by the public, and easily discerned.
Reality always wins.
You’re not doing science, Pup.
You’re just trolling.
“I guess you could make a case against the profanity of bobdroege, or the never-ending effort of Willard and RLH to attract attention to their blogs.”
Stop guessing, Pup.
Start making.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Clint R,
I save the profanity for those fucking posters who insult other posters.
“I often state that you idiots have NOTHING.”
If you didn’t insult people I wouldn’t have to use profanity.
bob, you are regularly insulting.
–RLH says:
August 25, 2021 at 2:51 AM
“Bobs point was that you cant know that there is less energy in the system just by looking at your pet thermometer for the shortest period justified disingenuousness can buy.”
Bob-s point was to ignore the fact that the thermometers show that month on month this year is cooler than last. And somehow conclude that the heat must be hiding somewhere as it wasn’t showing up in them.–
Heat is hiding.
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. ”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
As I said, global air temperature is proxy for Earth average temperature.
So, we living in an Ice Age. Ice Ages have low CO2 levels, 400 ppm is low CO2 levels.
We living in interglacial period called the Holocene, our Holocene was much warmer, more than 5000 years ago.
Whenever any interglacial is warmer, one has more water vapor [because the ocean is warmer]. And warm interglacial period don’t have a dry Sahara Desert, instead it’s has more grasslands and forests. More than 5000 years ago, the Sahara desert had more grasslands and forests.
If we get warmer, the Sahara desert will have more grassland and forests. Or if we cause the Sahara desert to have more grassland and forest, it will cause some global warming.
But we are currently recovering from the coolest period in thousands of years, and this period though it’s not clear about when it began, but most tend agree it ended around 1850 AD, is called the Little Ice Age, and some thought it was going to be the beginning of the next glaciation period. Fortunately, it appears, it wasn’t. But when glaciation period “starts” is not clear, one could say it started over 5000 years ago, as we have constant cooling since then. But if the global glaciers worldwide, had continued to advance, rather start retreating as they did start retreating around 1850 AD. Then it could have seemed more believable that we were entering a glaciation period.
BUT glaciation period are more about the ocean temperature, rather glaciers. Or glaciers like air temperature is a proxy.
And since we call it, a glaciation period, there is the focus on glaciers.
But warm and cold periods, are connected to ocean temperature. And ocean temperatures did drop during the Little Ice Age. And have risen since that time. And there is no evidence that ocean are going to start cooling anytime soon. BUT there is also no evidence our ocean will warm up to ocean temperatures we had earlier in our Holocene period. There was idiots saying we would have a ice free arctic ocean, and there is idiots saying it will happen, soon. If we had an ice free Arctic for several years, that would be evidence of it beginning to be as warm as more than 5000 years ago.
But in meantime, we remain at average global air temperature of about 15 C, and an ocean with average ocean temperature of about 3.5 C.
We can’t leave this Ice Age, we could have warming temperatures as we have had earlier in the Holocene and in other interglacial periods.
But so far, it doesn’t look promising that this could occur, soon.
in the past.
We don’t have a global warming problem. We have a global cooling problem.
I agree. AMOC is incipient disaster.
I can hardly wait to see XR freeze their asses off.
It’s a bit more complex than that:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/34/13/JCLI-D-20-0572.1.xml
The sea ice at both poles has been at high levels. Arctic sea ice is making a nice recovery so far.
Not really
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
Look up Beaufort Gyre. Ice age is imminent.
Wanna bet?
What currency do you think will remain viable in such an event?
Whatever the Snowpiercer accepts.
That Willard cannot tell fiction from fact should come as no surprise to anyone.
Are you on the spectrum, Richard?
No. I have something a lot faster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Spectrum
That Richard can’t stop squireling should come as no surprise to anyone.
1.
NATURE
For The First Time, a Tortoise Has Been Filmed Going in For The Kill… Very Slowly
https://www.sciencealert.com/for-the-first-time-a-tortoise-has-been-filmed-going-in-for-the-kill-very-slowly
Was it a woke turtle?
Are vegans going to start eating meat.
{they probably have already been eating meat but not, filmed, yet}
{linked from https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/ }
I only eat beef from vegan cows.
For the last 40 years the entire realm of science and academia is controlled by government funding , the money being dolled out is for political agendas, not for science
https://youtu.be/lyXAPG4Xh5M
Ur very gullible.
And ur a leftist.
Better a leftist than an anarchist
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-814178
You cannot add up fluxes any more than than you cannot add up temperatures, If you could the universe would be in eternal Big Bang state.
I know this is hard to grasp by those who hang on snippets from 200 hundred years old books while not having any understanding of basic fixzzix themselves, but the universe is protected from idiotic ideas like this because unlike these ignorants whoever designed this universe knew what he was doing.
https://youtu.be/A8LRxIANzQs
Temperatures are states, fluxes are rates.
You cannot add up states, but you can add up rates.
“…but you can add up rates.”
Oh that’s funny, Ent.
In your nonsense, two runners that can run a mile in 4 minutes, tied together, could run it in 2 minutes!
You might want to rethink that one.
Fluxes don’t add, except in very special cases. You’re still wanting to boil water with ice cubes.
Do you even dimension analysis, Pup?
Let’s apply your logic. Buy a can of any soda you like. Take the quarter of it and add it to a bottle sparkling water. Repeat as long as there is soda in your can.
That should give you four bottles of soda, right? At the very least it would. But you can actually repeat the process with each bottle you have. In the end you won’t have to buy soda anymore.
Try the experiment. Thank me later.
Dud must misrepresent me, because he’s got NOTHING.
Since he trolls constantly, he will be spouting some more nonsense, but I won’t respond.
Show me the misrepresentation, Pup.
Until then you got NOTHING.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“In your nonsense, two runners that can run a mile in 4 minutes, tied together, could run it in 2 minutes!”
Clint is the winner of the faulty-analogy race!
https://www.thoughtco.com/false-analogy-fallacy-1690850
His favorite way of dodging analysis of the real physics, which he always fails at.
“In your nonsense, two runners that can run a mile in 4 minutes, tied together, could run it in 2 minutes! ”
Silly Clint, not an appropriate use of the analogy.
Two runners set off in opposite directions around the track. Half a lap later they approach each other. Each is running at fifteen mph.
Their closing speed is 15+15=30mph.
That’s funny Ent.
But the runner’s rates aren’t changing.
You idiots are so good at perversion. It’s too bad you don’t use your skills at something constructive.
That’s funny Ent.
But the runner’s rates aren’t changing.
You idiots are so good at perversion. It’s too bad you don’t use your skills at something constructive.
That’s funny, Pup.
You’re repeating yourself more than usual.
My favorite word problem of all time.
If one wombat can dig a tunnel in 4 hours, and another wombat can dig the same tunnel in 3 hours, how long does it take both wombats to dig the tunnel if they start from opposite ends?
Or using runners, if one runner can run a mile in 4 minutes, another runner can run a mile in 5 minutes, how long before they meet if they start from opposite ends of a 1 mile long track?
Willard, bob, please stop trolling.
Show me the math – by adding fluxes from ice cubes lets say 10x10x10 centimeters – how many it will take to boil a cup of tea ?
You guys love Strawmen! No scientist has suggested that is a way to boil tea.
But given the right geometry, where flux emitted by two or more sources is hitting the same spot, their fluxes indeed add.
Just as multiple lights at football games do add and make the 50 yard line brighter than if only one light were used.
Yes you can add flux from a light bulb filament at 5000 degrees to a football field at 70 degrees , but you cannot add flux in the opposite direction,
You are too dumb to even grasp the subject of the debate
“Your are too dumb”
Projection much, Eben?
“Yes you can add flux from a light bulb filament at 5000 degrees to a football field at 70 degrees”
Yes good.
“but you cannot add flux in the opposite direction”
Ever heard of the radiative heat transfer equation??
It says that radiant flux is emitted by both cold and warm surfaces. And it is the NET of emitted and received by a surface that matters.
NET means SUM UP.
Don’t have to believe me.
I’ll let Clausius, the discoverer of Thermodynamics explain it:
“What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.”
Let me know when you figure out how many of those ice cubes fluxes it will take to add up
Lame…
You’re Gonna Need Bigger Ice cubes
https://i.postimg.cc/VNmdvzH8/ice.jpg
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
A new study published by the Royal Society said sea stars are getting close to extinction as waters along the west coast, including in California and Mexico, warm faster because of climate change.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8139010/climate-change-wiping-out-billions-of-sea-stars-study/
willard…”A new study published by the Royal Society…”
***
The Royal Society are a load of royal losers. One of their fellows, Neil Ferguson, created the current hysteria over covid by publishing a paper based on an unvalidated computer model in which he predicted disaster unless countries locked down. He has not even been close with his predictions since 2002, yet idiot politicians rushed to lockdowns based on his idiocy.
The Royal Society are climate alarmists. In the past, some engineers belonging to the RS forced them to back down on their alarmists statements about climate change.
Dr. Johan Gieseke, an epidemiologists and advisor to the WHO, claimed about Ferguson’s paper…”…most influential paper…and the most wrong”. Yet the US, Canada, the UK, and most of Europe took action based on his faulty paper.
Some of Ferguson’s predictions…
Canada…predicted 326,100 deaths by March 26, 2020
……actual number 5,169 by May 12, 2020
US…predicted 2,654,000 deaths by March 26, 2020
……actual number 83,718 by May 12, 2020
UK…predicted 600,000 deaths by March 26, 2020
……actual number 32,692 by May 12, 2020
Sweden…predicted 85,000 deaths by March 26, 2020
……actual number 3,313 by May 12, 2020
***
Past history…
-predicted 150,000 deaths from mad cow disease
…actual deaths 2,704
-predicted 65,000 deaths from swine flu (UK only)
…actual deaths 457
-predicted 200,000,000 deaths from bird flu
…actual deaths 455
This guy is a menace who should be in jail, along with the rest of the Royal Society…except for the engineers.
Maybe doing what he suggested reduced the number of fatalities.
His prediction was based on no lockdowns, we did lockdowns.
Focus, Gordo.
Sea stars. COVID. Not the same areas of research.
The world has indeed been cooling for the last few months/years.
The recent linear trends of UAH show this.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
Get over it.
And if you think that just the satellite series do this
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2020/trend
See also
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2019/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2016/trend
And
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2020/trend
Still no test.
Can you see the graphs?
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
1.
Billions of sea stars will appreciate your luckwarm minimization, dummy.
Well if you can’t handle facts….
Irrelevant curve fitting does not need to be handled.
How are linear trend curve fitting?
https://statisticsbyjim.com/regression/curve-fitting-linear-nonlinear-regression/
So that means (pun) all use of linear trends is curve fitting.
Well if you can’t handle facts…
1.
Every study on sea temperatures is indicating temperatures are not rising and some show cooling. The entire record is showing temperature changes on the order of 0.1C over time.
I can go to the local beach and show you healthy star fish living in waters that change considerably more than that every day.
Star fish might be dying off California and Mexico but the cause isn’t warming seas.
Ken
” Every study on sea temperatures is indicating temperatures are not rising and some show cooling. ”
*
Can you show me these studies?
Here is HadSST3, one of the best known sea temperature series, made without interpolation (what automatically leads to an underestimate, especially for sea surface):
1. 1850-now
https://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:1850/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1850/trend
Trend: 0.05 C / decade
2. 1950-now
https://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:1950/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1950/trend
Trend: 0.09 C / decade
3. 1979-now
https://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:1979/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/trend
Trend: 0.14 C / decade
4. 2010-now
https://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:2010/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2010/trend
Trend: 0.22 C / decade
*
What will you tell me, Ken?
Will you say, like the ignorant Robertson, who discredits and denigrates everything what differs from his egomaniac ideas, that the data coming from Hadley is ‘fudged’ ?
J.-P. D.
testing…
Three comments have not made it to post. Only the testing comment has gone through. Wonder why?
goldminor…”Three comments have not made it to post. Only the testing comment has gone through. Wonder why?”
1)certain letter combinations like d*c (without the asterisk) and p*t. Example absorp*tion won’t post unless you include an asterisk between p and t. Had*crut is the same. So, is NCD*C.
2)Break your post into smaller sections till one section posts. Try another and another until one fails to post. Then narrow it down to find the error. It’s usually related to some of the letter combinations above.
Thanks, I never had this problem before.
tim…”1) We must assume you mean “internal energy” = U in these statements, not “heat” = Q. If you are going to discuss thermodynamics, you should use the standard terminology”.
***
What kind of energy makes up internal energy, Tim? According to you it is some kind of mysterious energy no one has ever encountered.
Clausius claimed internal energy, U, is made up of internal heat and work. That’s a no-brainer. Atomic nucleii in a lattice are bonded by electrons. The bonds are produced by positive and negative forces wherein the positive nucleii repel each other and the negatively charge electrons orbiting the nucleii pull them together. So, you have a spring-like arrangement where the bond tends to vibrate.
If you cool the lattice, the bonds vibrate less, and as you heat the lattice, they vibrate more aggressively with increasing temperature (heat). That vibration is work since it represents forces moving masses over a distance (w = fd).
Clausius was not privy to the interaction of electrons and the nucleii because he died just before the electron was discovered. Still, he had the intelligence to intuit the nature of atoms in a lattice, vis-a-vis vibration and work. And he was well versed in the relationship between heat and work.
You keep calling me an egotist. How about stifling your own ego and go read what Clausius had to say about internal energy?
So, we have two factors making up internal energy, heat and work. Straight from Clausius. What did you think internal energy meant?
Clausius coined the U in internal energy. What’s with modernists taking the work of others and redefining it without provided scientific proof that the original is wrong? Modern scientists take liberties with entropy, another invention of Clausius. He defined it exactly as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat in a process. The nonsense presented as entropy by modernists suggests they have no idea what it is.
“According to you it [internal energy] is some kind of mysterious energy no one has ever encountered.”
Nope — no mystery! Frankly, I don’t understand how you can be confused about this, since it is clearly described in every thermo text.
This internal energy (also commonly called ‘thermal energy’) is the sum of the translational, vibrational, and rotational energy at an atomic level. (These are measured relative to the COM of the object so simply moving an entire box of gas at 100 m/s does not make it any hotter than a stationary box of gas.)
Conversely, you are the one using ‘mysterious energy no one as ever encountered”. If I give you a box of gas or a block of copper how would you measure the “internal heat” and the “internal work”? You could try a 2 liter container that has Helium at 300 K and 2 atm pressure. What is the value of the the “internal work”? What is the value of the the “internal heat”? If later the container is 400 K and 1.33 L and 4 atm, how much has the “internal work” changed? How much as the “internal” heat” changed? Show your work.
Sea ice report, 26 08 21 11h15 UTC+2
Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
Global
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
In July I told the sea ice in the Arctic:
” Don’t disappoint your friends at Roy’s blog! Go UP ”
You see the result? Am I not a good trainer?
But… I give you a hint: wait till end of October to really enjoy.
J.-P. D.
And I thought we had to wait for the year end (or longer) before we can draw conclusions.
And I thought that depends on the data we observe.
But… who knows?
Maybe the drop shifts once more to the right, so we have to wait till November.
Oh dear.
Temps at the South Pole were around 10 degrees colder this winter than in previous winters. That extra cold will have greater consequence as it will affect ocean temps.
Arctic sea ice extent and volume are likely going to continue at higher levels as the upper atmospheric layers are cooling a bit early. Looks like the volume for the Arctic hasreached its low point last month.
For those who adore the golden calf nicknamed “Grand Solar Minimum” and regularly tell us that the sun is “asleep” again, here is a graphic with a daily comparison, since January 2008, of
– the Sun spot numbers
– the Sun spot free day sequences (counts appear at the sequences’ end)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erYi1N1I71i95n0emPcbLoyR7y7MXzF4/view
Source
https://tinyurl.com/4wamabzx (thanks, tinyURL)
It is interesting to note, however, that there were, during the last two hundred years, only 20 spotless day sequences with at least 40 days:
1821 6 14 40
1822 2 15 53
1822 7 22 43
1822 10 23 80
1822 12 29 66
1823 3 13 73
1823 5 10 55
1855 10 2 49
1856 6 2 41
1878 5 21 47
1878 10 29 45
1879 4 11 54
1901 5 19 69
1902 1 5 40
1902 3 2 45
1902 5 5 49
1912 3 4 43
1913 7 9 92
1996 10 25 42
2019 12 24 40
and that there were only two during the last hundred years.
The sequence in 1821/23 is impressing.
But… what does that mean exactly? No se!
” The sequence in 1821/23 is impressing. ”
That was during the Dalton Minimum:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png
It means sun is less active and that means less energy is reaching earth from the sun. The upper atmosphere cools and shrinks due to reduced UV. Wilder wavier Jet Stream and resulting wilder weather. Cooling if it goes on long enough.
There is discusses galactic cosmic rays causing clouds. Lower solar wind means more galactic cosmic rays and more clouds and cooler climate.
There is also interesting discussion about electromagnetic connection between earth and sun and the impact on climate.
The more I read about the solar impacts the less I accept the CO2 fairy dust theory.
Ken
I understand and respect your meaning, but…
” It means sun is less active and that means less energy is reaching earth from the sun. ”
Where do you get THAT from?
Here is a comparison of the first years of the previous solar cycle SC24 with the same years of the current SC25:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pxfx7f-aQv-wlMD-DotDT8e7LfX9_tKL/view
You should not compare the stuff about e.g. spotless days with Sun’s real activity.
There is indeed a strong correlation between SC transitions and increasing spotless day sequences, but one the transition completes, you see that the spotless sequences strongly diminish.
*
” Wilder wavier Jet Stream and resulting wilder weather. ”
Where is your evidence that this can only be due to a low solar activity?
There are other opinions which merit your attention as well, for example:
https://www.air-worldwide.com/blog/posts/2020/4/climate-change-and-a-wavier-jet-stream/
*
” The more I read about the solar impacts the less I accept the CO2 fairy dust theory. ”
To that I can only say I’m not competent to discuss it.
I read years ago in my native tongue a document which explained a lot to me:
https://tinyurl.com/rn82xras
It’s a pity that the document wasn’t translated in English.
J.-P. D.
One paper started my thinking along the path of solar activity and the effect it has on climate.
https://fsu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fsu:182212/datastream/PDF/view
Ken
Thanks for the paper, stored.
I’ll read it when a get some idle time for.
J.-P. D.
I think that the effects of this solar change can be seen in my garden as well as in this county I live in. I had expected the garden and fruit trees to produce better this season being that the minimum had ended. Many people in the cou7nty have said that their tomatoes won’t ripen this year. Back before the 1980s most people didn’t even try to grow tomatoes in Trinity County.
My figs are only now just ripening. That is over one month late.The dwarf peach trees had a lot of fruit, but the fruit is much smaller than usual. I have a few Roma tomatoes which have green fruit, but no ripe ones yet. Something has changed in nature. It has been a bit cooler over this summer to date, especially for night time temps.
Earth, Moon and Mars – two very important observations – conclusions
We are ready now to make two very important observations.
1. Moon and Mars
Moon’s satellite measured Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K
Mars’ satellite measured Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
These two observed temperatures on the different planets (Mars and Moon) are very close.
The solar flux on Moon is So = 1.361 W/m².
The solar flux on Mars is S.mars = 586,4 W/m².
Thus we observe here that there can be planets with different solar irradiation fluxes, and yet the planets may have (for equal albedo) the same mean surface temperatures.
So we may have:
Many planets with different solar irradiation fluxes, and yet the planets may have (for equal albedo) the same mean surface temperatures.
Conclusion:
Many different solar fluxes (for equal albedo) can create the same mean surface temperatures.
2. Moon and Earth
Moon’s satellite measured Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K
Earth’s satellite measured Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K
These two observed temperatures on the different planets (Moon and Earth) are very different.
The solar flux on Moon is So = 1.361 W/m².
The solar flux on Earth is So = 1.361 W/m².
Thus we observe here that there can be planets with the same solar irradiation fluxes, and yet the planets may have (for equal albedo) very different mean surface temperatures.
So we may have:
Many planets with the same solar irradiation fluxes, and yet the planets may have (for equal albedo) different mean surface temperatures.
Conclusion:
Many different global temperature distributions (for equal albedo) can balance the same solar flux.
These two very important observations – conclusions lead us to the discovery of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If someone else has a different theory, I’m all ears.
ipcc.ch
There you have it Christos. Willard has offered the Planet Earth IAEBU (IS AN EXCEPTION BELIEVE US) GHE Warming Phenomenon.
There’s no exception about the Earth, Troglodyte.
Christos still misrepresents emissivity, and he pwns gullible folks like you.
“Im all ears.”
Hasn’t been evident so far.
Willard, please stop trolling.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
The melting of ice from glaciers and landmasses such as Greenland and Antarctica is causing the Earth’s crust to warp slightly, a new study suggests.
As ice sheets and glaciers melt across the globe and water is redistributed to global oceans, the Earth’s crust is liberated from the overlying weight and lifts up, said the research published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters last week.
This melting could generate a complex pattern of three-dimensional (3D) motions at the Earth’s surface, even in places over 1,000 kilometres away from the ice loss, according to the scientists behind the study, including Sophie Coulson from Harvard University in the US.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/glacier-melting-earth-crust-climate-change-b1908375.html
Except for the last few months/years the globe’s air temperatures have been cooling, not warming.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
Also
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2020/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2019/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2016/trend
“Except”
1.
The land here is rising faster than sea levels are rising. The continental ice sheets melted some 10 000 years ago and the land continues to rebound.
The problem of ice melt at Antarctic is ridiculous. You need temperatures that are 10C before there is significant melting. Its pretty rare to find a day above 0C anywhere Antarctic. Ice isn’t melting.
Its pretty much the same issue at Greenland. Sure, lots of minor melting in summer but ice accumulation in winter makes up for it.
–Looks like glaciers are growing on Mount Kilimanjaro
June 15, 2018 by Robert
Mount Kilimanjaro is now covered by snow in an unusually long stint attributed to the long rains from January to May this year.
Kilimanjaro National Park Chief Park Warden, Ms Bertita Loibooki told the Daily News yesterday that the observed snow on the mountains highest peak plays an important role in protection of glacier from sublimation.
The snow plays a key role in protecting glacier from melting, Ms Loibooki further said.–
Some were predicting ice would gone by 2020, now some predicting by 2030.
“Kilimanjaros Rebmann Glacier part of the fast-disappearing Southern Icefields. Why havent Kilimanjaros glaciers melted away? One would have thought that, after 11,700 years of this melting process, (according to recent research, the current glaciers began to form in 9700BC) very little ice would remain on Kilimanjaro.”
So, the glacial formed when we had global warming- global warming caused the glacier in Kilimanjaro.
What “protects” the glacier from tropical sunlight is the snow.
What shrinks the glacial is lack of water vapor.
Global warming is more water vapor.
Also what quickly gets rid of glaciers is rain. Kilimanjaro is too high to rain. Polar caps are to cold to rain.
Here’s a primer on the instability of West Antarctica:
https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/news/antarctic-ice-sheet-20140512/
“Antarctica is so harsh and remote that scientists only began true investigation of its ice sheet in the 1950s. It didn’t take long for the verdict on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to come in. “Unstable,” wrote Ohio State University glaciologist John Mercer in 1968.”
Unprecedented since the 1950s (at least). It’s been ‘unstable’ for a very long while now.
It’s the speed that matters, dummy.
[RICHARD] 3 out of 5 years since 2016 and 2 out of 3 since 2019 show that the numbers are falling.
[ALSO RICHARD] Unprecedented since the 1950s (at least).
Willard, please stop trolling.
One of the things the AGW cult is taught is the bogus “energy imbalance”. That’s so far from science as to be comical. They try to balance flux. Flux does not “balance”. Flux is not conserved. In the example of a cone (which none of the idiots could understand), the incoming flux of 900 W/m^2 to the base would NEVER equal the steady-state outgoing flux of 180 W/m^2. Flux doesn’t “balance”.
[A solid cone in space with emissivity = 1.0, absorbs 900 W/m^2 at its base with area “A”. The rest of the cone has a total surface area of 4A. So at equilibrium/steady-state, the cone is emitting 180 W/m^2 over it’s entire surface. Incoming 900 does NOT equal outgoing 180. Flux does NOT balance.]
It gets funnier.
The bogus “energy imbalance” ends up with the invalid 460 TW imbalance, which they then claim is heating the planet! But they dont realize that if flux added, as they believe, then the Greenland ice sheet would be emitting at least 460 TW. Greenland is heating the planet!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Here’s you, Pup:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times
As usual, Dud comes up a dud.
Try the Poll Dance Experiment, Pup, and I’ll find back the last five times your point has been refuted.
Also find all the times you misspelled “pole”, Dud.
A debate is a poll dance, as both sides try to gain votes from the audience.
I alternate between “Poll” and “Pole,” Grammer Nazi Pup, and am tempted to add “Pool.”
You don’t alternate from being an idiot. That is consistent, always.
No U, dummy.
What you never seem to understand, Clint, it that you are only attacking strawmen.
No one thinks that 900 W/m^2 = 180 W/m^2.
What everyone thinks is that (900 W/m^2)x(1m^2) = (180 W/m^2)x(5 m^2) = 900 W. 900 joules of energy arriving every second does indeed “balance” 900 joules of energy leaving every second. With these condition, the cone will neither warm up nor cool down.
What you never seem to understand, Folkerts, is that energy is conserved, but flux is not conserved.
900 does NOT equal 180, but 900 equals 900.
Your cult’s “energy imbalance” is based on flux, NOT energy.
Another strawman. Energy imbalance is based on … energy! 900 J = 900 J.
You are the only one who imagines it might be about flux.
When Folkerts gets caught, he must deny his cult’s nonsense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Note the text at the bottom of the graphic:
“All values are in fluxes in W/m^2…”
When they have to deny their own cult, that’s when the fun really starts….
Here, Pup:
https://www.dummies.com/education/math/basic-math/how-to-add-subtract-multiply-and-divide-with-units/
Here Dud:
https://www.wikihow.com/Grow-Up-and-Get-a-Life
After that, Pup, there is:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/1-2-physical-quantities-and-units/
Clint, It’s like you are intentionally trying to misunderstand the concept of ‘average’ !
Note the text at the bottom of the graphic really says:
“All values are in fluxes in W/m^2
And are average values based on 10 years of data”
These are average fluxes for the whole earth. Using your cone as example, the incoming flux is 900 W/m^2 for 1 m^2 and the incoming flux is 0 W/m^2 for the other 4 m^2. That gives an average incoming flux of 180 W/m^2 for the whole surface. An average outgoing flux of 180 W/m^2 for the whole surface would ‘balance’ this average incoming flux. Just like the total 900 J each second incoming balances the total 900 J each second outgoing. The average fluxes balance if and only if the total energies per second balance.
Similarly, part of the earth could be receiving 1000 W/m^2 of sunlight and part could be receiving 900 W/m^2 and part could be receiving 432 W/m^2 and half could be receiving 0 W/m^2. Average it all and you get 163.3 W/m^2 average flux for the whole surface. Once again, the average fluxes balance if and only if the total energies per second balance.
Clint, the only correct there is the sentence:
“Earth’s climate is largely determined by the planet’s energy budget, i.e., the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation.”
It is not enough to make what else they say there to be correct too!
Sorry Folkerts, but fluxes dont “average”. 1000 W/m^2 and 500 W/m^2 are not the same as 750W/m^2. (Just to use simple numbers.) You don’t understand any of this.
But, your comments lengthen in proportion to your desperation.
Or, to show how stupid your thinking is, Folkerts, what is the Incoming flux to the cone?
What is the outgoing flux?
900 does NOT equal 180.
(Hopefully that will produce a 500 word rambling response. That’s when it really gets fun!!)
Incoming flux is a combination of 900 W/m^2 and 0 W/m^2. With an average of 180 W/m^2 over the whole surface of the cone.
Outgoing flux is 180 W/m^2 over the whole surface of the cone(assuming the cone is a good thermal conductor with uniform temperature).
These average fluxes ‘balance’
************************
Similarly, total incoming power is (900 W/m^2)*(1m^2) + (0 W/m^2)(4m^2) = 900 W = 900 J each second over the whole surface of the cone.
Total outgoing power is (180 W/m^2)*(5m^2) = 900 W = 900 J each second over the whole surface of the cone.
These also ‘balance’.
*************************
Average fluxes balances if and only if powers balances.
(P_in)/A = P_out/A iff P_in = P_out
Folkerts is up to his usual tricks. He’s trying to claim fluxes “balance” by converting to energy.
Fluxes do NOT “balance”. Energy balances.
Folkerts has to use tricks to defend his cult nonsense. He actually claims a ball-on-a-string is rotating on its axis!
Mind your units, Pup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
“Hes trying to claim fluxes ‘balance’ by converting to energy.
Fluxes do NOT ‘balance’. Energy balances.”
I know people who have monthly income and expenses and try to get those to balance.
Ha ha, they don’t get it.
Monthly income and expenses do NOT ‘balance’. MONEY balances.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts
I applaud your efforts to reason with Clint R with sound logic and rational thought firmly based upon physics. He seems oblivious to your intelligent posts and continues to fail to attempt understanding your points.
He is arrogant and stupid. A terrible combination. You will find he is not logical enough or rational to ever understand what you say.
He will continue to imagine himself to be brilliant. Most can see he is a very dim bulb.
Norman, it’s hard to tell if you’re more interested in sucking up to Folkerts, or perverting reality.
You do both so well.
I often state that you idiots have NOTHING. So it’s always helpful when you show up to prove me right.
Thanks.
Clint R
Your post is proof positive you are simultaneously arrogant and stupid.
Us “Idiots” have lots of data and information. You are the one who never supports anything you say. You seem really limited when all you can think of for an orbit analogy is a “ball on a string”.
Have you tried moving a can in a circular path around another one having the same side always facing the center without rotating the can as you move it in a circle? I am certain you have not tried this nor am I sure you understand what is written. When it comes to your low intellect I never know what you are able to understand. Usually it is less than I had hoped.
Wow Norman, you responded in 4 minutes! You really are a dedicated stalker.
And, as usual, you have nothing except insults and false accusations.
It’s always nice to see you work so hard to prove me right.
(See if you can beat your 4-minute record.)
Clint R
Observation from your posts.
You search for typos in someone’s posts and attempt to make fun of them for that.
You think time between posts means something so you pay close attention to this trivial matter.
You think a “ball on a string” is the only possible explanation for what the Moon is doing as it orbits the Earth.
What you do never have (I literally mean never) is any supporting evidence for even one of your stupid declarations. You declare many things (like fluxes don’t add) but you have zero support for this absurd assertion.
Sorry Norman, but those are your biased opinions and perversions of reality.
Again, you have no science, just false accusations and misrepresentations, like You think a “ball on a string” is the only possible explanation for what the Moon is doing as it orbits the Earth.
Where did I ever say anything like that? You’re twisting reality, Norman.
Clint R
Excuse me, I forgot how stupid you really are.
My last post was not intended to be scientific at all. It was observations from your posts.
The “ball on the string” comes from several of your posts were you include this idea. You do it over and over and when more intelligent people offer you other POV you only seem to accept “ball on a string”
I have to lower the bar when I post something to you. Sometimes I forge how arrogant/stupid you are. I think there could be a limit and maybe you will think about a post and consider what is said and engage in an intelligent fashion.
Then you post and I understand your level of comprehension is quite a bit lower than I had thought possible.
Tim Folkerts is a refreshing poster after going through your stupid posts and the endless banter of Willard and RLH (“Your an idiot!” “No U dummy” etc). His posts are logical, intelligent, thought provoking and based upon actual established science.
Norman, we already know you have a schoolkid crush on Folkerts. And we also know you rely on insults and false accusations, because that’s all you’ve got.
But now, you’re faced with having to support your own words.
Where did I ever say a ball-on-a-string was “the only possible explanation for what the Moon is doing as it orbits the Earth.”
You can’t verify your own words. You just make things up.
Clint R
I am curious, what other example do you give for explaining the Moon orbiting the Earth besides “ball on a string”? Maybe I missed a post from you with an alternative explanation. Not hard to do, most of your posts are stupid.
Your distractions won’t work, Norman.
Where did I ever say a ball-on-a-string was “the only possible explanation for what the Moon is doing as it orbits the Earth.”
You can’t verify your own words. You just make things up. You’re an idiot, attempting to pervert reality. You’re anti-science.
A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits. NOTHING at all.
Clint R
Sorry I forgot how stupid you are.
YOU: “Where did I ever say a ball-on-a-string was the only possible explanation for what the Moon is doing as it orbits the Earth.
You did not say that nor did I claim you actually said those words. It is inference from the many times you claim it with no other claims being made that could also represent the Moon’s orbit.
You do not have to say specific words to create an inference from numerous posts.
I have to remember you are really stupid and go to lower levels of reasoning. I just don’t know how low that will be. I guess trial and error.
“I guess trial and error.”
More error than trial if Clint R’s previous comments are taken into account.
Yes Norman, you got caught making stuff up, again.
Like Folkerts, RLH, Bindidion, and several other idiots, you can’t understand the simple analogy of the ball-on-a-string. You keep trying to twist and distort it. The simple analogy is ONLY for “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The simple analogy shows that an orbiting body, with no axial rotation, keeps one side facing the inside of its orbit. That’s what Moon does.
The simple analogy is widely used in academia. Newton was the one that discovered it. Your cult cannot accept reality. You don’t understand the basic physics. You don’t understand the vector addition that produces orbits, but does NOT produce axial rotation.
You’re an uneducated, cult idiot. You childishly believe you can make up for your deficiencies by insulting others, making false accusations, and misrepresenting. You’re not likely to ever change. People need to see how your cult believes nonsense over reality.
You’re still trolling, Pup.
Please desist.
As I said previously, a ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits. NOTHING at all.
The ball on a string has one axis of rotation, that is external to the ball. Concede to proceed.
…again, in the accelerated frame. Inertially there are two axes of rotation as shown by ftop_t.
No, inertially there is only one axis of rotation, as shown by ftop_t.
A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits or gravity. NOTHING at all.
Yes, you think that. Understood.
Hmm, looked up Flux, wiki:
“Flux describes any effect that appears to pass or travel (whether it actually moves or not) through a surface or substance. A flux is a concept in applied mathematics and vector calculus which has many applications to physics. For transport phenomena, flux is a vector quantity, describing the magnitude and direction of the flow of a substance or property. In vector calculus flux is a scalar quantity, defined as the surface integral of the perpendicular component of a vector field over a surface.”
An example sentence the ocean is transparent to the solar flux. And ocean is not transparent to longwave IR. The top 1 meter ocean depth
Absorbs about 90% of the shortwave IR of the solar flux.
Further down:
“Flux as flow rate per unit area
In transport phenomena (heat transfer, mass transfer and fluid dynamics), flux is defined as the rate of flow of a property per unit area, which has the dimensions [quantity]·[time]−1·[area]−1. The area is of the surface the property is flowing “through” or “across”. For example, the magnitude of a river’s current, i.e. the amount of water that flows through a cross-section of the river each second, or the amount of sunlight energy that lands on a patch of ground each second, are kinds of flux.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
The angle of sunlight reach the ocean, affects the depth ocean water which absorbs the solar flux. And angle of sunlight going atmosphere effect the solar flux reaching the ocean surface. One thing the atmosphere does is cause direct sunlight into indirect sunlight and ocean is transparent to both the direct and indirect solar flux.
Also:
–Radiative flux
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux (or sometimes power flux density), is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2.
It is used in astronomy to determine the magnitude and spectral class of a star and in meteorology to determine the intensity of the convection in the planetary boundary layer. Radiative flux also acts as a generalization of heat flux, which is equal to the radiative flux when restricted to the infrared spectrum.–
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_flux
Use in sentence: the radiative flux in long wave infrared spectrum is weak. It very dissimilar to radiative flux of direct and indirect sunlight. The radiative flux in long wave infrared spectrum is analogous to fog, whereas sunlight is rain. Or there is a lot radiative flux in long wave infrared near surface of Earth, but it’s so dispersed it’s not energy which can captured and used to do much work. It does not heat anything, it’s thought is may reduce amount energy lost from Earth- and from such speculation is considered to have warming effect. So far, no one measured how much “warming” it does.
The solar flux reaching 1 AU distance is quite weak, and is 60% weaker at average Mars distance. The variation is 715 watts per square meter to 492 watts per square meter when Mars is at furthest
distance from the Sun [called: Aphelion]. Earth is 1,413 and 1,321 watts per square meter. In terms of Earth’s ocean and land surface much more than 1/2 of the surface receives no solar flux or very little solar flux and it’s only a portion of daytime hours which gets a significant amount of sunlight. And this time period is called peak solar hours. Which roughly on average about 6 hours or a average 12 hour daytime. And is a major aspect about solar energy which make solar energy power on Earth, not viable source of electrical power. Whereas with Mars surface one use all the daytime hours to harvest roughly the same amount of sunlight.
Earth gets about 25% of the time, Mars gets about 50%, and this is why Mars which get 60% less sunlight at it’s distance from the sun as compared to Earth distance, is better place on the surface of planet to harvest solar energy. But in terms solar energy in orbits of Earth or Mars, Mars is 60% worse.
Though there one aspect about Mars orbit, the sunlight does heat up solar panel by much, as compared to Earth distance and hot solar panel are less efficient.
Though it seems possible there could be innovation with solar panels in keeping them cooler, as the Parker Solar probe uses water to cool panels when it travels very close to the Sun. And seems to me such technology, might used for all solar panels in the future.
“A solid cone in space with emissivity = 1.0, absorbs 900 W/m^2 at its base with area ‘A’. The rest of the cone has a total surface area of 4A. So at equilibrium/steady-state, the cone is emitting 180 W/m^2 over its entire surface. Incoming 900 does NOT equal outgoing 180. Flux does NOT balance.”
Everyone talking about flux balancing has been talking about the AVERAGE flux over a whole surface balancing.
Both INPUT and OUTPUT need to be averaged over the WHOLE SURFACE!
Why then does Clint do that only for the OUTPUT?
AND BTW he calculated wrong.. 5A not 4A.
Is Clint a moron, or just trying to add to his long list of strawmen?
Probably both!
“AND BTW he calculated wrong.. 5A not 4A.”
Oops, my bad. He did that part right.
Yes troll Nate, you are an uneducated cult idiot.
Thanks for the verification.
Clint R: You are the one in the tiny, tiny, cult.
Are Joe Biden and Kamala Harris psychopaths? For instance, they seem to view the dire circumstances for fellow Americans as funny.
Stephen P Anderson
Do you have actual evidence that the President and Vice President view dire circumstances for fellow Americans as funny? I have not heard this one and am curious to know the source of this information.
You haven’t been paying attention. Kamala’s laugh the other day while being questioned and heading off to wherever the hell she was going. And, then Biden’s remark “that was four days ago” and then laughing yesterday when a reporter was questioning him about stranded Americans. They both think the situation is amusing and beneath them. The upturned corners of their mouths when they answer questions. The contempt and disdain. These are characteristics of psychopaths.
Stephen P Anderson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unTpceG7lEI
I would not conclude, from this video, she was laughing about stranded Americans. She was getting asked questions by reporters at a time not expected and just a nervous laugh at the reporters telling them to “slow down”. After that point she seems to get quite serious as she discusses a very serious issue. I would call that a false narrative of the account. People do laugh when nervous or under pressure, it does not mean they think a bad situation is funny.
https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/nervous-laughter#medical-causes
Maybe your hatred of all things left of you creates a biased mind state where you will look for anything to attack what you perceive as the enemy.
Norman,
Nervous laugh? Contemptuous laugh. She’s been a leftist tool her whole career. Hate the left? Damn right! I hate psychopaths.
Pay no attention to distorted cherry picked years charts of sea ice from amateurs climate shysters. There is nothing melting and besides the normal yearly variations sea ice is where it has always been.
The next event to watch is the summer minimum which so far doesn’t look anything out of ordinary.
Remember the “Expert” predictions the Arctic will be sea ice free in the summers since like 8 years ago ? yeah right.
https://sunshinehours.net/2021/08/26/sea-ice-extent-global-antarctic-and-arctic-day-237-2021/
Eben
Thanks for insulting people, you little ankle biter… Or shall I better call you a shyster too?
Here is the global sea ice extent for day 237 of 2021:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BY_ACQnX5hfQbvPAih6YTzsYEISTatTO/view
This is the same stuff in absolute form as what I published yesterday in anomaly form:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
*
” There is nothing melting ”
If there was nothing melting, then the charts above would show 2021 and the years before a lot over the mean of 1981-2010.
Why do you write all the time such nonsense?
No one – except some stoopid Warmistas – says / writes that all sea ice will melt soon.
The contrary is the case: you just need to compare 2021 with 2020 and 2019!
In 2021, sea ice is well above its level of the years before, and THAT IS GOOD FOR US ALL, Eben.
J.-P. D.
Yesterday, It was all over the news “Taliban Vows to Help Fight Climate Change”
The next day – they bombed the Kabul airport , apparently there was way too much flying going on damaging the climate.
“Taliban Vows to Help Fight Climate Change.”
Well, they just won over the MSM.
Afghanistan crisis: Who are Isis-K?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58333533
Isis-K are different to the Taliban. More hardline.
“But ISIS-K have major differences with the Taliban, accusing them of abandoning Jihad and the battlefield in favour of a negotiated peace settlement hammered out in “posh hotels” in Doha, Qatar.”
Hi ankle biter,
as usual, you write pure nonsense.
Biden vows retribution after U.S. service members were killed in Afghanistan bombing
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/26/afghanistan-kabul-taliban-live-updates/
Not the Taliban were at work, but the Dae’sh, the so-called Islamic State, specialized in terrorism.
Hadji Bin Dong got upset I throw them all on one bag
Not being precise about who you are fighting and why has led to trouble in the past.
Why don’t you tell that to the guy who just left billions of dollars’ worth of U.S. military hardware to the wrong army
How much of that went to ISIS-K?
Hard to believe this is true but yes is is fro real
https://youtu.be/w7sMKap9r5Y
Afghani taking home his newly acquired Biden donated helicopter
https://www.itemfix.com/v?t=m7eari
Movie now playing – Kindergarten military strategies – starring Biden and Woke Generals – in theaters everywhere
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/openly-mock-us-now-taliban-hangs-traitor-throat-us-helicopter-kandahar-left-behind-joe-biden-video/
You are an easy mark, Eben.
Try some of this great cow de-wormer!
Look at the bright side , ultimately the weapons left by Americans will be used by hadjis to shoot each other
https://www.itemfix.com/v?t=5zbev3
Thanks Trump!
The Art of the Deal guy made this horrible deal with the Talisman.
Do Rs think we should now stay in Afghanistan?
Damn auto correct, Taliban.
The British have been fighting in Afghanistan for a couple of centaury’s. Not that it has done them much good.
“High-resolution alkenone measurements from ocean cores offshore Chile show a consistent decrease in ocean temperatures over the past two millennia that is neither reported nor discussed by IPCC (or PAGES 2019).”
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/26/pages2019-30-60s/
Stephen McIntyre
Ken
You wrote above, about sea level in the Antarctic:
” The land here is rising faster than sea levels are rising. ”
*
What are you telling us here, Ken?
Here is the PSMSL tide gauge ‘SCOTT BASE’ in the Antarctic:
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/2029.php
and here is the nearest GPS station ‘SCTB’, less than 1 km away:
https://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=gps&idStation=4197
Looking at the SONEL data for SCTB gives, for the uplift velocity, a value around -1 mm/yr.
This means that there, the land is slowly sinking, and not rising.
From 2001 till 2016, the sea level changed there with a rate of about +4 mm/yr.
Adding the vertical movement to the sea level change gives a sea level rise rate of 3 mm /yr , with an uncertainty of +/- 1 mm/yr.
*
If you want to see a PSMSL tide gauge located at land subject to glacial isostatic rebound, go to FURUOGRUND at the end of the Bothnian Gulf, between Sweden and Finland:
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/203.php
There, the sea level declines in theory by about -8 mm / yr.
But the nearest GPS station SKE8, 10 km away
https://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=gps&idStation=4245
shows an uplift of +10 mm/yr.
Thus, the resulting sea level change at FURUOGRUND moves from -8 to +2 mm /yr, with an uncertainty of +/- 1 mm/yr.
If you know it better, let me know!
J.-P. D.
The land here in my home town is rising faster than sea levels.
The NOAA tide gauge says 1.66 +/- 0.66 mm per year.
Isostatic rebound from melting continental glaciers.
Tectonic plates rubbing too are causing land to rise.
Ken
I thought you’d have understood that what a gauge tells is only one half of what you need.
To get the stuff right you need to search for a GPS station in the near!
But… why don’t you understand that if the land around you is rising, then you have to ADD the rise to the gauge’s data !!!
Look again at Furuögrund:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qMOZs7PXMgFemzIOyvHU69-s0zGmyiiI/view
The land there rises at a rate of 10 mm/year!
Buona notte, it’s 2 AM here…
J.-P. D.
Its easy to figure out how much the land is rising.
Average sea level rise from stations with a hundred years of record indicate sea level rise is 1.8 mm per year.
1.66 + 1.8 = 3.46 mm per year. Which is quite fast though nowhere as fast as Furuogrund. (Now I will have to look up where that is)
It means that there is no way we get the 1 meter sea level rise by 2100 that our government claims is going to occur.
It’s a bit more complex than that:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/key-takeaways-from-the-new-ipcc-report/
“Over the next 2000 years”
So really, really, soon now. Almost tomorrow.
Will
You really have gulped down the Kool Aid. Antarctica is contributing about 0.27mm/yr to sea level rise.
In even the most deluded world that is not very much.
When the media dreams up the most frightful scenarios they know they can count on you to take the bait.
Gio,
We can always trust contrarians to throw inconsistent numbers and our luckwarm fellow to fail basic reading comprehension.
1.
[KEN] It means that there is no way we get the 1 meter sea level rise by 2100
[RICHARD] “Over the next 2000 years”
Idiot. I was quoting from your addition "Over the next 2000 years, global mean sea level will rise by about 2 to 3 m [7-10 ft] if warming is limited to 1.°C"
I know you were quoting an irrelevant tidbit, dummy.
You use a quote you are supposed to agree with it.
I’m not responsible for your diversions, dummy.
You’re not responsible full stop.
You guys ever heard of acceleration?
SLR has been accelerating. That means you can’t just multiply the years by the current rate-of-rise to predict the end-of-century rise.
Do you agree that a significant component of any sea level rise has to do with the temperature of the oceans?
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
1.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-816151
If there has been no consistent Pacific warming in the last 2000 years, even though the IPCC claims the opposite, how then are we to interpret the claimed sea level rise in same period?
1, followed by 2.
Willard: 1.
… and then 3.
Willard is stuck at 1, no matter how hard he wriggles.
More 3.
Still at 1 Willard.
I suppose you don’t even realize that the Auditor is turning into Kenneth Green, dummy.
Willard is still stuck at 1.
No U @3.
Still 1.
After yet another silly interlude, you can now address:
You guys ever heard of acceleration?
Nate: Do you agree that a significant component of any sea level rise has to do with the temperature of the oceans?
Yes, point?
Do you agree that SLR has been accelerating? And thus, extrapolating current trend linearly to 2100 is misleading?
These may help you answer.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.png
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2020-10/gmsl_2020rel1_seasons_rmvd_4.png
“Yes, point?”
So how accurate do you think the IPCCs assessment of the temperature in the Pacific is, given that they ignore alkenone measurements from ocean cores offshore Chile?
High-resolution alkenone measurements from ocean cores offshore Chile show a consistent decrease in ocean temperatures over the past two millennia that is neither reported nor discussed by IPCC (or PAGES 2019).
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/26/pages2019-30-60s/
Stephen McIntyre
I’ll repeat since you seem to have missed it and, as usual, have attempted to changed the subject.
Do you agree that measurements of SLR have been accelerating? And thus, extrapolating current trend linearly to 2100 is misleading?
I agree that the IPCC thinks that sea levels are accelerating. But they appear to be wrong about a lot of stuff so I’m not sure how that helps.
“IPCC thinks ”
Lame excuse..
It ain’t IPCC doing the measurements. Do you have a specific problem with the measurements, beyond your biases?
So, googled water cooling solar panels.
Some are quite against the idea. Ie;
“5.) Lots of folks have tried to increase panel efficiency and thus output, and also thereby use the waste heat for other purposes (pool heating for example). The idea has been around for centuries. To date, such methods have not be been shown to be safe, practical, economical or workable for residential size systems. In general, at this time, such schemes are mostly the purview of DIYer’s who have little/any idea of how to approach the situation. Amen and have fun, but without some grasp of the basics, most of such efforts are a wheel spin and have all been investigated long ago. But, hope springs eternal, just waiting for some new technology to make it all safe and practical.” And:
The idea that “massive” power gains are available is misleading… the temperature coefficient of the panels is published on most data sheets, and is something around -0.43% / deg C for many panels currently in production. A (substantial) 10 deg C reduction in panel temperature would be expected to result in an improvement of a 4.3% in power.”
Well, I don’t solar panel are viable, but 4.3% per 10 C lower seems like a lot. Apparently 77 F {25 C} is most efficient temperature, and I don’t think I would worry about panels being 35 C. But panels can could heat to 70 C.
And I am more interested Venus, than solar energy on Earth, but I find interesting that people interested solar energy think can’t be done {maybe because govt not paying them to do this??}.
So let’s see, got say solar panel which 12 % efficient.
And in noon sun with a round number of 1000 watts per square meter, it would get if 77 F, 120 watts per square meter, and if
35 C, gets 120 watts reduced by 4.3 % which is 5.16 watts less.
So get 114.84 watts rather 120 watts.
But no sunlight at 1000 watts is only going to heat to 35 C.
My concrete in late afternoon sun is 46 C. I guess sunlight at angle of which doubles height and not in peak solar hours, is not as much as 700 watts per square meter, if pointed at the sun {which my concrete isn’t]. Let’s not consider 35 C, but say 45 C or 8.6% loss, or 10.32 watts less. So turned panel of 120 watt into 110 watts. Just poor wiring could lose more. A inverted obviously loses a lot more. But don’t imagine it’s as simple as 4.3% per 10 C, or assume it progressively gets worse. And gets worse in terms lowering the lifetime of solar panel the higher the temperatures are. But I don’t have such data. And if searched hours and hours, not sure I could get such information. In terms solar panels in space, they are more concerned about temperature over 70 C, but perhaps they using better solar panels than the junk they use on the Earth surface. And I think as recall there something like 1% loss per year in space and something similar on Earth surface. Now ISS has lot of thermal cyclings {every 90 mins]. Hmm: “Nearly 2000 degradation rates, measured on individual modules or entire systems, have been assembled from the literature, showing a median value of 0.5%/year.”
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf
10 years, 5%
And:
“Hedström and Palmblad presented data on 20 modules exposed for more than 25 years at a northern latitude in Sweden. The average
degradation rate was a remarkably low 0·17%/year. Bing also observed good stability for two separate systems in the similar continental climate of Massachusetts, USA, after more than
20 years. In contrast, Saleh et al. found a degradation rate of approximately 1%/year for a stand-alone system in the desert climate of Libya after 30 years. Tang et al. found a similar
degradation rate for a system of approximately the same age located in the similar climate of Phoenix, AZ, USA.” And,
A history of degradation rates using field tests reported in the literature during the last 40 years has been summarized. Nearly 2000 degradation rates, measured on individual modules or entire
systems, have been assembled from the literature and show a mean degradation rate of 0·8%/year and a median value of 0·5%/year. The majority, 78% of all data, reported a degradation rate of
<1%/year. Thin-film degradation rates have improved significantly during the last decade, although they are statistically closer to 1%/year than to the 0·5%/year necessary to meet the 25 year commercial warranties"
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf
I would guess, that in deserts [where you get most amount of solar power], if you keep temperatures below, 40 C one could double lifetime or lower to .5% from what could be 1% per year or if keep below 30 C one might expect better.
So in terms of lifetime of 25 years .5% is 12.5 % and probably just means at best another 10 years operation. But 25 year with 25% And with the part day where get most amount energy you could losing another 25% because panels well above 45 C, which might encourage replacing panel well before 25 years. Which I believe is what we already seeing. But in the cold land of Germany they might have put up with the useless things for over 30 years.
I didn't find ISS data.
test
Sea ice volume shows that the volume has trended sideways for the last 11 years. Sea ice extent max is up over the last 3 years, and will be even higher in this fourth year. N S I D C felt compelled to state “As of August 17, sea ice extent stood at 5.77 million square kilometers (2.23 million square miles), tracking above the last six years, as well as 2011, 2012, and 2007 (Figure 1a).”
goldminor
Absolutely correct:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IcDTCs6ywcbg_iIAwe-xhEJMm2iT3fn9/view
Global sea ice extent is currently -0.86 Mkm^2, less than 1 Mkm^2 below the 1981-2010 average.
2021 is by no means a well warming year, despite the claims about a warm July.
{ In Northeast Germoney, we didn’t see anything of that :- ( but Germoney is very small. }
J.-P. D.
I read at this site occasionally. There is some interesting commentary placed here. Although the redundant conversation amazes me a bit over the years. Every new blog elicits thousands of comments as everyone rehashes the same arguments over and over again. You post a very consistent professional commentary though. I commend you on that.
Great Barrier Reef Sea Surface Temperature: No Change In 150 Years
” In his final conclusion, Dr. Johnston states, ‘No difference was found between temperatures measured at Port Stephens and Cape Sidmouth by astronomers from Melbourne and Sydney using bucket samples in November and December 1871 and data sampled at those times from 27 AIMS datasets spanning from Thursday Island, in the north to Boult Reef in the south. Alarming claims that the East Australian Current has warmed due to global warming are therefore without foundation.’ ”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/26/great-barrier-reef-sea-surface-temperature-no-change-in-150-years/
Tropical temperature does change, global warming or cooling is outside of the tropics
Ken
In reply to your comment above.
1. Don’t look at Willard’s stuff, he is a professional alarmist.
2. But… when you write
” Average sea level rise from stations with a hundred years of record indicate sea level rise is 1.8 mm per year. ”
you indicate that you do not know what really happens.
Let me show you this with again the Furu example.
{ Btw: it’s here, you just need to put lat & long into Google Maps:
https://tinyurl.com/fdjc7rr8 }
If you generate a time series for Furu over its entire lifetime (1916-now, you obtain (with the GPS-based VLM correction) for the estimate (rounded) 2.3 mm / year.
For the period since 1960: 3.8 mm / year
For the satellite period (1993-now): 6.0 mm / year.
The average trend for all tide gauges, each over its entire lifetime, is 1.9 mm / year; but for 1993-now, it is 3 mm / year, nearly the same as that what NOAA’s satellite altimetry gives us.
Thus, the trend does not keep the same over time; there is a tiny bit of acceleration in it.
If you take that into consideration, you obtain over 100 years an averaged rise of a bit below 60 cm:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Aj_UXubDOS9DtqkasirYLhAO4W12jKx-/view
Take Dangendorf’s data in the middle, with a quadratic x^2 factor of 0.00028 for the period 1993-2015.
For 100 years (1200 months), that gives you 40 cm; 18 cm for the linear x factor, minus 2 intersection -> 56 cm.
No one knows how the acceleration will behave during the next decades. May be it stays as it is, maybe it increases, maybe it goes down (that would be the best).
Simply because the 56 cm worldwide average probably won’t be linearly distributed over the planet. Some corners will have much less, others… much more.
J.-P. D.
[BINNY] Don’t check W’s alarmist stuff.
[ALSO BINNY] But check NOAA who says the says the same thing as W.
“Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating
Furuogrund.
I get Iceland. What is current news from Iceland? Volcanoes. No way you can use Iceland as stable land mass; its tectonically active.
Ken
https://tinyurl.com/uufs4dtp
The reason to use data that is from stations of 100 years record is to dampen short term variability. The best information I have seen shows that its 1.8mm per year averaged over 100 years. If that trend continues then we can expect 18cm over the period from 2000 to 2100.
The 3 mm per year claim has no basis in tide gauge records. See NOAA tide gauge data which shows data that is global. There are very few tide gauge stations recording 3 mm or more per year and these are all located where there is known subsidence.
There is data from satellites indicating 3mm per year. The problem is likely with the satellite remote sensing instrumentation and interpretation. If it doesn’t match the tide gauge then its not valid.
If you’re going to claim 1 meter by 2100 that would be about 6 times current sea level rise. Not likely at all.
According Nils Axel Morner even during the melting of the continental ice sheets at the start of the Holocene sea levels did not rise more than 1 meter per century.
As you say we won’t know how acceleration will behave during the next decades.
I am reminded of the Battle of Thermopylae that was fought on a strip of land 100 meters wide between the mountains and the sea. That strip of land is now 1 km wide. So we have had higher sea levels in the past 10k years and there is no reason that it couldn’t rise that much again.
The only real controversy is in determining the cause of the modest warming observed in our climate since 1850 and whether that warming will continue.
A drop in sea level can only be the result of global cooling. I don’t see any scenario where cooling is better than warming.
We’ve been over Thermopylae already:
https://climateball.net/but-historical-times/
To coincide with that:
if one goes back 20,000 years, and notes that sea levels are 200 + feet below where they are today, doing the math you find sea levels have risen about 1 foot per century for 20,000 years.
True. Also, once upon a time there was no water on Earth. Since then, sea level has risen infinitely.
Lewis Guignard
Thanks for the clever communication! WUWT’s threads are full of that.
You should tell such things to e.g. (re)insurance managers; they will have a big laugh.
The discussion about SLR has nothing to do with how it was x or y thousand years ago.
It has to do with the Earth in 100 years, with over 10 billion people on it, and big amounts of near-coast infrastructures.
20,000 years ago, we were about 5 million Humans on Earth, Mr Guignard… and no industry, no trade.
J.-P. D.
Ken
” The 3 mm per year claim has no basis in tide gauge records. See NOAA tide gauge data which shows data that is global. There are very few tide gauge stations recording 3 mm or more per year and these are all located where there is known subsidence. ”
Ken… why didn’t you read what wrote?
Above the graph on the NOAA Sea Level Trend page, you clearly can read:
” The sea level trends measured by tide gauges that are presented here are local relative sea level (RSL) trends as opposed to the global sea level trend. Tide gauge measurements are made with respect to a local fixed reference on land. RSL is a combination of the sea level rise and the local vertical land motion. ”
Don’t you understand what that means?
It mean that when you look at the violet arrow above the Furuogrund tide gauge in Sweden, you see there “-7.95 mm/year”.
This information is relative to the land the gauge is fixed on.
If you want to know the exact sea level change (rise or fall), you need to use a technique computing the land movement around the gauge, e.g. using GPS data.
The land around the Furuogrund gauge moves up by +10 mm/year, due to glacial rebound.
Thus, the sea level change at Furuogrund is not a drop of -8 mm/year, but a resulting, effective rise +2 mm/year.
Conversely, you see for the Ulsan gauge (South Korea) (rounded) +1 mm/year; but the GPS device in the near shows a subsidence of -18 mm/year; the resulting, effective sea level drop there thus is -17 mm/year.
Do you want to understand AND accept that e.g. GPS data must used for correction of both glacial isostatic rebound and subsidence of the tide gauge data you see on the NOAA page?
Or don’t you want?
If you don’t want, Ken: no problem, we simply can stop communicating.
” I don’t see any scenario where cooling is better than warming. ”
Tell that to people living everywhere near the sea (and, of course: I don’t mean your minuscule Iceland paradise with 3 million people; I mean countries like Bangladesh etc etc).
Ég óska þér alls hins besta.
J.-P. D.
GPS vertical accuracy is only about 4-5 cm, at best. If augmented with ground based systems, 1-2 cm vertical can be obtained.
GPS is NOT reliable at millimeter levels.
Clint R
As usual, you are boasting with superficial information you certainly collected using uncle Google.
I wouldn’t wonder that over hundred thousand geniuses like you are telling the same stuff.
Tell your superb, highly accurate ‘knowledge’ to e.g. the people managing the SONEL data.
https://www.sonel.org/-GPS-.html
They’ll get such a big laugh about you genius!
Thus… before you contact the SONEL people, it would be wise to start reading lots of technical stuff; to understand the stuff, it is best to start ‘low’, by reading e.g.
https://os.copernicus.org/preprints/os-2020-29/os-2020-29.pdf
J.-P. D.
JD, did you notice your comment was about 4 times as long as mine, yet contained NOTHING of value. (Links to things you don’t understand don’t count. The Internet is an infinite supply of links.)
Clint R: You contributions contain NOTHING of value consistently.
Having another “bad hair” day, huh RLH?
Nope. Just dealing with your insanities.
Ken
Closing remark.
” There is data from satellites indicating 3mm per year. The problem is likely with the satellite remote sensing instrumentation and interpretation.
If it doesnt match the tide gauge then its not valid. ”
*
Again, Ken: Ken why didnt you read what I wrote?
The tide gauge trends are since decades by no means linear.
Here is a list of consecutive trends I collected out of data from over 400 tide gauges, in mm/year
1883/2018: 1.5 +- 0.03
1888: 1.5 +- 0.03
1893: 1.6 +- 0.03
1898: 1.6 +- 0.03
1903: 1.6 +- 0.03
1908: 1.7 +- 0.03
1913: 1.6 +- 0.03
1918: 1.7 +- 0.03
1923: 1.7 +- 0.03
1928: 1.7 +- 0.03
1933: 1.7 +- 0.03
1938: 1.7 +- 0.04
1943: 1.7 +- 0.04
1948: 1.7 +- 0.04
1953: 1.9 +- 0.04
1958: 1.9 +- 0.05
1963: 2.1 +- 0.05
1968: 2.2 +- 0.06
1973: 2.4 +- 0.06
1978: 2.5 +- 0.07
1983: 2.6 +- 0.09
1988: 2.8 +- 0.10
1993/2018: 3.0 +- 0.13
*
By the way, requesting tide gauges with at least 100 years activity creates a much higher bias than that arising from discarding what you term ‘natural variability’ (without exactly knowing all what it in the sum means, of course).
Think what you want!
J.-P. D.
I forgot the 100y+ map showing the bias:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_XDvRE3E5qzy0vAgv2fli36wGYktiV1F/view
Light reading.
https://skepticalscience.com/why-trying-to-prove-yourself-wrong-is-the-key-to-being-right.html
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Note the quadratic fit steepening over time.
That indicates acceleration.
“I am reminded of the Battle of Thermopylae that was fought on a strip of land 100 meters wide between the mountains and the sea. That strip of land is now 1 km wide. So we have had higher sea levels in the past 10k years and there is no reason that it couldnt rise that much again. ”
Ken, you said this before and your mistake was corrected then.
The coastal plain alongside the battle site is now much wider. This is not because sea level has dropped. It is because the Malian Gulf has silted up over 2500 years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermopylae
I’m glad to see some recognition of rivers and soil erosion on sea levels. The fact that Earth surfaces slowly end up in ocean bottoms is “settled science”.
Settled Science?
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
RTFR:
> Risk related to SLR (including erosion, flooding and salinisation) is expected to significantly increase by the end of this century along all low-lying coasts in the absence of major additional adaptation efforts (very high confidence).
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/08_SROCC_Ch04_FINAL.pdf
Accreted land may be part of the change at Malian Gulf but so is dropping sea level.
Part of the equation is the fact of the earth being an oblate spheroid. Its diameter pole to pole is 10 km less than the diameter across the equator.
What happens when the earths rotational axis drifts? It would mean the equatorial bulge shifts too. Mean Sea level changes everywhere.
Another bit is the weight of all that ice that used to push down on continents, land that is now experiencing isostatic rebound, is now floating in liquid form in the ocean. 120 meters worth. That is now pushing down on the ocean bottom making it sink. I think the term is Eustatic
Here is link citing several sources claiming sea levels have been at least 1 meter higher than now during several points in the past 10000 years. Geophysical data.
https://notrickszone.com/2m-higher-holocene-sea-levels/
As always, Pierre (or is it Kenneth?) is only worth checking the first source:
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/13/1097/2017/cp-13-1097-2017.pdf
The quote refers to a review of the lichurchur.
So I stop there.
So we have:-
Cronin et al., 2017 Global Sea Level Rise Rate: +4 meters per century (14,500 to 14,000 years ago)
Abdul et al., 2017 Global Sea Level Rise Rate: +4 meters per century (11,450 to 11,100 years ago)
Ivanovic et al., 2017 Northern Hemisphere Sea Level Rise Rate: +3.5 to 6.5 meters per century (~14,500 years ago)
Oliver and Terry, 2019 Thailand, +2.0 to 3.8 m higher than present
Brooke et al., 2019 Queensland (NE Australia), +1-2 m higher than present
Yamano et al., 2019 SW Japan, +1.1 to 1.2 m higher than present
Makwana et al., 2019 Western India, +2 to 3 m higher than present
Loveson and Nigam, 2019 Eastern India, +4 m higher than present
Oliver et al., 2019 South Australia, +2 m higher than present
Kylander et al., 2019 Scotland, +9 m higher than present
Meeder and Harlem, 2019 Southeast Florida (USA), +1-1.3 m higher than present
Cuttler et al., 2019 Western Australia, +1-2 m higher than present
Bondevik et al., 2019 Western Norway, +8.2 to +9 m higher than present
Yan et al., 2019 South China Sea, +2 m higher than present
Yamada et al., 2019 Japan, +1 m higher than present
Montaggioni et al., 2019 French Polynesia, +0.8 m higher than present
Brouwers et al., 2019 Dubai, +1.6 to 2.5 m higher than present
Haryono et al., 2019 Indonesia, +4.5 to 6 m higher than present
Williams et al., 2019 North Vietnam, +2 to 4 m higher than present
… (and lots more besides)
but according to Willard, the great scientist, they are all wrong or lying. Sure. Idiot.
I sense a disconnect here.
Why do you accept the possibility of being 4m higher sea levels earlier in the Holocene, but reject the possibility of higher sea levels in the near future?
The papers show that higher sea levels are quite consistent, past and future. No CO2 in sight.
“Global Sea Level Rise Rate: +4 meters per century (14,500 to 14,000 years ago)”
Oh? Recovery from glacial period? Massive Ice sheets receding.
We are not in such a period now.
Why are we comparing to that?
“Recovery from glacial period?”
Was CO2 involved in that?
Yes, as an amplifying feedback.
During the recovery CO2 rose from 200ppm to 280ppm, an increase of 40%.
15,00014,700 years ago (13,000 BC to 12,700 BC): Earliest supposed date for the domestication of the pig.
14,800 years ago: The Humid Period begins in North Africa. The region that would later become the Sahara is wet and fertile, and the aquifers are full.
14,50011,500: Red Deer Cave people in China, possible late survival of archaic or archaic-modern hybrid humans.
14,200 years ago: The oldest agreed domestic dog remains belongs to the Bonn-Oberkassel dog that was buried with two humans.
14,00012,000 years ago: Oldest evidence for prehistoric warfare (Jebel Sahaba, Natufian culture).
12 years ago: Richard Alley presented **The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History**
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g
“Why are we comparing to that?”
Why do you never have an answer to simple questions?
Why are you not interested in other thing that were happening around 14,500 to 14,000 years ago?
c.f. 14,800 years ago: The Humid Period begins in North Africa. The region that would later become the Sahara is wet and fertile, and the aquifers are full.
Now who is going to contend that water vapor is not a ‘larger’ greenhouse gas than CO2?
If you do the sums, the Holocene warming has three main components.
Milankovich cycle changes 1.2C
Direct CO2 feedback 0.45C.
Water vapour and other ESS feedbacks 3.38C.
Total warming 1.2+0.45+3.38 = 5.3C
Why are we comparing to that to a period of massive glacial retreat, caused by orbital changes?
There is simply nothing of the kind like that going on today.
Strawman alert.
“Direct CO2 feedback 0.45C.
Water vapour and other ESS feedbacks 3.38C.”
So water vapor (and other stuff) is about 8 times more important than CO2.
Yeah, you need to catch up to what climate science knows very well.
Without the nondensible Co2, you’ve got very little water vapor. Ice ball Earth.
You do realize that a lot of CO2 is locked up in chalk, limestone, marble, etc.?
Im going to have to start calling you are resident red-herring specialist!
Is next month UAH figures going to be lower than this month or not?
The point with chalk, limestone, marble, etc. is that a vast amount of CO2 was removed from the atmosphere during the time when they were mostly deposited, but apparently without a corresponding change in global temperatures at the same time. According to the CAGW theory it should have had a serious impact.
> According to the CAGW theory
That’s a contrarian strawman.
1.
“from the atmosphere during the time when they were mostly deposited, but apparently without a corresponding change in global temperatures at the same time.”
Huh?? Don’t think you have that story straight. Link?
For one thing, volcanoes spewed massive stored co2 back out in various periods.
Ken, for some fun entertainment, do a search on “Has Florida ever been underwater?”
Vancouver Island has been under water. Marble Meadows in Strathcona Park has elevation 1200 meters. Limestone is full of fossils from the sea bottom.
Do you think it is possible Vancouver Island has been pushed up by tectonic plate movement??????????????????
Same as Mt Everest.
So Florida too has probably been under water. Florida probably was forced to the surface by the asteroid strike that made Gulf of Mexico.
I thought it was common knowledge that the whole Earth was once a water world:
https://www.livescience.com/waterworld-earth.html
willard…”I thought it was common knowledge that the whole Earth was once a water world:”
***
You’re thinking of Disney World. Gorsh!! Ahhhhoo!!
The surface rock in Florida is limestone.
Limestone forms at the bottom of shallow seas.
Therefore Florida was once at the bottom of a shallow sea.
QED
Limestone, chalk and similar is one of the biggest carbon sinks around the globe.
Waterworld was not the only time there was lots of seas around, e.g.:
https://k12.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Science_and_Technology/Earth_Science/16%3A_Earth's_History/16.08%3A_Paleozoic_and_Mesozoic_Seas
Willard: 1.
Why are you not interested in the Paleozoic?
“Chalk was {mostly} formed in the Cretaceous, between 99 and 65 million years ago.”
“Formation of limestone has likely been dominated by biological processes throughout the Phanerozoic, the last 540 million years of the Earth’s history. Limestone may have been deposited by microorganisms in the Precambrian, prior to 540 million years ago, but inorganic processes were probably more important and likely took place in an ocean more highly oversaturated in calcium carbonate than the modern ocean”
Which part of the Paleozoic were you considering?
“There are six periods in the Paleozoic Era: Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleozoic#Periods_of_the_Paleozoic_Era
This part:
https://cse.umn.edu/mgs/paleozoic-geology
“The Cambrian spanned from 541 to 485 million years ago and is the first period of the Paleozoic era of the Phanerozoic.”
“The Paleozoic had four complete cycles of marine transgressions and regressions. The Mesozoic had two (Figure below).”
500 million years ago is in the Cambrian.
“Paleozoic” starts with the letter P.
Idiot.
That’s better.
1.
“chalk, limestone, marble, etc. is that a vast amount of CO2 was removed from the atmosphere during the time when they were mostly deposited, but apparently without a corresponding change in global temperatures at the same time.”
Are you making up facts again, RLH?
“The uplift of the Himalaya, beginning 50 million years ago, reset Earths thermostat by providing a large source of fresh rock to pull more carbon into the slow carbon cycle through chemical weathering. The resulting drop in temperatures and the formation of ice sheets..”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
testing
bob…”An electron in an orbital actually has negative energy, or there is that fact that you need to add energy to remove the electron from its orbital.
So what you are saying is as you add energy to the electron in its orbit, it moves faster and faster as it goes to higher and higher orbits, until you add just enough energy to ionize the atom and the electron leaves and has no kinetic energy.
Hmmm, me thinks you are out of your wheelhouse”.
***
The p.roblem is, Bob, you don’t understand the basics.
The electron is attracted to the nucleus because the nucleus is positive and the electron is negative. However, the electron is moving at high speed in an orbital path. Electrodynamics seems to have a p.roblem with this because they think an electron moving at such a velocity must radiate EM, therefore losing energy and spiraling into the nucleus.
We know now that the electron only radiates EM when it transitions to a lower energy level. Bohr fooled ’em by changing the rules.
Maybe they should observe the lunar orbit or the solar system and see there are conditions where bodies can orbit other bodies without losing energy. That’s what Bohr hypothesized and he seems to be right.
Anyway, the electron was DEFINED to have 0 energy when so far from the nucleus that the nucleus had no effect on it. The ground state, where the electron normally resides in the hydrogen atom, was DEFINED as having – infinity energy. Therefore, an excited electron jumps to an orbital energy level that is less negative wrt to ground state. It is still defined as being negatively all the same, although in electronics we say that less negative is positive.
Each energy level is further defined as having a certain potential energy. If we have potential level P1 and potential energy level P2, we know that P2 – P1 = kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2. When a body or particle moves between potential energy levels it has kinetic energy.
P.roblem is, quantum theory works only if the electron jumps between states with no in-between activity. The orbital energy levels must be discrete (quantized) with nothing going on between states. Therefore the change of energy levels P2 – P1 = hv = 1/2mv^2.
There you have it Bob, when an electron gains energy and jumps to a higher potential level, its KE rises. Since KE = 1/2mv^2, that also means the electron velocity must rise in its higher orbital state. Since KEorbital = 1/2mv^2, that means the higher energy orbital KE increases.
Hey, don’t blame me, I’m just the messenger. This all explains what happens quite well. If the electron drops from P2 -> P1, it emits EM with intensity = P2 – P1 = hv = 1/2mv^2. The electron gives up KE in the downward transition equal to the difference in potential energy between the levels. It’s frequency is also lower at the lower PE state.
The emitted EM has the frequency the electron had at P2 because it was that energy that was lost. Because the electron creates a magnetic field around itself due to its electric field, the emitted energy is called electromagnetic energy.
What were you saying about a wheelhouse?
“However, the electron is moving at high speed in an orbital path.”
How the electron moves in an atom is a subject of contention. That it does so in a manner that allows for its position around the atom to be statistically determined is all that is really known.
Gordon,
“Anyway, the electron was DEFINED to have 0 energy when so far from the nucleus that the nucleus had no effect on it. The ground state, where the electron normally resides in the hydrogen atom, was DEFINED as having infinity energy.”
No it wasn’t.
Go back and read whatever source you are referencing.
You also might look up the harmonic oscillator model for the electron orbitals in the Hydrogen atom.
You are just trying to baffle me with bullshit and you are not doing a very good job.
rlh…”A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits. NOTHING at all”.
…
Do you think by repeating that statement it will come into context? Right now, it’s totally out of context to the problem at hand.
From the time we started talking about the ball on a string we were focused on the fact that it is not possible for the ball to rotate about its axis/COG yet it rotates about an external axis while keeping the same face always pointed to the rotational axis.
The ball is not rotating about its axis, a car or horse moving around a track is not rotating around its axis/COG, a wooden horse bolted to a MGR is not rotating about its axis/COG, and an aircraft orbiting the Earth is not rotating about it’s COG. Neither is the Moon rotating about its axis/COG.
All of this applies in whatever reference frame is applied.
All we non-spinners have claimed is that all of the examples above represent a body moving in a circle/ellipse with the same side always pointed to the external axis of rotation/motion. Furthermore, the bodies changes their orientation through 360 degrees per rotation/revolution/orbit without rotating about a local axis/COG.
I have proved it mathematically and I see no response to the contrary from you or any other spinner.
“Do you think by repeating that statement it will come into context?”
No I expect that people will stop using a ball-on-string to describe orbits with which it has NOTHING in common.
The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, that is external to the ball. Concede to proceed.
Gravity does not act like a ball-on-string. At all.
Ah, so you want to move on and discuss the moon. Well, we can do so once you have conceded that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, that is external to the ball – regardless of reference frames.
That’s where you go wrong DREMT, you just haven’t learned about relativity since all motion is relative.
That’s where you go wrong, Ball4, you just haven’t learned about rotation.
DREMT: And you have not learned the difference between revolution/orbits about a point and rotation about an axis.
Incorrect, RLH.
DREMT should then explain how all motion is NOT relative. Hint: DREMT can make use of the aether in any such explanation.
So DREMT, if I am incorrect please do enlighten us about the differences and how orbiting about a point/barycenter can influence rotation about an internal axis.
I don’t need to, the differences are well-established. I also don’t need to argue against your strawmen. I’m happy I’m right.
…when observing from the accelerated frame.
Sorry, Ball4, nobody is observing from the accelerated frame.
Then you are wrong!
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Consider what Pup is observing when dancing around a pole in a circular and uniform motion.
No, I’m right. From the inertial reference frame, as indeed from any reference frame, the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, that is external to the ball.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. But more than that, your point is utterly irrelevant, for as Walter says:
> There’s no string.
https://youtu.be/mWj1ZEQTI8I?t=764
So, who is pushing?
“the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation”
A ball-on-a-string is not relevant for gravity and orbits.
RLH, do you agree that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, regardless of reference frame?
Like a rod, a ball-on-a-string can have many axis of rotation, left, right and center to name just 3.
No, it only has one axis of rotation, at the other end of the string to that which attaches to the ball.
…as viewed from the ball.
… in two dimensions
No, Ball4, as viewed from anywhere.
So if I have a marble and a basketball which has the axis of rotation? And if both balls are the same size, what then?
The barycenter would be somewhere just off the center of the basketball in the case of the basketball and the marble and it would be exactly halfway between the balls if they were of the same mass. Even here there is only one axis of rotation in either case.
But what I was actually talking about was a ball on a string. One ball. One string. Tethered to a fixed post so that it can rotate freely around the post. The axis of rotation for the ball is at the post. Regardless of reference frame.
…as viewed from anywhere on the ball.
> The barycenter
Compare the first image with the second:
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/barycenter/doppspec-above.en.gif
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/dopspec-inline.en.gif
No, Ball4…as viewed from anywhere. Period.
“One ball. One string. Tethered to a fixed post so that it can rotate freely around the post. The axis of rotation for the ball is at the post.”
And that is relevant to gravity and the Moon how?
I will take that as an agreement.
You would be wrong then. A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with either orbits or gravity. NOTHING at all.
So you keep saying. But anyway, back to what we were discussing…
Agreeing that DREMT is wrong is fine by me.
You’re basically just argumentative for the sake of it.
Says the man has brought up, and lost, the same lame Moon-doesn’t-spin argument for~3 years.
“I have proved it mathematically”
You are wrong. You have proved nothing. Everybody except you and your tiny, tiny, clique accepts that the Moon orbits the Earth once in every 27 days or so and during that transit rotates once on its axis per revolution.
RLH
You might repeat this thousands of times.
That won’t change a tiny, tiny bit in Robertson’s, Flynnson’s, Clint R’s and some other people’s brain.
No chance…
*
I’m glad to perfectly understand German, and thus had the opportunity to read Tobias Mayer’s genial treatise about Moon’s spin.
The spherical trig he used I couldn’t grasp completely, but I could follow his thoughts pretty good.
An astronomer, a mathy guy, an engineer and – last not least – a good teacher: he was that all in one person!
J.-P. D.
JD, Mayer was dealing with the apparent motion called “libration”.
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string indicates an orbiting object, without axial rotation, always keeps the same side facing the inside of its orbit, just as Moon does.
The simple analogy is too complicated for you and your cult members. Others can understand it just fine, like the three “.edu” sites mentioned here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
Of course, a more rigid approach is to realize the two vectors acting on a non-rotating orbiting body produce the same result as the ball-on-a-string.
This has been explained many times. You can’t understand any of it. You’re too obsessed with your cult nonsense.
“like the three ‘.edu’ sites mentioned here:”
which also clearly say that the Moon is spinning on its axis.
But snake-oil promoters like Clint will always neglect to mention these contradictory parts.
Well troll Nate, that’s incorrect. You either didn’t understand the links, or are misrepresenting them.
Or Clint R is wrong.
Shockingly, Clint gets caught in another lie.
His own sources show how he is wrong. What a loser.
https://www.unf.edu/~n00006757/astronomylectures/ECP4e/First%20Lectures/Newton's%20Laws,%20Motion,%20and%20Gravity.pdf
‘Over time the Moons rotation has slowed so much that it matches its orbital period’
‘It is now in synchronous rotation with its orbit’
‘it orbits Earth in the same time it takes to spin once around its rotational axis’
Clint R
” … Mayer was dealing with the apparent motion called ‘libration’. ”
As usual, you show your ignorance of real facts, like does all the time your friend-in-denial Robertson.
Neither do you both know anything about all different kinds of libration, let alone would you know anything about Tobias Mayer.
You very certainly never read Mayer’s treatise:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
otherwise you wouldn’t have written the nonsense above.
Anybody who has read it can immediately search in it for the keyword ‘libration’, by using Google Books:
https://books.google.de/books?hl=de&id=EJqRdI1nLI4C&q=Libration#v=snippet&q=Libration&f=false
The word ‘libration’ occurs only once in Mayer’s 130 page long treatise.
*
Translation of the snippet’s first sentence in English gives (‘Umwwälzung’ is deprecated, today ‘Umdrehung’ is used instead):
” Dominicus Cassini has finally found the right lead. It occurred to him to explain this phenomenon, which until then had been called the libration of the moon, by the rotation of the moon around its axis; and the idea was pretty good. ”
*
And in this treatise, Mayer computed Moon’s rotation period with an incredible accuracy, together with the inclination of the rotation axis wrt the Ecliptic.
All this I have published in 2019 already; at that time, Robertson’s altar boy was nicknamed ‘JD*Huffman’.
But I know how people like you and Robertson do tick: you always continue denying what doesn’t fit into your narrative.
Doesn’t matter.
J.-P. D.
“Robertsons, Flynnsons, Clint Rs and some other peoples brain”
The evidence so far is that they don’t have one.
Gordo repeats his non-physicist rant:
But concludes that:
Gordo guy, changing orientation thru 360 degrees per orbit is the very definition of rotation. Of course, one must measure “orientation” using non-rotating coordinates, i.e., an inertial reference frame. His Earth based coordinates are a rotating reference frame which can not be used.
Of course, Gordo must be blind, as these facts have been pointed out to him numerous times. When Gordo will actually try to learn about dynamics?
E. Swanson, Moon changes direction due to the vectors acting on it. Those vectors do NOT cause axial rotation. A simple model of orbital motion is a ball-on-a-string. The ball always keeps the same side facing the inside of its orbit.
Changing direction is NOT the same as axial rotation. The motions are completely different.
“Those vectors do NOT cause axial rotation.”
Orbits/revolution about a point and rotation on an axis are not related.
Exactly. That’s precisely what Clint R is saying.
Clint R is saying that orbiting is the same as a ball-on-a-string which it most certainly isn’t.
There is no force which makes things ‘face inwards’ during an orbit. Rotation about an axis (if it occurs) has NOTHING to do with its orbit.
"Clint R is saying that orbiting is the same as a ball-on-a-string which it most certainly isn’t."
He is correct.
"Rotation about an axis (if it occurs) has NOTHING to do with its orbit."
Exactly. Again, that’s what he’s saying.
Clint R is writing there is a string connecting the moon to Earth causing orbital motion with “vectors acting in it.” And DREMT writes “precisely”.
Never ending befuddlement with these two…and Gordon.
“”Clint R is saying that orbiting is the same as a ball-on-a-string which it most certainly isnt.”
He is correct.”
He (and you) are wrong.
We’re right, you’re wrong.
…when observing from the accelerated frame.
Sorry Ball4, nobody is observing from the accelerated frame.
Now you admit you are wrong. Great. Now that you have conceded, go ahead and write about the moon-on-a-string.
No, Im right. From the inertial reference frame, as indeed from any reference frame, the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, that is external to the ball.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
From an OBSERVATIONAL standpoint, you could describe some motion M has being composed with a series of rotations and translations.
You could even replace the translations with rotations in you keep within the Fourier realms.
From the inertial reference frame, as indeed from any reference frame, the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, that is external to the ball.
At around 13:40, Walter asks an interesting puzzle:
https://youtu.be/mWj1ZEQTI8I?t=819
If the Sun was the center of a turntable and the planets were on the disk, wouldn’t the planet have the same orbit?
That shows that the planets are not attached to a turntable.
But what if the Sun was spinning around many balls on many strings?
If you ever feel like directly making a coherent point, just let us know.
The point is that you’re wrong, Kiddo.
The ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.
…observed in the accelerated frame.
From any reference frame.
…fixed to the ball.
How about the Glass Tube and the Marble:
https://youtu.be/mWj1ZEQTI8I?t=1042
Don’t forget the trick to dry wet lettuce later on.
“the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation”
As a ball-on-a-string is physically identical to a rod of similar dimensions, that is like saying that a rod only rotates around one end.
Now you’re getting it, RLH.
But a rod can rotate about many axis. Left, right and center to name but 3.
It can do. But if it is moving like the ball on a string, swinging around from one end, then the axis of rotation is at that end.
And if a ball-on-a-string is attached to another ball of the same dimensions, where is the axis of rotation then?
I will take that as an agreement.
You would be wrong then. A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with either orbits or gravity. NOTHING at all.
So you keep saying. But anyway, back to what we were discussing…
If you mention a ball-on-a-string, please note it has NOTHING to do with either orbits or gravity.
Well, you agreed that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame, so I will assume you agree that the same can be said of the ball on a string. You just disagree that it has anything to do with orbits.
You can make a reference frame (non-inertial) about any point you wish.
OK, RLH.
pupswrote:
pups wrote “the vectors”, which I must conclude means “the force vectors”. No one has claimed that forces acting on the CG will cause rotation, don’t know where you came up with that. Gordo was describing a measure of rotation, i.e., 360 degrees, not forces acting on the CG. The fact that the orientation changes 360 degrees per unit time directly implies that the body is rotating, BY DEFINITION. Sorry to say, you pups can’t figure that out.
Sure, the moon rotates about the Earth/moon barycenter, Swannie-poops. It just does not rotate about its own axis. You’ll get there.
…from the accelerated frame.
No, from any reference frame.
I can’t believe that this “E. Swanson” idiot is still such an idiot. He’s the one that claimed to have “built satellites”, last year! But, it turned out he couldn’t identify any of his work, or provide any verification. So it was easy to determine he was just the janitor. But, as we learned more and more about his incompetence, it was clear he never got promoted to “janitor”. He was always in training, as a “Junior Assistant Janitor”.
Last we knew, he was still having trouble learning to use a mop.
He was trolling when the “barbell” problem came up. He ran from it, as did most of the other idiots. He doesn’t know enough physics to solve a simple problem.
That’s why this is so much fun.
You can’t even identify yourself properly, Pup.
In fact you can’t even report your Poll Dance Experiment.
Wow Dud, a 5-minute response time.
You really are a pathetic useless troll with no life and no future. There are several others here, just like you.
You all should form a cult….
Try Walter’s bit about the connection between rotation and centripetal force, Pup:
https://youtu.be/mWj1ZEQTI8I?t=1337
The Pole Dance Experiment is better, but yeah.
Dud, if you had the ability to learn, you would know that I know not to be distracted by links you can’t understand.
You don’t understand any of this.
You had a chance to show you could manage simple physics, with the barbell problem. But, you ran. You can’t handle basic physics.
You ran, Dud.
Walter’s lesson isn’t that hard, Pup.
Even you could get it.
Play Captain Kirk with him:
https://youtu.be/mWj1ZEQTI8I?t=1584
“You all should form a cult.”
Won’t be as small as the cult you are in for sure.
Swanson’ll get there.
I prefer Martin tho.
Who?
Martin.
Martin who?
Search for “Martin” on this page, Kiddo.
No thanks, I’m good.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Oh, OK.
Gordon,
I’ve told you before that this
“Furthermore, the bodies changes their orientation through 360 degrees per rotation/revolution/orbit without rotating about a local axis/COG.”
is impossible without changing the commonly accepted definitions of rotation and orientation.
You guys have changed the definitions and claim you have proved something.
Nope.
No definitions changed, bob. An object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, changes its orientation through 360 degrees. One single motion. Already discussed it with you, already proved it to you. Will not be going through it with you again. Just here to correct you every time you get it wrong.
An object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis as observed from the object, can change its orientation through 360 degrees like our moon.
Two single rotational motions, two inertias, one about r, one about R.
DREMT just doesn’t want to understand ref. frames thus botches relativity.
An object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, changes its orientation through 360 degrees. One single motion. Already discussed it with you, already proved it to you. Will not be going through it with you again. Just here to correct you every time you get it wrong.
Our moon has a single independent rotational motion under LRO polar orbit on r, another single independent rotational motion around Earth on R, two independent inertial amount motions. DREMT botches relativity as always; DREMT has been had but is too dumb to know it.
Carry on showing DREMT’s long time ignorance of relativity.
If the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. I know you don’t agree, I know you don’t understand, and I know you will never shut up. That’s OK.
If the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis more or less than once per rev., THEN you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Carry on proving DREMT’s lack of relativity training.
I’m right.
“An object that is rotating about an external axis”
Which the Moon is NOT according to Brown and Madhavi.
Oh well, no surprise, DREMT lies again.
Bullshit DR EMPTY,
You have changed the definition of zero axial rotation.
And you haven’t proved it to me, every time you offer a proof, I shoot holes in your proof and you never respond, except with more bullshit.
But hey carry on.
“Will not be going through it with you again.”
Well, that’s good.
“Just here to correct you every time you get it wrong.”
There will have to be a first time for that.
A camera mounted on the Moon pointing up will photograph the stars as circles during long enough exposures. This is a fact and proves the Moon rotates.
Are we back to you getting the words “or” and “and” confused.
Yeah, but you won’t admit you got that part of Mahdavi wrong.
Poor bob, left babbling incoherently once again.
An object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the "moon on the left". You think it moves as per the "moon on the right". You are wrong. I am right.
DREMT lies about the Moon, changes standard definitions, declares himself the referee and judges himself the winner!
He is ready to run a small banana republic.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
If you were not trolling, you would care about getting things right. But you don’t.
Please stop trolling.
An object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the "moon on the left". You think it moves as per the "moon on the right". You are wrong. I am right. I know that even my dedicated stalker that I no longer respond to agrees with me on that one.
I know that DREMT knows he’s being dishonest about the Moon when he declares again that is simply rotating about an external axis.
He now tries to pretend that the argument it is NOT about Moon, but of course is.
DR EMPTY,
I thought you weren’t going through it with me again.
I guess you just can’t resist.
And every astronomer knows the Moon rotates on its axis as it revolves around the Earth.
It’s bad form to say the Moon rotates around an external axis, you should say it revolves around an external axis.
Otherwise you will look like an idiot.
"I know that even my dedicated stalker that I no longer respond to agrees with me on that one."
…but it won’t stop bob – and Willard, his enthusiastic cheerleader – from believing they are correct. Even when people on their own side of the argument disagree with them, they won’t let it phase their belief system. And, of course, they will never argue amongst themselves, even when they are in direct disagreement with each other. That would go against their code.
“And, of course, they will never argue amongst themselves”
Lets note that DREMT never ever corrects his TEAM members when they claim the Moon is rotating about an external axis, or not rotating at all, or can be explained by a ball-on-a-string.
I’m not going through it with you again, bob. You can directly argue with my dedicated stalker, if you still disagree. You and he are in direct disagreement. I’d love to see you two battle it out.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Unless you can show two claims made by Nate and Bob are in direct contradiction, and not the product of your vivid imagination, you got NOTHING.
They know they disagree.
DR EMPTY,
Get back to me when you have figured out the difference between “and” and “or”
Silly.
Yes, it was silly of you to get them mixed up when you were quoting Mahdavi.
It was Brown, not Madhavi, and no I did not get anything mixed up.
“It was Brown, not Madhavi, and no I did not get anything mixed up.”
Except these items:
Madhavi
“Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration. Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.”
3. General plane motion: There are many other types of plane motion, that is, motions in which all the particles of the body move in parallel planes. Any plane motion which is neither a rotation nor a translation is referred to as a general plane motion. Two examples of general plane motion are given in Fig3.”
Brown:
“Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.
General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
Oh well, just another DREMT lie.
I wonder when bob and my stalker are going to duke it out? I guess it would take some integrity on their part for them to do so…
…so probably never.
Please, can we have something, anything, to distract DREMT and help him recover from the failure of his 3-year lunar mission!
If Kiddo could point at a claim of yours that contradicts one of Bob’s, Nate, it would at least be entertaining.
But no, Kiddo’s reduced to troll like Pup.
bob claims (erroneously) that an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the "moon on the right". My stalker (correctly) think it moves as per the "moon on the left".
Notice how neither of them deny that they made these claims, Willard. They just try to wriggle their way out of arguing with each other.
Poor Kiddo can’t find quotes and cites.
No, I am not going to find quotes and cites. You were there on one of the occasions bob made the claim that an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the "moon on the right". So you can vouch for that side of the argument.
As to the other side…he knows what he said.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You have to work to make your own points. The alternative is to become a silly troll like Pup.
What Bob said may not mean what you make it mean.
So DREMTs lunacy has polluted this blog with for ~ 3 years, and is coming to an ignominious end.
Instead of facing up to this reality, dealing with HIS errors, he has resorted to total dishonesty and various attempted distractions, including Whataboutism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
In this case, it’s worse than that:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LetsYouAndHimFight
He also provided the answer to it in a related context:
But Kiddo is whatabouting Eric as we speak:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-824541
bob and my stalker disagree, Willard. So painful for you, I know. The cognitive dissonance you must be experiencing…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566712
Nothing Bob says contradicts:
[NATE] Rotating about an external axis NOT equivalent to ORBITING. No matter how many times you try to declare it so.
bob claims (erroneously) that an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the "moon on the right". My stalker (correctly) think it moves as per the "moon on the left". As you can see from the comment, where he says "TRUE" to my description of an object moving as per the "moon on the left" which I say is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass (internal axis).
…without rotating about its own center of mass (internal axis) in the accelerated frame because it: “changes its orientation through 360 degrees as it orbits” as DREMT and Gordon claim.
Ball4, either an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the "moon on the left" or it moves as per the "moon on the right".
There is another choice, as DREMT and Gordon claim, the object can also change its orientation through 360 degrees as it orbits as I just pointed out.
Either an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the "moon on the left" or it moves as per the "moon on the right".
…or it can change its orientation through 360 degrees as it orbits per DREMT and Gordon.
Either an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the "moon on the left" or it moves as per the "moon on the right".
Which do you think it is, Ball4?
As I noted, it is the object can change its orientation through 360 degrees as it orbits per DREMT and Gordon.
"Moon on the left", or "moon on the right", Ball4?
Any object can change its orientation through 360 degrees as it orbits per DREMT and Gordon.
"Moon on the left", or "moon on the right"?
Already answered. Next question.
"…left" or "…right", Ball4?
> bob claims
Still no quote, Kiddo?
So sad.
Indeed DREMT is like Bernie Madoff, saying ‘Why you hassling me? Look at that guy, double-parking”
Not my department. I work in the Major Fraud, Corruption and Conspiracy Department.
You were involved in one of the discussions, Willard. You know bob claimed that an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the "moon on the right". I am interested to see if you can be honest enough to admit it.
Here’s the fraud in action
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-825052
Here’s the prosecution in action:
“Find a definition of ORBIT from any legitimate source anywhere that agrees with this.
You will not find any!”
bob has "left the building".
Still no quote, Kiddo?
So sad.
bob knows what he said. You know what he said.
Sure, Kiddo.
And it’s not what you make it mean.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here’s what Bob says, Kiddo:
“every time you offer a proof, I shoot holes in your proof and you never respond, except with more bullshit”
And Bob does what he says.
bob was wrong, Willard. And you simply cannot bear it.
Now, please stop trolling.
Even DREMT agrees:
“An orbit is a regular, repeating path that one object in space takes around another one.”
But then the TEAM simply invents their own add-on to the definition:
“An orbit (without axial rotation) involves the object changing its orientation through 360 degrees.”
This central definition of ORBIT used by the TEAM is proven to be FALSE, a completely made-up fact that no authoritative source can confirm.
Thus the main non-spinner Mantra:
“The ‘Non-Spinners’ see ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ as per the ‘moon on the left’ is based on a FALSE PREMISE, and thus is thoroughly debunked.
Our long Roy Spencer blog nightmare is thankfully over.
Kiddo still cannot grok frames of reference.
bob’s wrong, Willard. Sorry.
You’re misrepresenting Bob because you don’t understand any of this, Kiddo.
Where’s your Master Argument?
I am not misrepresenting bob. He is wrong. Sorry.
Of course you’re misrepresenting Bob, Kiddo.
Here’s the shortest demonstration:
https://youtu.be/iginxrFn3jg
Starting around 5:00 should be enough.
I’m not misrepresenting bob. He is wrong. Sorry.
Not only you’re misrepresenting Bob, Kiddo, but you’re misrepresenting Nate and Flop.
Have another hint:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qzzlfflonx
No, I’m not misrepresenting, bob. He is wrong. Sorry.
Of course you’re misrepresenting Bob, Kiddo.
Where’s the Moon Dragon Master Argument?
No, Willard, I am not misrepresenting bob. He is wrong. Sorry.
Of course you are misrepresenting, Kiddo.
Please stop trolling and give me your Master Argument.
No, I am not misrepresenting bob. He is wrong. Sorry.
#2
Of course you are misrepresenting, Kiddo.
Please stop trolling and give me your Master Argument.
#2
No, I am not misrepresenting bob. He is wrong. Sorry.
tim…”This internal energy (also commonly called thermal energy) is the sum of the translational, vibrational, and rotational energy at an atomic level”.
***
You call it thermal energy then you describe mechanical phenomena. What causes vibration? It is purely a mechanical process.
How does a solid body at rest translate? If you have atoms bonded together by electrons, hwo do they translate? Molecules can rotate but you won’t find a molecule rotating in a solid body.
I am talking about a solid body comprised of a lattice of atoms, all bonded together. Doesn’t have to be a lattice but it is convenient. EM cannot reach the internal atoms so it is not a factor internally. We do know that heating the body causes the atoms in the lattice to vibrate harder, hence doing more work. You have admitted the internal energy is thermal energy, aka heat. But, Clausius also included the work done by the vibrating atoms.
If H = quantity of heat in a body, and L = work done internally by vibrating atoms, then dQ = a small change in heat and becomes…
dQ = dH + dL
Clausius suggested that a body has a quantity of heat under specific conditions. I suggest that quantity can be measured by a thermometer. During the specific conditions, the atoms will vibrate at a certain rate, which can likely be measured as well. Therefore the internal energy is the sum of the heat and the work done by the vibrating atoms.
He did not think that was required since the internal energy can be determined from specifying the initial and final conditions. Ergo, the 1st law.
He gave an example with a gas as well where initial conditions were noted. The gas was then heated at a constant volume while the pressure change was noted. By varying two parameters while holding the other constant, he created a heat engine model, which he applied to prove the 2nd law, that heat cannot by its own means be transferred cold to hot.
It’s all laid out in his Mechanical Theory of Heat – 1879.
“Clausius suggested that a body has a quantity of heat under specific conditions.”
Correctly, Clausius suggested that a body has a quantity of a measure of the constituent particle total KE under specific conditions. Correctly, Clausius used H as symbol for enthalpy.
Joule proved a heating rate applied to an object does not increase the mass of the object thus proving there is no heat existing in a body contrary to Gordon’s assertions.
Gordon needs to understand and write Clausius’ translated words from 1879 & not Gordon’s words proving Gordon’s befuddlement.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Earth / Europa (Jupiter’s moon) satellite measured mean surface temperatures 288 K and 102 K comparison
All the data below are satellite measurements. All the data below are observations.
Planet….Earth….Europa
Tsat.mean 288 K….102 K
R…………..1 AU…5,2044 AU
1/R²………1…….0,0369
N………….1……0,28159 rot./day
a…………..0,306……0,63
(1-a)………0,694……0,37
coeff……….0,9127…0,3158
Comparison coefficient calculation
[ (1-a) (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
Earth:
Tsat.mean = 288 K
[ (1-a)*(1/R²)*(N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,694 * 1 * 1 )¹∕ ⁴ = 0,9127
Europa:
Tsat.mean = 102 K
[ (1-a)*(1/R²)*(N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,37*0,0369*(1/3,5512)¹∕ ⁴ ] ¹∕ ⁴ = 0,3158
Let’s compare
Earth coeff. /Europa coeff. =
= 0.9127 /0,3158 = 2,8902
And
Tmean.earth /Tmean.europa =
= 288 K /102 K = 2,8235
Conclusion:
Everything is all right. Everything is based on observations.
Notice:
We could successfully compare Earth /Europa ( 288 K /102 K ) satellite measured mean surface temperatures because both Earth and Europa have two identical major features.
Φearth = 0,47 because Earth has a smooth surface and Φeuropa = 0,47 because Europa also has a smooth surface.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*°C, 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.
Europa is an ice-crust planet without atmosphere, Europa’s surface consists of water ice crust, cp.europa = 1cal/gr*°C.
And
It is a confirmation that the planet axial spin (rotations per day) “N” should be considered in the (Tmean) planet mean surface temperature equation in the fourth root:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Unless you have fixed your emitted flux problem for Earth, this is is still falsified.
I had no need of your pile on, and, not knowing you, tried to have a civilized discourse with the usual outcome.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I have laid out the problems I see, very clearly, several times.
Yet you keep coming back repeating the same claims without adequately addressing the valid criticisms, which is what anyone doing science must be willing to do!
If you are unwilling to test your science claims against the available data, then STOP making the claims!
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
The Brazilian scientists were skeptical. They ran different models to check calculations, but all returned the same startling result.
The country with the most freshwater resources on the planet steadily lost 15% of its surface water since 1991. Gradual retreat in the Brazilian share of the Pantanal, the world’s largest tropical wetland, left water covering just one-quarter the area it did 30 years ago.
And the data only went through 2020 — before this year’s drought that is Brazil’s worst in nine decades.
https://thehimalayantimes.com/environment/brazil-water-survey-heightens-alarm-over-extreme-drought
The globe has indeed been experiencing lower temperatures figures since 2016. Both 2019 and 2020 were up on this year.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
Also
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2020/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2019/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2016/trend
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Willard
Speaking of one trick ponies, do you think the Hockey Schtick has any splinters left after the gut blister by the auditor?
There are as many hockey sticks as there are sock puppets here, and the Auditor is trying not to go a bridge too far.
He relies on mindless sycophants like you for that.
1.
No U
No, 1.
Willard: 1.
Willard proves he is an idiot by posting ‘GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE’ threads.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
1.
Williard is a nitwit. He brings up Roy’s one-trick pony but then lists three tricks. Isn’t it the pot calling the kettle black for Willard to talk about someone being a one-trick pony? Yes, I think it is.
There’s only one trick, Troglodyte. A three-card Monte involves more than one action. It’s still one trick. Same for algorithms with many functions.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about. But then, that’s just par for your course.
Willard still at 1.
No U at 3.
Still at 1 Willard
Except the actual 5 y trend is up.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2016.5/trend
Which illustrates that, once again, RLH, you fail to acknowledge that the statistical significance of these ‘downward’ trends is extremely low.
How long does it take for a short trend to become significant in your mind? Obviously 6 months, 1 year or even 5 years is not enough.
What a difference 6 months makes.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2016/trend
Exactly.
Now you’re starting to get it.
Willard: 1.
And really, why skip these?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2018/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2017/trend
3 out of 5 years since 2016 and 2 out of 3 since 2019 show that the numbers are falling. The 2 you mention are the exception (obviously).
Now you’re talking like a sport analytics fan, dummy.
1.
The OLS absurdity in its full glory
https://tinyurl.com/2fyeck79
I thought that you supported the idea of OLS. Only if the period is ‘long enough’ in your case it seems.
Me, I believe that, like all large physical systems, there are long period(ish) low frequency resonances which better explain what we see.
There.
‘Low frequency’ explains the absurdity of your 1-5 y fits.
Fitting short term noise.
Now you will triple down on the absurdity.
How long before the ‘noise’ turns into a longer term trend? more than 5 years for sure.
Care to predict if this months UAH figures are going to be lower than last month or not?
Various recent 3y trends, for fun and profit.
https://tinyurl.com/4bkfvfn4
Care to predict if this months UAH figures are going to be lower than last month or not?
I saw lower (but then I would).
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Willard: 1.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
1.
“When pinned down, Just Ask Questions”
is pretty obvious here.
When the trend flip-flops dramatically with a few months change in start or end point, and does so over and over and over, one should be able to recognize the FUTILITY of fitting a trend line to short term noise.
And if the ‘noise’ turns into a longer term trend, just deny it is happening for at least a decade.
“And if the noise turns into a longer term trend”
So you are not on the ‘what if climate science is right’ committee, but
you are promoting ‘what if pigs could fly’ preparedness?
I am asking how long is it for short term ‘noise’ to turn into a longer term trend for you.
Care to predict if this months UAH figures are going to be lower than last month or not?
“I am asking how long is it for short term ‘noise’ to turn into a longer term trend for you.”
Nature is doing what its doing. It aint happening for ME or YOU.
By ‘turning into’ I assume you can somehow connect the two phenomena.
In this instance, the short term noise is caused mostly by a known phenomena, La Nina.
What is the mechanism you have in mind for a La Nina, or even a double La Nina, to cause a long-term cooling trend?
Or do you have in mind that a La Nina event is just going to be, by happenstance, connected to the start of a long term cooling trend?
“In this instance, the short term noise is caused mostly by a known phenomena, La Nina.”
I though you said La Nina was over.
“What is the mechanism you have in mind for a La Nina, or even a double La Nina, to cause a long-term cooling trend?”
And if we were to have more La Nina’s in the next decade than El Nino’s would that give a trend or not?
“And if we were to have more La Ninas in the next decade ”
So your proposed mechanism is a hope that the current short-term noise will simply repeat over and over again?
Because the current negative of the ENSO cycle will repeat over and over without having to go positive?
IOW, If pigs could fly then what would you say then?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-822843
“So your proposed mechanism is a hope that the current short-term noise will simply repeat over and over again?”
No it is an observation that if ‘short term noise’ repeats in a given direction an overall trend will immerge.
Just as more El Nino’s (or larger ones) in a decade will cause a rise, more La Nina’s (or larger ones) in a decade will cause a fall.
“Just as more El Ninos (or larger ones) in a decade will cause a rise, more La Ninas (or larger ones) in a decade will cause a fall.”
Yes.
Just as with any random noise, even white noise, there will be periods of more positive values than negative.
Trends are not made that way.
ENSO/PDO is cyclic which means it has periods of rise and periods of falls.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/pdo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/nino34-2.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/enso.jpeg
“Trends are not made that way.”
Trends arise from a balance of internal occurrences. They do not arrive by magic.
Noise by your definition is anything that does not cause a continuous rise.
Please note, that according to at least one proxy, Pacific temperatures over the last 2 millennia have fallen not risen.
Trends arise from a balance of internal occurrences and external influences.
For ENSO your hope seems to be that a recent departure below the mean (or mean trend for global T) will somehow produce persistently lower values.
The persistence of the ENSO signal, historically, is something that can be measured.
It is called the Autocorrelation Function, ACF. It measures how long does the signal ‘remember’ its previous history.
When the ACF reaches ~ 0 it means that the signal after this much time, has been completely randomized. It is a measure of the signal’s persistence time.
Here it is for NINO 3.4.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/autocoriersst_nino3.4a_relm0sdfae-.png
You can see that beyond about 10 months it has little memory of the previous signal.
For those who want the figures rather than the OLS trend.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2020
Brazil has indeed lost 15% of its surface water since 1991.
https://thehimalayantimes.com/environment/brazil-water-survey-heightens-alarm-over-extreme-drought
“11,600 years ago (9,600 BC): An abrupt period of global warming accelerates the glacial retreat; taken as the beginning of the Holocene geological epoch.
11,600 years ago: Jericho has evidence of settlement dating back to 9,600 BC. Jericho was a popular camping ground for Natufian hunter-gatherer groups, who left a scattering of crescent microlith tools behind them.
11,20011,000 years ago: Meltwater pulse 1B, a sudden rise of sea level by 7.5 m (25 ft) within about 160 years.
11,000 years ago (9,000 BC): Earliest date recorded for construction of temenoi ceremonial structures at Gbekli Tepe in southern Turkey, as possibly the oldest surviving proto-religious site on Earth.
11,000 years ago (9,000 BC): Giant short-faced bears and giant ground sloths go extinct. Equidae goes extinct in North America.
11,000-8,000 years ago (9,000 BC to 7,000 BC): the Ancestral Puebloans, in modern day New Mexico and the Southwestern United States, began their ArchaicEarly Basketmaker Era. Leading to art styles in pottery and basketmaking that are still used in the region. As well as early structures in the Pueblo architecture style, including some of those seen at Chaco Culture National Historical Park.”
Gradual retreat in the Brazilian share of the Pantanal, the world’s largest tropical wetland, left water covering just one-quarter the area it did 30 years ago.
https://thehimalayantimes.com/environment/brazil-water-survey-heightens-alarm-over-extreme-drought
Indeed lost? Wow, indeed.
You indeed claim having a gun, Troglodyte, and teh Donald has indeed lost.
Willard: 1.
Indeed the ongoing drought has already boosted energy costs and food prices, withered crops, rendered vast swaths of forest more susceptible to wildfire and prompted specialists to warn of possible electricity shortages.
https://thehimalayantimes.com/environment/brazil-water-survey-heightens-alarm-over-extreme-drought
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/worst-brazil-drought-20-years-up-pressure-power-grid-official-2021-05-10/
“Brazil’s worst drought in two decades will force the country to depend more heavily on costly thermal power plants to compensate for reduced hydroelectric generation, the National Electric Grid Operator (ONS) director-general said.”
Unprecedented for the last 20 years.
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/southeast-brazil-drought-2014-2015/
“South east Brazil experienced profound water shortages in 201415. Anthropogenic climate change was not found to be a major influence on the hazard, whereas increasing population and water consumption increased vulnerability.”
[RICHARD] 3 out of 5 years since 2016 and 2 out of 3 since 2019 show that the numbers are falling.
[ALSO RICHARD] Unprecedented for the last 20 years.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/27/how-a-hot-blob-off-new-zealand-is-contributing-to-drought-in-south-america
“Study reveals the vast patch of warm water has produced a dry ridge of high pressure across the south Pacific, blocking storms from reaching Chile”
Willard still stuck at 1.
Chile faces one ocean:
“In the new study, published in the Journal of Climate, the scientists used computer simulations to investigate whether there was a link between the blob, which spans an area about the size of Australia, and years of low winter rainfall in Chile.”
Brazil faces another.
“The belt that forms in northeastern Brazil, between the Parnaba and So Francisco rivers, is classified as an interior warm arid zone. The interior highlands act as a wedge separating the sea winds from the northeast and those from the southeast, which carry their moisture beyond the region. Average annual rainfall is less than 4 inches (100 mm), and the dry season may last as long as seven months. The worst feature of the areas climate is the irregularity of the rainfall, as a result of which severe droughts plague the region.”
The word “Pacific” starts with a P.
1.
We’re saved!!!
Based on three year’s data RLH has proved that global warming has ended and the slow cooling towards the next glacial period has resumed.
No I haven’t and you are wrong to claim it so.
What I have observed is that the figures from all sources are falling not rising for the last 3 out of 5 years, or 2 out of 3 if you prefer that.
Which has little relevance to climate change..
And more importantly with freshwater in Brazil.
But has relevance to changing climate.
The whole of South America is suffering because of things happening far to the West.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/27/how-a-hot-blob-off-new-zealand-is-contributing-to-drought-in-south-america
“They found the blob had warmed 1.5C over the 40 year period, about three times the global average increase in sea surface temperature.”
As there is a ~60 year cycle in Pacific sea temperatures, as does the Atlantic, 40 years proves nothing.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Willard: 1.
“figures from all sources are falling not rising for the last 3 out of 5 years”
As random noise tends to do!
‘Noise’ is what you describe as anything that is not a rising curve.
Care to predict if this months UAH figures are going to be lower than last month or not? That is only ‘noise’ of course.
“Evaporation is a part of the natural cycle that can diminish water resources, particularly in areas with shallower supplies like the Pantanal wetlands, which sprawl across up to 80,000 square miles in three countries. It is a persistent problem in places like Lake Mead and Lake Powell in the Colorado River basin.”
https://thehimalayantimes.com/environment/brazil-water-survey-heightens-alarm-over-extreme-drought
As there is a ~60 year cycle in Pacific sea temperatures, as does the Atlantic, 40 years proves nothing.
“Sullivn said the MapBiomas data was “eye-popping,” though unsurprising; nearly 90% of South America’s wetland area is estimated to have vanished since 1900, and nearly 40% in North America, he said. Wetlands are essential to many species of wildlife and key to retaining water to be gradually released into rivers, which prevents flooding.”
https://thehimalayantimes.com/environment/brazil-water-survey-heightens-alarm-over-extreme-drought
entropic…”Based on three years data RLH has proved that global warming has ended and the slow cooling towards the next glacial period has resumed”.
***
When did global warming begin? Are you referring to the current RE-warming from the Little Ice Age? We are currently in some kind of warming phase, following another warming phase in the 1930s – 1940s, all part of the rewarming process.
Will Ida delay September 1st update?
My prayers are for everyone in the hurricane zone.
You think the hurricane will cause satellites to spin out of control or something ?
UAH is not far from ground zero.
Ken,
You must live halfway around the world? From that vantage point, UAH is not far from ground zero.
Yes, they will get a sprinkler out of it
Last time around (Katrina) they had a lot of weather.
https://bit.ly/3DqwwDm
Ida is expected to pass North of Huntsville on Tuesday afternoon.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?start#contents
By then it will be a thunderstorm.
We’re learning that Trump had a much different exit strategy for Afghanistan. We’re also learning they wanted to brief the Biden administration and knew that if we just left, that this would happen. Biden’s arrogance will be his downfall.
Meh. The dead shall rise to vote again.
stephen…we know Biden is a desperate liar. Trump would have this under control.
Trump is livid because the Taliban showed how him how to successfully take down a capitol.
“Were learning” from where?
Trump’s deal with Taliban was all give by us, release of thousands of their fighters, departure of our troops, and NO give by them.
I believe both Trump and Biden policy was correct, to leave Afghanistan after 20 y. We know how to effectively blow things up. But don’t know how to rebuild functional self-government in our image, in other people’s countries, who have never developed it on their own.
The policy needed to be implemented by the military with the help of local government and Intelligence agencies. It was certainly done poorly.
Wherever there are corrupt government, Islam flourishes. Its how they got started and its how they spread across the globe.
The situation in Afghanistan was extremely corrupt. People don’t like corrupt governments unless they are getting their ‘just rewards’ too. Its no wonder that they won’t fight to defend their ‘free and just democracy’ when it clearly isn’t working for them.
The significant outcome for the world is going to be changes to the opium trade routes.
It will have to compete with cheap Fentanyl..
ball4…”Correctly, Clausius suggested that a body has a quantity of a measure of the constituent particle total KE under specific conditions. Correctly, Clausius used H as symbol for enthalpy”.
***
Ball4 is so pathetic he has to rewrite the words of a great scientist.
On page 51/435 in The Mechanical Theory of Heat, 1879, Clausius wrote…
“If we denote the total heat existing in a body, or more briefly, the Quantity of Heat of the body, by H, and the indefinitely small small increment of this quantity by dH, and if we put dL for the indefinitely small quantity of work done, we can write:
dQ = dH + dL …”
He defined dQ earlier as an indefinitely small quantity of heat imparted to the body.
It’s obvious Q is a reference to external heat and H and L are references to internal heat and work respectively.
There is no reference to enthalpy in the rest of the book and if you knew the meaning of enthalpy you would have no reason to find it in a book about heat and work. Enthalpy is used in chemistry.
***
As far as your stupid interpretation, he said on P. 45/435..
“We will therefore start with the assumption that Heat consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies, and of ether, and that the quantity of heat is a measure of the Vis Viva of motion”.
Vis Viva is a term used in his day for kinetic energy.
Ether is an old term as well. In the day of Clausius, scientists thought heat flowed through an ether as heat rays.
Note: Clausius said, the ***QUANTITY*** of heat is a measure of the KE. He does not at any time claim heat is a measure of KE. In another book, he refers to heat simply as the kinetic energy of atoms.
Since KE is a reference to energy in motion, where the energy in kinetic ‘energy’ is heat, then it makes sense that the total quantity of heat is a measure of the total kinetic energy. Conversely, the total kinetic energy is a measure of the total quantity of heat.
You can see plainly what has happened. A load of idiotic modern scientists have completely misinterpreted what he wrote, and taught it to you incorrectly, and you gulped it down with the greatest of gullibility without bothering to check.
Gordon, just substitute Clausius def., of heat into the passage you clip so you can understand Clausius’ translated meaning when using the term “heat” instead of YOUR incorrect meaning for the term “heat” (using modern KE for Clausius’ time Vis Viva):
“If we denote the total (measure of the KE of motion) existing in a body, or more briefly, the Quantity of
(a measure of the KE of motion) of the body, by H, and the indefinitely small increment of this quantity by dH, and if we put dL for the indefinitely small quantity of work done, we can write:
dQ = dH + dL …”
Clausius L is the PV energy term used in modern eqn. for enthalpy, Clausius assigned his H = internal thermodynamic energy + L or his H = U + PV in modern thermodynamic terms. The sign being a convention where work done to achieve the object’s PV energy is to or from the object.
The older nomenclature has confused Gordon but not Clausius or modern text writers.
Note Gordon wrote erroneously: “(Clausius) does not at any time claim heat is a measure of KE” because quite obviously Gordon also correctly clips Clausius: “heat is a measure of the Vis Viva of motion.” since Gordon writes: “Vis Viva is a term used in (Clausius’) day for kinetic energy.”.
It is Gordon that can’t correctly follow Clausius’ H thru to modern time nomenclature for enthalpy. Gordon continuously needs correcting when misusing the term “heat”. Gordon would need NO correcting if Gordon just dropped the term “heat” altogether instead of continuously abusing the poor term.
ball4…I am not even going to attempt a reply to an idiot like you, who is such a troll that he has to take a quote from Clausius I had already posted and modified it to read what goes on in the distorted mind of Ball4.
Above, I quoted Clausius, giving the page number and he said…
“…the ***QUANTITY*** of heat is a measure of the KE”.
You, like the loser troll you are modified that to …
“heat is a measure of the Vis Viva of motion.”
You are such a blatant idiot that you have to modify the words of a great scientist to make your pathetic, incorrect point.
Gordon, it is your own comment that you are disagreeing with, from P. 45/435…
Please do try to pay at least some attention to what YOU actually wrote. Sheesh. I was thinking only a computer bot – like a Tesla on autopilot – would get its own stuff wrong, guess not.
ball4…”it is your own comment that you are disagreeing with, from P. 45/435″
***
Nope, it’s you amendment of what I wrote initially. You are such a loser that you not only cherry pick, you do so malevolently, like the idiot troll you are.
swannie…”The fact that the orientation changes 360 degrees per unit time directly implies that the body is rotating, BY DEFINITION. Sorry to say, you pups cant figure that out”.
***
No, Swannie, I have explained this over and over. The change in orientation is due to the constant change in the tangent line representing the tangent plane of the near side. You know, the side that always faces the Earth. That tangent line defines an inner orbit.
There is another tangent plane at the far side and it has a tangent line defining an outer, concentric orbit. Those tangent lines are always parallel, through each point of the orbit.
The Moon is always performing linear translation and gravity serves to re-orient the translation into an orbital curve.
You’ll never get this because you are still working on denying the 2nd law.
“The Moon is always performing linear translation and gravity serves to re-orient the translation into an orbital curve.”
That describes an orbit, not an orientation.
rlh…”That describes an orbit, not an orientation”.
***
Come on RLH, you claim to have a Master’s degree yet you cannot comprehend a simple explanation??? A tangent line drawn at the Moon’s near face is always changing orientation. It is not changing orientation because the Moon is rotating about an axis, it is doing it because the Moon is not rotating locally.
If the Moon was rotating locally, the tangent line could not remain perpendicular to a radial line as it does now. It must rotate through 360 degrees ABOUT ITS AXIS per orbit, as one sees with the Earth. The Earth does not keep the same side pointed to the Sun.
This is exactly the same as an airliner maintaining a constant altitude at 35,000 feet. The tangent line representing the near face of the Moon is the same tangent line representing the nose-tail axis of the airliner. If the airliner rotates around that axis it will be upside down at some point and it would crash.
Do you think an airliner has controls that allow it to follow the curvature of the Earth? No. All it has to do is keep a constant linear velocity and gravity will do the rest, as it does with the Moon.
“Come on RLH, you claim to have a Masters degree yet you cannot comprehend a simple explanation???”
I do indeed have one and my conclusion stands. You are wrong and nothing you have said makes me want to change my mind.
The airliner does rotate around that axis once & will be upside down at some point circumnavigating the globe just like the Chinese stand upside down.
( :
rlh…”I do indeed have one and my conclusion stands. You are wrong and nothing you have said makes me want to change my mind”.
***
You have not explained why I am wrong…because you can’t. There is no way to refute the math I presented to you so you stubbornly cling to your authority figure.
ball4..”The airliner does rotate around that axis once & will be upside down at some point circumnavigating the globe just like the Chinese stand upside down”.
***
Another idiotic response from Ball4. The plane has changed orientation, not rotated on its axis you ninny. If it rotated on its axis, all people not wearing seat belts would fall to the ceiling.
If it rotated on its axis more or less than once per circumnavigation, all people not wearing seat belts would fall to the ceiling.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
As the plane flies half way round the world, gravity changes its orientation, so as the plane rotates, so does the direction of the gravitational force, so the people on the plane don’t fall out of their seats.
As the plane flies half way round the world, gravity changes its orientation, so as the plane rotates (but not on its own axis), so does the direction of the gravitational force, so the people on the plane dont fall out of their seats.
…and the airliner can change its orientation through 360 degrees as it orbits as Gordon and DREMT point out.
An orbit (without axial rotation) involves the object changing its orientation through 360 degrees.
Thank you for the concession the orbiting object is changing its orientation through 360 degrees. This would apply equally to our moon, ball-on-string, and fixed hobby horse on m-g-r. I’m happy with the win, though sorry you had to concede.
An orbit (without axial rotation) involves the object changing its orientation through 360 degrees.
I understand your concession DREMT, glad you (and Gordon) agree any object can change its orientation through 360 degrees as it orbits. You know, like our moon depicted, ball-on-string, and fixed hobby horse on m-g-r.
An orbit (without axial rotation) involves the object changing its orientation through 360 degrees. Agree? Yes or No?
Already answered. Next question.
You didn’t answer.
Yes or no, Ball4?
“An orbit (without axial rotation) involves the object changing its orientation through 360 degrees.”
False. Again repeating the lie that you have not redefined anything!
Find a definition of ORBIT from any legitimate source anywhere that agrees with this.
You will not find any!
Yes or no, Ball4?
Already answered. Next question when you have one.
No, you didn’t answer.
Yes or no?
“Youll never get this because you are still working on denying the 2nd law.”
Sorry, but anyone who can’t understand that circular motion involves a force and an acceleration toward the center is in not position to ‘teach’ about mechanics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-810543
tim…”Sorry, but anyone who cant understand that circular motion involves a force and an acceleration toward the center is in not position to teach about mechanics”.
***
Acceleration requires movement. Applying f = ma with no movement of the mass due to the force has no meaning.
People claiming your acceleration theory often admit the Moon is moving with instantaneous linear velocity yet they claim the Moon is accelerating toward the Earth, moment to moment.
Assume a circular orbit. Draw a radial line from Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre. Gravitational force is acting along that radial line toward the Earth. In this case, the formula is f = mg.
If ‘f’ causes any acceleration whatsoever, along the radial line, the Moon must change position along that radial line. That means it must lose altitude, therefore the radial line, R, gets shorter and the orbital circle loses circumference. Eventually, the Mon must crash into Earth.
As I pointed out before, Newton II applies only if ‘f’ is large enough, or ‘m’ is small enough, that ‘m’ can move. If not, you have a case of static equilibrium.
That has to be the case with the Moon. Although gravity can hold it in position at a relatively constant altitude, the Moon’s linear momentum is enough to prevent gravity from accelerating the Moon toward Earth.
> Applying f = ma with no movement of the mass due to the force has no meaning.
Zero isn’t meaninglessness.
willard…”Zero isnt meaninglessness”.
***
Zero movement is meaningless if you are talking about acceleration. A force of zero means zero acceleration, hence zero movement.
Division by zero is meaningless, Gordo.
Zero force has meaning.
Gordon, Gordon, Gordon,
The Moon has to be accelerating, because its velocity is changing as it revolves around the earth its direction of movement changes.
Just get a ball and string and you have to pull on the string to make the ball revolve around your hand.
The Engineering Police are coming to take your license…
if you have one
bob d “The Moon has to be accelerating, because its velocity is changing as it revolves around the earth its direction of movement changes”.
***
Bob, Bob, Bob…get along little droegie
As I was walking one morning for pleasure
I spied a cowpuncher riding along
His hat was throwed back and his spurs were a-jingling
And as he approached he was singing this song
Whoopee ti yi yo, git along little droegies
It’s your misfortune and none of my own
Whoopie ti yi yo, git along little droegies
***
Come on Bob, there is no acceleration toward the Earth. The Moon has a constant linear velocity, hence a constant linear momentum, and there are no forces acting against it to affect its linear velocity/momentum.
The Moon and Earth’s gravity are in balance but the orbital path is slightly elliptical, therefore there are parts of the orbit where momentum has slightly more effect than gravity. That allows the orbital path to stretch into an elliptical shape and during that stretching there may be slight changes in the lunar momentum/velocity. However, that disappears when the Moon heads back to the less elongated part of the orbit where its velocity/momentum is reduced.
That does not represent a change in acceleration, which requires a force. The Moon maintains essentially a constant linear momentum with slight variations, shall we say.
> there is no acceleration toward the Earth
OMG, which stands for Oh My G.
Gordon,
“The Moon has a constant linear velocity,”
Nope, velocity is not speed, it includes the directional component.
The Moon changes direction as it revolves around the Earth.
Knock Knock
It’s the Engineer Police again.
And nope again, as the Moon orbits in an ellipse and follows Kepler’s Laws and moves with a higher velocity when nearer to the earth.
“If ‘f’ causes any acceleration whatsoever, along the radial line, the Moon must change position along that radial line. “
No! If there is an acceleration, then — by definition — there must be a change in the velocity. Velocity is a vector. If either the magnitude or the direction of the velocity changes, there has been an acceleration.
Does the direction of the velocity vector change during an orbit?
What can we conclude?
tim…”No! If there is an acceleration, then by definition there must be a change in the velocity. Velocity is a vector”.
***
You have it backwards, Tim, just like Einstein, who applied kinematics in thought experiments and screwed up royally.
The operative phenomena are forces and masses. Accelerations and velocities are products of a force acting on a mass, but first the force has to be large enough to produce motion, otherwise there is no velocity or acceleration.
If gravity could move the Moon toward Earth, to produce an acceleration, or even a radial velocity, it would reduce the size of the lunar orbit and eventually, the Moon would crash into the Earth.
An orbit is a unique balance between momentum and gravitational force which cannot occur naturally in an atmospheric environment. The physics you are trying to apply don’t apply to orbital conditions, otherwise the Moon would lose orbit.
Gordo, Your claim can only work for a circular orbit. With an elliptical orbit, the radial Earth-to-Moon line usually doesn’t meet the Moon’s surface at the same point around the orbit. At different points in the orbit, the area viewed from the Earth changes a bit resulting in one of the visible Librations. HERE’s one description from NASA.
swannie…I think NASA’s explanation is wrong because it is based on the Moon rotating on a local axis. Here’s an explanation, which I have posted before, with no local rotation.
With a purely circular orbit, there would be no longitudional libration. Libration occurs in a lunar longitudinal direction because a radial line from the lunar centre, describing an instantaneous elliptical curvature, points slightly away from Earth’s centre.
At any point on the lunar orbit there is a tangential line representing the instantaneous rate of change of the Moon at that point. If you draw a radial line perpendicular to that tangent line, it always points to the centre of a circular orbit. With an ellipse you have to calculate the radial line direction using another method.
You draw a line from each elliptical focal point to the Moon’s centre then bisect that angle. The bisector is the radial line that is perpendicular to the lunar tangent line at any point on the orbit. The radial line also points to the centre of an instantaneous circle whose circumference coincides with the elliptical curve at that point. That applies to any continuous curve.
I urge you to draw this out, it’s quite interesting.
On a circle, that line always points to the circle centre where Earth would be located.. On an ellipse, it points slightly to the side of Earth’s centre, enabling us to see slightly around the edge of the Moon.
If you place the Earth at the principal focal point of the ellipse, you can see that the described radial line always points slightly away from the principal focal point.
If the Moon rotates about its axis, you won’t see that since the side that always faces the Earth will be rotating through 360 degrees, The only way libration can work is with a non-rotating Moon.
Here, Gordo:
> The LRO team was able to map the crater’s elevations and brightness in extreme detail, thanks in part to LRO’s path: The spacecraft orbits the moon from pole to pole as the moon rotates underneath. With each orbit, LOLA maps a different slice of the moon, with each slice containing measurements of both poles. The upshot is that any terrain at the poles — Shackleton crater in particular — is densely recorded. Zuber and her colleagues took advantage of the spacecraft’s orbit to obtain more than 5 million measurements of the polar crater from more than 5,000 orbital tracks.
https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/l/lro
Thanks for all the fish!
Fortunately, Robertson, many people were incomparably more intelligent than you could ever be.
Hevelius, Cassini, Kepler, Newton, Mercator, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace…
Habibullin, Rizvanov, Eckhardt, Koziel, Chapront, Calam, Migus, Moons…
In comparison to all the work they did, your primitive, superficial, childish, egomaniac blah blah is… nothing.
Absolutely NOTHING, Robertson!
*
I quietly pray for the day when you will finally spare us your daily idiocy.
Apologies, Mrs Calamé! I forgot the donkey scanner…
“The spacecraft orbits the moon from pole to pole as the moon rotates underneath”
The spacecraft orbits the moon from pole to pole as the moon changes orientation due to its “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Since LRO has been providing 360-degree data on lunar observation for years, this means, following your logic, that this clever spacecraft moves from orbit to orbit around the moon through some magical supply of energy.
Right?
No. You are obviously not following what I am saying.
Then try to explain in more detail the meaning behind this ‘what I say’ which I see no concrete trace of.
Please tell us clearly how LRO manages to get 360-degree data of the Moon on its polar orbits, while neither the Moon rotates around its polar axis, nor does the LRO independently change its orbit around the Moon.
I look forward to your explanation.
> The spacecraft orbits the moon from pole to pole as the moon changes orientation due to its “orbital motion without axial rotation.”
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
…because the moon is engaged in “orbital motion without axial rotation” – motion like the “moon on the left” in the below gif:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
A simpler interpretation of why “The spacecraft orbits the moon from pole to pole as the moon rotates underneath” is this one, Kiddo:
The Moon rotates underneath the spacecraft that orbit it from pole to pole.
It’s actually just as simple, if not simpler, that it is “orbiting” Earth but not “rotating on its own axis”.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Contradicting those with the spacecraft isn’t simpler at all.
https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/l/lro
I believe astrophysicists know the difference between orbit and rotation.
It’s simple, if not simpler. Simpler because it’s one motion, instead of two combined. We already know that anyone thinking the moon rotates on its own axis must see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as per the "moon on the right". If they’ve ever really thought about it, rather than just being "taught", that is.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
” … because the moon is engaged in ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ motion like the ‘moon on the left’ …
1. I apologize, but… this is by no means an answer to what I asked:
” Please tell us clearly how LRO manages to get 360-degree data of the Moon on its polar orbits, while neither the Moon rotates around its polar axis, nor does the LRO independently change its orbit around the Moon. ”
You still owe us a clear statement about how LRO manages to provide 360 degree observations of the lunar surface in the absence of a lunar spin about its polar axis.
If the Moon only orbits without rotating, then something MUST be the origin of a change of LRO’s orbital path around the Moon.
What, do you think, is it? Solar power? LRO has just enough of that to supply its instruments!
*
In any case, I hope you agree that this permanent change in orientation with respect to a point that is immovable in space becomes visible to any instrument tracking LRO from Earth.
*
2. As you might imagine, LRO’s lunar surface observation data isn’t worth a cent when not coupled with a very accurate description of its orbit paths: without that information, no one would ever be able to determine the exact altitude of observed surface points.
For this reason, a team of the University of Bonn, Germany:
https://www.apmg.uni-bonn.de/daten-und-modelle/lro-orbits
is responsible for a continuous survey of LRO’s orbit.
This is done from Earth by evaluating radiometric data.
This data is available in BSP format (“Binary Space Partitioning”)
e.g.:
http://skylab.itg.uni-bonn.de/data_and_models/LRO/LRO_IGG_10.5d_DT_130218/LRO_IGG_CO_10.5d_DT_210817.BSP
and can be downloaded and processed by anybody able to do it.
You can contact the staff on the team yourself for explanations; However, if for some reason you don’t trust them, you can ask a game software specialist.
This person can then tell you what exactly LRO’s full movement looks like.
Not simpler because one motion is too simple since there are two radii of rotation R and r (two independent moments of inertia) so there are inertially two motions for our moon.
Bindidon, you’re confused because you believe "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the "moon on the right". Therefore when you think to yourself of the moon only orbiting, it is not changing its orientation through 360 degrees as it completes an orbit, in your head.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Your counterfactual has no bite against direct evidence:
https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/l/lro
Wrong, Willard. If you understood the issue, you could reinterpret what you have quoted from the "Non-Spinner" perspective with ease.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I understand the issue better than you do. You lost the geometric point. You lost the physical point.
You’re about to lose the empirical point.
I’ve won every point.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
How about the historical point?
Find me some of Henry’s arguments.
That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo.
Please stop trolling, Kiddo.
I’m not. You are.
#2
Please stop trolling, Kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
” Bindidon, you’re confused because you believe “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the right”. Therefore when you think to yourself of the moon only orbiting, it is not changing its orientation through 360 degrees as it completes an orbit, in your head. ”
This is utterly wrong. I don’t think, let alone believe what you wrote above.
*
All I see in your comments is that you persistently refuse to CLEARLY reply to the following:
” Please tell us clearly how LRO manages to get 360-degree data of the Moon on its polar orbits, while neither the Moon rotates around its polar axis, nor does the LRO independently change its orbit around the Moon. ”
Because you can’t, and that’s why you are constantly dodging and throwing sand in our eyes with this ridiculous stuff
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Well, Bindidon, there are only two options. Either you believe "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the "moon on the right", or you think it is as per the "moon on the left". If you are telling me you don’t believe or think it is as per the "moon on the right", then you must think it is as per the "moon on the left". In which case, you do not think the moon is rotating on its own axis after all.
I have given you an answer to what you keep asking, whether you understand it or not is not really my problem any more. Others will get it. Which is all that really matters.
DREMT is determined he is right even though he is wrong.
Others will get it wrong too, as does DREMT.
I’m not wrong about what I’m saying to Bindidon, RLH. There really are only two possible options for what "orbital motion without axial rotation" is – the "moon on the left" or the "moon on the right". We already know you think it is as per the "moon on the right". Hence you believe that the "moon on the left" is both orbiting plus rotating on its own axis once per orbit.
The "Spinner" perspective is childishly simple to understand. What’s more difficult to get is the "Non-Spinner" perspective. But that’s OK, I’m very patient.
What’s more difficult to get is the “Non-Spinner” perspective is inertially wrong.
“Hence you believe that the “moon on the left” is both orbiting plus rotating on its own axis once per orbit.”
It is. And most/nearly all other people agree with that statement. The Moon orbits the Earth in about 27 days and rotates once on its own axis per orbit/revolution.
Like I said, RLH, the "Spinner" perspective is childishly simple to understand.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You’re just creating the “Spinner” category to inflate your own position. There’s one established view, and that’s about it.
The Dragon cranks have no leg to stand on, be it regarding the Moon or AGW.
Like I said, the "Spinner" perspective is childishly simple to understand.
“Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
August 30, 2021 at 8:33 AM
Its actually just as simple, if not simpler, that it is ‘orbiting’ Earth but not ‘rotating on its own axis’.”
Here again as in many other posts, DREMT is dishonestly claiming the Moon is not a ‘General Plane Motion’ when he knows very well that it certainly is.
And he dishonestly declares that ‘1-1 synchronous orbit’ is simply ‘orbiting’.
You’re selling Kiddo short, Nate:
He’s also wrong about the geometrical definition of rotation.
Witness how he misinterprets Flop’s trick.
And he’s wrong about the physical definition too!
Witness how he can’t respond to Tim, Ball, or Eric.
Lol.
Please stop trolling, Kiddo.
Lets be clear: DREMT has already admitted and fully understands that the Moon on the left CAN BE described as:
rotating on its axis and translating on a circular path.
Astronomy, Aerospace engineering, Physics make absolutely clear that ORBIT is defined simply as a PATH thru space.
The Moon on the left IS IN FACT described by Astronomy, Aerospace Engineering, Physics as orbiting and rotating on its axis.
Thus for DREMT or anyone to claim that the Moon is on Left is ‘Orbiting without axial rotation’ is not debatable, not a matter of opinion, it is simply dishonest.
And he certainly understand that the non-circular orbits of most orbiting planets and our Moon cannot be described as pure rotation around a center. To claim otherwise is dishonest.
For DREMT or anyone to claim that our Moon is ‘Orbiting without axial rotation’ is doubly dishonest.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
“No definitions changed, bob.”
Other than Orbit and Rotation. Oh also Fact, Truth.
Nate,
Remember to include “and” and “or’ in the list of words DR EMPTY has changed the definitions of, in order to “win” the argument.
We should add “win” to the list.
Don’t forget to settle your differences, bob. You erroneously think that an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the “moon on the right”. My dedicated stalker correctly thinks it is as per the “moon on the left”.
FIGHT!
DR EMPTY,
Boy are you confused.
Nate just said the Moon on the left is rotating, and I agree with him.
You keep saying it is not rotating.
It’s like WW2, we are the French and English, and you are the Germans, we may disagree on food choices, but we are not going to eat any sauerkraut.
Wrong again, bob. You erroneously think that an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the “moon on the right”. My dedicated stalker correctly thinks it is as per the “moon on the left”.
FIGHT!
DR EMPTY,
This is what he just said
“Moon on the left CAN BE described as:
rotating on its axis and translating on a circular path.”
Better look for your meds.
[KIDDO] Don’t forget to settle your differences, bob.
[ALSO KIDDO] I have no need to come to Gordon’s aid, he can look after himself.
…and, as you know, in the past he has also said that it CAN BE described as a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. Whereas you erroneously think that description applies to the "moon on the right". You are doing a great job of trying to wriggle out of it, though.
[BOB] The Moon on the left is rotating. The Moon on the right is not.
[NATE] Most of us agree that the so-called Moon on the right has No ROTATION wrt to inertial frame of the stars.
[BALL] The object on the right is neither Earths moon current motion nor a ball on string motion so it is a red herring.
Gordo continues to ignore the basics of orbital mechanics. Here’s some calculations which display the basic fallacy of Gordo’s model about tangential velocity difference:
Data from NASA:
Equatorial radius: 1738.1 km
Perigee:
orbital radius 0.3633^6 km
orbital velocity 1.082 km/s
Apogee:
orbital radius 0.4055^6 km
orbital velocity 0.970 km/s
Calculate rate of Moon’s rotation from Gordo’s “model”:
Angular velocity:
Perigee: (1.082 km/s) / (0.3633^6 km) = 2.9783^-6 rad/s
Apogee: (0.970 km/s) / (0.4055^6 km) = 2.3921^-6 rad/s
Calculated orbit period, days:
Perigee: (2 * pi) / (2.9783^-6 rad/s * 3600 * 24) = 24.42
Apogee: (2 * pi) / (2.3921^-6 rad/s * 3600 * 24) = 30.40
Tangential velocities, outer and inner side
Outer Perigee: (0.3633 ^6 km + 1.738^3 km) * 2.9783^-6 rad/s = 1.0872
Inner Perigee: (0.3633 ^6 km – 1.738^3 km) * 2.9783^-6 rad/s = 1.0768
Difference = 0.01036 km/s
Outer Apogee: (0.4055^6 km + 1.738^3km) * 2.3921^-6 rad/s = 0.97415
Inner Apogee: (0.4055^6 km – 1.738^3km) * 2.3921^-6 rad/s = 0.96584
Difference = 0.00831 km/s
From these calculations, it’s obvious that the proposition that the Moon is “rotating about a fixed external point” is invalid, since that implies that the rate of said rotation would need to change between Perigee and Apogee, as the apparent orbital period at those points is different from the actual period we so well know. The Moon rotates once an orbit.
Kiddo will come to Gordo’s rescue with his alternative calculations in 10, 9, 8…
I have no need to come to Gordon’s aid, he can look after himself.
Where are your own calculations, Kiddo?
Not going to do any. Ever.
Thanks for playing, Kiddo.
Now, if you could stop trolling, that’d be great.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m not, you are.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
DREMT (pot) calls Willard (kettle) a troll (black) with no irony at all.
Even if I were a troll, RLH, it wouldn’t make Willard any less of a troll, now would it? So I have every right to ask him to stop trolling. You are free to be as upset as you wish, call me a hypocrite if you like. Regardless, Willard is still a troll. So I will continue to ask him to please stop trolling.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You’re not Roy’s moderator.
Please let Richard suck at playing Hall Monitor.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Even if I were a troll”
What do you ‘even’?
#2
I’m not, you are.
I suppose RLH believes he is not a troll himself. Lol.
That’s where you’re right, Kiddo.
Swanson, you are confusing “actual” with “model”. That just means you don’t understand.
Moon has an elliptical orbit. It’s orbital speed actually varies, as the acting vectors change. In a “perfect” model, the orbit is a circle. The orbital speed is constant.
Moon only orbits, it does NOT rotate on its axis.
You don’t understand any of this.
“. Its orbital speed actually varies, as the acting vectors change. In a ‘perfect’ model, the orbit is a circle. The orbital speed is constant.”
Clint seems to admit our Moon doesnt fit the ‘perfect’ model.
But then bizarrely he declares it does anyway!
“Moon only orbits, it does NOT rotate on its axis.”
Epic fail.
Troll Nate tries to pervert my words, but fails again.
Idiot.
Illustrates rather well how there is really no link between the mantra and the reality.
That’s why your cult always tries to pervert reality, troll Nate.
You know how it goes, Pup.
A cult is a small minority of people. A bit like the Dragon cranks like you and Kiddo, but for a group that exists for real.
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
Cintionary
Pervert-
-to catch Clint in the act of getting something totally wrong..again.
eg. pervert reality –
-to to catch Clint in the act of denying reality..again.
Clint R gets it right again.
Both you and Clint R are wrong permanently.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Don’t be silly, RLH.
That’s like asking you to stop trolling, Kiddo.
Here’s DREMT again defending, not correcting, his TEAMs errors!
What say the masses: hypocritical?
Bit hypocritical, Willard.
#2
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Seems more like I’m right.
#3
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Seems even more like I’m right.
#4
Thats where youre wrong, Kiddo.
You’re really proving me right now. Thanks. Keep going.
Keep showing where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Keep going.
“Seems more like Im right.” repeated more than the other guy.
By the universal rules of playground debate, DREMT is the winner.
We’ll give him that as a consolation prize.
A blast from the past:
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/banning-cfcs-helped-us-avoid-an-even-worse-climate-catastrophe
That “new modeling study” is evidence they don’t understand the ozone process in the upper atmosphere.
Show me, Pup.
Stratospheric Ozone is created by UV light from the sun smashing O2 molecules to pieces.
During solar minima, there is less UV light. Less UV (and higher frequency energy) light means less ozone and cooler upper atmosphere.
The main cause of ozone depletion and the ozone hole is still manufactured chemicals.
Dud has so little knowledge of science. He relies entirely on links to things he believes. It’s the same with all the cult idiots.
Ozone “depletes” itself, naturally.
Pup can’t do much more than gloat and riddle.
He can’t even do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Sad Pup.
willard…”A 1987 worldwide ban on ozone-depleting chemicals known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) averted a dangerous rise in the level of ultraviolet radiation (UV) reaching the Earths surface”.
***
That was aimed at one hole over one Pole. Since the restrictions were implemented, another hole has opened up over the other Pole. Another dumb theory, almost as dumb as catastrophic global warming allegedly caused by CO2.
Oh, Gordo:
https://youtu.be/aU6pxSNDPhs
willard…”A 1987 worldwide ban on ozone-depleting chemicals known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) averted a dangerous rise in the level of ultraviolet radiation (UV) reaching the Earths surface”.
***
That was aimed at one hole over one Pole. Since the restrictions were implemented, another hole has opened up over the other Pole. Another dumb theory, almost as dumb as catastrophic global warming, allegedly caused by CO2.
Oh, Gordo:
https://youtu.be/aU6pxSNDPhs
If got rid of Ozone, wouldn’t make wearing hats more fashionable??
And make women draped head to toe, feel more vindicated?
I think even the Mask Nazis would feel better.
And in terms global warming, make the world colder?
Good grief, gb.
” Mask Nazis ”
You must be plain dumb to write such a bullshit, gbaikie.
Wearing masks, my ‘sock puppet’ lady Rose and I we went here – aged 70+ – far better Trough the pandemic than all these idiots who didn’t, filled the hospitals and won’t never really recover.
We were also able to avoid the flu! Before COVID19 we were confronted with it annually; Since everyone in Germany now has to wear a mask in public transport and in all shops, the flu shit almost completely disappeared.
Do what you want, gbaikie.
JD, you haven’t died from a car accident, or been hit by lightning, or died in an avalanche, either. Those face masks are amazing!
Surgeons (and all other theatre staff) wear one. I wonder why.
That’s just more “proof” for your anti-science, RLH.
You’re the anti-scientist, not me.
Clint and his ilk are proudly promoting the idiocracy. Is there a group Darwin award?
There are stories everyday about people dying from Covid who didn’t believe it was real.
And shortly before they died, they begged the treating doctors to vaccinate them.
But unfortunately the doctors had to answer: “We are sorry, but it is too late.”
That happened REALLY, in a hospital in Little Rock, Arknsoh.
Hard cold punishment of those who committed high crimes.
I want kings drawn and quartered with their stupid heads on pikes.
Let’s start with the present leadership of WHO.
Light reading.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/how-climate-change-is-making-hurricanes-more-dangerous/
Shyster rapid response reading more likely
Eboy is upset.
Indeed?
I was mocking Richard’s “indeed” used as a trick to squirrel his pet graphs, Troglodyte.
Make sure you read exchanges from the beginning.
Willard is just being his usual idiotic self.
3.
1.
Eben is a conservative, fearful of change, especially change beyond his control. He responds to evidence of change by retreating into conspiracy theories.
The ideological equivalent of Zaphod Beeblebrox danger-sensitive sunglasses.
“Eben is a conservative, fearful of change, especially change beyond his control. He responds to evidence of change by retreating into conspiracy theories.”
—————————————————
I heard they are working on a waxeen against that
Waiting takes less energy.
Is there anything that climate change makes less dangerous?
Never
Less chance of hitting an iceberg?
Sure!
We have now warmer winters here, no ice, few snow if any.
Thus, the risk of slipping and falling is significantly reduced.
I LOVE warming!
But … not at the expense of excessive ice melt making the Atlantic waters colder, what leads to more atmospheric perturbations over us.
Non merci, nein Danke.
Skiing accidents less likely without snow.
Contrarians.
You means idiots don’t you?
No. I mean U.
Well, you might have a point!
U are the idiot. But U know that.
No, dummy.
U.
1.
Great rollcall =)) Entropic man, Nate and the slick Willard – yu’re lost causes, unable to think outside of the doomsday framwork echochmber you imprisoned yourselves in. Especially the slick willie is a gonner =/. Bindidon – you surprised me, there is tiny hope for you =)) not much though.
I love you too, Cot.
You’re my favorite accelerationist.
I am not an accelerationist, not when it comes to climate. I mean, isn’t accelerationism usually mean a philosophy of fighting systems by overdriving and breaking them? I don’t want to break climate in order to fight it. Climate needs to be controlled, regardless of the reality and presence of anthropogenic climate change, because it is naturally always deleterious, as is all of the ‘natural nature’ around us. Nearly noone lives in nature and with nature if the have choice. And climate needs to be studies, the only real way to do it in depth is by changing it and then seeing what happens. But those are separate goals =)
Coturnix,
I don’t see where I have predicted Doomsday.
I have seen you exhibiting alarmism about public health measures, and extremist paranoia over ‘totalitarian government’ and such, without offering a single example of this in action.
You seem science oriented.
Why are so susceptible to anti-science propaganda from right-wing media?
Cot,
I don’t see where I have predicted Doomsday.
I have seen you exhibiting unwarranted alarmism about public health measures, and extremist paranoia over “totalitarian government”, without an iota of evidence.
You seem science oriented.
Why are so susceptible to anti-science propaganda from right-wing media?
So with just a few days left before we know the actual answer, what are the best predictions for the UAH figures for this month?
I suggest +0.5c to 1.0c.
Any others?
A wild stab…0.24C.
Based om what?
Might stay around 0.2C.
The Pacific is ENSO neutral and 0.2C is close to the UAH long term trend.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend
Ncei daily says lower than that this month so far. As does https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/ and USCRN daily.
I predict +0.20.
Based on what?
“I suggest +0.5c to 1.0c.”
Did you mean “0.05C to 0.1C?
“Did you mean 0.05C to 0.1C?”
Yup. Missed a decimal point. Sorry.
0.25 C
Based on what? Feelings?
Data, and a bit of random guessing at work.
You? Feelings, dreams, longings for cooling?
Ncei daily says lower than that this month so far. As does https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/ and USCRN daily.
Nino 3.4 rose from December to June. UAH responds to Nino 3.4 w approx 5 month delay, so it is due for additional rise.
So now you don’t accept what any of Ncei, oz4caster or USCRN says for the last month.
As has been explained to you several times, the troposphere and surface do not need to be in sync.
They respond differently to ENSO. For one thing the amplitude of the response to ENSO is considerably larger for the troposphere.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1995/mean:12/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1995/mean:12/offset:0.7/to:2015
So you are saying that UAH does not follow ncei, oz4caster or USCRN?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2010/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2010/mean:12/offset:0.7
Or GISS (apparently).
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1995/to:2015/mean:3/plot/uah6/from:1995/to:2015/offset:0.7/mean:3
My last decade graph is more relevant I think.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2010/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2010/offset:0.7/mean:12
Why did you finish the plot early?
The anomaly displacement for GISS wrt 1991-2020 is 0.613 C.
Anybody can see that after having downloaded GISS and entered the time series into a spreadsheet.
That’s how the stuff should look like:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:2010/mean:12/offset:-0.613/plot/uah6/from:2010/mean:12
So you agree with me over GISS then.
” more relevant I think.”
I dont see why you think so, other than confirmation bias.
Full range. No 12 mo smoothing, the most relevant to whether MONTHLY GISS and UAH are in sync.
Not so much.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1995/plot/uah6/from:1995/offset:0.7
Over the last decade?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1995/from:2010/plot/uah6/from:1995/offset:0.7/from:2010
“Over the last decade?”
Sure…less is more.
In any case, you see months in sync?
FYI, here is the full record, 12 mo. smoothed, both detrended.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1978.9/mean:12/detrend:0.79/plot/uah6/mean:12/detrend:0.565/offset:0.44
You should be able to see that UAH often has quite a bit larger response to both El Ninos and La Ninas.
The troposphere responds differently than the surface.
Wait a few days and we will see if your 0.25c prediction is closer than my 0.1c then.
RLH says: Wait a few days and we will see if your 0.25c prediction is closer than my 0.1c then.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-761599
The next 6 months would take up to next year which have not dome so far yet.
Based on what? Feelings?
Down from current value perhaps as low as -0.02
Based on the previous cycles where temperatures lower dramatically. There is a pattern of up and down with each subsequent pair of months lower than the pair before.
Down I agree on, but -0.02 is too low I think. None of the daily series show such a drop.
Statistically we could say …
1) There is a “regression toward the mean”. Ie the next month’s value will likely be less extreme than this month’s value
Regression analysis suggests that the next month’s value will be
T = 0.868*T(-1) -0.008
= 0.17
2) Changes have a negative autocorrelation. Ie, if the temperature rises one month, it is likely to fall the next month (by about 1/3 as much as it just rose).
ΔT = -0.325* ΔT(-1) + 0.001
= -0.067
That puts next month at
T = 0.13
3) A linear fit gives 0.21 as the prediction for next month.
**********************************
None of these are terribly great predictors, but each is OK. All sorts of more sophisticated statistical models could be created. And none of this looks at el Nino or any other physical causes — simply looking at statistics.
Based on these very simple models, the next month should be in the rang of 0.13 – 0.21.
“There is a ‘regression toward the mean’.”
Ah, there lies the rub. What mean are you suggesting we should regress towards?
“What mean are you suggesting we should regress towards?”
I wasn’t implying that we *should* regress toward any specific mean. In this case, I was regressing toward the mean Dr Roy provided. ie, the mean from 1980-2020. That is the simplest (but not necessarily ‘best’) choice I can think of.
A slightly more interesting and complete model would be to regress toward the linear trend over the full 40 years. Basically combine (1) & (3). That should increase the R^2 values a bit.
From your image, you apparently want to use a linear fit since the last peak. If we think that trend *should* continue, then that would be a good baseline. I, however, think that your 1.5 year trendline represents random fluctuations and that your downward ‘trend’ does not represent the likely future temperatures. There has been no physical change (that I know of) in the climate system that says the warming trend should stop and a rapid cooling trend should take over. Thus I stick with the robust, long-term warming trend.
Nice analysis, Tim.
https://imgur.com/a/wfJTPMN
This mean?
This mean?
https://imgur.com/a/5kx6HBw
Oops Sorry for the duplicate. The first did not appear to post.
” Solar Cycle 25 is Currently Very Similar to Solar Cycle 24 ”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ac19a2
Maybe, but… certainly not when comparing them using the Solar Flux at 10.7 cm:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QDIH1i34iyU4cQgkhwoUDYTYAA2Qx-7v/view
This is definitely not what I mean by “very similar”.
In one year we will see more – comme toujours.
What is the significance of 10.7 cm?
Belay that. I found my answer here: https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/forecast-prevision/solar-solaire/solarflux/sx-2-en.php
Exactly, Ken.
F10.7 is surprisingly well on par with SSN (the Sun Spot Number):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view
–By Maziar Motamedi
28 Aug 2021
Tehran, Iran – Shortly before Iran and the United States, along with other world powers, are expected to head back to Vienna for nuclear talks, Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei said “predatory wolf” President Joe Biden is no different from his predecessor.–
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/28/no-different-than-trump-irans-khamenei-slams-predatory-biden
Must be a pretty sleepy predatory wolf.
Predators don’t walk away. Walk Away Joe.
Monday enso update
We are about to start rapid descent into the coolin waterz
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Or as Hadji Bin Dong would say, There is no chance of a La Nina
” There is no chance of a La Nina ”
I never claimed that anywhere.
And presented a week ago or so TCC’s most recent ENSO forecast (which didn’t change since then):
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
You mocked all my La Nina predictions when I started making them months ago. Don’t worry I saved it for when you start
back-paddling on it.
You will bring your La Nina forecast for us when you find out we are in the middle of it.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Within 12 hours of landfall, Ida had plowed a destructive path that submerged much of the state’s coastline under several feet of surf, with flash flooding reported by the National Hurricane Center across southeastern Louisiana.
Nearly all offshore Gulf oil production was suspended in advance of the storm, and major ports along the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts were closed to shipping.
https://torontosun.com/news/world/hurricane-ida-plunges-new-orleans-into-darkness-amid-louisiana-flooding
Sometimes newsies read like mythology.
Strange how the globe has been cooling for the last 2 (or 5) years but stories are still being written as thought that was not the case.
It is not as though hurricanes haven’t happened before or that La Nina (or the immediate aftermath) does effect their occurrence.
There is a link with solar activity. When solar activity is low there is greater frequency of hurricanes.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/mwre/140/1/mwr-d-11-00063.1.xml
Right after the only occurrence of “solar” in the text:
“No agreement exists regarding which of these climate variables should be included in a model describing North Atlantic and U.S. landfalling hurricane frequencies.”
“During La Nia, westerly winds high in the atmosphere weaken. This results in an expanded area of low vertical wind shear, allowing more Atlantic hurricanes to develop during La Nia events. La Nia increases the number of hurricanes that develop and allows stronger hurricanes to form.”
Nothing said about how this effects the periods immediately afterwards though.
> nothing is said
Contrarians never need to say anything.
Fancy that.
Willard persists in being an idiot.
Strange how our luckwarm contrarian returns to his “cooling” squirrel:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-805906
So is 2016, 2019 and 2020 compared to 2021 only two data points?
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
1.
2016, 2019 and 2020 compared to 2021 is more than two data points.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Willard still at 1 I see.
Willard switches his one trick pony (with 4 ‘tricks’) to whatever he didn’t say last time. I stick with just 1 because that’s what he is. An idiot.
More 3.
More 1 from Willard.
I bet you don’t even realize what’s the trick, dummy.
I bet you don’t even realize that you are a idiot.
I’m wondering how people manage to say ‘The Globe has been cooling since 2 (or 5) years’:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:2016/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2017/trend/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend
It is evident that when you start a period just in front of a value higher than the following values, the resulting linear estimate can only be negative.
2016-now: -0.24 C /decade
2017-now: +0.06
2019-now: -0.82
2018-now: +0.31
Yeah.
*
I have nothing against cooling!
Especially when, as I repeat ad nauseam, the warming results in excessive sea ice and ice sheet melting.
But please, let us keep serious.
All declines start from simple beginnings.
As do all increases.
They seem to be minor players in your mind…
So what.
Well we have had the increases so far.
ENSO is basically oscillatory with periods of stronger El Ninos or stronger La Ninas. As you know from your 15 y LP, the best you have gotten from that is small, short-duration, variation in the ongoing upward trend.
“ENSO is basically oscillatory with periods of stronger El Ninos or stronger La Ninas.”
So if we have more La Nina’s than El Nino’s in the next decade we are entering a downwards trend then.
“As you know from your 15 y LP, the best you have gotten from that is small, short-duration, variation in the ongoing upward trend.”
As the the only world wide data of any real quality (satellite) is only since 1979, producing 15 year lowpass is tricky. I could always do a 15 year S-G I suppose but you don’t trust that.
” world wide data of any real quality”
You dont like the results so the surface data is of ‘poor quality’?
Very lame excuse. Biased much?
“So if we have more La Ninas than El Ninos in the next decade we are entering a downwards trend then.”
Nope.
We have never seen that in the record. We have seen short-duration, < 15 y, trend reductions, that are not statistically significant.
We can fairly easily remove ENSO's effect on the data, and we see the underlying trend is much more steady.
Ooops?!
” We can fairly easily remove ENSO’s effect on the data… ”
Well, that’s a hard underestimation of the work one has to do.
I remember what a group around Benjamin Santer made in 2013.
They extracted ENSO and volcano effects out of RSS3.3, and the effect was that the cleaned temperature series had a residual trend of rounded 0.09 C/decade, i.e. about 70 % of the 0.12 C/decade of the original series at that time (till end of 2012).
Feel free to have a look at the ‘fairly easy’ work they did :- )
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/89054/solomon%206%20Santer_etal_NatGeo_Article_File_22jan2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
On page 52 you find some nice graphs…
“You dont like the results so the surface data is of poor quality?”
70% of the globes surface is ocean so pardon me if I consider the land based measurements of lacking something.
We had very, very poor coverage of the Southern Oceans to say the least until the satellite era.
“”So if we have more La Ninas than El Ninos in the next decade we are entering a downwards trend then.”
Nope.
We have never seen that in the record.”
So far.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iadded18_a.png
Binny here is GISS with the correlated ENSO contribution removed. Its not perfect. But it does show the underlying trend becomes more even. Pinatubo still in there.
And the trend was 1.0 C for last 50 y.
” As the the only world wide data of any real quality (satellite) … ”
1. Do you REALLY mean ‘satellite’, RLH? I’m not quite sure.
My opinion – based on observation of a lot of your posts on this blog – is that you in fact don’t include RSS 4.0, let alone NOAA STAR.
You also do not simply mean UAH, because rev 5.6 very probably did not show what you expected.
You mean with ‘satellite’ UAH 6.0 alone, don’t you?
*
2. Where is the formal, scientific proof that only satellite observations are ‘of any real quality?
How often does the same satellite visit the same grid cell?
By how much do the visits’ TODs differ?
And that is only one of many problems.
We have AIRS, but… since when?
“1. Do you REALLY mean satellite, RLH? Im not quite sure.”
Before that we didn’t have real coverage of the oceans, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere .
“My opinion based on observation of a lot of your posts on this blog is that you in fact dont include RSS 4.0, let alone NOAA STAR.”
As RSS (and AIRs) show basically the same thing but with minor differences, so yes I do mean satellites.
“You also do not simply mean UAH, because rev 5.6 very probably did not show what you expected.”
Do you believe what Roy has said about why they changed from 5.6 or not? Obviously you do not.
“You mean with satellite UAH 6.0 alone, dont you?”
I accept that Roy’s reasons for changing from 5.6 are valid. You do not.
“2. Where is the formal, scientific proof that only satellite observations are of any real quality?”
Coverage.
“How often does the same satellite visit the same grid cell?
By how much do the visits TODs differ?”
I do have questions about the Nyquist coverage that satellites bring but no more than I have about the Land based thermometers as an alternative.
“And that is only one of many problems.”
So many problems, So few answers it seems.
“We have AIRS, but since when?”
Only recently.
” As RSS (and AIRs) show basically the same thing but with minor differences, so yes I do mean satellites. ”
Wow. That you should tell to the WUWT readers…
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/offset:-0.61/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/offset:-0.35
Linear estimates in C for 1979-now
UAH 6.0: 0.14 +- 0.006
GISS: 0.19 +- 0.005
RSS: 0.21 +- 0.006
*
And NOAA’s STAR has a similar trend, but… the brightness out of which the atmospheric temperatures are estimated is measured in the MT, and not in the LT.
And the difference you then see when you look at
https://tinyurl.com/sj7upm27
and compare that with…
https://tinyurl.com/4amyaz5e
So yes you do mean satellites. OK, no problem for me.
*
” I accept that Roys reasons for changing from 5.6 are valid. You do not. ”
Sorry, wrong.
I accept Mr Spencer’s decision for UAH exactly as you seem to accept Mr Mears’ for RSS.
It should be noted that RSS and UAH only differ significantly before 2005
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2005/offset:0.45/plot/rss/from:2005
They diverge from around 2000.
https://tinyurl.com/yfebax4c
They agree with each other pretty well both before and after a period around 2000 here UAH takes account of orbital drift of the satellites and RSS doesn’t.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/offset:0.2/to:2000/plot/rss/mean:12/to:2000
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/offset:0.2/to:2000/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12/offset:0.45/from:2010
“UAH takes account of orbital drift of the satellites and RSS doesn’t.”
Nonsense. Both groups account for orbital drift.
The 2003 paper where RSS examined UAH methods, ultimately resulting in an improved data product.
https://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_JClim_2003_MSU_AMSU.pdf
RSS accounted for orbital drift and decay. Their paper helped Spencer and Christy amend their diurnal drift estimates.
The main difference in the record is from how each group handles the intersatellite calibration, particularly regarding NOAA-14 and NOAA-15 satellites, which were operating concurrently through the early 2000s. It is in the first few years past 1999 that you really see a big discrepancy, where RSS has higher values for that period than UAH. Subsequent values remain high and low for the respective records thereafter, though the trends are similar from 2005 onwards.
UAH compares with Radiosonde data. RSS does not.
Satellite data means global data. There isn’t anything else to compare.
Satellite data is the best data even as we must accept the possibility that the satellite data is wrong. We have to consider that because it is wrong in measuring sea level rise; it doesn’t match the tide stations at all.
It depends which sonde data you use. Different sets correlate better with ether RSS or UAH.
Satellite measurements of sea level don’t match many of the tide gauges because it measures the distance to the water from aloft, and does not include local land height changes, which affects local tide gauges.
Global sea level is measured as a function of volume – this is because the main interest is in whether global sea level is changing from human activity. Local land height change and the long-term change in basin shape are not part of that equation. The former is immaterial for the question, the latter has to be accounted for.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
A BLAST FROM THE PAST:
https://twitter.com/airscottdenning/status/1118628870641594370
So listen to one side’s argument, then decide?
Why are you posting on the UAH blog if you don’t accept what UAH themselves say?
RLH says: Why are you posting on the UAH blog if you don’t accept what UAH themselves say?
For persons truly interested in converging on physical “truths”, it’s important to understand and fairly evaluate alternative arguments and points of view rather than discarding them out of hand.
The downside is presuming seriousness and good faith on the part of persons who frequently don’t deserve it. Even so, it makes for a sometimes interesting view of human behaviors.
“For persons truly interested in converging on physical truths, its important to understand and fairly evaluate alternative arguments and points of view rather than discarding them out of hand.”
I look forward to a detailed response then to UAH’s reasoning.
And why this downwards trend is of no importance
https://imgur.com/a/wfJTPMN
RSS do a fairly good overview of satellite/sonde comparisons.
https://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/validation/
It’s not a complete review, but a fair one, as far as I know. I find Spencer and Christy tend to omit sonde data sets that diverge from UAH, at least outside the peer-reviewed literature.
“Why are you posting on the UAH blog if you dont accept what UAH themselves say?”
Why does one require the other?
“Why are you posting on the UAH blog if you don’t accept what UAH themselves say?”
Acceptance of science is not based on believing the person who claims it. It is built on a consensus of the evidence, and understanding the evidence.
There is no consensus of the evidence on tropospheric temperature trends. In fact it is quite controversial with huge systematic error.
Neither you or I are experts on satellite measurements of temperature. Thus I understand that I am not qualified to judge, scientifically, whether RSS or UAH are doing a better job. If I make a judgement, it would be based purely on political bias.
You?
How is it possible that a person asked for a reply to
” Please tell us clearly how LRO manages to get 360-degree data of the Moon on its polar orbits, while neither the Moon rotates around its polar axis, nor does the LRO independently change its orbit around the Moon. ”
refuses to answer, keeps dodging around instead, and replies with stuff that has nothing to do with the question?
Again I ask:
If the Moon does not rotate about its polar axis, how does the LRO, when orbiting the Moon, manage to provide us with 360 degree observations of the Moon, instead of showing us always the same area?
Is that so complicated to give an answer to exactly that question?
JD, the LRO is orbiting Moon. It’s like you walking around a building.
You don’t understand any of this. Your knowledge of science is pathetic.
” If the Moon does not rotate about its polar axis, how does the LRO, when orbiting the Moon, manage to provide us with 360 degree observations of the Moon, instead of showing us always the same area? ”
1. Do you have difficulties in reading comments before replying?
2. Is that so complicated to give an answer to exactly that question?
What you wrote was no answer at all.
JD, the LRO is orbiting Moon. It’s like you walking around a building.
You don’t understand any of this. Your knowledge of science is pathetic.
I wish I had time to go back and collect all such stupid comments. I will definitely save this one!
If only you could do the Pole Dance Experiment, Pup.
Until then you got NOTHING.
Speaking of pathetic lack of understanding, the LRO orbit was a polar orbit, which, like those which are used to gather weather data (including that of UAH), exhibit a sun synchronous path. that orbit allows the LRO instruments to view the entire surface of the Moon in successive passes at the same “time” in the lunar day, which results in the same illumination on the surface for every pass.
But, pups, you can’t even bother to learn the basics as you spam the group repeatedly. What an airhead!
E. Swanson, you were able to understand my comment. Yes, the LRO is orbiting Moon.
You learned something!
Now see if you can teach anything to JD….
The point you keep dancing around is that the satellite orbits around the Moon while the Moon rotates, Pup.
The satellite can observe what you are denying.
The point you keep avoiding Dud, is if the satellite could see Moon rotating, we could also.
You just don’t understand any of this.
If the Moon was tidally locked with the satellite, then the satellite would not be able to see the Moon rotating, dumb ass.
No wonder you keep riddling.
Wow, the stupid really got going here. The first asshat problem was imagining you get 360 degrees view of a global surface from a single orbit track.
The other asshatedness involved not getting what a polar orbit is.
For the moon non-rotationists, a lunar polar orbit would track over the same longitudinal line of the moon, pole to pole.
The realists know that the moon would rotate beneath the orbit, such that the satellite would easily see the entire surface after a few orbits, with the surface tracking laterally beneath the satellite.
In order to track the same lunar longitude in a polar orbit, the satellite would have to undergo constant thrust to keep it positioned on that line.
That’s checkmate for all but the fatally inured.
barry is added to the list of people who obviously do not understand the Non-Spinner position.
“the Non-Spinner position.”
You mean the stupid’s don’t you?
barry clearly understands little about the issue. So he, like Bindidon, believes if he can get more confused, then he will understand it better!
But, it’s not working for him. His frustration is obvious.
Pup has been caught misunderstanding another scientific issue, so he gloats.
That’s how trolls roll.
Lunar polar orbit really has the non-spinners stumped. All they have is jibes and jeers.
I’ve just leafed through a few science papers on satellites sent into polar lunar orbit for the purpose of mapping the entire lunar surface. This is possible because the moon rotates beneath the orbit of the satellites.
The satellites were not under thrust during the orbit, except to lower the orbit to get better resolution.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/prospector/overview/index.shtml
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/s0032-0633(98)00021-x
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/beyond-earth-tagged.pdf [pp 67 & 72]
How could a lunar polar orbit satellite without constant lateral thrust map the full surface of the moon if the moon did not rotate beneath it?
Please explain, non-spinners.
…because the moon is “orbiting”. As I already explained.
The moon’s orbit of the Earth has zero to do with the point about satellites orbiting the moon from pole to pole – a lunar polar orbit.
How does the polar-orbiting satellite map the entire surface of the moon if there is no lateral thrust? The moon must be spinning beneath the satellite’s orbit, obviously.
"The moon must be spinning beneath the satellite’s orbit, obviously."
The moon is rotating beneath the satellite’s orbit, but not on its own axis/center of mass. The moon instead rotates around the Earth/moon barycenter. As I said, the moon is "orbiting", hence changing its orientation as it moves, hence moving beneath the satellite’s polar orbit.
And how does the polar-orbiting satellite map the entire surface of the moon if there is no lateral thrust, Kiddo?
You’re at the
[ORBIT] The moon is *orbiting* and not *rotating.*
moment of your Master Argument (v. 0.3), btw.
I just explained, Willard. [Rolls eyes].
You didn’t explain anything, Kiddo:
[BARRY] How does the polar-orbiting satellite map the entire surface of the moon if there is no lateral thrust? The moon must be spinning beneath the satellites orbit, obviously.
[KIDDO] The moon is rotating beneath the satellites orbit, but not on its own axis/center of mass.
Read the other sentences I wrote, too. Read the 4:38 PM comment to Bindidon that I wrote below this. I can’t explain it any clearer than I have already.
You’re trying to write my "Master Argument" for me, but you don’t even understand this. You need to have some ability to be able to visualize motions, Willard.
None of your sentences explain the lateral thrust makes the polar-orbiting satellite map the entire surface of the moon, Kiddo.
Word games don’t settle factual matters.
I’m not playing word games.
You, however, are proving conclusively that you do not understand the "Non-Spinner" position.
You will respond.
I will not respond back to you.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Of course I understand the Moon Dragon position. Here’s a version of the Master Argument:
[ORBIT] The moon is *orbiting* and not *rotating.*
[FRAMES] Inertial reference frame confuses orbiting with rotating.
[REVOLUTION!] Revolution can be defined as a rotation about an external axis.
[FLOP’S TRICK] Flop showed how to rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse.
[IF-BY-WHISKEY] It would not be possible to define revolution by rotation or to program a rotation in an ellipse if rotation was only around a circle.
[LIKE A BOS] The ball-on-a-string illustrates translation without rotation.
[GIF] Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is not motion as per the *moon on the right*
[IMPOSSIBLE] The moon cannot be both rotating about an external axis whilst rotating on its own axis.
[MOON DRAGON CLAIM] The Moon does not rotate, it only translates.
And of course Most if not all of the lines of your Master Argument are about definitions. And in our case you’re trying the ORBIT line.
> And of course
…you’re playing word games.
Oh, and once there’s a Master Argument on the table, you can’t whine about being misrepresented. Please don’t forget that.
Again, I give you a direct, clear, and easily understandable answer, Bindidon:
The LRO is orbiting the moon, the moon is orbiting the Earth. "Orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the "moon on the left" in the gif I linked to further up-thread…in other words, the moon changes its orientation through 360 degrees as it orbits the Earth, without rotating on its own axis. Hence the LRO, when orbiting the moon, provides us with 360 degree observations of the moon.
What you think of as axial rotation of the moon is actually just the moon changing its orientation due to orbital motion. The problem is that you have never truly understood the "Non-Spinner" position, in the first place. As I continually remind you, and you occasionally prove, when you get confused over basic things like this.
Bindidon is so braindead he believes if he walks around a buildng, taking photos of the different sides, that proves the building is rotating!
Braindead Bindidon.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Sorry, this is completely ridiculous.
The LRO orbits the Moon always on the same path, from pole to pole.
This spacecraft can’t change its direction during Moon’s orbit around Earth without an external influence.
During Moon’s orbit, it might change its absolute orientation wrt Earth (or some star; doesn’t matter here) in the same way as does Moon. But its instruments will keep looking, wrt the Moon, at the same place.
Thus, if the Moon doesn’t rotate, LRO will observe the same landscapes all the time.
*
Why don’t you simply contact the people tracking LRO’s orbits at Bonn University?
Simply because you don’t want to feel your mental house of cards suddenly crashing down.
Thus, like Robertson, Clint R, Flynnson, hunter and a few others, you will endlessly manage to keep your nice little world off reality.
OK!
No problem for me.
Braindead, do you even know what the “O” stands for in “LRO”?
You could be so behind you can’t catch up.
Here, Pup:
https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/l/lro
You don’t understand any of this.
So much fun!
Dud finds a link that proves me right, but is so stupid he doesn’t realize it.
That’s why this is so much fun.
> found
Something tells me you have not be paying much attention to what has been happening at Roy’s recently, Pup. It’s Eric’s find.
That page should be enough to make Moon Dragon flee in shame, but you won’t.
This is why it’s so much fun!
LRO orbit is constantly changing with respect to the earth.
Ken
It does that anyway, independently of Moon’s rotation below its polar orbits.
The moon changes its orientation through 360 degrees as it orbits the Earth by rotating on its own axis, once per orbit.
There sorted it out for you.
Yes, Bindidon, it is completely ridiculous that you still do not understand, after all this time. Oh well. You are not the only one.
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You don’t get to say that Binny is wrong without showing where and how.
That kind of trolling should be left to Pup.
Your trolling is different.
I wonder if the idiots were always this stupid, or if wearing face masks has made them even stupider?
As I said, Bindidon is not the only one.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Please stop trolling.
So you are saying Bindidon is the only one? Well that is unlikely, especially given that your reaction to this LRO discussion also proves that you have never really understood our position either. So there are at least two of you.
Willard
Word around the campfire is that a go fund me drive has been initiated for your intervention expenses after this coldish decade.
Consider donating directly to Clowns Without Borders:
https://www.cwb-international.org/online-donation/
“So there are at least two of you.”
You are the ones in the tiny, tiny clique. The ones who believe that Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit/revolution around the Earth measure in millions.
Not that numbers alone make a difference. Maths and logic does.
You do not pay attention to context.
You do not pay attention to science.
You just blunder in, skim read the trigger words, then write your response. You thought I was making some point about a cult. I was not.
My response to you is always ‘you are wrong’ on the Moon’s orbit and orientation and how they relate to each other.
Regardless of what I am actually talking about.
When you post idiocies about masks then I will also respond that you don’t accept science.
I did not post anything about masks. Clint R did. My 5:49 PM comment was in response to Willard, not Clint. Clint posted at the same time I did (so I did not see his comment at the time I posted).
Are you saying you disagree with Clint R on masks?
Yes.
“Well that is unlikely, especially given that your reaction to this LRO discussion also proves that you have never really understood our position either. So there are at least two of you.”
My response was to this post.
Wriggle, wriggle.
The truth will come out. And that DREMT and Clint R are wrong (which is the same thing).
Well, we can’t both be wrong about masks, can we? Since we disagree with each other.
You are both wrong about orbits and balls-on-a-string.
Are you admitting I’m right about masks? If so, that means you’ve admitted I’m right about something. Oh no…whatever will you do?
Ask you to define the differences between inertial and non-inertial frames.
I think you’re the one that needs to work on that.
flat moon society
https://youtu.be/4eNt7uVYBz0?t=220
Walk Away Joe. The American People get who they deserve.
Consider what happens if he can’t finish his term in office.
Yikes!
What you deserve right now would be to be transferred overnight to one of those wonderful re-education camps of Trump’s best friend, the ‘leftist’ Kim Jong-Un.
Bindi,
Like most leftists, Kim Jong-Un for instance, you’ve exposed your psychopathy.
You forget, Donald and Kim are ‘in love’.
Anything bad that happened during Trump’s term:
Covid spreads uncontrollably in the US.
600,000 COVID deaths, more than any other country.
Jan. 6.
Trump deal releases 5000 Taliban prisoners.
Taliban gain back most of the territory of Afghanistan.
NONE OF THAT is Trump’s fault.
But when Biden carries out Trumps policy goal to leave Afghanistan, and unpredicted events unfold, in a country we don’t govern or control,
those are ALL Biden’s fault.
When 13 soldiers die fulfilling Trump’s policies, that is ALL Biden’s fault.
Biden needs to resign!
Let’s remind everyone that in war zones soldiers die, many under Trump’s watch.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/IF10899.pdf
“Between 2006 and 2021, a total of 18,571 active-duty
personnel have died while serving in the U.S. Armed
Forces. (Throughout this In Focus, the designation ‘active
duty’ refers to all active duty troops, including mobilized
Reserve and Guard components.) Of those that died, 25%
were killed while serving in OCO operationsprimarily
within the territory of Iraq and Afghanistan.”
When you are President its your fault. Not the previous President.
Buck Stops Here.
Masty Nate, you are a biased leftist fool.
And if you are not a leftist, your just a fool.
Trump had absolutely nothing to do with COVID deaths, any more than Biden is responsible for COVID deaths during his term.
Trump gets credit for the accelerated COVID vaccine development, but the vaccines are not working very well, so we’ll call that even.
The Afghanistan war was lost the day it started, 20 years ago.
The US troops in the past year were doing very little fighting in Afghanistan, and no dying … until a few days ago.
The Afghanistan withdrawal finally recognizes the US lost the war.
But we left American citizens behind, along with Christians, and Afghan Muslims who had helped our military. Many will be killed by the Taliban animals. The Taliban may demand the Afghan central bank funds held by the Fed as a ransom for any American citizens who want to leave (the Taliban will be bribed in some way). The Afghans coming into the US are not properly vetted and could be carrying COVID.
Just as important, we have left the Taliban incredibly well armed — much stronger than they were 20 years ago.
Joe Biden is the worst president in American history,
and he’s only had seven months to ruin the country.
> the US lost the war
Muricans can’t get enough of losing them, RG.
No wonder so many of them are frustrated troglodytes.
In defense of Dremt…proof positive that the Moon on the left is not rotating on its axis.
I defy anyone to prove me wrong using math.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The Moon on the left has a series of black smudges representing the side that always faces the Earth. Carefully view it turning till you can ascertain a centre point in the black smudges where a radial line can be drawn from that centre point to the centre of the large circle representing the Earth.
The radial line is the key because it will sweep out 360 degrees as it tracks the Moon in its orbit. If you look at where the radial line is located within the Moon as it passes through, it is obvious this portion must turn through 360 degrees within the radial line if the Moon is to rotate on its axis.
There is simply no way around this fact. Since the Moon’s axis is located on this portion, sticking out of the 2-D surface represented in the gif file, it means the end of that line at the near side of the Moon, must somehow rotate 360 degrees around that axis during one orbit.
You guys have deluded yourself into believing the Moon is rotating on its axis simply because the black smudges change orientation through 360 degrees. Translation explains that perfectly, local rotation cannot.
Earlier today, ball4 claimed that people on the other side of the world are upside down compared to the other side of the world. Using that reasoning he claimed an airliner must rotate on its nose-tail axis by 180 degrees by the time it flies half way around the world. RLH appeared to agree with him.
You spinners don’t understand the meaning of up, or of rotation. Up is a reference to the opposite direction of gravitational force and up in Australia is exactly the same as up in North America. You spinners have an incorrect assumption that up or rotation is relative to the stars, which no doubt cloud your thoughts.
Here’s the proof…again.
Draw the Moon on the left at the link above on a piece of paper. Put the large circle representing Earth at 0,0 and draw the Moon anywhere along the x-axis at 3 o’clock. Draw a circle through the Moon’s centre to represent its orbital path around the Earth in a CCW direction.
Notice the dark smudges on the Moon, they will be facing west toward the Earth’s centre at 0,0 at any point on the orbital circle. By the same token, the far side of the Moon will face space at any point on the orbital circle.
If you draw a radial line from 0,0 through the Moon and beyond the far side, there will be a portion of the radial line contained within the circle representing the Moon. We need to focus on that portion of the radial line.
At the centre of that portion within the perimeter of the Moon is the Moon’s axis, pointing straight out of the paper as a z-axis.
This is critical, so please pay attention. In order for the Moon to rotate through 360 degrees about its axis, that line within the Moon, that is part of a straight radial line, must also rotate through 360 degrees per orbit.
Why are you spinners incapable of seeing this? What daft notion of local rotation do you entertain that allows the Moon to rotate 360 around its axis without that line also rotating through 360 degrees?
But that’s not the math, here’s the math.
A perpendicular line drawn at the intercept point between the radial line and the near face of the Moon, and another drawn at the far side of the Moon where it intercepts the radial line, must always move parallel to each other in order for the same side to always face the Earth. If those lines are always moving parallel to each other it is not possible for them to also rotate about the Moon’s axis.
If you look at the left Moon at the link above you can clearly see that is the case. Those perpendicular lines are tangent lines to the concentric circles drawn out by the near side and the far side as they orbit.
Those tangent lines, which are attached to either end of the portion of the radial line contained within the Moon, must turn about the Moon’s axis if the Moon rotates about its axis, therefore they could no longer move in parallel around the orbit.
That’s a QED folks.
“In defense of Dremtproof positive that the Moon on the left is not rotating on its axis.”
It is. Visibly so. If you isolate the Moon, it rotates. No maths needed.
Each time Robertson writes his lunatic nonsense, the dumber he looks.
Even that simple LRO stuff he can’t properly analyze.
And his altar boys are lucky.
The most terrible thing in this discussion is that even the so-called Spinners, like the so-called Non-Spinners, can’t manage to stop discussing about this stoopid Wiki blah blah
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
which by no means helps in the discussion.
The only question the Non-Spinners finally should manae to answer remains:
” If the Moon does not rotate about its polar axis, how does the LRO, when orbiting the Moon, manage to provide us with 360 degree observations of the Moon, instead of showing us always the same area? ”
I’ll let them keep dodging and answer their usual nonsense.
The greatest nonasense was this:
” The LRO is orbiting the moon, the moon is orbiting the Earth. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left” in the gif I linked to further up-threadin other words, the moon changes its orientation through 360 degrees as it orbits the Earth, without rotating on its own axis. Hence the LRO, when orbiting the moon, provides us with 360 degree observations of the moon. ”
Terrifyingly dumb…
You confuse what is just part of the moons orbital motion, for axial rotation. Not sure I can make it any clearer, or simpler.
” You confuse what is just part of the moons orbital motion, for axial rotation. ”
No I don’t, and conversely you don’t understand how nonsensical is a sentence like
” Hence the LRO, when orbiting the moon, provides us with 360 degree observations of the moon. ”
You keep fixated on
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
what has no significance at all, especially in this LRO context.
*
But now it’s enough, I leave you with your lack of real knowledge, and… with your lack of courage.
Yes: lack of courage.
Because you never and never will contact e.g. Anno Löcher
https://www.apmg.uni-bonn.de/personal/mitarbeiter/loecher
Because such a guy would patiently explain to you… what you exactly don’t want to hear.
“No I don’t”
Yes, you do.
“what has no significance at all, especially in this LRO context.”
It is of absolute, fundamental significance.
“But now it’s enough, I leave you with your lack of real knowledge, and… with your lack of courage.”
You have proven conclusively that you do not understand the “Non-Spinner” position. And you are not the only one.
There is no position for ball-on-a-string lunatics, other than a lunatic one that is.
Hopefully the last comment… who knows what you will further invent, like did your acolyte Clint R with his ‘viewed fron the stars’ nonsense.
” You have proven conclusively that you do not understand the ‘Non-Spinner’ position. ”
NO. I VERY WELL understand this position.
I do not contradict people like you because I allegedly wouldn’t understand them.
I contradict you because this ‘Non-Spinner’ ‘position’ is utter nonsense.
And I repeat: you will never and never check that, by contacting e.g. Anno Löcher
https://www.apmg.uni-bonn.de/personal/mitarbeiter/loecher
Because such a guy would patiently explain to you… what you exactly don’t want to hear.
As you can see further down-thread, Bindidon is not afraid to admit that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. Maybe you can finally have the courage to admit that, too. After all, you agree with us about Mt. Everest.
I see in the comment above that I forgot to mention that people trying to explain Moon’s motion in space with
– coins
– racehorse track
– merry-go-round
– ball-on-a-string
are all crackpots.
*
But – yes – I also have to insist on the fact that people who dare to claim that
– a ball fixated at the end of a string nevertheless can rotate about an interior axis perpendicular to the string’s motion plane
are also crackpots.
You got to hand it to Binny – at least he has an ethos.
JD confuses himself by throwing in a “polar orbit”. He believes more confusion proves him right. barry falls for it, upthread. It’s monkey see, monkey do.
The LRO doesn’t help them, at all. In fact, it’s more proof they don’t understand any of this. There’s no evidence any of them have a clue about orbital motion. Not one of them understood the simple problem about the barbell, even when I explained it.
When they claim the ball-on-a-string is rotating about its axis, it’s all over. They’ve lost. No endless efforts to deny and distort reality will ever work.
Here’s a simple animation of planets orbiting Sun, as Sun moves through space.
Notice the orbits stay with Sun. The movement of Sun does not change the orbits.
I predict the cult idiots will not understand it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWxcgJUCDxg
https://youtu.be/g_KYQltEAuc
If you are trying to prove that the moon doesn’t rotate by indicating planetary orbits of the sun…. well, the sun rotates. You’ve shot yourself in the foot.
The planets do not perform a polar orbit of the sun, which is germane to the point.
You missed the point by several AU.
You do not have a point, barry.
No ball-on-a-string is rotating about its axis (I hope you mean the one perpendicular to the string’s motion plane, of course).
Only crackpots claim such nonsense.
I don’t.
Bindidon, do you realize what you are admitting? You’re admitting that viewing from “the stars” can give the wrong impression of axial rotation.
Are you sure you want to leave your cult?
” Youre admitting that viewing from the stars can give the wrong impression of axial rotation. ”
NO, I’m not.
I never view anything ‘from the stars’; that is a ‘non-Spinner’ nonsense they use to intentionally distort discussions, and to discredit and denigrate astronomers.
Like astronomers, I consider motions of celestial bodies with respect to the stars (you know, these strange things which are ‘fixed’, OMG):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-810794
Yeah, I thought you were just confused again. Thanks for clarifying.
You just get so befuddled you accidentally veer into reality, like when you stated, “No ball-on-a-string is rotating about its axis…”
Reality is just a “senior moment” for you. Then, it’s back to idiot-land.
“idiot-land”
is where you live.
How will Ball4 and others attempt to distort this clear and unequivocal statement from Bindidon about the ball on a string?
That a ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits or gravity?
No ball-on-a-string is rotating about its axis. Only crackpots claim such nonsense.
Only crackpots claim that a ball-on-string has anything to do with orbits or gravity.
If that is what you truly think, then it should be no bother for you to admit that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
Are you admitting that you are a crackpot?
I could ask you the same question.
You’re the one who persists in thinking that ball-on-a-string applies to orbits and gravity when it doesn’t.
You’re the one that acknowledges that Mt. Everest does not rotate on its own axis, regardless of reference frame, but lacks the courage to come out and say it of the ball on a string.
Do you understand the difference between an inertial reference frame and a non-inertial one?
2. When pinned down, just ask questions.
So idiots agree on something anyway.
Inertial reference frame and a non-inertial ones are different.
Yes indeed, they are different.
And the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. Though it may appear to be, from an inertial reference frame.
A ball-on-a-string, like a rod or a lump on a surface, can be considered to rotate around multiple points depending on where the observer is and the motions that occur.
Other points exist which they all may or may not be rotating around.
None of that means that a ball-on-a-string is any different to a rod or a lump on a surface.
There is only one motion that occurs. The ball rotates around the central point, at the other end of the string to that which attaches to the ball.
Or, in the case of Mt. Everest, Mt. Everest rotates around the Earth’s axis of rotation, along with the rest of the Earth.
“The ball rotates around the central point, at the other end of the string to that which attaches to the ball.”
Only if the ‘other end’ is attached to something that is much, much greater in mass than the ball.
That also doesn’t alter the fact that having a physical link of a string is nothing like gravity.
So do you finally agree that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame? Or are you going to keep trying to dodge and weave?
So you do not understand the difference between an inertial reference frame and a non-inertial one.
The center of the Moon (on which gravity can be considered to act) is an inertial reference frame.
The center of a ball on a string rotating around some external point is not.
Now tell me again how the 2 can be considered the same thing?
Oh dear, RLH has gone rogue on reference frames. I’m sure one of the "Spinners" will be along soon to correct him.
“RLH has gone rogue on reference frames.”
Not going to answer the question are you?
No. Most "Spinners" that I have argued with would disagree with you that "the center of the Moon (on which gravity can be considered to act) is an inertial reference frame."
Some of them would argue that the center of the moon could be the origin for an inertial reference frame, and some would argue that it cannot. None would say that the center is an inertial reference frame.
However, none of them will have the integrity to correct you on anything that you say, so I think you’re good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
“In classical physics and special relativity, an inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference that is not undergoing acceleration. In an inertial frame of reference, a physical object with zero net force acting on it moves with a constant velocity (which might be zero)or, equivalently, it is a frame of reference in which Newton’s first law of motion holds.”
Right. So the center of the moon is not an inertial reference frame.
“You confuse what is just part of the moons orbital motion, for axial rotation. Not sure I can make it any clearer, or simpler.”
Simpler no. More truthful, yes, that would be nice.
If you had any compulsion to tell the truth, you would say,
‘I don’t like the science’s definition of ORBIT. I think it should be changed to mine.’
That would be honest.
To declare that the definition ALREADY is changed to conform to my wishes, No. That is dishonest.
“Thats a QED folks.”
Yes Gordon, you have me convinced. The Moon is not rotating…….in a rotating reference frame.
In a frame rotating with the Moon, the rotating Moon appears to NOT rotate!
And where is DREMT to come in and claim, as always, ‘it’s not about reference frames!’?
He won’t. He cannot. It would not be true.
He cannot correct a member of his TEAM!
Because in Gordon’s argument it is ALL ABOUT reference frames, and being blissfully ignorant of which one he is using.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-824490
Gordo posts more delusional physics again, writing:
Gordo must have missed my post yesterday which destroyed his logic.
His reference to “those lines” is actually describing the instantaneous velocity vectors for those locations in an Earth centered coordinate system. Gordo fails to grasp that, while they may be parallel, they are not equal in magnitude, as I demonstrated. That difference in magnitude is the result of the Moon’s rotation and the data thereby proves that it does rotate.
Furthermore, they do not exhibit a constant magnitude around the orbit, which falsifies your non-spinner’s claim that the Moon rotates around some external axis. For the Moon to exhibit such motion, the radial distance and the rate of rotation must be constants for the entire orbit. This could be the case for a circular orbit, but the Moon’s orbit is an ellipse.
Sorry, Gordo, the only thing you’ve QED’s is your own ignorance.
So, Swanson, explain why astronomers define “revolution” as a “rotation about an external axis”? Are they not aware that orbits are generally elliptical and not circular?
Sorry Charlie DR EMPTY,
No they don’t.
Here is an example of what they do say when they define revolution.
“Revolution is an important concept to understand when you’re studying the stars. It refers to the movement of a planet around the Sun. All of the planets in our solar system revolve around the sun. The path of the earth around the sun which is one complete cycle of an orbit is approximately 365.2425 days in length. Planetary revolution can sometimes be confused with planetary rotation but they are two separate things.”
You want the source, 50 bucks.
That does not disagree with:
"Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit."
Source: John P Millis, PhD in Physics and Astronomy.
"If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles."
"A rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point. That common point lies within the axis of that motion. The axis is 90 degrees perpendicular to the plane of the motion. If the axis of the rotation lies external of the body in question then the body is said to orbit. There is no fundamental difference between a “rotation” and an “orbit” and or "spin". The key distinction is simply where the axis of the rotation lies, either within or outside of a body in question. This distinction can be demonstrated for both “rigid” and “non rigid” bodies."
Source: Wikipedia article on "Rotation".
Nothing you have said means that a ball-on-string directly applies to either orbits or gravity.
You’ve ignored the context of the discussion again, RLH. It’s this:
"Furthermore, they do not exhibit a constant magnitude around the orbit, which falsifies your non-spinner’s claim that the Moon rotates around some external axis. For the Moon to exhibit such motion, the radial distance and the rate of rotation must be constants for the entire orbit. This could be the case for a circular orbit, but the Moon’s orbit is an ellipse."
I then responded as follows:
"So, Swanson, explain why astronomers define “revolution” as a “rotation about an external axis”? Are they not aware that orbits are generally elliptical and not circular?"
bob is now trying to pretend that astronomers do not define "revolution" as a "rotation about an external axis". I just proved him wrong.
So now you’re up to speed!
DR EMPTY,
Right, but nothing in anything you have sourced says that a body can not be rotating about two axes at the same time.
Which is what the Moon is doing, what the Earth is doing, as well as every other natural satellite.
The Moon not being a ball on a string is observed to be rotating around two different axes and those two axes are not parallel.
As I said, nothing you have said means that a ball-on-string directly applies to either orbits or gravity.
bob tries changing the subject and RLH refuses to participate in the discussion.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo: Bob said you were *also* wrong about the meaning of “and” and “or”. “Also” is an “and,” not an “or.” So once again you confuse them.
On the other hand, you are the one trying to flee from Eric’s demonstrations and Gordo’s and Pup’s blunders.
Gordon 12:00am and DREMT 4:38pm agree “the moon changes its orientation through 360 degrees as it orbits the Earth” just like the ball-on-string and the fixed hobby horse on m-g-r orbit their centers.
Gordon and DREMT have correctly joined the spinners (aka re-orienters) ranks. Leaving Clint R as the lone non-spinner laughing stock commenting erroneously on this blog.
I predict Clint R will live up to all my expectations and provide more laughs long into the future.
Willard is also wildly off-topic.
Here’s the topic, Kiddo:
Care to address Eric’s demonstration?
Willard tries changing the subject again.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
[GORDO] If those lines are always moving parallel to each other it is not possible for them to also rotate about the Moons axis.
[ERIC] Gordo must have missed my post yesterday which destroyed his logic.
[KIDDO] Explain why astronomers define “revolution” as a “rotation about an external axis”?
[BOB] No they don’t. Here is an example of what they do say when they define revolution.
It’s obvious who’s trying to change the subject here, Kiddo.
And that’s you.
[ERIC] Furthermore, they do not exhibit a constant magnitude around the orbit, which falsifies your non-spinner’s claim that the Moon rotates around some external axis. For the Moon to exhibit such motion, the radial distance and the rate of rotation must be constants for the entire orbit. This could be the case for a circular orbit, but the Moon’s orbit is an ellipse.
[DREMT] Explain why astronomers define “revolution” as a “rotation about an external axis”? Are they not aware that orbits are generally elliptical and not circular?"
[BOB] No they don’t.
[DREMT] {proves Bob wrong}
[BOB][RLH][Willard] Quick, change the subject, change the subject!
[KIDDO] {Proves Bob right}
[BOB] Nothing in anything you have sourced says that a body can not be rotating about two axes at the same time.
[KIDDO] DANGER! DANGER! DIVERSION! DANGER!
[WILLARD] You’re mistaking “and” and “or” again, Kiddo.
[KIDDO] DANGER! DANGER! DIVERSION! DANGER!
DR EMTPY,
What you call changing the subject, I call moving the discussion to three dimensions instead of two.
You want to stick with the flat earthers, that’s all right with me.
But they are wrong and so are you.
Willard completely loses it any time I prove bob wrong. Weird.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
“Planetary revolution can sometimes be confused with planetary rotation but they are two separate things.”
See? That’s not an “or” – that’s an “and.”
Bob is right again, and you suck at definitions.
Firstly, I agree they are two separate things.
Secondly, bob’s definition does not in any way contradict the definitions I found, which (and this is the crucial part) explicitly state that "revolution" is a "rotation about an external axis".
Understand, child?
[BOB] astronomers do not define "revolution" as a "rotation about an external axis".
[DREMT] {shows definitions that specify "revolution" is a "rotation about an external axis"}
pups takes quotes from a Wikipedia article which are out of context. For example, there’s also this from the article:
The Moon does not exhibit such motion, as the distance to the center point is not fixed. Also, from the article:
The Moon is one of those “similar bodies”. From your quote:
It’s motion is a combination of translation of the CG around an orbital path plus the rotation of the spherical mass around it’s CG. That’s basic math, which you pups continue to fail to understand. The motion can not be described as a rotation about an external point, since the distance between the Moon’s CG and the focus of the orbital ellipse changes as the Moon revolves around it’s orbit.
"The motion can not be described as a rotation about an external point, since the distance between the Moon’s CG and the focus of the orbital ellipse changes as the Moon revolves around it’s orbit."
So, Swanson, explain why astronomers define “revolution” as a “rotation about an external axis”? Are they not aware that orbits are generally elliptical and not circular?
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Bob does not need to contradict the definitions you found, for they do not contradict Eric. Bob does not need to explain these definitions to you, but sometimes he does. And that’s what he did.
Now, if it’s possible for a body to translate and to rotate, what point exactly do you think you have here?
Poor Willard…his hero was wrong, once again, and he just can’t handle it!
The definitions were not intended to contradict Eric, Willard. You cannot follow a discussion. The definitions were intended to contradict bob. They did so.
What contradicts Eric, is this:
"So, Swanson, explain why astronomers define “revolution” as a “rotation about an external axis”? Are they not aware that orbits are generally elliptical and not circular?"
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
When pinned down, don’t Just Ask Questions.
Your question only shows you don’t get what Eric is saying.
Of course I get what he’s saying. He is insisting that an orbit (without axial rotation) cannot be a rotation about an external axis, because orbits are elliptical, and as far as he is concerned rotation about an external axis needs to occur in a circle (distance from the axis to the object remaining fixed throughout). My point is that if the definitions about "rotation about an external axis" were really so fixed, then astronomers simply would not use the term in their definitions of "revolution". Since they are obviously aware that orbits are generally elliptical.
Of course you don’t get what Eric is saying, Kiddo. Or if you do, you’re being a bit hypocritical.
Eric is stating a basic physical point. His point follows a basic mathematical point. You’re turning this into a sociological point about word usage because you have no other leg to stand on.
Bob denied you that leg. He wins again. So you lulz. Weird.
After all these years, all you got is a silly definition game. And you can’t even play that game properly. Because you suck at logic. Not only are you confusing “and” and “or” all the time, but you’re also messing up your quantifiers.
It would be nice just to have a discussion with Swanson and bob, without your ridiculously biased running commentary always happening in the background. Anybody reading through can see that I proved bob wrong, but you’re still defending him! As to Swanson, let’s wait and see what he says. In response to the point I made in the first place, which he has studiously avoided responding to so far…
The distraction is all yours, Kiddo. When astrophysicists say that an object is rotating, it does not imply that the object is only rotating.
And Eric already refuted your point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-824769
Fail again. Fail better.
He has not even addressed my point. You simply cannot follow a discussion.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. Eric showed how you’re misrepresenting or misunderstanding what the definitions imply.
That you can find one single definition from a content farm does not mean much anyway.
“RLH refuses to participate in the discussion”
I have tried to take part on many occasions. You simply refuse to acknowledge any of the relevant points made.
No, Swanson tried to wriggle his way out of acknowledging the plainly obvious truth that there are astronomers who define "revolution" as "rotation about an external axis", a fact that is not even disputed by many other "Spinners". He did so in order to avoid having to respond to my point altogether.
DR EMPTY,
Here is something else the PhD Astronomer John P Millis says:
“The important thing to remember is that objects are in motion throughout the universe, whether they are orbiting each other, a common point of gravity, or spinning on one or more axes as they move.”
Kinda proves that your position that the Moon is only revolving around one axis is wrong.
from
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
And here is an Astronomer that says the Moon rotates, I bet she’s hot.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/44-our-solar-system/the-moon/general-questions/110-does-the-moon-rotate-are-there-other-moons-that-always-keep-one-face-toward-their-planet-intermediate
Correct:
https://www.sciencenatures.com/2021/07/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths.html
"Kinda proves that your position that the Moon is only revolving around one axis is wrong."
No, bob, not at all.
> there are astronomers
See, Kiddo? You’re confusing quantifiers again.
You found one guy. Who’s not providing an official or a formal definition. On a content farm. A description that makes sense in context, but that you stretch beyond limits of justified disingenuousness.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
Willard, I only needed to find one example to prove the point. Besides, the Wikipedia article also exists. If elliptical orbits cannot be described as a "rotation about an external axis", then why does it say:
"A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles."
The example given, the planet Earth around the Sun, is an elliptical orbit.
pups, I hate to interrupt Willard’s destruction of your semantic confusion. You keep asking silly questions with no importance, such as:
I doubt that ALL astronomers use this definition. Of course, you’ve found one to quote, but that doesn’t mean that such usage is common among the professionals. Astronomers focus on mathematical descriptions of the motions or celestial bodies, that is they build math models. As you seem to think that you are an “expert” in astronomy, please provide a math model of the Moon’s motions which relies on a description in which the Moon is rotating (not revolving/orbiting) about a FIXED external point.
If you can’t do that STFU and go away.
> I only needed to find one example to prove the point.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. If you claim that astronomers define a term in some way, you have to establish constancy. To do that you’d have to check out the community practices instead of playing gotcha.
Besides, your guy did not define – he described. And that’s notwithstanding that you misread him!
You suck at word games. Yet that’s all you do. Weird.
Dear Willard, and Swanson. Please address this:
The Wikipedia article also exists. If elliptical orbits cannot be described as a "rotation about an external axis", then why does it say:
"A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles."
The example given, the planet Earth around the Sun, is an elliptical orbit.
Or, "STFU and go away" as Swanson put it.
DR EMPTY,
“No, bob, not at all.”
How exactly now asshole?
bob, your conclusion did not follow from your quote. It was a total non-sequitur.
Dear Kiddo,
Wikipedia isn’t written by astronomers or astrophysicists.
So whatever point you think you have, it’s irrelevant.
It’s also wrong, as “rotating” does not imply “only rotating.”
I warned you about your mishandling of quantifiers.
Now get lost.
Since pups can’t provide a math model of the moon rotating about a single external point, pups throws out a red herring question. Maybe pups should look a bit deeper into the void of space, to find a definition of “Orbital Pole”. For starters, as another Wikipedia article points out:
Notice that there’s nothing there about the Earth “rotating” about the orbital pole. The same logic would apply for the Moon’s orbit.
Willard and Swanson slide further into their abyss of denial. But, the articles exist, and prove them wrong. Oh well. They could search "revolution is rotation about an external axis" and find other articles also confirming they are wrong, but I guess that would be too much to ask.
DREMT: Define the differences between an inertial reference frame and a non-inertial one.
Whilst you are at it, define which you think the center of the Moon is and why.
No thanks, I’m good.
You’re an idiot too then.
I just prefer to keep each sub-thread on one particular topic, if possible, rather than meandering all over the place. You don’t want to engage on anything that we are discussing here, so perhaps you could toddle off somewhere else.
> the articles exist, and prove them wrong
That’s where Kiddo’s wrong:
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orbit-58.html
I added the last bit because Kiddo keeps dodging the engineering point.
After losing on mathematics, semantics, physics, and engineering, he’ll lose on sociology.
"An orbit is a regular, repeating path that one object in space takes around another one."
Indeed. I agree. An object that is "revolving", or "rotating about an external axis", does take a regular repeating path in space around another object.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Astronomy__Cosmology/Book%3A_Astronomy_for_Educators_(Barth)/03%3A_Modeling_Earth_and_Moon_Together/3.03%3A_Rotation_and_Revolution
Obviously “Non-Spinners” disagree that all planets and moons rotate and revolve. Since we argue that all tidally-locked moons only revolve.
How is the search going for articles that state revolution means rotation about an external axis?
> we argue that all tidally-locked moons only revolve
“Argue” is a strong word, Kiddo. All you got is one definition from a click farm. Even if you finally get something more official, how will a word help you settle how things are in reality?
I think it’s time to help you build a Master Argument. You know what that is, right?
“Obviously ‘Non-Spinners’ disagree that all planets and moons rotate and revolve. Since we argue that all tidally-locked moons only revolve.”
I thought you said that tidal locking was not possible.
“An orbit is a regular, repeating path that one object in space takes around another one.”
Indeed. I agree.”
Astonishing.
Where in that definition do we see anything about an ORBIT “involves the object changing its orientation through 360 degrees.”
Nowhere?
That part is obviously DREMTs imagination.
Thankfully the non-spinner lunacy is over.
"I thought you said that tidal locking was not possible."
You thought wrong.
Oh well, again DREMT tries to claim his favorite university Rigid Body Kinematics courses have somehow gotten ROTATION all wrong…because Wikipedia yada yada and FTOP yada yada.
Madhavi
Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration. Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.”
Brown:
“Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.”
Hmmm.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Obviously Kiddo is one of the last Moon Dragons remainining. The others realized that without a Master Argument they had no case.
What’s Kiddo’s excuse not to provide one?
How is the search going? You should have realized there are plenty of articles that state revolution is rotation about an external axis by now.
DREMT claims that tidal locking is both possible and impossible at the same time.
Clint R argues that tidal locking is impossible. I do not.
“plenty of articles that state revolution is rotation about an external axis by now.”
Revolution is a colloquial term used in various ways, but science uses the term ORBIT for a planet’s or Moon’s path around another object.
We KNOW that you KNOW that orbits are elliptical.
But here you are, again contradicting textbook definitions, when you try to equate ROTATION which must be CIRCULAR motion around an axis, with ORBITs which are elliptical.
Thus you are AGAIN claiming your oft-referenced Brown and Madhavi textbook definitions, used in Engineering courses at two Universities (and really many more), must be WRONG, based on verbiage in Wikipedia, which can be edited by anyone and is known to be inaccurate.. or what some dude FTOP has claimed.
Nobody buys that.
It’s still interesting to note when Kiddo returns to semantic arguments, and in fairness semantics is all Kiddo got by now.
Willard, how is the search going?
I’m glad you ask, Kiddo.
So far I got:
KIDDO’S MOON DRAGON MASTER ARGUMENT (v. 0.1)
(P1) The ball-on-a-string illustrates translation without rotation.
(P2) Here is the definition of revolution according to a content farm.
(P3)Furious armwaving around silly gifs, Flop’s tricks, handouts, and that’s about it.]
(C) The Moon does not rotate, it only translates.
I have notes too!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon, Gordon, Gordon,
“I defy anyone to prove me wrong using math.”
I don’t have to prove you wrong, because you are right when you say this
“The radial line is the key because it will sweep out 360 degrees as it tracks the Moon in its orbit. If you look at where the radial line is located within the Moon as it passes through, it is obvious this portion must turn through 360 degrees within the radial line if the Moon is to rotate on its axis.”
You are saying that the radial line through the Moon must rotate around 360 degrees, which it does, which proves the Moon is rotating around a local axis.
Because it is connected to the radial line from the Earth to the Moon which is rotating as the Moon revolves around the Earth.
Well done spinner.
bob, when are you going to argue it out with my dedicated stalker? That might help you with your confusion here.
Why DR EMPTY,
Do have to lie about there being a disagreement between your stalker and me?
We are on the same page as to whether the Moon rotates or not.
Yes, you are on the same page as to whether the moon rotates or not.
But there is a disagreement between you, and it relates to the comment you just made to Gordon.
DR EMPTY,
You could be a little less vague, like explain who I have a disagreement with and exactly what that disagreement is.
I am not sure who you are referring to as your stalker.
Or you could go on being a misinformed asshole.
That’s up to you.
I have already explained all of that, upthread, as you know.
DR EMPTY,
This is all I will give you.
There may be some disagreement between Eric and I, but that is because I am allowing some sloppy thinking on your part, because the issue is not whether or not the Moon rotates around an external axis, I am willing to be wrong on that account, because that is not the issue.
The issue is whether or not the Moon rotates around an internal axis.
Which is not parallel to the external axis which sloppy thinkers claim the Moon rotates around. Less sloppy thinkers say the Moon revolves around the Earth in an elliptical path.
The Moon rotates around an internal axis.
Which has been proven by observations, by thousands of Astronomers going back at least to Cassini, and probably all the way back to the Mesopotamians.
That’s where you are wrong.
The specific disagreement I refer to is not between you and Eric, as you know from up-thread, though I’m glad to hear you admit you disagree there, too.
You (erroneously) think that an object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the "moon on the right". My stalker (correctly) thinks that it moves as per the "moon on the left".
It’s fun to see bob get tangled up.
Moon does not rotate about its axis. If it did, we would see all sides of it from Earth. It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string, in that sense.
See how easy reality really is?
Now you two clowns revert to your bullshit that has been endlessly refuted.
You two can’t argue your way out of a wet paper bag.
It’s been amusing but it gets old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
Note the words Lunar Axis clearly marked on the diagram.
That’s the axis the Moon rotates around, with a period equal to the time it takes to revolve around the Earth, such that we always see the same side (a little more than less) from Earth.
bob, you (erroneously) think that an object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the "moon on the right". My stalker (correctly) thinks that it moves as per the "moon on the left".
DR EMPTY,
I am correct that the Moon is rotating around an internal axis.
I don’t give a fuck about your two dimensional giffs, the Moon moves in three dimensions, Flat Earther.
Poor bob is getting rattled – he knows he was wrong, and my stalker was right.
bob links to a wiki page about “Orbit of Moon”. There is a diagram indicating a polar axis for Moon. That includes a huge, and obvious, mistake. Of course, none of the idiots can find it.
They can’t even understand the simple ball-on-a-string, much less the simple physics problem about the barbell.
They can’t understand any of this.
Pup and Kiddo got NOTHING.
But they sure can troll!
Clint R,
The Moon exhibits libration, which you call an illusion, but it’s real.
Your precious ball on a string does not show libration.
Therefore your model is wrong.
You are wrong.
DR EMPTY is wrong.
Gordon is wrong.
You think you got some big mistake on the diagram of the Moons orbit.
But you won’t even say what you think the big mistake is.
But you got nothing, you can’t even understand this eighth grade science.
But I have explained all this to you countless times, you still don’t get it, what do you do now, spit your binky?
I know, you will say, if the Moon was rotating, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
Right?
Is that all you punks got?
Here clowns,
does your ball on a string do this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase2.gif
Libration is merely a change in Earth’s view of Moon in its elliptical/tilted orbit.
The ball-on-a-string does not have an elliptical/tilted orbit, so there is no libration. The ball-on-a-string was never a model of Moon. It was a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Idiots like bob still can’t understand that simple face.
In fact, bob can’t understand any of this, including why the wiki link is wrong.
Earth rotates about its axis. That means it has “rotational inertia”. That means its polar axis always faces the same direction. That’s why the star is named “Polaris”.
I’m sure most idiots are already lost.
But Moon does NOT rotate. That means if has NO “rotational inertia”. That means its “polar axis” faces different directions during an orbit.
This was all pointed out months ago, with the simple example of a pencil stuck in an apple. But, the idiots couldn’t get it then, and they won’t get it now.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“The ball-on-a-string was never a model of {the} Moon.”
Agreed. So why do you claim that it is? Or has any relationship with it at all.
Idiot troll RLH, you need to go back and find where I ever said the ball-on-a-string was a model for Moon.
Next, you need to go back and find all the times it was explained to you that the ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You can’t learn.
That’s because you’re an idiot troll.
“the ball-on-a-string is a model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation'”
Which is what you claim (wrongly) that the Moon does.
Clint R: Define the differences between an inertial reference frame and a non-inertial one.
Whilst you are at it, define which you think the center of the Moon is and why.
> find where I ever said the ball-on-a-string was a model for Moon
C’mon, Pup. The BOS is meant to illustrate translation without rotation. According to the Moon Dragons, the Moon translates but does not rotate.
Who do you think you’re kidding?
RLH, the center of the moon is not a reference frame. A reference frame “consists of an abstract coordinate system whose origin, orientation, and scale are specified by a set of reference points”.
Why is the center of the Moon not “an abstract coordinate system whose origin, orientation, and scale are specified by a set of reference points”.
Clint R,
But the ball on a string has been proven to be rotating on its axis, so it is a model of orbital motion with axial rotation.
But you can’t understand this.
How about 0^0=?
Because the center of the moon is a point, not a coordinate system.
"But – yes – I also have to insist on the fact that people who dare to claim that
– a ball fixated at the end of a string nevertheless can rotate about an interior axis perpendicular to the string’s motion plane
are also crackpots."
Bindidon thinks you are a crackpot, bob.
Binny often pretends to be the Guy in the Middle, Pup. It’s an old French trick, so that may explain it.
And he even thought you called him a stalker. That should tell you how much attention he paid to these exchanges.
OTOH, you won’t defend the only guy who tried to come up with a numerical model for your pet theory.
The "Soft Spinners" are nothing new, Willard.
Three years and still no Master Argument, Kiddo.
And then you wonder why I call you “Kiddo.”
You could just use joined-up thinking, Willard.
And I don’t wonder why you call me "Kiddo". You do it as a means of poisoning the well.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Search for “that’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.”
You also do it to troll.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
This thread in about over and these 6000 posts can be summarized in this one picture
https://i.postimg.cc/brsTScRP/think-tank.png
Greenland finishes another season ahead of average snow accumulation.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20210830.png
Idiots tell us flux adds, so that means more than 460 TW will be pumped into the atmosphere, just from the ice sheet.
The more snow and ice, the hotter it gets?
Idiots.
Let’s argue about something different!
What is the value of zero multiplied by itself zero times?
I know the answer to that one, Bob.
It’s Kiddo!
First tell me what zero is. : )
The inverse of zero divide zero?
What is zero to the zeroth power?
Stephen,
That is the same question I posted, just worded differently.
I am trying to gauge the mathematical education level of posters.
A correct answer indicates some level of Math understanding.
Why is it that a lot of equations featuring zero have ‘undefined’ as their outcome?
“numbers to the zero power always equal one. Although this works mathematically, it too presents logical problems. Chiefly, zero to the zero power still equals one, although zero added or subtracted to or multiplied by itself should equal zero”
0^1=0
0^0=1
1^1=1
1^0=1
nothing wrong with all that
How about the definition of ‘flux’?
It’s the affliction that DR EMPTY is suffering from.
Poor bob. He just cannot face up to his error.
I huff and I puff and I keep on drinkin
Find me an emergency bastard and stomp on his face till he don’t move no more
Where’s that waitress
See if Willard knows that one
Oh, Burt.
Kiddo cannot face being conned by Flop.
bob, Willard, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
” My stalker (correctly) thinks that it moves as per the ‘moon on the left’. ”
Do you mean ME, when writing “My stalker’ ??
Who is here whom’s stalker?
YOU started stalking me with your nonsense, exactly HERE:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-822329
*
And where did I ‘think’ that the Moon moves as shown on one of these two utterly wrong pictures?
I have told you more than once that noe of these pictures describe what happens with the Moon.
Stop lying.
I appreciate that there are a lot of you who could be classed as my stalker, but no Bindidon. Not you.
Thanks, that’s reassuring.
Sorry for having misunderstood you.
Kiddo’s referring to Nate, Binny.
Focus on linkies instead of being such a prima donna.
I’ve never seen a post at a science website with over 6,000 comments.
This may get into the record books.
I didn’t have anything to add, because I have no idea if the climate in 2100 will be warmer or cooler.
But I wanted to be part of the 6,000+, and get into the record books, which I will add to my resume.
I haven’t read all the comments, but I assume climate change on Earth has been solved, and maybe on other planets too.
You should have a quick walk along the comments.
At best 5 % of them really concern climate :- ))
Half of them are Willard and RLH. “You’re the dummy.” “No, you’re the dummy.”
Actually most of mine are 1 now. (short for idiot)
_ ,-, _
,–, /: :\/’: :`\/: :\
|`; ‘ `,’ `.; `: |
| | | ‘ | |.
| : | | pb | ||
| :. | : | : | : | \
\__/: :.. : :.. | :.. | )
`—‘,\___/,\___/ /’
`==._ .. . /’
`-::-‘
Got I hate Roy’s parser.
Still 1.
Tends to eliminate spaces, try using asterisks as a background
Won’t alter his 1 status.
The original article is about the temperature on Earth, but a lot of the comments seem to be about the moon. I quickly skimmed though a few. It appears that the temperature on Earth is controlled by the moon, or maybe I didn’t understand the arguments. I always thought climate change was caused by the rotation of Uranus, or extraterrestrials.
Climate change is caused by being in an Ice Age.
Or a greenhouse climate has less climate change.
And Icehouse climate as more.
We been in this Ice Age for 34 million years- kind of late
to complain about it.
Of course the worse climate change occurs during glaciation period- so one can something to be happy about.
To the Spinners
Sorry for being too lazy to deeply go into the Matlab stuff.
Using their terrific ode45 solver for differential equations of motion, one could describe Earth’s and Moon’s motions (orbit and spin), and show the whole stuff using gnuplot.
That is, however, definitely too much work for me.
Anyone interested?
Here’s a good start:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292214310_Elementary_celestial_mechanics_using_Matlab/link/5b1e7ba745851587f2a01ebd/download
Btw, Matlab seems to have its own graphical interface, no gnuplot stuff needed!
JD, you can’t turn poop into gold using differential equations.
You need to get out of your cult and learn something about science.
You need to apply science to your utterings.
We know that pups doesn’t do math, which, of course, means that pups doesn’t do science. It’s all about trolling and hogging the web site…
E. Swanson, you haven’t gotten any science correct yet.
Now’s your chance.
Use some differential equations to turn your poop into gold.
You’ve certainly got no shortage of poop….
Since you can’t even get what a polar orbit is, Pup, here’s your chance. Do the Poll Dance Experiment. Report.
Troll Dud, when you don’t understand the science, just make things up. That’s what your cult does.
You and your tiny, tiny, clique are the ones without science.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9944789/August-cloudiest-month-record-Southern-England.html
“August is set to go down as the third cloudiest month on record for Southern England as forecasters predict heavy wind and rain will continue to lash parts of the nation into next month.”
Unprecedented since…
“Unprecedented since”
Records began. In the UK that’s quite a period, unlike the US where a couple of hundred years is before records began in most cases.
“third cloudiest month”
You do know that Southern England does not include Scotland don’t you?
So far.
The Scots might have something to say about that.
The Welsch too, but nobody will understand.
“Despite the gloomy weather, Tyndrum in Stirling, Scotland, recorded the highest temperature in the UK so far this month after it hit 80.2F on August 25.”
Niccccce! perhaps, they will soon be able to grow grapevine and make wine like they did in middle ages.
That’s an old line, cot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_the_United_Kingdom
willard…”Tyndrum in Stirling, Scotland, recorded the highest temperature in the UK so far this month after it hit 80.2F on August 25.”
___
Good grief, 26.7C!!!! How could anyone surface such hot weather??? [/sarc off].
BTW…Tyndrum seems to be in Perthshire, not Stirling, which is a city. It’s in the Highlands where my Pictish ancestors beat the crap out of the Romans and the Vikings.
They must be going through a cool period in the UK if 26.7 C is a record of any kind. That’s a slightly warm day in a Vancouver, Canada summer. Our recent record was around 32C but now it’s back to normal for end of August. Currently 14C but predicting 10C tonight. That may be a record low for August around here.
La Nina anyone?
Can someone explain to me how we set records in June and we’re flirting with record lows in late August? How exactly does CO2 do that?
> Tyndrum seems to be in Perthshire, not Stirling
Here, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndrum
Don’t forget your meds.
“Can someone explain to me how we set records in June and were flirting with record lows in late August? How exactly does CO2 do that? ”
When you add momentum to a pendulum it swings further in both directions.
When you add extra heat to a climate system it becomes more variable and more prone to extremes.
But allows cooling to occur also.
https://imgur.com/a/wfJTPMN
Ent, are you still “adding heat”?
That meme was debunked years ago.
Are you still denying algebra, Pup?
You tried that meme days ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-815318
RLH your unidentified flying data points are also unreadable.
I learned long ago that creating lines between the points made for unsupportable in-between definitions. You do not know what trajectory occurred between those points so putting lines there is an illusion.
If you want the figures, look at the top of the page.
So, let’s review:
CO2 levels do not cause climate change.
In regards global air temperature, during our interglacial period, which is called the Holocene period:
Global air temperature has been changing over time period of decades and centuries and over period more than 1000 years.
In terms a stable condition, what hasn’t changed is that we have been in Ice Age for last 34 million years, though in last couple millions years this Ice Age appears to be much colder. Within this time Earth may have had lowest CO2 levels, it has ever had. The greatest glacial coverage, and the coldest ocean it has ever had.
Certainly the coldest ocean, Earth has had and the lowest CO2 level Earth has had, within last 34 million years.
In regards to our Holocene, we had more global warming more than 5000 years ago. Or said differently, we have a steady 5000 years of global cooling, and there is not any evidence indicating it’s going to stop cooling. Though in terms what one could call stability, it appears that during the last 5000 years, our ocean has remained at a temperature of about 3.5 C and our global average air temperature has been around 15 C. And glacier advancement appears have stopped, and began retreating at a time of around 1850 AD.
Also were we to enter a glaciation period, during the worse of any glaciation period, the region of the tropics, remain little effected. Though countries in Europe become impossible to live in. And the US is severely affected.
And Canada roughly remains the frozen wasteland that it is currently.
Yes, we don’t have a global warming problem. We have a global cooling problem.
We do indeed.
The problem is that the world’s natural cooling trend of -0.01C/decade stopped 170 years ago and we are now warming at 0.2C/decade.
https://imgur.com/a/wfJTPMN
Or 3 years of UAH history https://imgur.com/lUII0rM
I’m all in for the warming.
RLH thinks that with AGW, all previous natural variation should cease, and there should only be monotonic warming.
No more wiggles allowed on top of the long term trend?
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01127-1
We estimate the ice will be 1 mile thick over Toronto.
Who’s we and when?
2100.
The ice will advance quickly. Much more quickly than you might realize. Sea levels will drop by a hundred meters stranding those very ports complaining about sea level rise projections.
It will get very cold; it’ll freeze your electric car battery solid.
Your monkey will lose its brass balls.
The wall will get in the way of us who will want to move south to more habitable lands.
At least 7 billion will perish from famine due to short growing seasons. There are not yet enough polar bears to go around …
Global warming liars and Green agendistas will be hanging from the frozen wind turbines.
Fimbulvinter. Ragnarok. It has been foretold.
But there will be excellent Elk hunting in Doggerland.
I predict you’ll be dead by then, Kennui.
No skin in the game.
Making a border on that will be interesting.
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk/Doggerland/dgpics/map1.jpg
I predict that you too will be dead by 2100.
Its really hilarious that the climate alarmists, of which you are one, all make predictions that will never be validated in their lifetimes.
I guess the alarmists are all slowly figuring out how stupid y’all look when the prediction doesn’t come true so the goalpost is now moved to 2100 and beyond. How often have we heard about ice free arctic oceans and 1 meter sea level rise by 2010 (to grab a random date) and not a whit of evidence to show when the day comes and goes.
Troglodytes die. Institutions remain.
Except for troglodyte institutions. They die too!
Doom is upon us, and in less than 80 years.
Meanwhile, in the UK, summer has not been quite as expected but a lot cooler and cloudier than normal.
A cooling world (or part of it) indeed.
https://imgur.com/a/wfJTPMN
Or 3 years of UAH history https://imgur.com/lUII0rM
Doom and the Raven feeder is coming sooner.
Y’all gonna die by 2030. Weren’t you listening to Greta the high priestess of climate change? Irreverent you are.
That’s not what Greta said, tho:
https://climateball.net/but-12-years/
bob d …”You are saying that the radial line through the Moon must rotate around 360 degrees, which it does, which proves the Moon is rotating around a local axis.
Because it is connected to the radial line from the Earth to the Moon which is rotating as the Moon revolves around the Earth”.
***
Comprehension, Bob, comprehension.
I pointed out, and have done so all along, that the tangential line perpendicular to the radial line at the near face and the tangential line perpendicular to the radial line at the far face, ALWAYS move in parallel. That is admitted by the fact that the near face always faces the Earth.
That rules out the portion of the radial line within the Moon rotating about its axis.
As I said, QED.
> ALWAYS move in parallel.
Counterpoint, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
Dud finds a link he believes supports his false beliefs, but he doesn’t understand it. He can’t even understand the first sentence, “…libration is the wagging or wavering of the Moon perceived by Earth-bound observers…”
Libration is a “perceived” motion. Moon does not really rock back and forth.
Idiots don’t understand any of this.
Clint R,
What you fail to understand is that the Moon rotates at a constant rate, but revolves at speeds that increase and decrease in accordance with Kepler’s Laws.
Which makes the Moon appear to rock back and forth.
Yes bob, Moon orbits in accordance with Kepler’s Laws. And its constant rate of rotation is zero.
Its constant rate of rotation is once per orbit.
“Yes bob, Moon orbits in accordance with Keplers Laws. And its constant rate of rotation is zero”
Wouldnt it be great if Clint could then explain longitudinal libration based on this zero rotation?
Given that its impossible… he will again just declare it works!
DR EMPTY
Look here, your stalker agrees with me.
Not you,
ME
loser
you too Clint R, you are a loser too.
Get out of your mom’s basement and get that minor in physics.
what’s 0^0=?
Sorry, bob, you are wrong. My stalker agrees with me that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is not motion as per the “moon on the right”.
Sorry DR EMPTY,
you are a poor demented deranged fool.
And you are wrong, just won’t admit it because you can’t figure it out.
Sorry, bob, you are wrong. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is not motion as per the “moon on the right”. As even my stalker agrees. Fight it out with him.
Nope
Yup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566712
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Which part of “physical librations” you do not get, Pup?
The Moon wobbles for real. You can’t reduce it to a geometrical problem.
What forces the Moon to always face the Earth? Magic?
What force causes you to be braindead?
Not going to answer the question as normal are you?
Correct, I don’t answer questions from the braindead.
You are the brain dead one with only a tiny, tiny clique to support you.
The moon always faces the earth because there is no force acting on it to change its aspect. Tidally locked, ergo, its not rotating.
To get where it is the Moon had to move, troglodyte.
Tidal lock isn’t the ultimate spatial break that your SUV has.
“Tidally locked, ergo, its not rotating.”
The science behind the term ‘Tidally locked’ comes from Astrophysics, which clearly defines it as:
“Tidal locking is the phenomenon by which a body has the same rotational period as its orbital period around a partner.”
So you accept the term from science, but not the explanation?
Doesnt really make sense.
Ken,
It’s not exactly true that the Earth does not exert any forces on the Moon.
The center of gravity of the Moon and the center of Mass of the Moon are not in the same place.
So as the Moon moves those two points can change alignment with the center of gravity of Earth.
That produces a torque.
Gordon,
Yes, your tangent lines move in parallel, the problem for your analysis it that the tangent lines are rotating as they stay parallel.
QED
How about 0^0=?
Can you solve that one?
The engineer police are desperately hoping you can get it right.
bob still doesn’t understand that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is movement as per the "moon on the left". He still thinks it is as per the "moon on the right". What a clown.
Kiddo still does not understand that his counterfactual has no relevance whatsoever.
bob’s error is the source of most of his confusion on this entire issue.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
The source of your own mistakes (yes, there are many) is reality:
Ball knocked you out. You’re still wobbling. Please stay conscious. I need you for the Master Argument.
Shall we begin?
bob’s error is the source of most of his confusion on this entire issue.
I have already explained why the LRO does not provide evidence of lunar axial rotation. Several times. That you even think it does, is evidence in itself that you do not truly understand the "Non-Spinner" position.
Let’s not forget that silly mistake of yours:
Why would you want to lose again?
bob’s error is the source of most of his confusion on this entire issue.
Ftop_t programmed Desmos to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical shape. If some translation were involved in that movement, so what? The object is still not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about an external one, with some "stretch" to the "string".
> If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
I do hope it’s a point I should add to your Master Argument, Kiddo, for it shows the quality of the reasoning involved.
Let me remind you why Flop did his demonstration:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-582080
See? Not about the ball on a string as you keep pretending.
So the answer to your “so what” is: because he’s refuting himself.
It’s as if you don’t recall why Flop reappeared on this thread.
The object is still not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about an external one, with some "stretch" to the "string".
Ftop_t did not refute himself at all.
Indeed Flop did, Kiddo. He said he was constructing a strict rotation. He added a translation.
To omit the translation spills all the beans, for how are you going to explain that the Moon translates instead of spinning?
bob’s error is the source of most of his confusion on this entire issue.
"He said he was constructing a strict rotation. He added a translation."
Show where in the Desmos programming he did so, if that’s such a problem for you.
"To omit the translation spills all the beans, for how are you going to explain that the Moon translates instead of spinning?"
If "orbital motion without axial rotation" were to be considered rotation about an external axis, with a little bit of translation thrown in (the stretching of the "string"), so what? I’m not by any means saying that this is the case, but if it were, who cares? The bottom line is the object is moving in an ellipse, without rotating on its own axis, whilst one side of the object remains generally pointed towards the inside of the orbit.
You keep saying stuff without showing anything, Kiddo. Your confusion about frames of reference deserves due diligence, but I like to segregate issues.
First, let’s establish that you were wrong about rotation. In fact you are still wrong. Did you know that an ellipse is a plane curve surrounding two focal points?
Something tells me that the source of your confusion is that you don’t know much geometry.
bob’s error is the source of most of his confusion on this entire issue.
Show where in the Desmos programming he did so, if thats such a problem for you
I thought you were adamant in not spamming all the subthreads at the same time, Kiddo.
Click on the orange dot under “imaginary stick.”
bobs error is the source of most of his confusion on this entire issue.
Clicked. Not what I asked for. Try again.
Still repeating stuff you won’t support to distract from your misunderstandings, Kiddo.
Now that you refuse to acknowledge the stretching, click on “Rotational Around Center (External)”: how many do you count?
bobs error is the source of most of his confusion on this entire issue.
I’ll be more specific. Which equation features the supposed translation?
You still are misrepresenting Bob, Kiddo, and it’s obvious you don’t know which equation in Flop’s trick was meant to represent the “strict rotation.”
I am not misrepresenting bob, Willard. He argues that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is movement as per the "moon on the right". This error is the source of most of his confusion on this entire issue.
You are accusing Ftop_t of intentional deception (you do so in the sub-thread below), but can’t identify any such deception, because you don’t actually understand Desmos and what he has done. You should be ashamed of yourself. What gives you the right to go around making these false accusations?
Of course you’re misrepresenting Bob, Kiddo. Were you not you’d quote and cite him properly, and then you’d *show* why he’s wrong. But you won’t do that, for you always miss Bob’s by-your-logic points. Which is why he always wins.
Flop’s trick is quite simple. Here’s a hint:
http://planning.cs.uiuc.edu/node98.html
It’s quite simple, Willard. bob and my stalker think polar opposite things about rotation about an external axis. They cannot both be correct. bob is incorrect. I have shown why he is incorrect in a number of ways already. bob’s error is the source of most of his confusion on this entire issue.
Ftop_t has no "trick" that you have been able to identify. You are simply a malicious, relentless troll.
It’s even simpler than that, Kiddo:
1. You are failing to understand that what Nate and Bob suggest is quite compatible.
2. You don’t understand Flop’s trick.
Try this:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/i93ab9mjku
No, Willard. Two completely opposing things are not compatible. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is either as per the "moon on the left", or it is as per the "moon on the right".
Ftop_t has no "trick" that you have been able to identify. You are simply a malicious, relentless troll.
“Ftop_t has no ‘trick’ that you have been able to identify. You are simply a malicious, relentless troll.”
His trick is that he claims a simulation can disprove a KINEMATIC DEFINITION.
Nope! Error 47!
The ONE TRUE AXIS of a rotation is the LINE around which all mass moves in concentric circles around.
And once AGAIN, his demo can neither FIND, nor even DEFINE, the ONE TRUE AXIS of rotation for an ellipse!
Where’s Tim? Tim claimed he would be able to point out what Ftop_t supposedly did wrong within a few minutes of looking at the Desmos link.
Tim is big enough to defend himself, Kiddo.
Here’s another hint:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qzzlfflonx
Click on “Sliders.”
You just throw random links around and say "here’s another hint", hoping nobody will actually click on them.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
If you recalled the exchange at the time, you’d realize these are far from being random links.
Whereas you just keep spamming “bob is wrong.”
You will do anything but actually make a point.
…and bob’s error is the source of most of his confusion on this entire issue. It would be great if he could comment and actually acknowledge that he was wrong.
If I recall correctly, the Moon on the right is the one that keeps its face pointed in the same direction.
The Moon on the left keeps turning its face as it revolves around the Earth.
One is rotating and one is not.
See if you can pick the correct one.
Hint: the one that is not rotating is the one that keeps its face pointed in the same direction.
Unless of course you are changing the definition of the “same direction”
bob still doesn’t understand that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is movement as per the "moon on the left". He still thinks it is as per the "moon on the right". What a clown.
DR EMPTY,
That’s only your opinion.
That I am wrong and a clown.
I have not met an Astronomer that agrees with you.
You’ve met my stalker though, right? He agrees with me, that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is as per the "moon on the left". I should imagine most astronomers would agree, since it is just a basic fact about rotation.
DR EMPTY,
Try finding a living one that agrees with you then.
I’ll wait.
Can’t accept you’re wrong, can you, bob?
> You will do anything but actually make a point.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. I made many. Here’s one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-826958
You lost the geometric point a long time ago.
Why are you returning to it?
DR EMPTY,
Maybe you can show me I am wrong, you haven’t managed to do that yet.
How about finding a living astronomer that agrees with you that the Moon on the left is not rotating.
Until then you got nothing.
but you like stalking me, now don’t you.
And calling me out on the thread.
I suggest some light reading, “how to win friends and influence people” would be a good choice.
You have “how to be an asshole” down pat.
Willard, bob was just admitting that he thinks rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is movement as per the "moon on the right", proving that there was no misrepresentation on my part. Just look up and read the exchange, and try not to interrupt again.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
You don’t have the two claims contradicting one another.
Heck you don’t even have a Master Argument.
You need to do better.
"Moon on the left" is directly opposed to "moon on the right", Willard. They are two completely different motions. So yes, I do have the two claims contradicting each other.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Bob’s claim to which you alluded to earlier wasn’t about your pet counterfactual.
Should I add “if a planet were not rotating, the same side would always face the direction of motion” to your Master Argument?
[DREMT] bob still doesn’t understand that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is movement as per the "moon on the left". He still thinks it is as per the "moon on the right". What a clown.
[BOB] DR EMPTY, That’s only your opinion. That I am wrong and a clown. I have not met an Astronomer that agrees with you.
[DREMT] You’ve met my stalker though, right? He agrees with me, that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is as per the "moon on the left". I should imagine most astronomers would agree, since it is just a basic fact about rotation.
[BOB] Try finding a living one that agrees with you then. I’ll wait.
“The object is still not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about an external one, with some ‘stretch’ to the ‘string’.”
I don’t recall any mention of ‘stretching’ being allowed in any description of ‘pure’ rotation anywhere.
What ever happened to pure purity? Kids these days..
Like every other value these days its just getting tossed in the bin.
Even rigid is no longer rigid.
No wonder Kiddo’s wife said “oh no, this isnt about the moon again, is it?”
bob’s wrong, Willard. Sorry.
Still no contradictory quotes, Kiddo.
Still no Master Argument.
A pity Flop conned you.
bob is wrong, Willard. Sorry.
Still no contradictory quotes, Kiddo.
Still no Master Argument.
Pity Flop conned you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Kiddo, please stop being conned.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY
you lost, stop calling me out.
loser
pick up your binky and go home loser
Sorry, bob, you are wrong. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is not motion as per the “moon on the right”.
DR EMPTY,
Right, that’s the Moon that is rotating clockwise once per orbit while keeping its orientation fixed on some distant star.
Yeah Right
Go on home your mama’s calling you
I believe it’s past your bedtime.
And your diaper needs changed.
Especially because you are wearing it on your head.
“Where’s Tim? Tim claimed he would be able to point out what Ftop_t supposedly did wrong”
What did he do that was right? You need someone to explain that to you first.
Sorry, bob, you are wrong. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is not motion as per the “moon on the right”. As even my stalker agrees. Fight it out with him.
DR EMPTY,
The Moon is rotating
Rotation period 29.530589 d
(29 d 12 h 44 min 2.9 s; synodic; solar day) (spin-orbit locked)
Sidereal rotation period 27.321661 d (spin-orbit locked)
Equatorial rotation velocity 4.627 m/s
Observational data always wins.
bob, you are just proving more and more that your error is the source of most of your confusion on this entire issue. Play close attention to what is being said:
Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the “moon on the left”, not the "moon on the right".
As even my stalker would agree.
DR EMPTY,
I don’t see Nate disagreeing with me, it seems you are confused on that issue.
Your argument is with the thousands of Astronomers who have measured the rate of internal rotation of the Moon to astounding precision.
Argue it out with them, maybe you will learn something.
Try this guy, see if you can convince him that you are correct.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/moon_spin.html
No, bob, you still do not get it, do you? Pay close attention to the wording:
Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the “moon on the left”, and not the "moon on the right".
Pay attention DR EMPTY,
The Moon on the left is rotating.
The Moon on the right is not.
Which way does the Moon on the left face?
Which way does the Moon on the right face?
Answer these two questions honestly if you can.
You won’t, because you are a bad liar.
Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the “moon on the left”, and not the "moon on the right".
Nope
Yup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566712
“People are free to define words however they want. However, scientists have refined various definitions to be broadly useful. There are usually good reasons for the definitions that are used.”
Correct.
Will bob and my stalker finally settle their differences?
Probably not.
If only you could find two direct quotes from Nate and Bob that contradict one another when properly read in context, Kiddo.
But you won’t, for you suck at word games.
Which is a pity for all you do is playing with words.
Nate is right. Bob is right. You are wrong.
Please stop trolling.
Willard, bob and my stalker are stating two completely opposing things, they cannot both be correct.
Pay attention, Kiddo:
[BOB] The Moon on the left is rotating. The Moon on the right is not.
[NATE] Most of us agree that the so-called ‘Moon on the right’ has No ROTATION wrt to inertial frame of the stars.
[BALL] The object on the right is neither Earth’s moon current motion nor a ball on string motion so it is a red herring.
See?
That’s how we do it.
Wait. Was I supposed to find a contradiction?
Woopsie.
The contradiction is that bob thinks the "moon on the right" is a case of rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, and my stalker thinks that the "moon on the left" is a case of rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
As you know.
DR EMPTY
You will have to prove the Moon is rotating around its center of mass for your stalker and I to disagree.
Kinda defeats your porpoise.
Read more carefully.
Not sure how Kiddo can know what you think Bob.
Here’s what I know you, Nate, and Ball wrote:
[BOB] The Moon on the left is rotating. The Moon on the right is not.
[NATE] Most of us agree that the so-called ‘Moon on the right’ has No ROTATION wrt to inertial frame of the stars.
[BALL] The object on the right is neither Earth’s moon current motion nor a ball on string motion so it is a red herring.
Not sure where’s the contradiction he lulzes about.
No, bob. Nobody mentioned the real moon. Nate quoted me talking about an object rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its center of mass (by which I just mean its internal axis), and how that would remain oriented with one face always pointed towards the external axis; and said that was true. Thus disagreeing with you.
> Nobody mentioned the real moon.
At least Flop did:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-582080
The last claim has been proven false.
I thought this was the room for an argument about the Moon.
bob and my stalker disagree, Willard.
So you say, Kiddo. So you say.
I just added this to your Master Argument:
[LRO] I have already explained why the LRO does not provide evidence of lunar axial rotation. *Gestures at the infinite*.
How would you improve on it?
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
Compare and contrast:
[SIMPLES] Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
[SO WHAT] If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
If the Moon Dragon movement also involves a translation, Kiddo, is it simpler than the other model that has also the advantage of working mathematically?
#5
Willard, please stop trolling.
swannie…”As you seem to think that you are an expert in astronomy, please provide a math model of the Moons motions which relies on a description in which the Moon is rotating (not revolving/orbiting) about a FIXED external point”.
***
You seem to be a bit confused about rotation and this article should help you out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis”.
Seems the only distinction between rotation, revolution, and orbiting is one of clarity. Seems then, that Dremt is correct by claiming the Moon is orbiting the Earth.
Since the Moon is orbiting the Earth on a 2-D plane, the only difference I can see between rotation, revolution, or orbiting is one of a rigid arm connecting the Moon to the Earth. That would be one mean engineering feat, carving out the Earth like a yo-yo so the connecting arm could rotate around a central axis.
The idea does demonstrate clearly, however, that if the Moon were connected by a rigid arm, it would keep the same face pointed at the Earth and could not rotate about its own axis due to being attached to the arm.
Clarify things for you?
Definitions don’t change reality, Gordo.
Most of the "Spinners" are "a bit confused about rotation". To say the least.
Last time we talked about rotation, Kiddo, you kinda “forgot” that it was an isometry.
Willard lies through his teeth, as usual.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Ftop_t programmed Desmos to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical shape. If some translation were involved in that movement, so what? The object is still not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about an external one, with some "stretch" to the "string".
I thought you liked to keep subthreads clean, Kiddo.
Here’s the reply to your white lie:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-826888
It’s as if you don’t recall why Flop reappeared on this thread.
The object is still not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about an external one, with some “stretch” to the “string”.
Ftop_t did not refute himself at all.
Flop did not create a “strict rotation,” Kiddo. So his “2D planar geometry applying the universal calculation for rotation” was pure theater.
Flop’s con was easy to spot.
Why do you keep falling for cons?
My bet is that you’re trolling, but then I might be too generous.
You are just picking nits, whilst falsely accusing innocent people of intentional deception.
Show where in Ftop_t’s Desmos programming the translation occurs, then, if that really is such a problem for you. If it’s intentional deception, a con, as you assert, you should be able to pinpoint exactly where in the equations Ftop_t deliberately tried to deceive by inserting something and then not declaring what he did.
Regardless, the main takeaway should be that the object is moving in an ellipse, without rotating on its own axis, whilst one side of the object remains generally pointed towards the inside of the orbit. A success by all accounts.
> You are just picking nits.
Look who’s talking, Kiddo. And you’re wrong. This goes to the core of the issue:
How the hell do you explain that the Moon both orbits and translates on an imaginary string in physical terms?
A pure rotation on an external basis is far from being a simpler model. In fact you can’t even provide a mathematical model of it!
Don’t just cherry-pick one sentence from my comment and invent some drivel to go along with it in response, Willard.
Show where in Ftop_ts Desmos programming the translation occurs, then, if that really is such a problem for you.
> just cherry-picking
Look who’s talking, Kiddo.
If only you answered the first questions I asked you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-806145
Check back Flop’s demonstration. Read back our exchange.
You should see why I asked these questions.
Show where in Ftop_t’s Desmos programming the translation occurs, then, if that really is such a problem for you.
You don’t understand what Flop did, Kiddo, do you?
Ill be more specific. Which equation features the supposed translation?
I can be more specific too, Kiddo:
You don’t know which equation represents the “strict rotation.”
So you are accusing Ftop_t of intentional deception, but can’t identify any such deception, because you don’t actually understand Desmos and what he has done.
I already identified the deception, Kiddo:
Click on the orange circle under “imaginary stick.”
Isometry isn’t preserved. Flop lost.
Again leading authority FTOP disproves textbook Kinematic definitions with a simulation.
Madhavi
Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration. Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.
Brown:
Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.
And DREMT is an easy mark.
There is no deception that you have been able to identify. You go around accusing people and you have nothing to back it up with. You are a disgrace.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I have identified the source of Flop’s deception in the simplest way possible. Here’s a syllogism:
P1. Pure rotation preserves isometry.
P2. Flop’s demo breaks isometry.
C. Flop’s demo isn’t a pure rotation.
Besides, always read the fine print:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-580401
So by your logic any attempt to show rotation about an external axis in an elliptical shape is automatically a deliberate deception…
…then you link to something else you don’t understand.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Any attempt to present a rotation around an ellipse as a “strict rotation” can only rest on a con. In geometry, an ellipse is a curve around two distinct focal points, and a rotation is an isometry. As soon as you see Flop stretching his imaginary stick to orbit around an ellipse, one should know that isometry isn’t preserved.
You yourself used that point against Bob, btw.
Willard waffles on.
Perhaps this would be more to your level, Kiddo:
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/geometry/hs-geo-transformations/hs-geo-rotations/v/points-after-rotation
If not, show it to your wife. She’ll explain it to you.
More waffling from an idiot who thinks I don’t get his stupid point.
Which was not even his, originally.
The point’s been made here now for over a year. Long before you even started commenting.
Your problem is that if rotation about an external axis really had to occur in a circle, nobody would have written articles claiming orbits – revolution – can be defined as "rotation about an external axis". It would not be possible for Desmos to be programmed to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical shape.
> Your problem is that if rotation about an external axis really had to occur in a circle, nobody would have written articles
Incorrect, as language is a social art.
In any event:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
Thanks for playing, Kiddo!
Now, please stop trolling.
Playing, and winning – as you have nothing in response to the arguments made in my previous comment.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
The strict definition of rotation is “the circular movement of an object about a point in space.”
From one of your own sources. And from another:
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Another win!
Willard, you are just repeating the same arguments that I already refuted in my 3:38 PM comment. You lose.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Let’s check the Brown source:
So I win again.
I repeat my previous comment.
Of course you do, Kiddo.
It’s possible to speak of rotations without speaking of a strict rotation. Citing cases where people do that does not refute the point I’m making, which is that Flop’s trick would only work if he specified a strict rotation. He did not. He lost.
And so do you.
Your problem is that if rotation about an external axis really had to occur in a circle, nobody would have written articles claiming orbits – revolution – can be defined as "rotation about an external axis". It would not be possible for Desmos to be programmed to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical shape.
“if rotation about an external axis really had to occur in a circle”
Yes it does according to Brown and Madhavi who are the only sources we’ve seen explicitly DEFINING rigid body ROTATION.
DREMTs position must then be that Brown and Madhavi, his trusted sources for all his previous definitions, simply have gotten it this one WRONG….because ya know..Wikipedia…
Is that really his position?
Kiddo simply switches from a strict definition of rotation to a loose definition of rotation when it suits him.
That’s how he trolls people who are not paying attention.
Since he has nothing else, who could blame him?
Have you ever considered that perhaps astronomy uses a looser definition of rotation, when it comes to orbital motion? For the obvious reason that there is no actual rigid connection between bodies? And that perhaps a little flexibility could be allowed in your thinking? And maybe I’m not the devil just because I think differently to you about something?
“nobody would have written articles claiming orbits revolution can be defined as ‘rotation about an external axis’.”
By the laws of the internet, nobody is allowed to be incorrect or use imprecise language on it!
Wiki revolution
Engineering and science
In astronomy and related fields, the term ‘revolution’ is used when one body moves around (orbits) another while the term “rotation” is used to mean the movement around an axis
revolution
/ˌrevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
the movement of an object in a circular or elliptical course around another or about an axis or center.
The vast majority of time when I see ‘revolution’ or ‘orbit’ defined in standard dictionaries the phrase “when one body moves around another” is used, rather than ‘rotates around an axis’ , which would only be true for specifically circular orbits.
“Have you ever considered that perhaps astronomy uses a looser definition of rotation, when it comes to orbital motion?”
That would be weird given that Astronomy explicitly states that the Moon has an orbit and an axial rotation, and lists its properties!
So Kiddo likes some “pure” motion until he does not.
Here’s THE MOON DRAGON MASTER ARGUMENT (v. 0.4)
[ORBIT] The moon is *orbiting* and not *rotating.*
[FRAMES] Inertial reference frame confuses orbiting with rotating.
[REVOLUTION!] Revolution can be defined as a rotation about an external axis.
[FLOP’S TRICK] Flop showed how to rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse.
[IF-BY-WHISKEY] It would not be possible to define revolution by rotation or to program a rotation in an ellipse if rotation was only around a circle.
[LIKE A BOS] The ball-on-a-string illustrates translation without rotation.
[PURE] One should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation.
[GIF] Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is not motion as per the *moon on the right*
[IMPOSSIBLE] The moon cannot be both rotating about an external axis whilst rotating on its own axis.
[MOON DRAGON CLAIM] The Moon does not rotate, it only translates.
Comments and suggestions welcome.
You do not seem to understand the difference between translation and rotation.
"The Moon does not rotate, it only translates".
The "Non-Spinner" claim is simply that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Telling what the Moon does not do does not tell what it does.
I could add that it revolves, but then I need to specify that this revolution cannot be pure rotation.
And you know what that implies, do you?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-829400
Have you considered that you’re using a stricter definition when you’re in BOS mode and you’re using a looser definition when Flop’s trick is being defused, Kiddo?
Tim already explained how the definition works:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566771
Tim was in denial, playing those word games that you normally object to, but are fine with when somebody on your own team plays them.
For the ball on a string, this "strict definition" issue is irrelevant, because the ball does move in a circular path anyway. Nevertheless, we still get people claiming that a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis! Some of the "Spinners", the "Soft Spinners", like Bindidon or Norman, see sense at least.
For the moon, this "strict definition" issue is brought into play by the "Spinners". But it’s somewhat of a desperate ploy in my opinion.
I guess you will waffle back a response.
I added this line to your Master Argument, Kiddo:
[PURE] One should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation.
Funny that you’re now into “but what if I told you that astronomers did not use pure translation”!
Your continued confusion between translation and rotation is one of the funniest things about your misrepresentation of my arguments. You really don’t have a clue.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo: the funniest thing is that you can’t dispute anything in the Master Argument.
Oh, and this claim:
is false, e.g.:
The bolded part is already in your Master Argument, btw.
Willard writes a false summary of my arguments, and when I tell him that it’s false, he tells me I’m wrong. He apparently assumes he knows my arguments better than I do.
By "the strict definition" issue I was referring to the dismissal by the "Spinners" that an orbit can be "rotation about an external axis" because an orbit is elliptical. Obviously this is not an issue with the ball on a string, where it is moving in a circle in any case.
“But you cannot calculate the ORIENTATION of the body from these factors there is no way to calculate that the earth rotates once every 23hr 56 min simply by knowing that the earth orbits once every 265.24 days. No way to calculate that the moon rotates one every 27.3 days.”
DREMT labels this ‘word games’. But it is factual and really rather straight to the point.
There is nothing in an ORBIT that can be calculated with Newtons laws to find the orientation or rotation rate of the Earth or Moon. Because an orbit is just a path thru space.
> I tell him that it’s false
Arguing by assertion is getting tedious, Kiddo, and I think it’s safe to say that yes indeed I know the Moon Dragon Master Argument better than you do.
Here’s the deal. If you want to claim that what I say is false, you got to (1) quote what I claim, and (2) show how it’s false, by (3) presenting evidence.
Always Be Constructive.
Let’s try it. You claim:
What you forget is that your “rotation about an external axis” is supported with your concept of “pure rotation”:
Which is, incidentally, what I already showed. So once again Kiddo is powered by pure contradiction.
Without that concept of “pure rotation,” the whole Master Argument falls down.
Your arrogance is limitless, and your comment incomprehensible.
Playing dumb will get you nowhere, Kiddo.
You brought the BOS. You brought Madhavi and the Brown handout. You brought the Wikipedia definition. You brought the “pure rotation” and the “pure translation.”
That’s on you.
It’s 2AM where you are. Get some sleep.
Pure rotation and pure translation are just terms from the Brown notes. They are not some magical concept that I have invented.
They’re still concepts that you yourself invoked:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-804446
That wasn’t gratuitous. And that’s to what Bob responded. Something you kinda forgot when you necromanced that thread earlier.
“Pure rotation and pure translation are just terms from the Brown notes. They are not some magical concept that I have invented.”
Then why do you deny the definition of Rotation given in those notes!
Brown has it wrong??? Madhavi made the same mistake??
Compare and contrast:
[SO WHAT] If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
[Simpler] Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
Revolution is rotation about an external axis. Since most orbits are elliptical, and orbits are revolutions, we can assume that rotation about an external axis can occur in an elliptical shape. Whether you want to call that pure rotation or not is by the by.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
If that revolution isn’t pure rotation, what is it?
That is your geometric problem.
If you need to have an imaginary stick that stretches, what force is it?
That’s your physical problem.
If you come up with a model that can’t be mathematized, what use is it?
That’s your trolling problem.
Are you admitting that you do not understand orbital motion?
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I’m AT’s janitor.
But you’re just trying to flip the script by switching to Orbit mode:
[ORBIT] The moon is *orbiting* and not *rotating.* An orbit (without axial rotation) involves the object changing its orientation through 360 degrees.
Another nice side-effect of a Master Argument is that you can’t build yourself some kind of spaghetti maze of talking points.
Sooner or later we will order them properly.
> Revolution is rotation about an external axis.
Included in v. 0.5 of THE MOON DRAGON MASTER ARGUMENT:
[REVOLUTION!] Revolution can be defined as (or *is*) a rotation about an external axis.
Now you’re stuck with clarifying what you mean by a rotation.
“But you don’t know what an orbit is” won’t cut it:
[ORBIT] The Moon is *orbiting* around the Earth and not *rotating* on its axis. An orbit (without axial rotation) involves the object changing its orientation through 360 degrees.
There are bits missing to your Master Argument.
No, I was referring to your befuddlement over the imaginary stick.
Never mind…it is pointless talking to you. Everything I say and do you take to be some sort of attempt to deceive in some way.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I want your Master Argument. It won’t be used to deceive you. It will be used to stop trying to deceive other commenters.
The imaginary stick underlines the physical problem you face.
Here’s how I start my version 0.6:
THE MOON DRAGON MASTER ARGUMENT (v. 0.6)
[REVOLUTION!] Revolution can be defined as (or *is*) a rotation about an external axis. Orbit and revolution are synonyms.
[ORBIT] The Moon is *orbiting* around the Earth and not *rotating* on its axis. An orbit (without axial rotation) involves the object changing its orientation through 360 degrees.
[IMPOSSIBLE] The moon cannot be both rotating about an external axis whilst rotating on its own axis.
What’s your argument for the IMPOSSIBLE claim?
Willard, please stop trolling.
So you don’t have any argument for your impossible claim, Kiddo.
Just as I thought.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Compare and contrast:
[SIMPLES] Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
[SO WHAT] If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
If the Moon Dragon movement also involves a translation, Kiddo, is it simpler than the other model that has also the advantage of working mathematically?
There is orbital motion, and there is axial rotation, Willard. Those are the two motions referred to in this discussion.
“we can assume”
Rather than rely on explicit definitions from trusted textbook sources, we are going to deny those, and go with “we can assume”
This is not getting any more convincing.
“Either answer my question or gfy.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-831017
That’s right, Willard. I don’t understand why I always have to answer to you, but you never have to answer to me. So, you get what you get.
Gordo, Playing games with semantics doesn’t change the facts. The Moon is NOT connected to the Earth by some rigid physical link, as you note.
The Moon’s orbital path is an ellipse and both the velocity of the CG and the distance between the CG and the focus of the ellipse changes while revolving. If the Moon were actually “rotating”, both the radial distance between it’s CG and some fixed point, as well as the rate of rotation of that radial vector, would be constant. That this is false proves there’s no “rotation about a fixed external point”. Instead, the motion is a combination of translation of it’s CG around an orbital path coupled with the rotation of the Moon around it’s CG.
Gordo’s failure to provide any mathematical model again demonstrates that he is just blowing smoke to attract attention to his denialist world view.
How is the search going? You should have realized there are plenty of articles that state "revolution" is "rotation about an external axis" by now.
Where’s your Master Argument, Kiddo?
After all these years, you should have one by now.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You know what’ll happen if you don’t provide a Master Argument, Kiddo.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
I showed you I can do what I ask you to do for Bob, Kiddo.
You can’t do what you’re asking me to do with Flop.
It’s all that matters, really.
Your wife was right.
Sometimes it’s like you’re speaking in some sort of code.
Look, Kiddo.
I asked you to trace back Bob’s claims, and I showed you I can trace back Flop’s flop.
You asked me to explain basic matrix orientation to you, and you showed me that you can’t.
There’s nothing mysterious about your trolling.
Please stop.
bob is wrong. I don’t need to trace back any comments for you, because you were there on one of the occasions he made them. What you need to do is be honest, and accept that your hero has made a massive, fundamental mistake.
I never asked you to explain "basic matrix orientation" to me, and you have not done so. You have no clue what you are talking about, and you are a malicious, relentless troll.
You keep misrepresenting Bob, Kiddo.
Flop’s trick rests on misconstruing the rotation matrix. You don’t even seem to get that. Here’s another hint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#Properties
Willard, I am not misrepresenting bob. Just scroll up for the evidence you seek.
Ftop_t was not trying to "trick" anybody. Stop falsely accusing people of trying to con others. And stop leaving "hints", and just make your point, if you have one.
You keep misrepresenting Bob, Kiddo.
Flop tricked you and nobody else.
Why do you always fall for such con artists?
There is no misrepresentation, as the discussion above shows.
Your continued false accusations re Ftop_t are completely uncalled for.
Indeed there is, Kiddo.
In fact there are at least two, both related to your misunderstanding of geometry.
Either make a point, or please stop trolling.
My main point is that you’re wrong and that you should stop trolling, Kiddo.
Other points include: Flop’s trick conned you; I don’t need to tell you *how* he conned you to tell you *that* he did; you are misrepresenting Bob over and over again; you seldom support your claims properly; and you have yet to present a Master Argument.
You know what’s a Master Argument, right?
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re still having problems with your logical connectors, Kiddo.
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
I ain’t often right,
But I’ve never been wrong
Seldom turns out the way it does in the song
Sometimes you get shown the light
In the strangest of places if you look at it right
And the heat came by and busted me for smiling on a cloudy day
OK, bob.
Compare and contrast:
[SIMPLES] Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
[SO WHAT] If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
#5
Willard, please stop trolling.
If the Moon Dragon movement also involves a translation, Kiddo, is it simpler than the other model that has also the advantage of working mathematically?
There is orbital motion, and there is axial rotation, Willard. Those are the two motions referred to in this discussion.
“Either answer my question or gfy.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-831017
That’s right, Willard. I don’t understand why I always have to answer to you, but you never have to answer to me. So, you get what you get.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-831130
You refuse to answer my question because you are either trolling me, or you understand how important it is, and refuse to commit yourself either way.
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
First, I already answered your question.
Second, that answer is irrelevant to what I’m asking.
Third, you’re the one trolling right now.
Fourth, I’m slaying that argument, once and for all.
Fifth, all I need is your Master Argument.
Sixth, you are committed to your own argument.
You should have stopped trolling a long time ago.
Trolling can’t do anything against Love and Light.
You are completely delusional, Willard.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I’m a ninja.
And you have a Master Argument to produce.
Unless you’re only here to troll, of course.
In which case you’re only committed to a bag of ducks.
Sure, Willard, you are a ninja committed to the cause of Love and Light…
…through trolling the sh*t out of some poor guy who just dared to think differently to you on some trivial subject.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I’m not trolling you.
You’re not thinking clearly.
You’ve been abusing people for years.
It’s time to stop.
Nothing personal.
You’re the one continuously being condescending by calling me "Kiddo", Willard. In pretty much every comment you say "that’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo"…which is clearly designed to inflame and irritate. You talk to people, generally, like they are pieces of sh*t. In contrast, I am usually polite, except when repeatedly provoked. Your self-awareness is nil.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I offered you a choice.
Any other handle than the current one.
My preference would go to your old one.
You want to pretend being Roy’s Moderator?
That’s just kid trolling.
So you’re Kiddo.
Call me "John", then. It’s not my name, but it’s better than "Kiddo".
Change your handle to a non-ironic-pepe-one and I will.
Change your name.
Here’s why you’re wrong, Kiddo:
“Willard” is the only name I took in the realms of Climateball, and when I could not use that name I tried to make sure that everyone knew it was me who commented.
It’s a pretty cool name.
You, by contrast, have commented on climate blogs under at least one different name. We both know that name.
Nobody died and made you Roy’s Moderator.
It’s not funny.
You’re a Dragon crank and once again you’re trying to flip a script.
So obviously you’re trolling once more.
Sure, Willard. Everything I do is bad and wrong because I have a big bad way of thinking that you don’t like.
Playing the victim card now? OMG.
We’re all done with WhataboutBobism?
How bout just acknowledging facts and reality? That would be admirable.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I notice persistence, prudence, dedication. From time to time you reciprocate and cooperate. Your avocation to XKCD 386 has merit.
Your character isn’t the worse troll here.
The Moon is connected to Earth by gravity, not a rigidi arm, so there is no force which would make it face the Earth constantly.
Thus the rotation it has, once per orbit, is not caused by that orbit, but is the residual of the rotation that it always had but faster than it is right now.
You do accept, I presume, that the Moon’s rotation was faster than it is right now in the past.
Moon is not rotating, it is only orbiting. If it were really rotating, we would see all sides of it from Earth. If a ball-on-a-string were really rotating, the string would wrap around it.
There is no evidence Moon ever rotated.
The Earth rotates 27 times as fast as the Moon orbits so the string would wrap around the Earth quite fast then.
That comment means you need several thousand more brain cells to even get up to the level of braindead.
So the string can wrap around the Moon but not around Earth. I think you are the one with less brain cells than the rest of us.
Except, I never said anything like that.
And I won’t respond any more, since you’re clearly braindead.
You said that the string will wrap around the Moon if the Moon was rotating but not around Earth even though it is rotating too. Look back and see.
For those who want the last 3 years of UAH temperature history rather than 2, try https://imgur.com/lUII0rM
And for those who want to see how easy it is to let things be a best fit to your personal narrative, try
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:2018/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018.5/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend
(2018.5 is the exact 3-year starting point right now)
*
From WFT’s conceptor and engineer Paul Clark:
” Temperature trends – pick a timescale, any timescale!
After many requests, I finally added trend-lines (linear least-squares regression) to the graph generator. I hope this is useful, but I would also like to point out that it can be fairly dangerous…
Depending on your preconceptions, by picking your start and end times carefully, you can now ‘prove’ that:
Temperature is falling!
Temperature is static!
Temperature is rising! “
Care to comment of the rate of trend of those lines. Is it increasing downwards or decreasing?
Are those trends lines getting stepper and steeper as we get closer to the present?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/data/uah6/from:2018/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018.5/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend
“2018.5 is the exact 3-year starting point right now”
You and I differ as to if month 7 is at 0.5 of a year.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2018/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018.66/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
Or if you prefer
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2018/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018.66/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
Bah… I simply took the stuff from .5 to .5
But… you are, as usual, doing so as if that would change the figure by more than 100 %, don’t you?
I recognize that sampling the top of a wave produces different figures on the rising and trailing edges.
Your eternal problem keeps as it is since beginning: you look at bits at the end of a series, instead of looking at the whole stuff.
Your choice, I won’t discuss that with you any further.
Simply because you never admit anything: that is simply boring.
Restez droit dans vos bottes, RLH!
You will never acknowledge a downturn as nothing will be ‘long enough’ for you.
Another little bit about the Moon for the crackpots
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.5587
“The small inclination of the Moons axis of rotation with respect to the ecliptic (Figure 1) causes
the variations of the Sun elevation from month to month to be limited to 1.54 over one year, as
opposed to 23.44 on Earth (Roncoli, 2005)”
Climate drama reports – Willtard missed this one
https://youtu.be/odkeQ4hwy3M
It’s not like we never had hurricanes before.
Global warming hurricane Ida made it all the way north rolling over my house today
https://i.postimg.cc/0NFCPwJ5/snapshot.jpg
Global warming as in cooling?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2018/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018.66/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
Should UAH really strictly follow ENSO when postponed by 5 months, we can expect the anomaly to go down again for August:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/134HW_g8ensDzrWyHgHKWz45fR4UqGb_8/view
By how much? No se!
An idea.
Re orbits.
Revolutions and rotations
1. Can the sun rotate? yes but no help as relative to the stars.
from what viewpoint?
Carrington determined the solar rotation rate from low latitude sunspots in the 1850s and arrived at 25.38 days for the sidereal rotation period. Sidereal rotation is measured relative to the stars, but because the Earth is orbiting the Sun, we see this period as 27.2753 days.
Do the planets rotate?
. Mars, like all of the planets except Venus, rotates in prograde(counter clockwise).
When viewed from above, all the planets in the solar system orbit the Sun in a counter clockwise direction. Most of the planets also rotate about their spin axies in a counter clockwise sense.
Pluto Its axis of rotation is tilted 57 degrees with respect to the plane of its orbit around the Sun, so it spins almost on its side.it also exhibits a retrograde rotation; spinning from east to west like Venus and Uranus.
It orbits the sun quite unusually, being the only planet whose equator is nearly at a right angle to its orbit, with a tilt of 97.77 degrees. Because of this, it rotates in the opposite direction than most planets, from East to West.
So what does define an axis of rotation for a planet?
String apparently
The flat side
angech, axial rotation for a planet is easily determined if you understand orbital motion.
A planet moves along its orbit, much like a train would move along an oval track. The train is clearly not rotating, because the engine always faces the direction of motion. So, if a planet were not rotating, the same side would always face the direction of motion. If the planet were rotating, the side facing forward would always be changing.
This stuff is really not hard to understand. It’s just that the reality is covered by centuries of cult nonsense, and the perversion is maintained by cult idiots.
“the perversion is maintained by cult idiots.”
Only cult idiots believe that the Moon does not rotate once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.
Clint R,
“So, if a planet were not rotating, the same side would always face the direction of motion.”
not exactly correct, try again.
bob d …”So, if a planet were not rotating, the same side would always face the direction of motion.
not exactly correct, try again”.
***
You need to try again Bobby McGee. Clint compared the motion of the Moon to a train on an oval track. The front of the train always faces the direction of the motion as does the front end of the Moon wrt to its motion.
Gordon,
You seem to forget that a planet which is orbiting, is therefore rotating, therefore changing direction as it revolves.
Which the Moon is doing as it revolves around the Earth, changing direction as it revolves, therefore rotating, which is contrary to what the dipshit said it was doing.
Keep trying.
What is 0^0?
A pair of spectacles?
Sorry, bob, you are wrong. You seem to forget that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is not motion as per the “moon on the right”.
DR EMPTY,
The Moon on the left is both orbiting and rotating on its axis.
Pick up your binky and go home, your mama’s calling you.
Sorry, bob, you are wrong. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the “moon on the left”. As even my stalker agrees. Fight it out with him.
DR EMPTY,
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, it is sad you don’t have the science education, nor the science training, nor the honesty to admit you are wrong.
I’m not wrong, bob. You are! That’s the funny thing.
Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the “moon on the left”, and not the "moon on the right".
As even my stalker would agree.
DR EMPTY,
Your argument is not with me, it’s with thousands of Astronomers that have used precision measuring instruments to detect the rotation rate of the Moon.
Argue it out with them, they will laugh at you.
Rotation period 29.530589 d
(29 d 12 h 44 min 2.9 s; synodic; solar day) (spin-orbit locked)
Sidereal rotation period 27.321661 d (spin-orbit locked)
Equatorial rotation velocity 4.627 m/s
That’s rotation about an internal axis.
Measured
Facts matter, your bullshit don’t
No, bob, you still do not get it, do you? Pay close attention to the wording:
Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the “moon on the left”, and not the "moon on the right".
DR EMPTY,
Pay attention, or the Nuns with the rulers will come marching in.
The Moon on the left is rotating, the Moon on the right is not.
Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the “moon on the left”, and not the "moon on the right".
Nope
Yup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566712
“Right there is the sleight of hand. State something true, then sneak in something FALSE, and maybe nobody will notice.
Rotating about an external axis NOT equivalent to ORBITING. No matter how many times you try to declare it so.”
"“Firstly, Craig, we know from upthread that an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves.”
TRUE"
My stalker directly disagrees with bob.
bob is wrong, and as you can see from the discussion, I am not misrepresenting him.
Show the two contradictions or they don’t exist, Kiddo.
You’re at the
[GIF] Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is not motion as per the *moon on the right*
moment of your Master Argument (v. 0.2), btw.
Here is the contradiction, Willard.
Bob’s perspective:
[DREMT] Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the “moon on the left”, and not the "moon on the right".
[BOB] Nope
My Stalker’s perspective
[DREMT] Firstly, Craig, we know from upthread that an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves [motion as per the "moon on the left"].
[STALKER] TRUE
Well, at least you tried:
[KIDDO] Fight it out with him.
bobdroege says:
September 2, 2021 at 8:46 AM
Nope
Of the two, my stalker is correct.
bob is wrong.
You just showed how you can twist Bob’s words, Kiddo.
No traceable evidence. You lose.
I twisted the word "nope", did I? How did I manage that?
Indeed you did, Kiddo.
“Nope” was in response to your “Fight it out with him.”
You are thus wrong.
Why don’t you admit you were wrong?
The "nope" is in response to my 7:59 AM comment, Willard:
"Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the “moon on the left”, and not the "moon on the right"."
Not the comment I wrote about 6 and a half hours before that.
But your absolute desperation is amusing.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. Bob was responding to your silly you-and-him-fight.
Something tells me you are having some problems finding direct evidence for your claim.
You lose.
I have all the evidence I need right here, in this discussion, and will use it in future, if necessary. It’s also great to have an example of your desperate denial and disbelief that your hero could have made such a huge mistake. Fun to watch.
Sure, Kiddo.
And I have all the solutions to the Millenium prize.
bob’s wrong, Willard. Sorry.
#2
Well, at least you tried:
[KIDDO] Fight it out with him.
bobdroege says:
September 2, 2021 at 8:46 AM
Nope
You are in the wrong sub-thread, Willard.
bob said "Nope" at 8:41 AM in this sub-thread.
OK, Willard, try this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-617795
So now we have a direct quote from bob, which makes it very clear:
Bob’s perspective:
[BOB] Which the object [moon] on the left is doing, rotating around an internal axis, as well as rotating around an external axis. The object [moon] on the right is rotating around an external axis but not rotating around an internal axis.
My Stalker’s perspective:
[DREMT] Firstly, Craig, we know from upthread that an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves [motion as per the "moon on the left"].
[STALKER] TRUE
You really have a problem with the quote thing, Kiddo.
It seems almost as hard as to understand what Bob is saying:
You, me, and Bob know that you keep redefining your terms.
In that case, he caught you in your “pure” moment:
[PURE] One should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation.
Tell me again if astronomy use pure rotation or pure translation.
Bob’s perspective
You have changed the rotational period of the Moon from once every 27 days to zero, by changing the definition of rotation.
Kiddo’s perspective
I have changed the rotational period of the Moon from once every 27 days to zero, by changing the definition of rotation.
Poor Willard, now desperately trying to change the subject. Focus, Willard.
bob said: "Which the object on the left is doing, rotating around an internal axis, as well as rotating around an external axis. The object on the right is rotating around an external axis but not rotating around an internal axis."
Are you now going to try to pretend that he doesn’t think that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the "moon on the right", rather than the "moon on the left"!?
He is wrong.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
[PUP] if a planet were not rotating, the same side would always face the direction of motion.
[BOB] not exactly correct, try again.
[GORDO] You need to try again Bobby McGee. Clint compared the motion of the Moon to a train on an oval track. The front of the train always faces the direction of the motion as does the front end of the Moon wrt to its motion.
[BOB] You seem to forget that a planet which is orbiting, is therefore rotating, therefore changing direction as it revolves.
[KIDDO] LET BOB AND NATE FIGHT!11!!!!
Willard: can you accept that bob was wrong?
Pay attention, Kiddo:
Do you finally agree that Bob’s “nope” was in response to your “Fight it out with him”?
You are one of the most pathetic people I think I have ever encountered on the internet. No, I do not think that bob’s "nope" was in response to that, since he posted it after a different comment 6 and a half hours later. Look at the sequence of comments, Willard.
However, it is a moot point, since I found a direct quote from bob.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. You obviously misread Bob in a fairly simple context. You can’t even find back what you really were talking about. You had to necromance a thread waaay back.
You really suck at word games.
Nevertheless, here’s a quote I found by following the exchange you recently cited for your silly gotcha:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-585112
Is that true?
Aren’t you special DR EMPTY,
now why don’t you just go and have yourself a splendid day.
No, Willard, it is not true.
What is true is that bob is wrong. Sorry bob.
DR EMPTY,
You’re not sorry,
No, wait yes you are.
OK, bob.
I doubt Kiddo is sorry to have started the whole nonsense in a previous incarnation and trolled Roy’s for more than three years, Bob.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Compare and contrast:
[SIMPLES] Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
[SO WHAT] If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Poor Kiddo, trying desperately to change the subject.
If the Moon Dragon movement also involves a translation, Kiddo, is it simpler than the other model that has also the advantage of working mathematically?
There is orbital motion, and there is axial rotation, Willard. Those are the two motions referred to in this discussion.
Can we just discuss this on one thread please?
We sure can, Kiddo.
But you won’t:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-831017
Every time you block communication like that you provide a tell.
You provide too much tells for your own trolling good.
Thats right, Willard. I dont understand why I always have to answer to you, but you never have to answer to me. So, you get what you get.
That’s easy to understand, Kiddo. Your head fakes are too slow. You’re not witty enough to parry any blow.
If you prefer a more serious tone: my questions take your commitments into account, whereas you always try to bait me with commitments I don’t have.
And I already told you. You suck at word games. Even Richard is more resourceful.
You refuse to answer my question because you are either trolling me, or you understand how important it is, and refuse to commit yourself either way.
angech…”So what does define an axis of rotation for a planet?”
***
With Earth, which definitely rotates about an axis, the axis of rotation is the N-S axis that points roughly at Polaris.
With the Moon, which does not rotate, the axis is defined as an exis almost perpendicular to the lunar orbital plane. Why it is off by a few degrees, no one knows other than misinformed scientists who thinks it rotates.
rlh…”String apparently”
***
You seem obsessed with string and balls on string, as if they have significance. Are you the kind of guy who keep drawers full of balls, with string knotted together and wrapped into balls?
You and your cohort insist that a ball-on-a-string is an example of what causes the Moon to rotate once on its axis per orbit of the Earth. It has no relevance to that at all.
angech
” So what does define an axis of rotation for a planet? ”
I think this idea of having to define an ‘axis of rotation for a planet’ (or better, for a celestial body in general: you mentioned yourself the Sun, after all) is confusing you.
Such an axis must be computed, like did Tobias Mayer in 1750 for the Moon.
A scientific review of what Mayer did you may find in the dissertation of the Dutch professor Steven Wepster:
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
Look at section 9.5.1, Locating the rotational axis, page 173.
*
Mayer’s treatise was written in German, 130 pages long.
In comparison with the stubborn and ignorant stuff posted here day after day by Robertson and his altar boys, reading it was simply amazing.
Or to put it another way.
Like the guard who tells only the truth and the guard who always lies.
The moon is perceived to be rotating, by some.
What rotation would the moon have to have to be not rotating at all?
I fear the answer to this trick question might have to be that it is not possible to have a moon that does not rotate.
Which means either side who answers loses.
2 value logic has proven to be unreal.
Logic has 3 values, not 2. Unknown needs to be added to true/false.
Don’t listen to Richard: he has no idea what he’s talking about.
Sure. That is why SQL has null as well as true/false.
I know you had SQL in mind, dummy.
There are more logics than you can wish for:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-manyvalued/
None of that deals with ‘unknown’ as a solution which ‘solves’ a lot of otherwise unsolvable logic problems.
“But they differ from classical logic by the fundamental fact that they do not restrict the number of truth values to only two: they allow for a larger set W of truth degrees.”
But still not ‘unknown’.
Try this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304397502007363
Bivalence is the hallmark of realism. Realism has a very good track record. Reality does not care much about what we know.
All SQLs support nulls, which therefore allows 3 value logic, True/False/Unknown
Null isn’t always unknown, dummy.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
In SQL it is.
“NULL indicates that the value is unknown. A null value is different from an empty or zero value. No two null values are equal. Comparisons between two null values, or between a null value and any other value, return unknown because the value of each NULL is unknown.”
“A field with a NULL value is a field with no value.”
the value of each NULL is unknown
“SQL null is a state, not a value. This usage is quite different from most programming languages, where null value of a reference means it is not pointing to any object.”
“SQL null is a state, not a value.”
the value of each NULL is unknown
You really have a problem with secret handshakes, dummy:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-36596-6_7
Look up “closed world assumption.”
“No two null values are equal. Comparisons between two null values, or between a null value and any other value, return unknownbecause the value of each NULL is unknown.”
You have no problem with being an idiot. Because you are.
Syntax. Semantics.
Learn the difference, dummy.
“When null values are present in data, logical and comparison operators can potentially return a third result of UNKNOWN instead of just TRUE or FALSE. This need for three-valued logic is a source of many application errors. Logical operators in a boolean expression that includes UNKNOWNs will return UNKNOWN unless the result of the operator does not depend on the UNKNOWN expression.”
“SQL’s semantics is described by the ISO Standard which consists of thousand pages written in natural language. It is often unclear and, thus, cannot serve as a formal semantics.”
We are (or were) talking about 2 or 3 valued logic. True/False/Unknown.
“Previous approaches have treated various interpretations of null values […]”
http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~zaniolo/papers/pods82.pdf
angech
” The moon is perceived to be rotating, by some. ”
Do you really think that science people like
– in the past: Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, …
or
– in the present: Habibullin, Rizvanov, Eckhardt, Koziel, Chapront, Calamé, Migus, Moons, …
have only perceived Moon’s rotation about its polar axis?
Really, angech?
Did you ever read anything of what they wrote about that?
angech…”What rotation would the moon have to have to be not rotating at all?”
Zero angular velocity about its axis, as it has now.
The Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.
Gordo repeats his fundamental error in physics. the Moon rotates in inertial space, but Gordo insists on using a rotating coordinate system in which the Moon does not appear to rotate.
Sad to say, Gordo will never learn physics, while continuing to repeat his denialist nonsense.
The moon rotates about an external axis, and not on its own, in inertial space.
Bold assertion, Kiddo.
An argument to that effect would be nice.
Make it a Master Argument and you get a cookie.
It’s a bold assertion to state that the "Moon rotates in inertial space", Obsessive Stalker No. 2.
Kiddo’s Trolling Modes
[Arm Waver] Already did, you ignore the thousands of comments I made.
[Bored] Yawn.
[Dictionary Buff] I know what words mean.
[Fun Haver] I’m just having a bit of fun.
[Gaslighter] Gibberish, waffle. You are confused, have *no* idea.
[Handwaver] Find it yourself.
[Incredulous] Are you only now realizing this!?
[Lulzer] Lol…
[Mesmerized Psychologist] I have no idea what your problem, your obsession, etc.
[Non Pipe Smoker] Prove you dont always want to have the last word. Please stop trolling.
[Rubber Stamper] I know because I know.
[Poor Sod] You refuse to understand.
[Question Begger] Then stop doing it.
[Self Seal] See? It begins…
OK, No. 2.
Eric’s description of reference frames should be easy for you to get, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-805272
Indeed, I have understood it for a long time. Thanks.
I’m glad you do, Kiddo.
Then read on:
You know what’s the Coriolis Effect, now, do you?
The moon rotates about an external axis, and not on its own, in inertial space..
Gordo explained why you’re wrong, Kiddo. Repeating your claim won’t make it true.
Here’s a second version of the Moon Dragon Master Argument:
THE MOON DRAGON MASTER ARGUMENT (v. 0.2)
[ORBIT] The moon is *orbiting* and not *rotating.*
[FRAMES] Inertial reference frame confuses orbiting with rotating.
[REVOLUTION!] Revolution can be defined as a rotation about an external axis.
[FLOP’S TRICK] Flop programmed to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical shape.
[IF-BY-WHISKEY] It would not be possible to define revolution by rotation or to program a rotation in an ellipse if rotation was only around a circle.
[LIKE A BOS] The ball-on-a-string illustrates translation without rotation.
[GIF] Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is not motion as per the *moon on the right*
[IMPOSSIBLE] The moon cannot be both rotating about an external axis whilst rotating on its own axis.
[MOON DRAGON CLAIM] The Moon does not rotate, it only translates.
Tell me if I miss anything.
I can’t be bothered to continue talking to you.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
You will find it harder and harder to whine about being misrepresented.
All your silly claims in one place.
Fun fun fun!
A lot of what you have written is wrong, and you are missing a huge amount. Basically you display a complete lack of understanding. Oh well.
I’ll just PST your response tomorrow.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Everything I said was right. You tried to support your contention about Bob with a quote that you misrepresented.
OK, you have successfully baited me into responding now, after all.
I did not misrepresent bob, Willard. bob thinks that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the "moon on the right", rather than the "moon on the left". He is wrong.
No direct quote of Bob’s claim no cookie, Kiddo.
At least you tried.
I have a direct quote from him, now. Scroll up…
I have one too:
Do you dispute that claim?
I have not changed the definition of rotation.
And I did not misrepresent bob, Willard. bob thinks that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the "moon on the right", rather than the "moon on the left". He is wrong.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
You change the definition of rotation ALL THE TIME.
When you’re in BOS mode, you stick to strick rotation.
When you’re in Orbit mode, you switch to rotation + translation = rotation.
When people follow along, you return to BOS mode.
A Master Argument is a perfect way to block that two-step of yours.
Oh, and search for “pay attention.”
You really should trop trolling and pay more attention to what Bob is saying.
You’re such a child, Willard.
bob is wrong. Just grow up and deal with it.
Look who’s talking, Kiddo. You claim there’s a clear contradiction. You can’t even produce it.
I could not care less if you could prove Bob wrong. It just happens that so far you failed. If you want to play he-says-she-says parlor games, you need to do better than to keep PSTing in your pants.
All this to deflect from the fact that Ball refuted the Moon Dragon position once and for all fair and square.
Sad.
So be it. Time for a Master Argument.
The contradiction is that bob thinks the "moon on the right" is a case of rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, and my stalker thinks that the "moon on the left" is a case of rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
As you know.
Pay attention, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-617871
Even if you were right, which remains to be seen, you misrepresented Bob’s “nope” and you lost the war a long time ago. So as a token of appreciation for Flop’s efforts, here is an example of rotation plus translation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUvoVvXwoOQ&t=3172s
Ball was right all along.
No, Willard. Ball4 is not right.
Now DREMT 4:42 pm even writes DREMT is wrong. Very disagreeable commenter I’d say.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-825062
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“What rotation would the moon have to have to be not rotating at all?”
That actually brings up some interesting points.
Most of us agree that the so-called ‘Moon on the right’ has No ROTATION wrt to inertial frame of the stars.
The TEAM wants us to swallow the idea that this non rotation is actually a CCW rotation on the orbital axis combined with a CW axial rotation.
Thus non-rotation is actually two cancelling rotations!
Spinners think this is pure invention and nonsense.
Non-rotation is NO ROTATION.
A car stopped at a traffic light is simply stopped. It is not simultaneously driving forward and in-reverse at indeterminate speeds!
It is also interesting that the TEAM claims that SUBTRACTING AXIAL rotation can CANCEL rotation on an external axis!
Logically reversing this, if we start with the NOT ROTATING Moon on the right, by ADDING AXIAL ROTATION to it, we can achieve a state that has NO AXIAL ROTAION!
According to the TEAM.
This is extreme pretzel logic.
> Most of us agree that the so-called ‘Moon on the right’ has No ROTATION wrt to inertial frame of the stars.
Pay attention, Kiddo.
…but my stalker would not agree that the "moon on the right" is rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis, because he would describe the "moon on the left" as rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis.
Kiddo does not always whine about having stalkers, but when he does he can’t quote them and entertains counterfactual thinking instead of asking them.
As Nate would say, some pretzel logic right there.
Bob’s perspective:
[BOB] Which the object [moon] on the left is doing, rotating around an internal axis, as well as rotating around an external axis. The object [moon] on the right is rotating around an external axis but not rotating around an internal axis.
My Stalker’s perspective:
[DREMT] Firstly, Craig, we know from upthread that an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves [motion as per the "moon on the left"].
[STALKER] TRUE
Stalkers statement can be true if
The Moon is rotating around and external axis while rotating around an internal axis that is not through the center of mass.
Since the Moon is most probably not rotating around its center of mass Nates statement is TRUE.
You lose either way DR EMPTY
By center of mass I just meant internal axis.
[BOB] The Moon on the left is rotating. The Moon on the right is not.
[NATE] Most of us agree that the so-called Moon on the right has No ROTATION wrt to inertial frame of the stars.
[BALL] The object on the right is neither Earth’s moon current motion nor a ball on string motion so it is a red herring.
bob and my stalker disagree, Willard, as demonstrated.
Repeating it won’t make it so, Kiddo.
I added reply to Ball about LRO to the Master Argument:
[IMPOSSIBLE] The moon cannot be both rotating about an external axis whilst rotating on its own axis. If it were, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Compare and contrast with the following line:
[ORBIT] The Moon is *orbiting* around the Earth and not *rotating* on its axis. An orbit (without axial rotation) involves the object changing its orientation through 360 degrees.
Do these claims correspond to the Moon Dragon position?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Quick question. When you say that
[ORBIT] The Moon is *orbiting* around the Earth and not *rotating* on its axis. An orbit (without axial rotation) involves the object changing its orientation through 360 degrees.
would you justify your claim with this demonstration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s3DvJJEfBE
Many thanks!
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY,
So you fuck it up by confusing a line with a point.
BYE BYE
bob: rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the “moon on the left”, not the “moon on the right”. No desperate nit-picking, which you would never apply to those on your own side of the debate, is going to change that fact.
DREMT is going all-in on the Whataboutbob defense…its all he’s got left.
In fairness, Kiddo never had anything else.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
Why do you think that the moon cannot be both rotating about an external axis whilst rotating on its own axis, again?
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
Compare and contrast:
[Simpler] Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
[SO WHAT] If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
#5
Willard, please stop trolling.
If the Moon Dragon movement also involves a translation, Kiddo, is it simpler than the other model that has also the advantage of working mathematically?
There is orbital motion, and there is axial rotation, Willard. Those are the two motions referred to in this discussion.
Can we just have this discussion on one thread!? WTF is wrong with you?
You’re not answering the question, Kiddo.
Try again.
When I said "our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined" I just meant that it is our position that the moon is only "orbiting"; and not "orbiting" and "rotating on its own axis", as per the "Spinners" position. And I only said that because of the context of the discussion at that moment. It was not meant to be some profoundly important point of why the "Non-Spinner" position is better than the "Spinner" position, or anything.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-830585
Regardless of whether or not "orbital motion" can be kinematically described as simply a rotation about an external axis, or whether it needs "a bit of translation" thrown in, the idea is still that "orbital motion" is just one movement – in which the same face of the object remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit. "Axial rotation" is still the other motion involved in the discussion.
So yes, the "Non-Spinner" position is still always going to be simpler than the "Spinner" position in one sense, because the "Spinners" describe the moon as both "orbiting" and "rotating on its own axis", whereas the "Non-Spinners" describe it as just "orbiting".
> the idea is still that “orbital motion” is just one movement
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Rotation and translation isn’t simpler than rotation and rotation.
Packaging the former into “one” movement makes the movement more COMPLEX.
"Rotation and translation isn’t simpler than rotation and rotation."
What. are. you. talking. about?
God you’re dumb.
Alright.
Flop’s trick conceals a translation, so it’s rotation + translation.
The usual model of the Moon-Earth system involves two rotations, so rotation + rotation.
Have you ever done geometry in your life?
No, you’re just incoherent. Explain yourself better. What "rotation and rotation" do you believe is present in orbital motion?
"The usual model of the Moon-Earth system involves two rotations, so rotation + rotation."
Do you mean that you think the usual model of the Moon-Earth system involves "a rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis"?
Perhaps I should refer to a class of numerical models, for there are a shit ton of them.
Better?
Well, Willard, if you think that the usual model of the Moon-Earth system involves "a rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis", you would be wrong.
The usual model of the Moon-Earth system involves a curvilinear translation (motion like the "moon on the right") plus rotation about an internal axis.
Also, let me know if that "rotation about an external axis" that you believe the moon is doing is a "pure rotation" or not.
“So yes, the ‘Non-Spinner’ position is still always going to be simpler than the ‘Spinner’ position in one sense, because the ‘Spinners’ describe the moon as both ‘orbiting’ and ‘rotating on its own axis’, whereas the ‘Non-Spinners’ describe it as just ‘orbiting’.”
Uhhhh…the non spinners think the ‘Moon on the right’ actually has
A CCW rotation around an orbital axis and a CW axial rotation that cancel out.
What could be simpler?
It has NO ROTATION at all is simpler.
Well, Kiddo, it’s obvious that you can’t follow up your own word games:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
As soon as a word takes two meanings, you are led astray.
If you want to play word games, you need to be able to follow your own sheananigans.
Willard tries to shy away from what he said.
So we have to rub his nose in it.
"The usual model of the Moon-Earth system involves two rotations, so rotation + rotation."
You really are not good at this, Kiddo.
Allow me to help:
In astronomy, revolution and spin are two kinds of rotation. Our Moon revolves and spins. Rotation + Rotation.
(Not the “+” that csaitruth suggests in his silly demonstration, but let’s not get carried away. Forget I mentioned it.)
See? It’s not that hard. You can still try to play dumb.
Willard doesn’t see the problem.
So, you claim the moon is rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis.
Is that a "pure rotation" about an external axis, then? Or is the "invisible stick" stretching?
The exact same criticisms you apply to my arguments, apply to yours, if you claim the moon is rotating about an external axis, and rotating about an internal axis.
The fact that if it were true, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth, is another story.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Idas economic cost could hit $70-billion to $80-billion, estimated AccuWeather, with much of the losses due to the impact on the oil industry and supply chain delays.
Offshore oil producers returned staff to only 10 platforms and two drilling rigs over Monday and Tuesday, with lost output of 1.7 million barrels for a third day, according to U.S. offshore regulator Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.
Idas economic cost could hit $70-billion to $80-billion, estimated AccuWeather, with much of the losses due to the impact on the oil industry and supply chain delays.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/article-power-outages-stifle-energy-firms-recovery-efforts-after-hurricane-ida/
Eboy will soon get is oil. Everyone will live happy forever after.
“GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE”
The globe has indeed been cooling for the last few years. Get over it.
You can’t say that the globe has been cooling unless you made the proper statistical tests, dummy.
I thought you learned your lesson.
Numbers do not lie. Tests require a range to be valid. I choose 3 years for mine.
> Numbers do not lie.
But you can.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2018/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018.66/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
Willard: 1.
“Cooling” isn’t a number, dummy.
So lower numbers are not cooling. Good to know.
Numbers don’t have a temperature, dummy.
If lower numbers do not indicate cooling then higher numbers do not indicate warming either. Even if they are on the side of a thermometer. Apparently.
> If lower numbers do not indicate cooling then higher numbers do not indicate warming either.
One trend is significant, the other is not.
Higher is significant, Lower is not. Got you.
Significant is significant, Climateball is not.
FIFY.
What you call significant others call insignificant. You don’t get to decide which is which.
I’m not the one who coined the concept of statistical significance, dummy.
I might have coined the word Climateball for the kind of game you’re playing tho.
No you are just an idiot who repeats what others say.
You’re just a cycle nutter who pretends to bootstrap himself by handwaving to Nyquist, dummy.
You are just an idiot.
P.S. I understand Nyquist in both time and space. Do you?
The Only Trick of Roys One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
rlh…”P.S. I understand Nyquist in both time and space. Do you?”
***
How about in signal processing. Do you have an Aunty Aliasing?
Please, Gordo.
Call him “Richard.”
Willard: Still stuck at 1 I see.
Gordon: “An anti-aliasing filter (AAF) is a filter used before a signal sampler to restrict the bandwidth of a signal to satisfy the NyquistShannon sampling theorem over the band of interest.”
Define please what the band of interest is as well as the proposed sampling frequency in climate. Both in time and space.
“Note that NULL is not the same as UNKNOWN:”
https://blogs.oracle.com/oraclemagazine/nulls-nothing-to-worry-about
rlh…”Define please what the band of interest is as well as the proposed sampling frequency in climate. Both in time and space.”
***
You’ll have to ask Aunty Aliasing. She’s the expert on Nyquist.
Most year sequences in the UAH6.0 LT series, for which the second one had ‘n months in a row’ lower (or equal) than those in the first one, were such sequences in which
– the first year was a El Nino year;
or
– the second year was a La Nina year
or
– there was a huge volcanic eruption in the first year.
I added ‘(or equal’) because in 1981, only January was not lower than but equal to the month in 1980 , December being then higher.
*
As Eben sarcastically but… correctly noted, I was over a long period in doubt about 2021 coming somewhat deeper into La Nina status (though not comparable with 2010/11).
But now we see:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
that 2021’s La Nina phase has bypassed 2017, and comes nearer to 1988.
Thus, to make it short, we shouldn’t wonder at all about this current global cooling!
None of that changes the fact that the globe is cooler now than it was a year (or 2 or 3 or 5 years) ago.
Do you think with AGW occurring, natural variation should cease? There should be no cool wiggles, only hot wiggles?
No of course it not. Both warm and cool jogs are expected around the underlying long term trend, due mostly to ENSO.
Unless and until the variation moves well outside of this expected range of variation, there is no statistically robust evidence for a change in trend.
DO you still not get that RLH?
I do get random variables. But I also get random walk too.
I also get that without a sufficient number of samples, saying definitively that what we see has no natural input is unlikely to say the least. A couple of hundred is not enough.
The question is, how much is natural and how much is not.
You wish to err on the side of ‘it’s all mans fault’. I don’t. Sure what we have done (and are doing) has had some impact. But I rather suspect that nature has a bigger impact than you are prepared to admit.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
“saying definitively that what we see has no natural input”
Non sequitur.
As you can see in my post, I don’t think natural variation has ceased.
” None of that changes the fact that the globe is cooler now than it was a year (or 2 or 3 or 5 years) ago. ”
Thanks for keeping so pretty good stubborn…
A little more effort and you’ll soon overtake the third Viscount of Brenchley in this area.
Wunderbar.
Are you going to claim it is warmer now? Compared to the last 2 or 3 years that is.
3.Mars Mean Surface Temperature calculation Tmean.mars = 210 K
Tmean.mars
Surface temp..Tmin..Tmean..Tmax
Kelvin………..130.K…210.K…308.K
(1/R) = (1/1,524) = 1/2,32 Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has
Mars albedo: amars = 0,25
Mars performs 1 rotation every 1,028 day
N = 1 /1,028 = 0,9728 Rotations /day
Mars is a rocky planet, Mars surface irradiation accepting factor: Φmars = 0,47
cp.mars = 0,18cal/gr oC, on Mars surface is prevalent the iron oxide
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal it is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Mars’ Mean Surface Temperature Equation is:
Tmean.mars = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R) (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Tmean.mars = [ 0,47 (1-0,25) 1.361 W/m*(1/2,32)*(150*0,9728*0,18)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
=( 2.066.635.457,46 )∕ ⁴ = 213,21 K
Tmean.mars = 213,21 K
The calculated Mars mean surface temperature Tmean.mars = 213,21 K is only by 1,53% higher than that measured by satellites
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K !
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ 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 is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Still trying to sell failed science to the gullible masses?
Let*s calculate Mars* Te then
Surface temp…Tmin…Tmean…Tmax
Kelvin………130.K..210.K…308.K
The planet blackbody effective temperature equation is:
Te = [(1-a)S/4σ]^1/4
Mars* Albedo a = 0,75
Solar flux for Mars S= 586,4 W/m^2
Please, Nate, would you like to calculate Mars* effective temperature Te?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction: Mars* Albedo a = 0,25
Christos, using in situ observations for Mars results in clear (not dusty) atm. effective surface temperature of about 215K and Mars effective temperature is measured at 210K for a Martian GHE of about 5K.
On Earth, the comparable figures are 288K (current natural atm.) and 255K for an earthen GHE of 33K.
Since you have neglected Earth’s atm. in your work of course you find there is no earthen GHE. You just need to include the earthen atm. opacity as measured from the ground in your calculations to discover for yourself the earthen GHE of 33K.
NB: These numbers oft cited are for the temperature at which a black body radiates away the energy it absorbs.
Ball4, please also comment the temperatures of Moon.
Christos, the atm. on our moon is way too thin to provide any GHE so an annual avg. equilibrium temperature would have to be found at a certain soil depth. There are some sparse Apollo thermometer measurements that, with some educated reasonable assumptions for albedo, soil bulk density, bidirectional reflectance, and thermal conductivity can be found to be equatorial global avg. 240K just below about 0.2m.
At the soil surface, the thermometer measured lunar equatorial avg. with same assumptions is about 210K. This difference from equilibrium T at depth shows the effect of a high daily T range at the surface from the moon’s changing orientation.
The Diviner mission has measured the radiometer lunar mean annual near-surface brightness temperature global avg. around 197K give or take with assumptions for regolith optical properties based on emissivity sampling, albedo and surface particle size.
Yes, Ball4. You gave a very detailed description of estimations on Moon’s and Mars’ average surface temperatures.
We know the solar flux on Moon is So = 1361 W/m^2 distance from sun 1AU
And the solar flux on Mars is S = 586,4 W/m^2 distance from sun 1,53AU
What is your theoretical estimation of Mars’ average surface temperature if Mars were orbiting at Earth’s and Moon’s distance from sun 1 AU and having S = 1361 W/m^2 instead of the actual S = 586,4 W/m^2 ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Good question Christos.
Per NASA Mars measured albedo is about 0.235. Mars is measured closer to a black body than is Earth so using surface emissivity of 1.0 as a black body (like rounding up to 1.0 slightly from ~0.97 for Earth) does not cause significant estimation error.
Using your illumination figure of 586.4 at Mars ~1.5AU orbit and assuming 0 atm. emissivity, the avg. annual global equilibrium brightness temperature for Mars est. computes out theoretically* to be about 210K the same global annual effective temperature as has been measured 210K (see my 3:38pm). Thus the 1LOT based theory is reasonably reliable for an optically transparent Mars atm.
Using the same formula to get present day Mars global annual avg. effective surface temperature of 215K allows one to back calculate Mars current atm. global emissivity at about 0.185. This compares to 0.65 for Earth’s dry polar regions so seems reasonable given Mars much lower surface P and dry conditions but with way more %CO2.
Thus, all I need to do is plug in your 1371 for Mars illumination at 1AU with same surface and atm. optical properties as at ~1.5AU to find Mars at 1AU would have global annual avg. effective surface temperature of about 266K for a Mars at 1AU GHE of about 7K vs. Earth thermometer ~288K and GHE of 33K with Earth’s optically thicker atm.
NB: *Theoretically meaning with the simple earthen 1 layer atm. energy balance I ref.d for you once before.
Oops, semi-typo alert: I used in calculations per NASA Mars measured albedo is about 0.25.
Yes, the Mars’ effective temperature 266K is close to the Moon’s 270K because of the same solar flux 1361 W/m^2 and the close albedo values.
Also, as you mentioned, “At the soil surface, the thermometer measured lunar equatorial avg. with same assumptions is about 210K.”
And
“The Diviner mission has measured the radiometer lunar mean annual near-surface brightness temperature global avg. around 197K give or take”.
What do you think the Diviner mission would have measured for mars’ mean annual near-surface brightness temperature if Mars was at the lunar orbit of 1AU?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Diviner mission est. of 197K for radiometer lunar mean annual near-surface brightness temperature global avg. is likely too low T because ~25% of moon’s surface is powder with particles on the order of the illumination wavelength of interest meaning diffraction raises its ugly head to there be significant. This would probably not be the case for Mars because of its thin atm. protection from bombardment but I don’t know that.
The missions that have used radiometers at Mars probably are way less or nil affected by surface diffraction since Mars’ surface particle size is likely not near 25% powder but I haven’t researched what Mars surface particle size might be. I’ll leave that “itch for you to scratch” as Willard writes. I’m ok to go with the Mars mission radiometer results for brightness T as I commented earlier.
Thank you Ball4.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Opponent:
“The only way the faster spinning planet can be warmer is if accompanied by more energy out. Energy is 1st and foremost conserved so you would need more energy in. Your equation excludes that. ”
But there is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon we should take in consideration:
A thought experiment numerical example:
Assuming a planet with two hemispheres’ Te temperatures
Te.solar1 = 200 K, and Te.dark1 = 100 K
Assuming this planet rotates somehow faster (n2 > n1), so assuming the new Te.solar2 average temperature resulting
Te.solar2 = 199 K.
What would be the planet’s Te.dark2 then?
Jemit.solar1 = σ*(Te.solar1)⁴ ,
σ(200 K)⁴ = 1.600.000.000*σ for (n1) rot/day
Jemit.solar2 = σ*(Te.solar2)⁴ ,
σ(199 K)⁴ = 1.568.000.000*σ for (n2) rot/day
Jemit.solar2 – Jemit.solar1 =
= 1.568.000.000*σ – 1.600.000.000*σ =
= – 31.700.000*σ
is the difference in the Te solar side emitting intensity when (n2>n1) and 199 K – 200 K = – 1C
So we have ( – 31.700.000*σ ) less emitting intensity on the solar side (2) when n2>n1.
It should be compensated by the increased emission on the dark side ( + 31.700.000*σ ) for the energy balance equation to get met:
Jemit.dark1 = σ*(Te.dark1)⁴ ,
σ(100 K)⁴ = 100.000.000σ
Jemit.dark2 = σ*(Te.dark2)⁴ ,
σ(Te.dark2)⁴ = (100.000.000 + 31.700.000)σ = 131.700.000σ
The dark side higher temperature (2) to compensate the solar side cooler emission (2) by ( – 31.700.000σ ) would be
Te.dark2 = (131.700.000)∕ ⁴ = 107,126 K
As we see in this numerical example, when the planet rotating faster (n2>n1) the Te temperature on the solar irradiated side subsides from 200 K to 199 K.
On the other hand the Te temperature, when planet rotating faster (n2>n1) on the dark side risesfrom 100 K to 107,126 K.
So when rotating faster (n2>n1) the solar irradiated planet’s side gets on Te cooler by -1 degree C, the planet’s dark side gets on Te warmer by +7,126 degrees C.
And as a result the planet’s total Te temperature gets higher.
It happens so because when rotating faster (n2>n1) the planet’s surface has emission temperatures Te the new distribution to achieve.
Consequently, when rotating faster, the planet’s mean temperature rises.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
And as a result, the planet’s (or moon’s) annual avg. thermometer equilibrium temperature is higher than annual avg. T at the surface due to the daily temperature range nonlinear math.
Dr. Spencer has written on this in the past and explained why that happens on our moon from the changing lunar orientation effects.
“the energy balance equation to get met”
The Earth abs*orbs 240 W/m^2 from the sun on average.
Your theory has Earth emitting 112 W/m^2 on average.
The energy balance equation for Earth is not met!
Nate, my theory doesn’t have planets emitting on average…
In my theory planets emit in TOTAL!
Earth emits in TOTAL:
Φ(1-a)1361 W/m^2*πr^2 m^2 = 0,47(1-0,306)1361*πr^2 W =
= 443,93*πr^2 W = 444*πr^2 W.
the ROTATING PLANET SPHERICAL SURFACE SOLAR IRRADIATION ABSORBING-EMITTING UNIVERSAL LAW
Jemit = 4πrσΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πrΦ*S*(1-a) = 4πrσTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
substituting for Earth, we obtain Tmean .earth = 288K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
rlh…”The Earth rotates 27 times as fast as the Moon orbits so the string would wrap around the Earth quite fast then’.
***
I know you are putting this out as humour because you think the Moon really is rotating on its axis. Rather than challenge your authority figures, you will do anything to avoid looking at the math that proves you wrong.
I would point you to books recording the talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti on awareness but you would only scoff at the notion you lack awareness. The physicist David Bohm did not scoff at awareness, in fact, he engaged with Krishnamurti on some mind-blowing discussions on it.
You need to blow a bit of the old crap out of your brain and look with fresh eyes. Alas, I know you wont, because their is comfort for some in authority figures.
Gordon you and DREMT are correct writing that our moon and toy train on circular track each “changes their orientation through 360 degrees per rotation/revolution/orbit”.
You two should just leave it there.
“I know you are putting this out as humour because you think the Moon really is rotating on its axis.”
It is. It rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.
What I was pointing out was the inconsistency. It was claimed that the string would wrap round the Moon if it was really rotating. But the same observation about Earth and its rotation is not allowed.
In fact, as gravity can be considered to act purely on the center of each mass, the ‘string’ would require attaching to the center of each body thereby not giving any torque to produce the required rotation of the Moon per orbit as required by using a ball-on-a-string as an example.
Post counts on this thread 9/1/21 7:45 EDT
RLH 1667
Willard 1341
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 796
Nate 391
Clint R 353
Gordon Robertson 238
Bindidon 198
Swenson 149
Ball4 125
Stephen P Anderson 119
Entropic man 118
bobdroege 112
Tim Folkerts 111
gbaikie 106
TYSON MCGUFFIN 96
Ken 94
coturnix 68
Willard 64
Eben 56
E. Swanson 30
Mark B 29
angech 27
DMT 24
Norman 22
studentb 21
I was wondering a bit about your Swenson stat, but a quick review confirmed what I thought:
Swenson says:
August 18, 2021 at 1:45 AM
was surprisingly his last comment on this thread.
The only possible explanations for this unusual behavior are: the guy is either pretty sick or on vacation.
Mike Flynn comes and goes.
Here he is:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-828084
There’s only 463 “idiot” on this page.
Hm.
> Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 796
Make that 900.
Still a lot less than you or RLH, Willard.
No surprise it’s gone up, the way you keep trolling me. If you’re that desperate to speak to me, can we at least have the discussion in just one thread?
Still a big jump since yesterday, Kiddo.
How does it feel to argue against yourself?
I’m not arguing against myself, Willard. You are just confused, as usual.
Here is one of your claim, Kiddo:
(SO WHAT) If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
Here is another claim of yours:
(SIMPLES) Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
These two claims are not compatible.
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
As I said, you are just confused. I am trying to explain it to you now, up-thread, but you keep making the same point over and over again on multiple threads. I have no idea what’s wrong with you.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Every time you get caught you’re doing this.
You’re at the end of the thread. You could make your case here. Everyone would see that you’re not explaining anything. So you handwave to a previous time and whine.
Once we see through Flop’s Fakir Magic Trick, the Moon Dragon movement isn’t simple at. You can only argue that it’s simpler if you can reach PURE:
(PURE) One should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation. *Shows an engineer handout*.
But even if you could, you’re stuck with having admitted:
(SO WHAT) If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
This is not this guy vs this other guy anymore.
It’s just You vs You.
***
Worse is that you *still* haven’t supported the claim that if the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
You’re confused, and making a massive fuss about nothing. It would take so long to correct you on all your errors, especially since you fight me down to the level of every single word choice that I make, that it becomes not worth my effort to keep up with it.
Take this, for example:
"Worse is that you *still* haven’t supported the claim that if the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth."
How can you still not understand this for yourself? Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the "moon on the left", yes? This has been established now for quite some time. Even those on your own side of the argument agree. That is already motion much like our moon. So, if you add internal axis rotation to motion like the "moon on the left", at any rate, and in either direction relative to the orbit, over time you will see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit. Yes!? All you have to be able to do is mentally add two motions together. It’s not difficult. But you can’t even do that! So what is the point in talking to you? If you don’t understand the basics of my position, why try to get bogged down in the finer details!?
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You won’t succeed in gaslighting me.
GIF is irrelevant for the point at hand:
(GIF) Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is not motion as per the *moon on the right*.
Once you accept SO WHAT:
(SO WHAT) If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
Two things happen: SIMPLES and PURE need to be dropped.
And here’s what you’re also trying to dodge:
(IMPOSSIBLE) The moon cannot be both rotating about an external axis whilst rotating on its own axis. If the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
This has not been supported.
Three years.
No support for that stupid claim.
And to support my claim that you’re still pussyfooting around:
No. That’s just false.
And it’s not because I’m not able to picture this in my mind, Kiddo.
It’s because I know more geometry than you do.
I am not trying to gaslight you. I am not trying to deceive.
"No support for that stupid claim."
I just explained it to you, you unbelievable moron.
"No. That’s just false.
And it’s not because I’m not able to picture this in my mind, Kiddo.
It’s because I know more geometry than you do."
You are completely nuts.
Of course you’re trying to gaslight me, Kiddo.
You claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Moon to rotate about an external axis whilst rotating on its own axis.
This isn’t a psychological claim.
This is a geometrical claim.
Prove it.
"You claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Moon to rotate about an external axis whilst rotating on its own axis."
No, it’s not impossible. Objects in general can (and do) rotate about an external axis, whilst rotating on an internal axis. Take the Earth, for instance. It’s just that if the moon were doing so, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Rotation about an external axis, without rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the "moon on the left". Do you accept that, first of all?
> No, its not impossible.
Man, I probably can find at least ten occurrences of you saying:
(IMPOSSIBLE) The moon cannot be both rotating about an external axis whilst rotating on its own axis. If the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Where’s your demonstration of that geometrical fact?
I’ve just clarified what I meant. Answer my question.
I won’t fall for the GIF bait, Kiddo.
That’s how you reverse the burden of proof.
You answer the challenge: show me that if the Moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the Moon from Earth.
If you’re to remember one thing from this silly trolling, be it that the Earth’s Moon takes a capital.
Rotation about an external axis, without rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the "moon on the left". Do you accept that, first of all?
Yes or no?
A question won’t support your claim that if the Moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the Moon from Earth, Kiddo.
I showed you a video yesterday purporting to argue the case you dance around:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s3DvJJEfBE
Here is the second part:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
Do you agree with this demonstration, yes or no?
I asked first, and I will not be moving on until I get an answer. Simple as that.
It’s a tricky situation for poor Willard. If he says "yes", then he agrees with me and my stalker (and kinematics in general). If he says "no", then he agrees with his overlord, bob. But disagrees with basic science. That’s why he will do absolutely anything but answer.
Yes or no, Willard?
I actually asked first, Kiddo.
Many, many times since yesterday.
For instance:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-829644
Something tells me that you can’t answer what holds the Moon Dragon position together.
I await your response.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo: we’re not playing the Dress Illusion right now.
I asked many times:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-829507
You didn’t answer at the time.
I don’t think you can answer it.
Still waiting…yes or no, Willard?
While you’re waiting and trolling, Kiddo, I’m improving your Master Argument:
(IMPOSSIBLE) The Moon cannot both orbit and spin, for if it did all sides of the Moon would be observable from the Earth.
I’m at v. 1.1 right now.
How do you justify that claim?
So you change my claim, then ask me to justify it!
You really are a pathetic, shameful troll, Willard.
Just answer the f*cking question.
The claim is the same, Kiddo. It’s only shorter and sweeter. Why are you playing word games when you have so many problems with them may always remain a mystery.
Another mystery is how you explain that the Moon cannot both orbit and spin, for if it did all sides of the Moon would be observable from the Earth.
Care to try?
Answer the question. If your answer is "yes", you should already know that my actual claim is correct:
"If the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth."
because it obviously logically follows from accepting that:
"Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the "moon on the left""
because the "moon on the left" moves much as per our moon!
So just answer the question you stupid clown!
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. I’m not here to play your silly word games, I’m here for the argument. In fact I’m here for the Master Argument.
In it there is a crucial claim:
(IMPOSSIBLE) The Moon cannot both orbit and spin, for if it did all sides of the Moon would be observable from the Earth.
I have never seen you justify that claim.
Sure, I saw you throw in this or that definition.
Sure, I saw you entertain silly counterfactuals to flip the script.
Sure, I saw you trolling.
Fess it – you can’t demonstrate how a Moon that orbit and spin would show all its sides to earthlings.
It would be pathetic if it wasn’t so farsical.
All you need is a geometrical demonstration. I offered you one: a video series about that csaistruth dude. You can’t say I’m not being sport.
Do you know him, by any chance?
Either answer my question or gfy.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo: your silly Sphinx game leads nowhere. Many tried before. They didn’t even got a lousy t-shirt.
I don’t mind if you refuse to demonstrate that the Moon cannot both orbit and spin, for if it did all sides of the Moon would be observable from the Earth.
I really don’t.
If all you got is “but look at this GIF,” that’s alright.
I mean, you’re obviously not Flop. You *could* know that csaitruth dude. I mean, his argument is so ridiculous that it would not suprise me if you were him!
Here is his MATHEMATICAL proof, btw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdFPty67D-4
If you need a justification, that could be one.
Are we starting over?
“Rotation about an external axis, without rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the “moon on the left”. Do you accept that, first of all?”
No, because the Moon on the left is rotating. Only incompetents think otherwise.
> Are we starting over?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
bob calls my stalker an incompetent.
Willard refuses to answer a simple question.
DREMT smiles, at seeing how desperate they are.
Kiddo can’t be coherent for a few hours:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-830501
But never fear, we got him covered:
[BOB] The Moon on the left is rotating. The Moon on the right is not.
[NATE] Most of us agree that the so-called Moon on the right has No ROTATION wrt to inertial frame of the stars.
[BALL] The object on the right is neither Earths moon current motion nor a ball on string motion so it is a red herring.
If you ever Tim’s opinion on your silly Sphinx game, I’ll add it.
Now, about your Master Argument:
(IMPOSSIBLE) The Moon cannot both orbit and spin, for if it did all sides of the Moon would be observable from the Earth.
Where’s the proof?
Willard rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the "moon on the left".
Yes or no?
bob would happily answer "nope". Or, very clearly state:
"Which the object [moon] on the left is doing, rotating around an internal axis, as well as rotating around an external axis. The object [moon] on the right is rotating around an external axis but not rotating around an internal axis."
Why do you not have the cojones to actually clearly state your position, Willard?
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You got plenty of responses to that riddle of yours over the years. Look where it got you. You still haven’t shown why the Moon cannot both orbit and spin, for if it did all sides of the Moon would be observable from the Earth.
Your silly enigma would stand a chance if it was a color-based illusion, for the mind needs to take a stand. But movement, like sound, allows for many interpretations.
So your riddle fizzles.
Go geometry. It’s tried and true.
I have already explained how my actual claim, which is that "if the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth", follows from the proposition that the "moon on the left" represents rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis. I did so at 11:14 AM.
All that remains is for you to answer my question.
But your relentless evasion is hilarious.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. Think for a change. Or better yet, formulate the argument:
(P1) the “moon on the left” represents rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
===
(IMPOSSIBLE) The Moon cannot both orbit and spin, for if it did all sides of the Moon would be observable from the Earth.
See? That’s not even an argument!
You don’t need to know what *I* think of your silly riddle. I already answered it a few times, but you’re just in writing mode.
Go back to the drawing board. Come back with something that follows logically.
So, once again:
Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the "moon on the left". That is already motion much like our moon. So, if you add internal axis rotation to motion like the "moon on the left", at any rate, and in either direction relative to the orbit, over time you will see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit. All you have to be able to do is mentally add two motions together. It’s not difficult.
So, that logically leads us to my actual claim (not the one you keep replacing it with):
If the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Now…answer the question, Willard.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
P1. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the “moon on the left”. That is already motion much like our moon.
P2. So, if you add internal axis rotation to motion like the “moon on the left”, at any rate, and in either direction relative to the orbit, over time you will see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
C. If the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Both P1 and P2 are false, and C does not follow anyway.
So your argument is both unsound and invalid.
No wonder you play word games after all!
"Both P1 and P2 are false"
So your answer is "no", then. Wow, that was hard to get out of you.
Both P1 and P2 are true, and of course C follows.
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. You can’t support your claims by pure contradiction. Let’s start with the first premise:
P1. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the “moon on the left”.
Since this is an abstruse claim, here is the GIF:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
You’d need to argue for (the stronger version of) its converse:
(P1*) The Moon on the left can (only) be interpreted as orbiting and not spinning.
So you’re left with an interpretation that remains to be supported.
The claim is obviously false as it stands for it is accepted that our Moon orbits and spins and we all know that behaves like the Moon on the left.
See? This is how we can see that you only operate by pure contradiction.
As an aside, you should try to use “orbit” and “spin” – it shortens and clarifies. You should also scratch “that is already motion much like our moon” for it begs the question and exploits an ambiguity – what is “that”?
Not bad. Do better.
Willard proves that if he changes the premises, he can refute the argument. What a guy.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
The validity of your argument has to wait for now. I’m only underlining how your first premise worked to establish how unsound it is. Soundness and validity are two different beasts.
There are two main ingredients:
1. Pure contradiction. You deny what everyone accept without offering any rationale for it. This explains the definition games.
2. Empty assertion. You state as physical fact an interpretation that has mere geometric bearing. This explains the Ball-On-String (BOS) mode.
Irony is the hallmark of trolling, btw. If you want to pretend that you’re not trolling, you should drop it. I want to help you get a Master Argument, but we’re no friends.
Willard, I have proved P1 (my P1, the actual P1 that I am arguing, not the version you try to substitute in) correct in many ways, now, over the years. Even my stalker, probably my harshest critic, agrees with me on it. I’m not sure what more you want me to do. I can’t just repeat myself indefinitely. Or…maybe I can…
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. I’m quite sure you have not. If you did, it should not be easy to point to it.
So not only you’re handwaving, but you still trying to pull Nate in for a silly you-and-him fight.
It’s obvious you’re trolling.
If you ever wish to support your premise, you should pay more attention to the switch between geometry and physics. One does not simply infer physical properties from geometric ones unless there are very good reasons to do so. Here could be a sound premise:
P1*. The Moon-on-the-left could be described as orbiting and not spinning.
The downside is that you need to accept that the Moon-on-the-left could also be described as orbiting and spinning on physical grounds.
This way we can get an opposition between a geometric point and a physical point.
Some argue that the "moon on the left" can also be described as translating in a circle, plus rotating on its own axis.
That does not take away from the fact that if you are going with rotation, then the "moon on the left" is rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
“if you are going with rotation”
Those who argue that the Moon both orbits and spins are going with rotation too!
So you’re confirming my earlier point:
1. Pure contradiction. You deny what everyone accept without offering any rationale for it. This explains the definition games.
It’s obvious you need to go for word games: all you got is your geometric intuition!
"Those who argue that the Moon both orbits and spins are going with rotation too!"
No. Wrong, Willard. Tim, for instance, argues that it translates in an ellipse whilst rotating on an internal axis. My stalker, too. In fact, I think most of the "Spinners" on here do. You and bob are about the only ones I can think of who argue that it both rotates about an external axis and rotates on an internal axis. I can’t think of any others, off-hand.
Which begs the question, why did you argue against me when I was finding quotes that support the idea orbital motion, or revolution, is rotation about an external axis, when you clearly think it is anyway!?
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. It does not matter who thinks what. The Master Argument stands alone.
Whatever one may think about the premise we’re discussing, there are two readings of it. Either it’s a geometric claim or a physical claim. If it’s a geometric claim, it can’t support a physical conclusion unless your second premise add the physics. In fact it can’t even refute a physical reading of it.
That the Moon orbits and spins or not does not rest on geometry alone.
None of what I’m saying here depends on what you, me, Tim, Bob, or Nate believes. It’s as if after all these years you never really tried to understand your argument and why people responded to you the way they do.
It’s as if every comment you make to me must be condescending, contradictory, and personally criticize me in some way.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I don’t need to talk to you the way I do.
I just love a good meme!
But wait – you’ve been trolling people with a scientific background who knows more physics than you ever will for years now and you expect not to get some payback? Besides, just look at what you just tried to do. You tried to make it about Tim or Nate. Concern trolling is still trolling.
When I say “Those who argue that the Moon both orbits and spins are going with rotation too” I’m responding to the idea that either everyone is on your side or they need to reject geometry. You don’t own geometry just because that’s the only scope of your argument.
It is quite possible to “go with rotation” (whatever you might mean by that) and to provide a model of the Moon that orbits and spins while its Man look at the Earth at all time. We even have mathematical models of that system.
Don’t you think it’s a bit presumptuous to reject these models without any formal argument at all?
If there is a model that goes with the idea that the moon is rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis, then it’s wrong. But I haven’t seen one yet. All the ones you’ve presented or discussed would be "the moon is translating, plus rotating about an internal axis".
So you say, Kiddo. So you say.
Have a look at this:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03304.pdf
As AT says (pers. comm.) “if you want to mathematically describe the evolution of a two body system in which one ends up in a synchronous orbit, you need to include a term that describes the spin (or rotation) of the object that ends up in this synchronous orbit.”
Notice the concepts: orbit, spin. This isn’t about the Moon and the Earth, but the object is similar. The problem involves two objects with characteristics that go beyond shape, orientation or angle. They’re bodies that are dancing with one another, with velocity, force, and momentum.
In other words, it’s not just about moving two clocks or two pennies in a way that cohere with geometry definitions. It’s about making sense of how two objects become tidally locked.
There’s no need to delve into the details of your premises that if all you got in your premises are geometric points, you won’t be able to infer a conclusion that has physical import.
…and by “orbit” he will be referring to translation, and not rotation about an external axis.
“So, if you add internal axis rotation to motion like the “moon on the left”, at any rate, and in either direction relative to the orbit, over time you will see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit. All you have to be able to do is mentally add two motions together. It’s not difficult.”
So if he adds internal axis motion to “the Moon on the right”, which, (by the KINEMATIC RULES he cares so much about enforcing) has no Rotation, only Translation, he will get the ‘Moon on the left’, which has Rotation wrt the stars.
All he has to be able to do is mentally add two motions together. It’s not difficult.
Having added internal rotation to a non-rotating Moon, somehow gives a Moon WITHOUT internal rotation, according to the TEAM.
That is the part science and logic has trouble with.
“and by ‘orbit’ he will be referring to translation, and not rotation about an external axis.”
and correctly so, for anyone who cares about using correct definitions. Anyone?
“…and by “orbit” he will be referring to translation, and not rotation about an external axis.”
By “translation” I mean he will be referring to motion like the “moon on the right”, of course. Because the only way you can argue that a so-called “synchronously rotating” moon is rotating on its own axis, as I have pointed out so many times before, is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the right”. If you add internal axis rotation to motion like the “moon on the right” you can get motion like the “moon on the left”, to be sure, but the “Spinners” problem is that for various reasons “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the left”, and not the “moon on the right”.
So
logic, facts
logic, facts,
full stop.
Then we get:
“for various reasons ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is motion like the ‘moon on the left’, and not the ‘moon on the right’.
logic and facts cease, and replaced with ‘for various reasons’ ???
> by “orbit” he will be referring to translation, and not rotation about an external axis.
I’m not sure what you wish to imply by that, Kiddo. All I know is that it corresponds to this move in the Master Argument:
(REVOLUTION!) Revolution can be defined as (or *is*) a rotation about an external axis. Orbit and revolution are synonyms.
One problem with it is your own concession:
(SO WHAT) If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
Another problem is that you accept Flop’s trick.
You can’t support your position simply by pointing at the moon-on-the-right and the moon-on-the-left.
That begs the question we’re disputing.
Well, with the argument once again settled in the "Non-Spinner’s" favor, I bid you all adieu. I can’t hang around here forever, dealing with all the misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults from the losing team. This old argument winner has other things to attend to. And there’s now a new monthly update out, so this thread’s getting old.
I’ll PST any further responses tomorrow.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You’ll be back.
First, there are still many contradictions in your Master Argument to resolve.
Second, it’s still incomplete:
## THE MOON DRAGON MASTER ARGUMENT (v. 1.3)
**Proposition**. The Moon does not spin, i.e. it does not rotate on its axis. It only orbits around the Earth. *Footnote: Mathematical model pending.*
(REVOLUTION!) Revolution can be defined as (or *is*) a rotation about an external axis. Orbit and revolution are synonyms.
(LIKE A BOS) The ball-on-a-string (or BOS) illustrates orbit without spin. It implies rotation but not translation.
(IMPOSSIBLE) If the Moon spun while in orbit it would rotate 360 degrees and all sides would be observable from the Earth.
(GIF) In the Wiki GIF on tidal locking, orbit without spin looks like the moon on the left, not the moon on the right.
(TRANSLATION)
(PURE) One should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation. *Shows an engineer handout*.
(FLOP’S TRICK) Flop showed how to rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse.
(IF-BY-WHISKEY) It would not be possible to define revolution by rotation or to program a rotation in an ellipse if rotation was only around a circle.
(SO WHAT) If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
(SIMPLES) Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
(LRO) I have already explained why the LRO does not provide evidence of lunar axial rotation. *Gestures at the infinite*.
(FRAMES) Inertial reference frame confuses orbiting with rotating.
(NAME DROPS) Tesla. Henry Perical. That csaitruth dude.
***
You still owe an argument about translation that would connect your geometric claims with your definitions.
You still haven’t clarified how you respond to LRO.
So much to do, so little time.
Next time, please stop trolling.
But as a token of appreciation for having mimicked reciprocation for a while, Kiddo, I’ll give you the answer you’re looking for:
There’s only one reason. One word, in fact.
Just one word.
Are you listening?
Physics.
DR EMPTY,
Any chance in hell you can define what you mean by rotation on an internal axis.
Or what you mean by axial rotation?
Which you claim the Moon is not doing.
Since you haven’t defined it in over three years and predict you won’t do it now, your argument doesn’t have any legs to stand on.
It has been defined by the spinners in accordance with Mahdavi or any other of a dozen different definitions.
So where is your definition of rotating on an internal axis?
Without that, you have no arguement.
And lose again.
Willard, bob, please stop trolling.
“I bid you all adieu.”
When obviously caught in a losing position, forced to repeatedly contradict oneself, the only option is to hit the emergency eject.
When a dealt a string of losing hands its best to fold and cash-out.
Standard procedure, Troll Handbook Ch 3.
“I cant hang around here forever, dealing with all the misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults from the losing team.”
Translation: I can’t continue with my transparent misrepresentations, fraud, hypocrisy, and especially my self-contradictions, when there is a spotlight continuously shined on them.
As the self-appointed referee of the debate/debacle, I will again declare myself the victor and depart the scene, in hopes that my exposers will forget and fail to return.
They won’t.
#2
Willard, bob, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY,
A two dimensional argument does not win a three dimensional game.
I’ll concede that the Moon does not rotate in two dimensions.
Now can we proceed to a three dimensional game?
bob, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY,
Please define what you mean by axial rotation on an internal axis.
With out that you have not made an argument.
Which means you did not even start.
So you lost the argument you didn’t even start.
Loser.
#2
bob, please stop trolling.
rlh…”Thus the rotation it has, once per orbit, is not caused by that orbit, but is the residual of the rotation that it always had but faster than it is right now”.
***
I have offered you a very simple experiment to verify your claim. Let’s see you take two coins, one stationary representing Earth and another free to move around the perimeter of the stationary coin, representing the Moon.
Mark the moving coin on its edge. Let’s see you make it rotate once through 360 degrees about its axis while moving it around the perimeter of the stationary coin while keeping the mark pointed toward the centre of the stationary coin.
You have two possibilities: roll the moving coin around the rim of the stationary coin or slide it around. If you roll it, you immediately notice that you cannot keep the mark pointed to the centre of the stationary coin.
There goes your theory, RLH. The only way to move it around the stationary coin while keep the mark pointed to the centre of the stationary coin is to slide it while adjusting it. If you do that, which replicates the effect of gravity on the Moon’s linear momentum, the mark cannot rotate 360 degrees around the axis.
You cannot see this because your mind is rigidly hung up on what you have been led to believe.
Suspend belief…look!!!! Awareness and intelligence cannot operate when the conditioned mind is operating.
ball4…”Gordon you and DREMT are correct writing that our moon and toy train on circular track each changes their orientation through 360 degrees per rotation/revolution/orbit.
You two should just leave it there”.
***
A change of orientation is not rotation about an axis. It’s obvious that a toy train on a track is not rotating about the train’s axis/COG. If it could rotate, it would derail the train.
Are you aware that there are giant turntables for turning locomotives at the end of a track, so they can face in the other direction? The action of the locomotive on the turntable is rotation and the train needs to rotate through 360 degrees to point in the opposite direction.
On the other hand, if a locomotive changes direction by following a U-shaped track, so it is pointed in the opposite direction, it is not rotating about it axis/COG. It is TRANSLATING around a curve while changing its orientation, imposed by the track. In other words, the change in orientation is a property of the U-shaped track.
That is where you spinners are so confused.
A turntable rotates the rail under the locomotive with the locomotive sitting on the rotating track. That is not translation, the locomotive is not moving along the track. It is rotation, however, since the locomotive, sitting on the rail, is rotating about its COG.
If I was standing on a wheel of some sort, and the wheel was turned through 360 degrees, I would rotate through 360 degrees about my axis/COG with the wheel. However, if I walked around a circular track I would be translating without rotating about my axis/COG.
It is impossible to rotate one’s body through 360 degrees while walking without facing backward 1/2 way through the rotation. Walking around a circular track does not require such rotation since the body changes orientation naturally while circling the track.
A change of orientation is not rotation about an axis only in the accelerated frame of the object, Gordon.
It’s obvious that a toy train (or person) on a track is not rotating about the train’s axis/COG more or less than once per rev. or one 360 degree reorientation per rev. as you wrote “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.” If the train could rotate more or less than one 360 per rev., it would derail the train.
DREMT’s argument to the contrary has been repeatedly shown to be wrong by informed, critical commenters throughout these comments.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Willard was right, DREMT wrong as usual:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-831914
DREMT and Gordon have both agreed: “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.”
just like:
our moon’s orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.
The argument remains long settled in the spinners favor since the non-spinners always state observations from an accelerated frame.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Here’s where Kiddo is proven wrong:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-833590
Willard, please stop trolling.
It’s all down to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrFYtA3uoMQ
bob, please stop trolling.
I just noticed RLH wrote –
“If you don’t believe that the Moon falls freely towards the Earth, with only the force of gravity acting upon it
It may well fall freely towards Earth but it also has a considerable orbital velocity. That is why it is called an orbit.”
It may well? It does – no doubt about it. Unfortunately, RLH does not accept that the Moon’s orbit results from the force of gravity acting on a body which obeys Newton’s First Law of Motion. Neither RLH nor some others will agree with this, but Newton’s Laws pertaining to the Moon have not been disproved to date.
“Orbital velocity” is a consequence, not a cause. Nothing is “pushing” the Moon around its orbit. The concept is as mistaken as climate crackpots claiming that climate causes weather!
Maybe RLH can come up with some facts to support his fantasy.
Eviniz veya işiniz için Microsoft ürün ve hizmetlerini keşfedin. Microsoft 365, Microsoft Xbox, Windows, Azure ve daha fazlasını satın alın.
Spor TV Kullanımı TV blmne girişler, kullanımı atlantisbahis ve daha pek ok mevzu ile alakalı da tabi ki soru işaretleri oluşabiliyor.
Kimse bu tr sitelerde yer alan canlı TV derhal bir ma izlerken onwin donma ya da takılma tarzında aksilikler ile karşılaşmak istemez.
Spor uzun yıllardır ye sayısıyla ganobet ve kaliteli hizmetiyle kullanılmakta belirleme edilen bir haber sitesidir.
Mşteri hizmetlerine ana sayfanın alt kısmındaki canlı destek hattı sahabet zerinden erişim sağlamanız mmkndr.
Thanks for sharing this article on Michael's customer satisfaction survey. I have gained a lot from reading this article you posted. Thanks again.