UAH Global Temperature Update for September, 2021: +0.25 deg. C

October 1st, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2021 was +0.25 deg. C, up from the August, 2021 value of +0.17 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 is +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 21 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 
2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.41 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 0.28 0.53 0.81 -0.96 -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 0.83 -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 0.26 0.26
2020 08 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.25
2020 09 0.40 0.41 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 0.22 -0.07 0.29 0.43 0.13
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.49 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 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
2021 08 0.17 0.26 0.08 0.07 0.33 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for September, 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


2,416 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for September, 2021: +0.25 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Tim S says:

    It appears that the running centered 13-month average was not updated since June.

  2. argusmanargus says:

    So basically .5 or .6 Celsius increase the last 42 years.

    • Entropic man says:

      Yes.

      https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2022/every/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2022/trend

      Linear trend from anomaly -0.4C to 0.2C.

      0.6C in 42 years or 0.14C/decade.

      • RLH says:

        “Linear trend from anomaly -0.4C to 0.2C”

        Why would a straight OLS line over a limited period tell you anything about the future or the past before it started?

        https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-1.jpeg

        Is a much netter picture of the large physical mechanism and how it has responded over the last 42 years that is Earth’s climate I think.

        • m d mill says:

          RLH:
          I agree with you. Your reasonable averaging indicates about .5C increase over 42 years which is an average of .12C/decade,or 1.2C/century.

      • barry says:

        “Why would a straight OLS line over a limited period tell you anything about the future or the past before it started?”

        Why would somebody introduce concepts as if they had been talked about/assumed when they hadn’t?

    • Clint R says:

      It can be misleading because the satellite records started near the end of a cooling trend.

      A 25-30 year warming trend followed, and it now appears we may be headed back into a cooling trend.

      • studentb says:

        Yeah.
        Sure.
        Just like it started to cool after the sun went down last night. We must be in a cooling trend.

        • Clint R says:

          Sun setting is a fairly good example of a cooling trend. Although a very short trend, at least we know its all natural.

          Some think 2016 was the peak of the warming. If so, well get to see how long the next cooling trend lasts.

        • Swenson says:

          s,

          Or just like it has cooled over the longest possible period – since the Earth was created.

          Cherry pick a shorter period if the long term drop in temperature doesn’t suit you.

          I will understand,

        • RLH says:

          We’re well into Autumn in the Northern Hemisphere and that has an even larger cooling effect that Day/Night does.

          Mind you that means it is Spring in the Southern Hemisphere and that has an opposite warming effect.

          Same as day on one side of the planet is night on the other.

          So, overall, it is a wash.

  3. TheFinalNail says:

    We don’t say it often enough: thanks again to Dr Spencer for making these updates available here so promptly every month. Much appreciated.

  4. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    With the most-thoroughly-discussed topic there has ever been on this blog now settled in the “Non-Spinners” favor, perhaps we can finally get back to discussing “AGW”, if that’s still even a thing? Not sure if anybody believes in that thoroughly debunked nonsense any more.

    • Entropic man says:

      “The first principle is that you must not cool yourself…and YOU are the easiest person to fool.”

      Richard Feynmann

      You have fooled yourself into believing that the Moon does not spin and that AGW is not happening. Both beliefs have been thoroughly debunked, but cognitive dissonance blinds you to the evidence.

      • Clint R says:

        Ent, exactly how did you “thoroughly debunk” those things?

        You’ve got NOTHING.

        Is the ball-on-a-string rotating about its axis?

        Does more CO2 mean more energy emitted to space?

        You may have already forgotten, but you have a poor understanding of science.

        • gbaikie says:

          Well, other than our ocean is cold and we in ice age, because our ocean is cold {and related to that why did Little Ice Age cool or why has Holocene apparently past it’s peak interglacial average temperature}.
          Other than that, why does Earth absorb so much energy.
          Though one ask why does Earth emit so much energy- but if didn’t absorb so much energy, and it was somewhere close the equilibrium temperature {which everyone assumes it is} then if didn’t absorb as much as it does, it wouldn’t emit as much as it does.

          Related to this, is that Venus absorbs small amount of the Sun’s energy?

          In terms of big picture, I have said, and will say again, the reason Earth absorbs a lot sunlight is because 80% of the tropical zone is ocean. And Ocean absorbs a lot more than Land.

          In terms of Venus, Venus clouds absorb most of the energy of the sun, and any kind clouds, don’t absorb much sunlight.
          I would say venus clouds absorb more sunlight, than Earth’s H20 clouds. Though you could say our cloud reflect more sunlight than Acid clouds. But would not say that reflection is not “all of the story”. Or it is obvious that water cloud are bright to visible light {but also black to more half of the energy of sunlight}.

        • Norman says:

          Clint R

          YOU: “Does more CO2 mean more energy emitted to space?”

          Most certainly NOT!

          http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

          With Standard Atmosphere looking down if you put the CO2 level to 0 you will get 295.976 W/m2 leaving the Earth system. If you put 400 in the CO2 box the value of outgoing IR (with surface temperature of 288.2 K) drops significantly to 267.842 W/m2.

          If you double that it goes down some more to 264.859 W/m2.

          So if the Earth surface temperature remains the same increasing CO2 reduces the energy emitted to space.

          • Swenson says:

            N,

            You wrote –

            “So if the Earth surface temperature remains the same increasing CO2 reduces the energy emitted to space.”

            Don’t be so dim. Two things – the Earth’s surface temperature at any location constantly changes, and CO2 does not reduce the energy emitted to space.

            You may not realise it, but the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.

            So the Earth’s surface temperature has fallen, and the Earth’s surface temperature has fallen. You are obviously confused about the factthat when thermometers are exposed to sufficient radiation of appropriate energy levels, they indicate higher temperatures!

            Do you really want to argue with reality? Go your hardest – the sound you hear will be Nature laughing at you.

          • Norman says:

            Swenson

            I do not argue with Nature I just observe your thinking is less than what a brick wall generates.

            You bring up the stupid point that the Earth surface was at one time molten and now is not so it has cooled from that state.

            Yes, so? It cools rapidly for a time then it stops cooling and reaches a steady state temperature with solar input and GHE.

            You have molten rock pouring out of a few volcanoes at this time. The rock rapidly cools but does it just keep cooling? NO, it reaches an steady state temperature with its surroundings and quits cooling.

            I am certain you possess zero thinking ability and show no signs of logical progression.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, did you find another link you can’t understand?

            No wonder you get so frustrated….

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            The link is well understood by those who know physics so count yourself out. I am not “frustrated” just amazed at how stupid and arrogant you are. I have met many people. Stupid people usually have some humility and realize they are not at genius level. One can educate the humble. You are incredibly stupid, can’t think logically but totally arrogant and confident in your ignorance.

            You remind me of a naked person walking around with a terd hanging out of their butt and being proud of it, not ever attempting to wipe it away.

            Do not think “frustration” when I respond to your stupid posts. It is more amazement each time you post that you really are totally stupid and maximum arrogant and confident. A rare combo only possible by Internet. I think your mind type may be very rare (thankfully).

          • Swenson says:

            N,

            You wrote –

            “You bring up the stupid point that the Earth surface was at one time molten and now is not so it has cooled from that state.”

            You haven’t disagreed with the fact, though, have you?

            The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. No GHE needed, is there?

            You can’t help yourself – rejecting reality in favour of a fantasy.

            Just as delusional as people like Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, and all the rest of the climate nutters. Carry on with your strange diatribes. Have you observed the GHE at night yet? Or can it only be seen in bright sunlight?

          • PhilJ says:

            Hi Norman,

            ” The rock rapidly cools but does it just keep cooling? NO, it reaches an steady state temperature with its surroundings and quits cooling.”

            In fact it MUST keep cooling. The second law of thermodynamics requires it to cool to the colder atmosphere and space above it…

            As for global temps… anyone looking for a big cooling is likely to be disappointed as there has been no significant recovery in the ozone layer this year.. (heating will occur wherever that uvb is absorbed ; ) )

            ciao!

          • Jim Gorman says:

            Norman

            “So if the Earth surface temperature remains the same increasing CO2 reduces the energy emitted to space”

            You are ignoring a lot of factors. More clouds for one. Water vapors latent heat is tremendous. Do you think the latent heat released thru precipitation must also go through CO2? Do you think thermometers capture this latent energy?

      • RFHirsch says:

        “you must not cool yourself”: Very true. Cool weather kills far more people than warm or hot weather.
        By the way, I doubt that ANYONE who reads this blog “believes” that AGW is NOT happening. We look at the information provided by Dr Spencer and the chart and recognize the rate of about 1.4 degrees per century warming since 1979.

        • Swenson says:

          R,

          Belief is irrelevant. However, given that between 1900, say, and 2021, global human energy use has increased by a factor of 70 or more, as both population and per capita energy use have increased markedly over that period.

          All energy used, from whatever source, is eventually converted to heat of such wavelengths as can not readily utilised to perform work, and is subsequently lost to outer space.

          Of course, thermometers respond to radiation emitted at higher temperatures than that of the thermometer as – higher temperatures!

          Nothing to do with GHGs or the mythical GHE. Just basic thermodynamics.

          The Earth, overall, has of course cooled from the original molten state, and I haven’t seen any serious suggestions that CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a return to its initial condition.

    • Willard says:

      That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:

      WAITING FOR GODOT ON THE MOON

      [K] If the cannonball does indeed rotate about an external axis

      [T] But it does not rotate about that axis

      [K] Why does the torque about the external axis not cause the cannonball to rotate about the external axis?

      [T] Because that is not how torques work!

      [K] So torques do not lead to rotation?

      [T] You are getting there. A torque (as calculated about a specific axis) applied to an object leads to a change in angular momentum (as measured about that same axis). This may or may not lead to rotation about that axis.

      [K] And gravity is not rigid enough a connection for you?

      [T] Absolutely NOT rigid enough! Were gravity “rigid”, it would be impossible for a moon to get further from or closer to its planet, it would be impossible for a moon to do anything besides face its planet.

      [K] It only needs to be rigid enough that the torque about the external axis results in rotation about the external axis

      [T] But it is NOT EVEN THAT RIGID! There are just not enough ways to tell you this. Can you jump? Gravity does not hold you rigidly at a specific distance from the center of the earth. Can you do a somersault? Gravity does not hold you rigidly in a specific orientation relative to the center of the earth.

      [K] Gravity just connects the cannonball to the center of the Earth. Not rigidly, but rigidly enough.

      [T] it would be fascinating to hear your mathematical definition of “rigid enough”. How you you calculate “rigidness” and what value constitutes “rigid enough”?

      [K] Think what you want. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL.

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-879002

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Yeah, Willard, nobody’s going to understand that when you’ve left out most of the context and half of what was said during the discussion.

        • Willard says:

          That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.

          Everybody will understand that you’re wrong.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Why? Explain in your own words.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I knew he wouldn’t be able to pinpoint any errors.

            The actual context for the discussion was a setup similar to Newton’s Cannonball, but where the cannonball is launched without spin, and thus continues to orbit without spin, the bottom of the cannonball always facing towards the Earth whilst it does so.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball

            Tim recently admitted that the force from the cannon would produce a torque about the external axis (the axis located at the center of the Earth). With rotation occurring about the external axis, but nothing to produce a torque about the ball’s own internal axis, then the cannonball would move as per 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

            Tim tried to argue that the cannonball would need to be rigidly attached for rotation about an external axis to occur. However, a string is not “rigid”, but a ball on a string still moves like the “moon on the left”. Gravity is the “string”. All it needs to do is connect the cannonball to the center of the Earth. It does not need to be a rigid attachment.

          • RLH says:

            “Tim recently admitted that the force from the cannon would produce a torque about the external axis” whilst it was physically connected.

            As soon as that physical connection was lost, it turned into rotation about its own axis as science dictates.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            RLH demonstrates his confusion over what is being discussed.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Tim recently admitted that the force from the cannon would produce a torque about the external axis “

            That is not an “admission” nor is it “recent”. That is the definition of “torque”.
            torque = r x F (vectors)
            or
            torque = rF sin(theta) (scalars)

            There is a force. there is a radius. They are not parallel. So there is a torque.

            Every force provides torque about an infinite number of axes. That is a completely different question than if there will be “rotation” about any of those axes. IN this case, the cannon ball comes out with no spin relative to the ‘fixed stars’. And it will continue with “no spin relative to the fixed stars” unless some NEW torque acts on the cannon ball.

            A string could provide such a torque. A rod could provide such a torque. A MGR platform could provide such a torque. A road could provide such a torque. Train tracks could provide such a torque. But not gravity.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The force from the cannon provides the torque, Tim. Gravity is not providing a torque about either the external or internal axis. Gravity is just connecting the cannonball to the center of the Earth, like the string that connects the ball to the external axis it rotates around.

          • RLH says:

            DREMT demonstrates his confusion over everything.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Push a tetherball from the side and the ball rotates about the central post, not on its own axis. Pretty straightforward.

          • RLH says:

            The string is connected to the surface of the ball, not the center.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Gravity is just connecting the cannonball to the center of the Earth, like the string that connects the ball to the external axis it rotates around.”

            No. Gravity is NOT ‘just like’ a ball on a string. A string attaches to the close side of the ball. it can provide a torque about the COM of the ball. Gravity cannot. This simple but fundamental fact is critical to understanding this whole issue.

            The closer analogy is that gravity is like a string on a yoyo — free to rotate with no friction.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            What you are forgetting is that we do not need a torque about the ball’s internal axis for the cannonball to move as per the “moon on the left”. All we need is a torque about the external axis. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the “moon on the left”. So your point about the attachment point of the string on the tetherball falls flat on its face.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            What you are forgetting is that your explanation is wrong. You can’t see it because you lack any deep understanding of physics. But you simply are wrong. Tour appeal to your own authority for answers does not carry any weight.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            We will include “appeal to authority” under the list of things that Tim does not understand.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument.”

            DREMT claims his arguments are correct because he says they are correct.

            And actually it is closer to a related fallacy: Begging the Question. “The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.”

            Because ‘orbiting without rotation’ is what our moon is doing, we know that orbiting without rotation means always facing the earth.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim, that is completely ridiculous.

            "DREMT claims his arguments are correct because he says they are correct."

            Absolutely not. I just make the arguments. Whether they are correct or not depends on the validity of the arguments. I have never claimed they are correct "because I say they are".

            "Because ‘orbiting without rotation’ is what our moon is doing, we know that orbiting without rotation means always facing the earth."

            Tim, I have never argued that. A total straw man.

          • Willard says:

            > Whether they are correct or not depends on the validity of the arguments.

            That’s where Kiddo is wrong once again:

            The argument could be incorrect because its premises are unsound, and empirical sciences are not about making valid inferences (they’re mostly ampliative) but good enough to determine the best explanation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I have never claimed they are correct "because I say they are".

          • Willard says:

            Arguing by assertion works a lot like an appeal to authority, Kiddo.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sometimes I make statements about things that have been established during previous discussions or that have been supported countless times before, and I do not bother to repeat all the arguments surrounding it or to provide the support again. That is not an argument by assertion, that is just me not being bothered to go through the motions of providing all the supporting arguments or links every single time. It becomes tiresome.

          • Willard says:

            > Sometimes I make statements about things that have been established

            See, Kiddo?

            That’s begging the question.

            It’s also handwaving.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, Willard. I acknowledge receipt of your opinion.

          • RLH says:

            OK DREMT. I acknowledge the fact that you are wrong. Always. About everything.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, RLH. I acknowledge receipt of your opinion.

          • RLH says:

            OK DREMT. I acknowledge the fact that you are wrong.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, RLH. I acknowledge your belief that your opinions are facts.

      • Ken says:

        *sigh*

        Boredom is the theme.

    • Nate says:

      DREMT has every right to think differently than the universe.

    • Norman says:

      DREMT

      Well you managed to ignite the flames once again. Moon rotation has been discussed quite enough! NASA confirms the Moon rotates and uses it when they need to land on the Moon in the correct location. Enough said. You and idiot Clint R are not in charge of anything of value so your stupid endless opinions on the matter amount to nothing. Believe what you want to, it changes nothing and just makes you look like an ignorant and stubborn person. In the 10,000 plus posts on the issue that is the end result. You are ignorant and stubborn. Nothing else of value has come out of these thousands upon thousands of posts on that issue. Hope last post it would have ended but you seem to want it to continue endlessly. Why is that?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        I had no intention of discussing it further, but others just cannot leave it alone. As I said, I would like to move the discussion back onto AGW, now that the moon debate is settled in our favor.

      • Clint R says:

        Poor Norman. He’s having another bad-hair-day.

        He’s so frustrated because all of his childish beliefs are being shattered. He no longer gets to make things up. Every time he tries his nonsense, he gets caught.

        • Norman says:

          Clint R

          You are very stupid. I do not have the childish beliefs that haunt your mind. I like facts and evidence. You like making up stupid points, illogical thought problems and you love a ball on a string like maybe a little boy would be fascinated by.

          Your mind is so simple it can’t grasp the radiant heat transfer equation. You can’t understand fluxes do add and subtract from a surface. You can test it easily but are either too stupid to set up a test or lazy. Probably both.

          You can have one heat lamp pointed at a plate and turn it on. Measure the steady state temperature. Now turn on another heat lamp and see if it gets warmer.

          Also fluxes subtract. Turn the lights off and the plate cools because energy is being lost (subtracted) from the plate by a flux.

          Flux is no more magic than hoses of water filling a tank and open drains. They can be different sizes and shapes it all works out the same.

          The flux of the plate is how much energy per time it gains or loses similar to gallons per minute. A quantity of energy lost or gained in a time frame. W/m^2. The size of the plate does not change so the joules/second can be added or subtracted.

          I am certain you are too dumb to understand any of this.

          Maybe only Swenson is dumber than you.

          • Swenson says:

            N,

            The “flux of the plate”? You are off with the fairies again, laddie.

            Stop avoiding reality.

            Tell me where the GHE may be observed, measured, and documented. If you can’t, you are just another climate crackpot, desperately seeking to be recognised as rational and intelligent.

            Maybe too much flux has penetrated your skull, causing some to conclude you are fluxed in the head!

            But carry on regardless. If you don’t accept reality – create your own. Just define things as you want them to be – slow cooling is really heating, climate is not the average of weather, and so on.

            Have fun.

          • Norman says:

            Swenson

            I have already shown you where GHE can be observed and measured. You are too stupid to understand it and will continue to wallow in your pool of idiot mud smearing it all over your posts.

            On the previous thread I explained it to you. Just like Clint R or Gordon Robertson you do not possess enough intelligence to comprehend what is explained to you so you continue posting arrogant, but ignorant comments devoid of any value.

            Like you say, carry on regardless.

          • Clint R says:

            As usual Norman, you’re completely wrong. At least you’re consistent!

            The ball-on-a-string is a suitable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It’s even used by your cult, as I’ve linked to. You reject that reality because it destroys your cult beliefs.

            And you can’t understand the invalid equation is invalid. You can’t find the temperature of the outer sphere. That should tell you the equation is invalid. But you reject that reality because it destroys your cult beliefs.

            You completely miss the point with your heat lamps. Two heat lamps can NOT raise the temperature above the temperature of the hottest filament. The maximum fluxes from both lamps do NOT add.

            And turning off one lamp is NOT an example of fluxes subtracting. You need to heat some object, with one heat lamp on each side and show the object will not warm because the fluxes subtract! (Save yourself the effort, it won’t work!)

            Your effort to compare flux to water merely indicates you don’t understand flux.

            No wonder you get so frustrated and angry. You don’t understand any of this.

          • RLH says:

            The ball-on-a-string is a suitable model of a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else.

          • Clint R says:

            The ball-on-a-string model gives the cult idiots nightmares.

            That’s why RLH obsessively trolls, trying to ignore the reality that his own cult uses the model.

          • RLH says:

            The ball-on-a-string ‘model’ is not relevant to orbital mechanics.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Clint R proved that it was. You are in denial.

          • RLH says:

            No he didn’t so you are wrong.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            He provided links to sources that you would otherwise listen to that included a ball on a string in their discussion of orbital mechanics.

          • RLH says:

            Anything that uses a connection to a surface to describe gravity is incorrect.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The connection is irrelevant when it comes to the ball on a string, as explained up-thread.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            You keep making a stupid point but have no explanation.

            You believe an equation designed to calculate heat loss by radiant energy from a hot object should (for reasons known only to you) should allow you to determine the temperature of a sphere surrounding it. Why do you think this equation should do this? You make declarative statements but offer no explanation of why you are so sure you are correct.

            The equation Q=(sigma)(emissivity of object)(T^4 (hot object) – T^4(cold object).

            It is designed to determine how much heat is lost by the hot object by radiant means. Why do you insist it has to do more, it does what it is designed to do quite well. Why is it invalid if it does what it is supposed to do? You never provide answers. You just make mindless declarations and tell people they are wrong.

            That is quite a stupid process!

            You Method. Make some declaration. Never elaborate. And call people perverted, cult minded, idiot, etc… Not sure what that is about.

          • RLH says:

            “The connection is irrelevant when it comes to the ball on a string”

            1) Is the string connected to a surface. YES.
            2) Is gravity connected to a surface. NO.
            3) Is the string virtually connected to a center. NO.
            4) Is gravity virtually connected to a center. YES.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The string only acts through the center of mass of the ball. There is no need for the string to apply a torque about the ball’s own internal axis. The only torque that needs to be applied to the system is about the external axis. That comes from the force applied to the ball perpendicular to the string, to initiate the rotation about an external axis. The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis and not about an internal axis.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            “That comes from the force applied to the ball perpendicular to the string, to initiate the rotation about an external axis.”

            Sorry DR EMPTY, but no such force exists.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It does when you push the ball to start it swinging, bob.

          • RLH says:

            “The string only acts through the center of mass of the ball”

            The string is attached to the surface. The extension of the line between the internal axis of the whole body is through the center of the ball.

            The force the string exerts is therefore applied to the surface of the ball and then, via a lever, to the center of the ball. This is not the center of the whole body that the ball-on-a-string is part of though.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Since you don’t think the ball on a string rotates on its own axis (an internal axis, going through the ball itself), one wonders what your point is.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY<

            "It does when you push the ball to start it swinging, bob."

            Really, you have to push the ball to start it swinging?

            You are stupider than even I thought.

            You pull on the string to start the ball swinging, you don't have to touch the ball.

            What a moron!

            If it is a "model" of the Moon, there can be only one force on the ball on a string.

            The pull on the string to model the pull on the Moon due to gravity.

          • RLH says:

            The fact that a ball-on-a-string rotates about an axis that is fully contained with the whole object that it is part of seems to have escaped you.

            If it was in orbit then 2 axis exist. One it is orbiting around. The other an axis at its center. Motion about both axis is independent.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I am talking about a tetherball, bob. You push the ball to start it swinging.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMTPY,

            No you are not, you are talking about the ball on a string

            “The string only acts through the center of mass of the ball. There is no need for the string to apply a torque about the ball’s own internal axis. The only torque that needs to be applied to the system is about the external axis. That comes from the force applied to the ball perpendicular to the string, to initiate the rotation about an external axis. The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis and not about an internal axis.”

            No mention of a tetherball there.

            What would I expect from a liar?

          • RLH says:

            “The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis and not about an internal axis”

            External to the part, not the whole.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Keep making irrelevant distinctions that change nothing, RLH.

          • RLH says:

            You saying now that internal or external axis are irrelevant?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I am saying that we agree the axis the ball rotates about is external to the ball. It does not matter if you want to group the ball and string together and call it one single object.

          • RLH says:

            Ball, string and pivot are indeed one object. So there is no ‘external’ axis at all.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The axis of rotation is external to the ball. No matter how you want to dress it up.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            That wasn’t in the sub thread I was responding to.

            You won’t get any apology from me.

            Or maybe this one will have to do.

            I am sorry you suck at physics, math, and all other sciences.

            And still the Moon rotates on its axis, as well as the ball on a string, your my little pony and the chalk circle on the merry go round.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            RLH and others would disagree with you on the last three, bob.

            You will never have the integrity to debate that with them, though.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            If any one wants to debate me on the last three elements, they can look at my proofs that all three things are rotating on their axes.

            Or they can do like you and ignore those proofs.

            You haven’t provided any feedback that would indicate you even understand what a proof is.

            It’s not about my integrity, it’s whether or not you understand the science.

            And you are a known liar, so you have no integrity.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bob, you are beyond help.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            That’s not a criticism of my proofs that the Moon rotates, your little pony rotates, your precious chalk circle rotates and the ball on a string rotates, all on their own axes through the body of the object in question.

            To win you have to play, you are running away and refusing to participate in any meaningful way.

            That means you lose again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I am talking about the ball on a string, the wooden horse on a merry-go-round and the chalk circle on the merry-go-round, Willard. I am not talking about the moon.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            “I am talking about the ball on a string, the wooden horse on a merry-go-round and the chalk circle on the merry-go-round, Willard. I am not talking about the moon.”

            So, and you are showing a graph that shows an object rotating on two separate axes.

            Sorry you lose again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, bob. As clearly indicated, it is rotating only about point O. One single motion.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            Please explain how the green blob has changed orientation with out rotating.

            P.S. You can’t, it’s impossible.

            You lose again, over and over, crimson and clover.

          • Willard says:

            > I am talking about the ball on a string

            You’re actually talking about the concept of rotation, Kiddo.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bob can’t even understand a simple diagram.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo still does not get Bob’s argument.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            There is nobody here commenting by the name “Kiddo”, Willard.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo enjoys stating irrelevant facts, that’s for sure.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You are on ignore until you call me DREMT, Willard.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            There are equations to model the ball on a string or your diagram.

            An object moving in a circle, you use x^2 + y^2 = a^2

            For the direction the object is pointing use a trig function cos t, using t for time, though pointing inward you would use – cos t

            I’ll let you figure out if that is clockwise or counterclockwise.

            If you can handle it.

            So we have two equations to model two different things, revolving and rotating.

            So you are proven wrong yet again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            As clearly indicated, the object in the diagram is rotating only about point O. One single motion.

    • Robert Ingersol says:

      “Not sure if anybody believes in that thoroughly debunked nonsense any more.”

      Really? Seems like it is a bigger issue than every, what with the brutal heat in the West this year, and the brutal flooding in the East this year and the warmest summer ever in the US this year. And last year tying for warmest year on record globally.

      Yeah, I don’t think you need to worry about AGW dying out as an issue any time soon.

      • Clint R says:

        When we talk about the AGW issue dying out, it’s in relation to sane people. We know that the braindead cult idiots will cling to the failed science forever. We’ve seen evidence with every cold snap. They always claim the cold is due to AGW!

        If sea ice melts, it’s due to AGW. If sea ice refreezes, it’s due to AGW.

        We’ve seen it all before.

      • Ken says:

        AGW is a dead horse. Stop flogging it.

        The only people who say otherwise have their brains blotted out by thoughts of blah blah blah.

      • Swenson says:

        RI,

        And of course the brutal cold in Antarctica or other really cold places.

        Climate crackpots claim this is due to excessive CO2 in the atmosphere or something.

        It seems odd that Antarctica used to be home to abundant flora and fauna – before they were exterminated by the coming of the ice.

    • ftop_t says:

      Speaking of the AGW charade. Among the numerous absurd studies from the many infamous “climate science” charlatans, this attempt to explain how an increase from 7 to 8 CO2 molecules per 20,000 air molecules (50ppm) heats the ocean remains my favorite:

      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351

      I especially like the admission that the phenomenon can’t be measured:

      “The total calculated volume mean warming is 0.09°C indicating an average change in the surface fluxes of 0.39 W m−2 for the 1955–2010 period over the World Ocean. Such small changes in the average atmospheric infrared (IR) emission incident at the sea surface occurring over decades are not feasible to measure with currently available instruments.

      And the acknowledgement that a 1.5 meter per second change in wind speed dwarfs any potential effect of LWIR on ocean surface temps

      “This suggests that as winds increase from 2 to 3.5 m s−1, wind effects start eroding and thinning the TSL through increased levels of turbulence below. For wind speeds below 2 m s−1, the TSL is thicker. This also shows that in order to remove the effect of winds for our analysis, there is a need to focus on data with wind speeds of less than 2 m s−1.”

      This Null Hypothesis paper demonstrates that AGW disappears in a 0.2 mph wind (0.1 meters per second).

      http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf

      “Global estimates of ocean evaporation rates show that
      between 1977 and 2003 the global ocean evaporation rate has increased from 103 to 114 cm.yr-1 with an uncertainty of ±2.72 cm.yr-1.

      This was caused by a 0.1 m.s-1 increase in average wind speed. The ‘clear sky’ upper limit for the CO2 induced increase in evaporation is below the measurement uncertainty bounds. Long term averages of surface air temperatures are ~2 C below the corresponding ocean surface temperatures. This means that there is usually no direct heating of the ocean by the atmosphere, as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
      The latent heat of evaporation is not released until the water condenses, which is generally at an altitude above 1 km. It is therefore impossible for an increase in downward atmospheric LWIR flux of 1.7 W.m-2 to heat the ocean. The increase in flux is converted by the ocean surface into an insignificant change in evaporation rate. This is buried in the noise of wind induced fluctuations in evaporation and changes in LWIR flux caused by variations in aerosols, clouds and near surface humidity.”

    • RLH says:

      “With the most-thoroughly-discussed topic there has ever been on this blog now settled in the Non-Spinners favor”

      In your dreams. You and your tiny, tiny clique have been soundedly defeated in everything you have said.

    • barry says:

      I remember DREMT insisting that he/she is not the one to restart the endless moon spin conversation in each new article.

      The self-delusion is strong in this one.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        If you believe it would not restart without me, you are the delusional one.

      • barry says:

        You’ve also admitted that you troll people because you like the reaction.

        It makes it even slimier when you pretend to be anything other than a troll, but maybe that’s the way you like it.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          “You’ve also admitted that you troll people because you like the reaction.”

          No barry, I have never said such a thing. If deeply unpleasant sociopaths get upset because their beliefs clash with reality, then of course there can be a mild sense of satisfaction in that. When bad people, such as yourself, who have devoted their entire lives to lying on the internet about the relentlessly falsified GHE sub-conjecture, get proven wrong by their intellectual and moral superiors, it can be enjoyable. But I would never get any pleasure from irritating honest, rational human beings.

        • barry says:

          Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          I write “please stop trolling” because:

          1) It amuses me (especially how seriously people like you seem to take it).

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2019-0-46-deg-c/#comment-403482

          Yep, you provoke people, “especially” because of the reaction it inspires.

          That is the definition of an internet troll.

          Own it. It’s less slimy than being a troll and denying it.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “People like you”, barry. As I said, I would never get any pleasure from irritating honest, rational human beings.

          • Nate says:

            So by DREMT rules: trolling is perfectly ok as long as you are trolling terrible sociopaths.

            How does he identify such people? Anyone who disagrees with his ‘reality’ are, by definition, terrible sociopaths.

            Of course that makes most astronomers and physicists terrible sociopaths.

        • Nate says:

          Sure. He clearly admits he is here to troll, but rationalizes it.

          He declares a ‘right to think differently’.

          But people who ‘think differently’ than him are sociopaths whose beliefs clash with his ‘reality’.

          Such people deserve to be trolled.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Last word on the sub-thread.

    • PhilJ says:

      Hi ren,

      Yes, no significant recovery in the ozone layer this year, so I suspect global avg temps to remain relatively stable for now..

      (temps rise where the solar radiation is absorbed!!)

  5. Eben says:

    Solar update – preliminary

    The wrong SC25 start date has been moved back by 6 months to correct for the miss shifted data, the original prediction remains plotted in light-blue

    https://i.postimg.cc/W389xZ1c/30cycle25.png

    This will be a big surprise for Bindiclowndon who keeps posting his misaligned chart as some kind of proof of higher solar cycle

  6. DocSiders says:

    From my humble point of observation… the cannon ball is perfectly stable, and the whole universe is seen to be whipping all over the place around the srationary ball.

  7. ren says:

    The Great Barrier Reef may still be doing very well, thanks to increased upwelling in the Nio 4 area.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
    This area is also seeing the impact of increased easterly winds during the increase in geomagnetic activity. I predict further declines due to another jump in solar wind speed. Temperatures will drop even more in November as sea ice begins to melt in the south of Pacific.

  8. studentb says:

    Yeah.
    Sure.
    Just like it started to cool after the sun went down last night. We must be in a cooling trend.

    • RLH says:

      Is that in the Northern or Southern hemisphere and who are you to determine when and where dawn/dust is?

    • barry says:

      Yeah, studentb. You have to stop insisting that the sun went down last night. Who are you to say that the sun goes down in the evening or any other time?

      It confuses RLH, who seems to miss the sarcasm every time.

  9. Captain Climate says:

    Interesting to see that the biggest warming was the land near the north pole +1.08C, and the Lower 48 were only +0.33C above the average. Big f-ing whoop. This climate alarmism is a total joke.

  10. Roland F Hirsch says:

    “Brutal Heat”. It was totally unrelated to climate change.
    “Society needs accurate information in order to make crucial environmental decisions. Unfortunately, there has been a substantial amount of miscommunication and unscientific handwaving about the recent Northwest heatwave, and this blog post uses rigorous science to set the record straight. First, the specific ingredients that led to the heatwave are discussed, including a high-amplitude ridge of high pressure and an approaching low-pressure area that supercharged the warming. Second, it is shown that global warming only contributed a small about (1-2F) of the 30-40F heatwave and that proposed global warming amplification mechanisms (e.g., droughts, enhanced ridging/high pressure) cannot explain the severe heat event. It is shown that high-resolution climate models do not produce more extreme high temperatures under the modest global warming of the past several decades and that global warming may even work against extreme warming in our region. Importantly, this blog demonstrates that there is no trend towards more high-temperature records. Finally, the communication of exaggerated and unfounded claims by the media, some politicians, and several activists are discussed.”
    https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/was-global-warming-cause-of-great.html

  11. Ricardl says:

    It was a hot month, but it seems that 2020 was hotter than this year, right?

  12. DT ist unerheblich geworden says:

    In other news, there is no early evidence that solar cycle 25 is heading to Maunder levels, or even Dalton. In fact early indicators suggest it will be somewhat stronger than 24.

    Re sunspots, 22 60+ days so far in SC25, and only 1 to this point in SC24 with only 8 more to be added in the next 4 months. 13-month average about 20% higher so far than the same point last cycle.

    Not a massive increase, but the GSM proponents are predicting a massive drop, so way above their predictions. My early guess is that the maximum will be in the 120s, with little chance of going below 100 or above 150.

    • Ken says:

      The only people who got the projection for 24 anywhere close to right were the ones looking at historical cycles. 99% of the projections, similar to climate model projections, were profoundly wrong. I would suggest you retract any projections about 25 because you will end up looking very silly.

      • DT ist unerheblich geworden says:

        It is only an early guess. I am not worried about being way off. Interesting that you felt the need to jump in with such a negative tone instead of making a positive contribution.

        • Swenson says:

          D,

          Interesting in what way? Or are you just being “woke” for the sake of it?

          Why do adopt such a negative tone, instead of making a positive contribution?

          Tut, tut!

          • DT ist unerheblich geworden says:

            No idea what “woke” means, so I don’t know how to interpret your comment. Perhaps you could help me with that.

          • Swenson says:

            D,

            If you understand “woke”., then no explanation is necessary. If you don’t understand “woke”, then no explanation is possible. Maybe you could try looking it up, but I understand if you have no desire to cope with modern English vernacular.

            Having settled that, maybe you could respond to my other enquiries.

            Or not, as you wish. For all I know, you may be just another climate crank.

            Sorry about my previous typo – of course I meant to say “Why do you adopt such a negative tone, instead of making a positive contribution?”

          • DT ist unerheblich geworden says:

            That’s right, I have no real desire to learn modern kiddie (and I’m guessing Yank) slang, especially when you indicate its low relevance by putting it in quotes.

            But hey, if you choose to talk cryptically then that’s your right. I hope you don’t mind if I move on to someone who speaks proper English.

            Try to be happy – it’s not difficult.

          • Swenson says:

            D,

            I hope you can understand the following question –

            Why do you adopt such a negative tone, instead of making a positive contribution?

            Not interested in answering? Why am I not surprised?

            You might be one of those wimps who can give it but not take it.

          • DT ist unerheblich geworden says:

            There is no such tone in my comments.
            Hope that helps.

          • Swenson says:

            D,

            You would say that, wouldn’t you?

            Just another unsupported assertion. Typical of climate crackpots.

            Carry on guessing. Also typical of climate crackpots who call guesses “climate science”!

          • DT ist unerheblich geworden says:

            What’s it like always starting arguments and then forgetting why you were arguing?

          • Swenson says:

            D,

            How should I know?

            You tell me.

            [chortles]

          • DT ist unerheblich geworden says:

            Sorry, I can’t see into your head. But it’s interesting to note that you’ve convinced yourself that you weren’t the initial aggressor.

          • Swenson says:

            D,

            You wrote –

            “Sorry, I can’t see into your head. But it’s interesting to note that you’ve convinced yourself that you weren’t the initial aggressor.”

            I see. You can’t see into my head, but you can read my mind, can you? You should seek a refund from the swindler who sold you the mind-reading lessons,. They are worthless.

            Blathering about an “initial aggressor”! Just like some other fragile climate cranks who bleat about their “feelings” , and start whining about being “insulted”, or “offended”.

            I can’t figure out why I am supposed to care about the feelings of such precious souls.

            So pretend to read my mind, if you l8e. Or you could read what I write. Or not.

            Your choice.

          • DT ist unerheblich geworden says:

            The cry of someone who needs to scream out that he doesn’t care to drown out the fact that he cares enough to keep responding.

          • Swenson says:

            D wrote –

            “The cry of someone who needs to scream out that he doesnt care to drown out the fact that he cares enough to keep responding.”

            And anyone else is supposed to attach importance to your foolish opinion because . . . ?

            Others may choose to read my comment. They may take into consideration your silly attempts to put words in my mouth, rather than quoting my written words. They may even come to the conclusion that you are just another delusional climate crank, resorting to psychobabbling wokeism to avoid accepting reality.

            Go your hardest, dummy. Your “feelings” are of no concern to me. If you can’t control your emotions, don’t blame me. “Feel” what you like. Why should a stranger care about your “feelings”?

            Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up. Grow a pair. Toss a few new facts into the discussion, if you want.

            Or you could just whine about your hurt “feelings”, I suppose.

            [sniggering]

          • Nate says:

            As our troll-in-residence, Swenson knows only about negative tones.

        • Ken says:

          Climate models have resulted in massively expensive government policies. Those climate models would otherwise have long ago been proven scientifically false.

          The youtube is currently filled with financial geniuses projecting the imminent collapse of the US dollar and recommend you buy gold and silver. Being proved wrong daily only seems to encourage them.

          COVID models projected hundreds of millions of deaths and resulted in massive lockdowns and stripping of rights. We have never been so at risk of losing our liberties and might only get them back by shedding the blood of a legion of tyrants. Meanwhile the empirical data shows death rates equivalent to a bad flu season.

          Basically I am fed up with half wit prognosticators making up projections without any facts to back that up. At last count that includes you. I guess that makes me ‘negative’.

          • DT ist unerheblich geworden says:

            Indeed it does. Glad you agree.

            BTW – could you find me another 2-year period in the US in which there have been anywhere close to 700,000 deaths from the flu (not counting the Spanish flu – which should actually be called the US flu).

          • Norman says:

            Ken

            I believe you are exaggerating the actual model projections by a considerable degree.

            Here:
            https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6

            It was 2.2 million deaths in US if no measures were taken and 500,000 in UK. How this evolves to hundreds of millions is a mystery to me. Even early on the death rate was estimated to be about 1% of those infected.

            Do you have a source (other than for dramatic effect) of any Covid model that projected hundreds of millions of deaths?

          • Ken says:

            My bad. 2 million in population 370 million adds up to 40 million deaths out of 7 billion; not hundreds of millions. Still the Ferguson model has been way out of sync with the factual numbers.

            Apparently US deaths from COVID is 14% of global deaths even while population is 5% of global population: something not adding up.

            US data isn’t trustworthy: too many stories about deaths being reported as due to COVID where people died while sick with a respiratory illness that may or may not have been COVID even as the cause of death wasn’t COVID.

            The egregious example is of someone struck by a bus while sick with COVID being reported as a COVID death.

          • Swenson says:

            D,

            You wrote –

            “BTW could you find me another 2-year period in the US in which there have been anywhere close to 700,000 deaths from the flu (not counting the Spanish flu which should actually be called the US flu).”

            Yet another stupid gotcha, asking for a greater number, and disqualifying a known one because it answers your question in a manner you don’t like! Very cunning? Or stupid.

            By the way, if you believe that the Spanish flu should be called the US flu, why are you calling it the Spanish flu?

            Man up! Have the courage of your convictions! Who cares if nobody else knows what you are talking about – or why.

          • barry says:

            Ken,

            No, COVID deaths are VERY well corroborated.

            https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count

            The ‘excess deaths’ (deaths above the average) in 2020 exceed the official number of COVID deaths in the US.

            Even more striking, the spikes in excess deaths are contemporaneous with the spikes in COVID deaths. Amazing coincidence!

            This holds true for any country that has had a significant number of deaths attributed to COVID.

            IOW, there is no doubt COVID has killed so many people.

    • ren says:

      You can “play” with the propagation of such weak spots (no strong flares).
      https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/sunspot-regions.html
      There has been a change in the way spots are counted and this is apparent, but measurements of galactic radiation near the surface clearly show a weakening of the solar dipole.
      https://i.ibb.co/GQyPWCW/onlinequery.gif
      http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
      http://wso.stanford.edu/

    • McGee says:

      Interesting.

      I last tuned in to this issue circa 2007, and hadn’t paid much attention since. At that time, the profound slowdown of spot motion was thought to presage a lull.

      Now some thinking is for one of the strongest cycles:

      https://news.ucar.edu/132771/new-sunspot-cycle-could-be-one-strongest-record

      Of course, this would only further muddy the waters of greenhouse gas forcing.

      Also muddying is the fact that the best estimates of absorbed solar have increased so markedly over the CERES period of record:

      https://climateobs.substack.com/p/earth-radiance-trends

      • Eben says:

        You should pay more attention before you start posting your wisdom , that strongest cycle prediction was made by some so called scientists a year ago who got overexcited by one single big sun flare up that totally fizzled since.

        • McGee says:

          So, what do you think will happen?

          • Ken says:

            Someone will have predicted almost exactly the correct sunspot number. It will be attributed to dumb luck. Everyone else will be wrong.

            Solar scientists will say they need more grant money to learn how the sun actually works.

            The sun will continue to shine for at least a couple more years.

            That’s what I think will happen.

      • McGee says:

        The theory has been that the solar magnetic field associated with the earth magnetic field modulated the cosmic ray cloud condensation nuclei. Increased CCN was thought to increase droplet concentration and thus increase cloud albedo and reduce absorbed solar radiance.

        This all may be valid, but CERES indicates that for 2000 through 2020 anyway, absorbed solar -INCREASED-. The rate of increase being twice as large as the rate of increase of greenhouse gas forcing for the same period.

        The CERES estimates could be off, of course.

        Or, other factors ( amount of cloud, height of clouds, other parameters ) could be varying beyond the effect of CCN for which twenty years is still brief.

  13. Rob Mitchell says:

    Would it be safe to say the Tropics have “normalized,” or would that be jumping the gun?

  14. bdgwx says:

    Here is a graph that includes 8 datasets including 2 satellite, 4 traditional, 1 reanalysis, and 1 raob. The composite trend is +0.19 C/decade.

    https://i.imgur.com/wL0OqMj.png

  15. RLH says:

    So a cosine weighting applied to the Latitude of a station means that a station at the Poles adds 0% information to the climate data.

    That cannot be correct.

    Cosine weighting comes from the mistaken impression that you can turn point samples into area or volume ones which cannot be correct.

    • Bindidon says:

      RLH

      Currently I don’t have any access to my data and can reply only by using my lady’s notebook.

      Maybe you will reject this comment from me as you did all the time; that however isn’t my problem.

      *

      1. ” So a cosine weighting applied to the Latitude of a station means that a station at the Poles adds 0% information to the climate data. ”

      No one uses latitude weighting outside of area weighting over cell grids. There is not even one use of it in my software, regardless the observed fields (temperature, sea ice, sea level).

      Even if you use a 0.25 degree grid, the latitude of your north and south polenearest station averagings won’t lead to zeroed values anywhere.

      *
      2. ” Cosine weighting comes from the mistaken impression that you can turn point samples into area or volume ones which cannot be correct. ”

      So? One more thing you simply decide to be, without any valuable proof for your assertion?

      Why can’t it be correct to transform data collected wrt a plane rectangular grid in order to obtain data wrt Earth’s spherical shape?

      Why can’t you understand that you can compare temperatures measured in tropical latitude bands with those measured in polar regions only when applying a latitude weighting?

      When will you finally manage to process UAH’s 2.5 degree grid, in order to generate time series out of it, and to compare them with Roy Spencer’s monthly file, as I did in 2016?

      Then you will understand how wrong calculations of sea ice extent can be when you don’t apply the same latitude corrections to raw data, as then the highest bands become totally overwheighted in a global averaging.

      • RLH says:

        If you believe that stations at the North and South Poles have 0 contribution to climate then you have a problem, not me.

        All forms of equal area mapping of a globe say that the area of each climate station has the same contribution as all the others.

        How big an area do you actually want a point sample to cover?

        Unless you wish to ‘infill’ those areas which do not have actual measurements from stations in them by estimating what ‘should’ be there of course.

        Then you are using a model instead of measurements. Not that you will see any problem with that as you already ‘know’ the answer.

        • RLH says:

          And that is just for the area. You don’t want to address the volume calculations as you have made clear in the past.

          You even think that the Surface Boundary Layer is less complex than areas above it.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundary_layer.

        • Bindidon says:

          RLH

          Are you unable to read anything else than what you yourself post?

          I wrote above:

          ” No one uses latitude weighting outside of area weighting over cell grids. There is not even one use of it in my software, regardless the observed fields (temperature, sea ice, sea level).

          Even if you use a 0.25 degree grid, the latitude of your north and south polenearest station averagings wont lead to zeroed values anywhere. ”

          Why can’t you understand such a simple stuff?

          No one uses latitude and longitude of single stations!

          That would indeed lead to having no info about Amundsen-Scott, for example.

          Everybody understands that.

          • RLH says:

            So you admit that cosine weighting is used to try and make the ‘area’ weighting more ‘correct’. Even though the actual area on the ground that each station individually covers is roughly the same.

            Turning point samples into area coverage is a lot more complex that just doing a cosine weighting (and fraught with a lot of problems that are mostly overlooked).

    • Mark B says:

      RLH says: So a cosine weighting applied to the Latitude of a station means that a station at the Poles adds 0% information to the climate data.

      That cannot be correct.

      It’s not the case that a station at the pole adds 0% information to the climate data.

      If this is your understanding of area weighting, it follows that you don’t understand area weighting.

      • Bindidon says:

        Mark B

        What he does not understand is rather the problem of latitude weighting.

        Maybe one day he manages to process UAH’s plane grip without latitude weighting, generates a time series over an asymmetric part of the Globe, e.g. 20N-82.5N, and compares the series with that published by Mr. Spencer (it is NH Ext).

        He could also try to generate sea ice extent series using HadISST1.

        Ah well ah well, Flynnson would say.

      • Bindidon says:

        Mark B

        What he does not understand is rather the problem of latitude weighting.

        Maybe one day he manages to process UAH’s plane grip without latitude weighting, generates a time series over e.g. 20N-82.5N, and compares the series with that published by Mr Spencer (it is NH Ext).

        He could also try to generate sea ice extent series using HadISST1.

        Ah well ah well, Flynnson would say.

      • RLH says:

        As Blinny says, I was talking about Cosine weighting where the poles contribute 0 to the information about climate, apparently.

        As to area weighting, then if you reduce everything to the actual area that each individual station covers, then they are all equal to each other in fact.

        If you want to try and interpolate between those point samples (in a 2d space only), then you run (and only then) into the problems that you describe.

        The facts are that any interpolation is only a model, not a measurement as such.

        Nyquist had a lot to say about how accurate any interpolation (in 2d) can be.

        • RLH says:

          And if you want to move to 3d (where most of us live) then the complexities of the Surface Boundary layer and its daytime/nighttime behavior need to be taken into account to make a vertical profile. That is also impacted by elevation of the station.

        • Mark B says:

          Nyquist is a criteria for complete reproducibility of the signal. That is, if Nyquist is satisfied, one can reproduce the signal precisely at any point in time/space. Nyquist, in the absence of additional information about the signal, is a pass/fail criteria for complete reproducibility. By itself it does not say how good or bad are some signal property of interest might be if the criteria is not satisfied.

          It is not reasonably possible to satisfy Nyquist with temperature through a global space nor is it necessary satisfy the Nyquist criteria to achieve a “good enough for purpose” reproduction of temperature changes over time. The inherent uncertainties attributable to sparse sampling can and have been bounded viathe statistical cross correlation properties across observation sites. This has been well documented in the literature at least since Hansen’s original temperature anomaly series in the late 1980s and numerous times since.

          We have a number of temperature anomaly time series that have well documented error analyses. If you can find a real issue with such analyses then you have a scientific point. Arguing “but Nyquist” is simply saying the data isn’t perfect, which we already knew, but all available analysis says it’s good enough.

          • RLH says:

            “By itself it does not say how good or bad are some signal property of interest might be if the criteria is not satisfied”

            Incorrect. Nyquist says that if the sampling criteria in both space and time are not observed, then the reproducibility (i.e. in this case the infill accuracy) will degrade. To the point where it is useless if taken to the extremes.

            I love it when people say that climate models can be improved by decreasing the grid size but at the same time say that the measuring station grid that we now have is ‘adequate’.

            If you are talking about using Nyquist on the ‘free atmosphere’ see:-

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Atmospheric_boundary_layer.svg/1920px-Atmospheric_boundary_layer.svg.png

            that indeed has a long history of use in weather forecasting. The differences below that are however quite dramatic where Latitude, 24 hour time and year based criteria are always going to be a Nyquist problem.

          • Willard says:

            > To the point where it is useless if taken to the extremes.

            That’s your own inflation of Nyquist’s results, dummy.

        • Mark B says:

          RLH says: As Blinny says, I was talking about Cosine weighting where the poles contribute 0 to the information about climate, apparently.

          As to area weighting, then if you reduce everything to the actual area that each individual station covers, then they are all equal to each other in fact.

          Cosine weighting is used as an (approximate) area weighting factor for a lat/lon grid cell. Applying it to a single point is nonsensical.

          • RLH says:

            Agreed. But so is area weighing in that case as each individual stations covers roughly the same physical area of the globe so should be treated equally.

            Turing point samples into ‘areas’ is a non trivial problem. Let alone into ‘volumes’.

  16. Swenson says:

    Some nitwit wrote –

    “I have already shown you where GHE can be observed and measured.”

    Only in his fantasy, of course. Not in reality.

    For example, NASA cannot even define the mythical GHE. Here’s one attempt –

    “The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earth’s surface by “greenhouse gases.”

    Very informative – not! A “way”, is it? And at night, indoors, in winter, or under a sunshade, the GHE seems to lose its “way”. Maybe the heat trapped in this “way” manages to escape!

    That might explain how the Earth has managed to cool to its present temperature over the last four and a half billion years or so.

    Elusive concept, this GHE.

  17. McGee says:

    There is uncertainty with all global measures.

    The system that was designed to measure the energy balance of
    earth is CERES.

    CERES data indicates that nearly twice as much of energy imbalance since 2000 has occurred from increased absorbed solar as has occurred from greenhouse gas induced radiative forcing.

    This would by no means falsify GHG RF, but it does raise questions as to sensitivity.

    More here (key image: Figure 2):

    https://climateobs.substack.com/p/earth-radiance-trends

  18. Brent Auvermann says:

    Clint, in a frame of reference centered on the ball’s axis perpendicular to its plane of motion, yes, the ball-on-a-string is, in fact, rotating on its axis. That’s second-semester stuff in the statics/dynamics series in undergraduate engineering school. Its rotational period in that frame of reference is identical to its period of revolution, which veritably defines “tidal locking.”

  19. Brent Auvermann says:

    Clint, LOL. Dynamics are dynamics, and all frames of reference are arbitrary. You don’t have the prerogative you are claiming, to wit, the prerogative to divorce orbital-motion dynamics from any other dynamics. And learn to use apostrophes correctly.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Brent, the ball on a string does indeed appear to rotate on its own axis from the reference frame you describe…but the reality is that it is rotating about an external axis (an axis that is external to the ball itself), and not about an axis going through the body of the ball. Just “zoom out” and look at the bigger picture. There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string.

      • RLH says:

        A ball-on-a-string is of no relevance to the orbit of the Moon.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          "A ball-on-a-string is of no relevance to the orbit of the Moon."

          There are people who I would describe as "lost in reference frames" whose training has led them to the erroneous belief that a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis. Many of the major "Spinner" contributors on this blog are "lost in reference frames". Once they are able to see through the illusion of the ball on a string, they may be able to properly understand the moon’s motion.

          So…there’s that relevance, for a start.

          • RLH says:

            A physical connection to a surface has no relevance to a virtual connection to a center, so no, it is not relevant at all.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yet people still think the ball on a string is rotating on its own axis, and you won’t do anything to correct them.

          • RLH says:

            My time is taken up with observing that you are incorrect. As always.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            What am I incorrect about?

          • RLH says:

            That the Moon faces the Earth because of its orbit. The 2, like all other planets/moons, are unconnected.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            We were talking about whether or not a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis!

          • RLH says:

            We are actually talking about if a ball-on-a-string applies to the Moon. It doesn’t.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, that is just what you always, obsessively, want to talk about. If you were to give me a straight and honest answer to the question, “does a ball on a string rotate on its own axis?”, you would say, “no”. That is why you always try to change the subject onto whether it “applies to the Moon”.

          • RLH says:

            A ball-on-a-string rotates about an internal axis of the whole it is physically part of.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Pure sophistry. What you are actually acknowledging there is that the axis the ball on a string rotates around is external to the ball. You have just decided to group the ball and string together as one object, and then say the axis is “internal to the object”. The axis the ball on a string rotates around does not go through the body of the ball itself.

          • Curious Observer says:

            There are moons for other planets that do not always show the same face to the planet. Can we all agree those moons are spinning on their respective internal axes?

            A ball on a string, however, cannot spin around its internal axis without winding up the string. Ergo, gravity + moon cannot work the same way as a ball + string because if it did, those other moons couldn’t spin on their axes.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            A ball on a string is just a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That is to say, the same side of the object remains facing towards the inside of the orbit throughout. It is not meant to imply that objects cannot rotate on their own axes, obviously they can, and do.

            “A ball on a string, however, cannot spin around its internal axis without winding up the string.”

            That you acknowledge the ball itself is not rotating on its own internal axis is good enough for me. Anybody that gets that is streets ahead of some “Spinners”.

          • RLH says:

            “A ball on a string is just a model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation'”

            No it isn’t. A ball-on-a-string is just a model of a ball-on-a-string.

          • RLH says:

            “A ball on a string, however, cannot spin around its internal axis without winding up the string”

            If the ‘string’ is attached to the surface which gravity is not.

    • Clint R says:

      Brent, yes all frames of reference are arbitrary. That’s why you have to be careful to choose the correct one. And, that’s why the ball-on-a-string is so useful. We know it is NOT rotating about its axis because the string does not wrap around the ball.

      And again, kinematics, kinetics, and dynamics do not include orbital motion. Orbital motion is a field of its own. It is NOT my “prerogative” to “divorce” dynamics from orbital motion. That’s science.

      • Entropic man says:

        “all frames of reference are arbitrary. ”

        All but one. The frames you use such as relative to the Earth, the Sun or the horizon are local, ie arbitary.

        The only non-local (ie universal) reference frame is the inertial reference frame, against which instruments such as gyroscopes and Foucault pendulum measure rotation.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Entropic Man is thoroughly "lost in reference frames".

        • Clint R says:

          That’s why it is necessary to understand orbital motion and choose the frame of reference correctly.

          A Foucault pendulum would indicate the ball is rotating. And we know that is wrong.

          The pendulum, and “inertial”, and “the stars”, can NOT tell the difference between orbiting and axial rotation.

          • RLH says:

            “A Foucault pendulum would indicate the ball is rotating. And we know that is wrong”

            You are wrong and the pendulum is correct.

          • Ken says:

            You don’t understand the gravity of the situation.

            Its Madhavi fig. 15 d.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            RLH, since you agree that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that is internal to the ball itself, you actually should agree that the pendulum would be wrong.

          • RLH says:

            Since a ball-on-a-string is only part of the whole system, do you agree that the system is rotating about an axis that is internal to the whole system?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The ball itself is not rotating about an axis going through the ball. We both agree. Therefore you should agree that if the pendulum indicates rotation, it is not about that axis. That is the bottom line here.

          • RLH says:

            You should be prepared to admit then that the axis the ball-on-a-string is rotating about is fully contained within the whole body.

            It is only an external axis to part of that whole (i.e. the ball), not the whole thing itself.

          • RLH says:

            You should also admit that the Moon is capable of independent rotation about its own axis as every other moon/planet is. And it is that rotation that the pendulum records.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You should admit that the pendulum can lead you to the wrong conclusion, and all that implies re the inertial reference frame.

          • RLH says:

            There are 2 (or 3) axis here.

            One is the axis things are orbiting around. The others are the axis through the center of each body. A pendulum on each body will show the rotation of each body independently. They will not show the orbit.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You have admitted that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that passes through the ball, and that the pendulum would suggest it is. Now you try to wriggle out of where those facts inevitably lead…

          • RLH says:

            The ball-on-a-string IS rotating about an axis that the whole of its parts make up which is an internal axis to that whole.

          • RLH says:

            DREMT = Idiot.

          • ftop_t says:

            It is amazing to watch the human mind rationalize away obvious truths to accommodate long held beliefs.

            Here are two turntables rotating a record on separate axis.
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9abwhcqdw0

            The outside turntable is rotating the record counterclockwise
            The inside turntable is rotating the record clockwise

            If you pull back, they are still rotating
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/f4f3poxe0m

            Now you put them on a train going around a circular track at the same interval as the revolution of the record
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9ojn60zwh7

            Does the inside turntable magically turn off? Does the outside record play too fast?

            Now you turn off both turntables.
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/etd3coc8e1

            You zoom out to see the train.”Spinners” would argue when the train starts, the records start playing…
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/c2ici6krzp

          • RLH says:

            ftop: Most people would say that constantly changing reference frames makes your examples useless.

          • ftop_t says:

            Most people are innumerate so they are unable to understand what an axis of rotation is and thus get completely lost when there are two axis of rotation depicted by the radians:

            alpha = radian that changes length with internal axial rotation
            theta = radian that changes length with external axial rotation

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid#/media/File:Epizykloide_herleitung.svg

            Which makes understanding the geometric proof beyond their grasp

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid

            A point “p” on an object orbiting (rotating) around an external axis will have to be the closest point and the farthest point to the external axis if the orbiting object is also experiencing axial rotation (which occurs if radian alpha is not constant).

            If radian alpha is zero, point “p” will be the closest point on the object to the external axis.

            If the object rotates on an internal axis, radian alpha will change and point “p” will no longer be the closest point to the external axis.

            Geometry is not fluid and distances are not malleable according to reference frames.

          • RLH says:

            ftop: Except the Moon is not rotating around a surface to create an Epicycloid.

            So your ‘explanation’ is about as useful as a ball-on-a-string is for orbits.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Good comments, ftop_t. Don’t expect the “Spinners” to understand, of course.

          • ftop_t says:

            @RLH

            Completely disingenuous reply.

            The expression for the location of point “p” (x,y) is not dependent on if l(R) = l(r). That is only relevant for an epicycloid. In all other cases l(R) = k * l(r) where k is a constant for the ratio between the rotational speed and circumference of each rotational arc.

            The purpose of l(R) = l(r) for an Epicycloid is strictly to eliminate the variable (alpha) in the proof.

            Generally, when there are two axis of rotation, we start with the closest point on the rotating object to the origin – point “p”. When point “p” is on an object that is rotating about both an internal axis and an external axis. Its location is defined by:

            x = (R+r)cos(theta) – r (cos(theta + alpha)
            y = (R+r)sin(theta) – r (sin(theta + alpha)

            This formula is not unique to an Epicycloid. It is universal for two axis of rotation.

            If alpha is non-zero, point “p” will vary in distance from the origin.

            If alpha is zero, the formula resolves to:

            x = R(cos(theta))
            y = R(sin(theta))

            which will always be the closest point to the origin.

            Therefore, if an object always keeps the same point closest to an external axis of rotation, alpha is zero and it is not rotating on an internal axis.

          • Nate says:

            FTOP,

            What you are showing is no surprise. That an internal rotation and an external rotation can cancel to produce non-rotation.

            Nothing wrong with that. But it has nothing to do with the way Astronomy describes planetary orbits.

            Astronomy describes an orbit as a curvilinear translation along an elliptical path thru space.

            The orbiting object can ALSO have internal rotation.

            These two motions, translation and rotation are independent motions, and never ever cancel out wrt the inertial frame of the stars.

            This description works for all planetary orbits.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Don’t expect the “Spinners” to understand, of course.

          • Nate says:

            Do hear a voice responding to me? Odd.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            My stalker is so desperate to converse with me he apparently believes I am responding to him any time I merely repeat a previous comment, or talk to somebody else!

          • Willard says:

            > if an object always keeps the same point closest to an external axis of rotation

            Big if.

  20. Mark Shapiro says:

    Hmm.

    If we look at the entire data set that Dr. Roy has posted, and just lay a straight edge from the firs point to the most recent point, we see a temperature increase of 0.7 deg C in about 42 years, or about 1.8 deg C per century. That’s mighty impressive.

    Perhaps its time to take another look at the basic science behind climate change:

    https://youtu.be/t-ndSAaqXW4

    Cheers!

    • Eben says:

      You cannot claim 1.8 deg C per century until you have a century of data, calling 1.8 deg C per century from 40 years of data is not mighty impressive, it is outright idiotic.

      • Entropic man says:

        We have 140 years of surface temperature data. GISS, for example, shows an increase of 1.3C over that time or 0.92C/century.

        Taking the 42 year period since 1979 the rise is 1.1C or 1.54C/century.

        If the rate of change of temperature is accelerating then the rate per century is not particularly useful.

        • RLH says:

          GISS shows quite clearly that the ‘rise’ is cyclic. Why would you use a straight line to deny that?

          https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/giss-1.jpeg

          • Entropic man says:

            That “cycle” is too small to standout of the noise.

            You are seeing what you want to see, a cycle which is an artefact of short term stochastic variation.

            Please show confidence limits for that blue line.

          • RLH says:

            How do you create a confidence limit for a low pass filter?

            It is a 15 year low pass which will show ALL behaviors that are longer then 15 years.

            If you want the residuals I can do those too, but suffice to say it is close to ‘white noise’ (within the bandwidth anyway).

            An S-G will produce the same (or similar results) but this is a gaussian filter.

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          If the surface temperature increases by even 1 C per century, that is 100 C in 10,000 years.

          Oh no! The seas have boiled dry! We’re all dead, shrivelled husks!

          Please tell me my arithmetic is wrong, or when and why your GHE is going to magically stop boiling, frying, roasting and toasting us!

          I assume you don’t really believe your nonsensical projections, so I can’t see what you get out of promoting rubbish which you know to be incorrect!

          Or are you just another delusional climate crank?

          • Entropic man says:

            I don’t expect the runaway for a while yet.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komabayashi%E2%80%93Ingersoll_limit

          • RLH says:

            I don’t expect the runaway at all. Systems have a way of developing different behaviors under different conditions and we are not out of the ‘normal’ ranges yet in any case.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            Who (apart from you) mentioned any nonsensical “runaway”? This is the sort of nonsense that delusional “scientists” like to promote. Sagan, Hansen, Mann – even mathematicians pretending to be scientists, like Gavin Schmidt!

            So back on track, if it’s OK with you.

            When will the heating stop, and why?

            Or do you really think that the seas will boil again – as they did as the Earth cooled.

            An inconvenient question, I know. Well, two inconvenient questions. Have you an6 cogent answers?

    • RLH says:

      That assumes that all the rise you have seen will continue on forever upwards. As there will be some (at least) natural movements in there, your estimate is inaccurate.

    • Mark S. may not understand science, but he sure knows how to make a boring, irrelevant video.

    • Swenson says:

      MS,

      You wrote –

      “Perhaps its time to take another look at the basic science behind climate change: . . . ”

      If you can find any, of course.

      Climate is the statistics of past weather. If you call this “science”, I’ll call you a climate crackpot.

      Fair enough?

    • gbaikie says:

      Re:
      https://youtu.be/t-ndSAaqXW4

      He says without greenhouse gases Earth would be 0 C.

      Maybe that about right.
      The cargo cult says it’s about -18 C

      What does Earth look like with average temperature of 0 C?

      Well can’t really answer it exactly, mainly because Earth is %70 covered by an ocean. And it’s got a lot of ocean water- you can’t stack even 50% of ocean in polar regions.

      Mars has 210 ppm of water vapor, and Mars is not a water planet like
      Earth is. Mars has mostly a surface with very little H2O at the surface and Mars doesn’t have anywhere near the amount volcanic activity that Earth has.
      If you consider that Earth has same volcanic activity as Mars {Earth is dead} and Earth at Mars distance from the sun, Earth still has most of Earth surface covered with H2O, and would have higher level of water vapor as compared to Mars.
      And if Earth remained to have it’s volcanic activity- it have higher amount of global water vapor.

      And if Earth was Earth distance from the Sun, and merely had it’s average temperature be 0 C. Earth would have a Lot more Water water vapor. Let’s say more than 1/2 the amount earth currently has.
      And if Earth had 1/2 as much water vapor, water vapor would still be the most significant greenhouse gas.
      And since Earth has life, for their to be life, one need at 150 ppm of CO2 and with one has to have methane. If Earth Oxygen than it will have Ozone layer.
      So greenhouse gases are not reason Earth is not 0 C, Earth’s ocean is the reason.
      Even if we accept his silly theory.

      But we are in ice age. Earth has icehouse global climates and greenhouse climate. Ice age = icehouse global climate. And in last few million years Earth was mostly not in a icehouse climate, and we have only been in this icehouse climate for about 34 million years. And coldest part of last 34 million was the last 2 million years.
      Or even his silly theory was correct, it’s not important: it does not explain our world.
      Or at best it’s explaining some world, which is not Earth.

      • gbaikie says:

        I said: “And in last few million years Earth was mostly..
        I meant: And in last few hundred million years Earth was mostly, not in a icehouse climate.

        Oh also forget my question:
        What does Earth look like with average temperature of 0 C?

        And as said it’s difficult to say, basically, because Earth is water planet.
        But also easy, because Earth is a water planet.
        What happens if Earth ocean had an uniform ocean temperature of 1 C.

        So Earth currently has average ocean temperature of 3.5 C and this a lot different than the ocean having uniform temperature of 3.5 C.

        In terms oceanic energy it is same. And it require “little amount” of energy to mix the average ocean temperature of 3.5 C into uniform temperature of 3.5 C – but doing so would have huge effect on global surface air temperature.

        So we average global surface air temperature of about 15 C.
        We have this average temperature, because global land average surface air is about 10 C and global ocean average surface air is about 17 C {and when both are averaged, one gets about 15 C}.
        So, if mix ocean to become uniform temperature of 3.5 C, the 17 C air above it, becomes 3.5 C.

        But we going make an uniform temperature of 1 C. And there is no easy way to do this. In terms human current capability, there no way human could cause this to happened within one century. But human could make a solar shade within 100 years and cool earth surface below 0 C. They just can’t cool the entire ocean in such short time periods.
        So don’t need solar shade, for humans to make the ocean have uniform temperature of about 3.5 C.
        And if human did that, it would crash global surface air temperature- AND cause a lot of global warming. We have global warming and we would freeze to death {humans have houses- humans could stay warm, and so mostly kill all other life- which is not a good thing for humans}

      • gbaikie says:

        So listening to more of this crap.
        He says 1/2 of energy from the trace gas of CO2, emits to earth surface.
        This would only apply to air near the surface, it’s no where close to 50% if say 4000 km above the surface.

        I will listen to more of crap, now.

        • gbaikie says:

          It turns out Al Gore was right.

          {I can’t take this idiocy any more- the hockey stick was Michael Mann, who was another liar. And poor Michael Mann didn’t make nearly as much money AL Bore did, and I don’t think he is living on very expensive beach property nor did he get a D in climate studies.}

        • Mark Shapiro says:

          Ummm. The thickness of the atmosphere is less than 1% of the diameter of the earth (~0.75% to be more exact). So, my statement that approximately half the infra-red radiation emitted from the greenhouse gases toward the surface of the Earth is correct.

          Dr. Mark

          • Swenson says:

            MS,

            You wrote –

            “So, my statement that approximately half the infra-red radiation emitted from the greenhouse gases toward the surface of the Earth is correct.”

            And completely irrelevant, if that radiation does not interact with the surface in such a way as to increase its temperature.

            If the surface is hotter than the atmosphere, then the surface will cool.

            As it does at night, or after the solar input reaches its maximum during the day.

            No amount of PR will overcome physics.

            Over to you.

          • gbaikie says:

            The higher you are, further you can see. Or at 4 km horizon is further away.
            The radiation is spherical. So sphere with poles and a equator.
            North pole is up. North pole which include 20 degrees latitude is small area of a sphere. And small part of it is going straight up.
            Equator region, say 10 degree north and south is much larger area, very little of it is going straight or straight down.

            Put a global 1 foot above the ground. 1/2 of it is going in direction of the ground, small amount is going hit closest to the ground, or south polar will have higher percent of it’s area going “straight down” and closest to ground. Though entire southern with far more area will far more photons reaching fairly close to straight. When raise it 100 feet the radiation from entire southere hemisphere get wider {traveling more due than greater distance because it’s not straight down. And this aspect is ever increasing when 100, 1000, and 4000 meters. But even when 1 foot off the ground most radiation is going “sideways” rather up or down.
            So now at 4000 meter, most is still going sideways and still not much is going straight up or straight.
            And you have much thinner air up than down. And betting the random odds, more ends up going up them down.
            Or not dealing flat panels, you dealing with spheres.

          • gbaikie says:

            I could made it simpler.
            Have 1 meter diameter brightly glow sphere. Have near ground, then raise it to 4000 km elevation. how far away can see the sphere compare when it was 1 foot off the ground.
            And if 100 feet high and standing under how bright compare when it’s 4000 meters above you.
            But that doesn’t really address part about thicker atmosphere below it.
            But if in orbit, this glowing sphere should be brighter from 4000 meter elevation

          • RLH says:

            “The majority of satellites orbiting the Earth do so at altitudes between 160 and 2,000 kilometers. This orbital regime is called low Earth orbit, or LEO, due to the satellites relative closeness to the Earth. ”

            So 4km is not even close to LEO so it would hardly seem any brighter from there.

            D^2 remember?

          • bobdroege says:

            That’s for a point source, for something like viewing the Earth from that altitude you should use a different equation.

            Remember?

  21. Shirley says:

    The warming since Sept. 2008 is 0.48C

    P.S. For you knuckleheads that have nothing better to do than argue about the moon’s rotation, why don’t you make it quantitative? What is the exact angular momentum of the moon?
    Please give your answer in kg-m^2/sec? If you respond to this without a number, seek professional mental health care immediately.

  22. Gregory J says:

    In the link below, I took the AR6 solar activity curve, which is fig 2.2a in IPCC report, smoothed it, and then overlaid on top of global temp curve, which is fig spm1 in IPCC report.
    https://ibb.co/ZYDHpJg

    • RLH says:

      The hockey stick graph reappears. I thought that was dead and buried long ago.

      • Entropic man says:

        Only among the denialist minority. In the 23 years since it was first described it has been replicated repeatedly by many workers and many datasets.

      • RLH says:

        So if temperatures decline for the next few months into next year as it looks like they will, what are you going to say? Magic?

        • RLH says:

          Or ‘its not long enough to be a trend’ without saying how long it takes to make a trend.

          • Entropic man says:

            ” How long does it take to make a trend ? ”

            Depends on the trend. In general you can see a statistically significant trend when the beginning and end are at least 4 standard deviation apart.

            For global annual temperatures the standard deviation is about 0.05C. 95% confidence limits are +/- 0.1C.

            To see a statistically significant trend you need a change of 4SD or 0.2C.

            At the current UAH warming rate of 0.14C/decade you would need 0.2/0.14 decades, or 14 years.

          • RLH says:

            Only if you take OLS trends for your statistics.

            I use, as you know, long period filters, typically of greater than 15 years, which are much closer to the real physical systems that make up climate.

            See various graphs under https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/

            Why 15 years as a ‘corner’? Well Earth’s climate system has a low level of energy at that point (if you run an energy sweep) and it is well below the 30 year climate periods.

          • RLH says:

            An S-G filter of 15 years produces quite interesting data from most long period climate data.

            S-G (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter)

            are much used in other disciplines to uncover relevant behavior.

            “Savitzky and Golay’s paper is one of the most widely cited papers in the journal Analytical Chemistry and is classed by that journal as one of its “10 seminal papers” saying “it can be argued that the dawn of the computer-controlled analytical instrument can be traced to this article””

            I just believe it has a role in climate too.

          • RLH says:

            “global annual temperatures”

            are a U shaped distribution (i.e. quasi sinusoidal) so how come you are using (improperly) statistics that are best suited to normal or skewed normal distributions and thinking they actually mean (pun) something?

            Is it just because ‘everybody else does so’ or do you actually have some ratiocination for that?

    • Entropic man says:

      Nice one.

      Correlates nicely with most of the last millennium, but not the 20th and 21st century warming.

      • RLH says:

        Only if you believe in hockey stick like warming over the period in question.

        • Entropic man says:

          I don’t believe it, the data shows it.

          https://www.countercurrents.org/rahmstorf220913.htm

          See Figure 1

          • RLH says:

            Your reading of the data allows very little for nature. Which is a mistake to my mind.

            The flat portion is WAY too flat. The climb WAY too steep.

            I have loads and loads of Paleoclimate proxies which do not correspond to that in fig1, fig3, fig4, etc.

            You known, of course, of my repeating of Steve McIntyre https://climateaudit.org/ who has some interesting views on climate proxies.

            Including something that looks suspiciously like your graph.

            https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/15/pages-2019-0-30n-proxies/

          • Eben says:

            These sheister made to order fake hockey charts always crack me up , as real as male pregnancy

          • RLH says:

            It is interesting to note why the ‘flat’ portion of the hockey stick is flat and where the ‘rising’ portion comes from.

            It is a FACT that most paleoclimate proxies do not agree with each other and when you ‘average’ them all together they produce a straight flat line.

            The rising portion of the hockey stick is caused by adding in things that are not paleoclimate proxies to that flat line to produce the ‘rise’.

  23. dave says:

    Southern vs northern hem anomaly is interesting. I would like to see this graphed and commented on. 90% live in Northern hem. Are we measuring the heat from our collective armpits and calling it climate change?

  24. angech says:

    So disappointed.
    Reality does not match with expectation.

    The moon.
    rotates in one frame of reference but not in another.

    The earth can legitimately be the centre of the universe.
    But so can any other point in the universe, like the sun.

    Accepting this simple point of logic just means saying I’m right and you are right.

    Refusing it is simply saying my point of view is more important to me than yours.

    As I pointed out a while ago if one wishes to say that the moon is rotating then one has to define what its motion is or appears to be when it is “not” rotating.

    This simple example, that it has to be rotating to be perceived as not rotating,should be enough to quell the overconfidence in the one frame of reference that suits my argument theory.

    Sadly ignored.

    • Clint R says:

      angech, Moon does NOT rotate on its axis

      You appear to realize that simple fact, but you’re afraid to state it clearly.

      That’s the power of the cult over you.

      • Willard says:

        Pup, you do NOT do the pole dance experiment.

        You appear to realize that doing it would defeat your trolling.

        Do it. Report.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Again, Willard…nobody knows what you are talking about. Not even you.

          • Willard says:

            Anyone who lifts knows that Moon Dragon cranks are wrong, Kiddo.

            Enjoy your body. You only got one, and it’s for a limited time only.

          • Swenson says:

            Whacky Wee Will wrote –

            “Anyone who lifts knows that Moon Dragon cranks are wrong, Kiddo.”

            Oooooh! Cryptic! Oooooh! Obscure!

            Does Wayward Wee Willy think that uttering incomprehensible gibberish makes him appear wise and knowledgeable, or does he live in a bizarre fantasy WeeWillyWorld where people actually admire his command of gibberish?

            Maybe his deranged comment is just another example of his “silly semantic games”.

            Hard to tell.

          • Vinnetareo says:

            Bizzare fantasy is the best description.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Muscular Flaw.

      • RLH says:

        “Moon does NOT rotate on its axis”

        YES it does.

      • RLH says:

        Clint R: You keep repeating this ridiculous shit.

        Thats the power of the tiny, tiny, cult over you.

        • Clint R says:

          A “cult” is more than one. Most of the “free-thinkers” you find here are independent thinkers. People like DREMT, Gordon, Swenson, gbaikie, Hunter, myself, and several others all think independently. We don’t always agree, even. But, when free-thinkers agree, watch out!

          Your cult of braindead idiots rejects reality. You all strive to do that. None of you is able to learn, or even wants to. You’re content and comforted by a sense of “belonging”. There is no more perfect example than you avoiding the reality that your own cult uses the ball-on-a-string analogy.

        • RLH says:

          The cult you are in is very, very tiny and universally wrong.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      angech…”The moon.
      rotates in one frame of reference but not in another.”

      ***

      Doesn’t rotate in any reference frame, it is translating with the same face pointed at Earth.

      • RLH says:

        I.e. is rotating wrt the fixed stars.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Speaking of the Moon, Gordo repeats his no spin denialist mantra:

        [the Moon] Doesn’t rotate in any reference frame…

        Sorry, clown, the Moon presents different sides to the Sun during it’s orbit, which is clearly visible from the ground, therefore it is obviously rotating in a reference frame with one axis along the Sun-Moon vector. It’s also rotating in all inertial reference frames fixed wrt the stars.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Swanson is still lost in reference frames, unable to see the problem.

          • RLH says:

            DREMT is lost in his own delusions. Unable to see anything else.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson is still lost in reference frames, unable to see the problem. RLH projects his own failings onto others.

          • E. Swanson says:

            pups can’t see the forest for the trees. They still haven’t provided any math model for their delusions, just bleating their lunacy over and over again, defying logic and ignoring the obvious facts.

          • RLH says:

            DREMT is just an idiot with idiotic ramblings.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson is still lost in reference frames, unable to see the problem. RLH should understand, as he gets that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball itself, but the Foucault Pendulum would suggest that it is. However, RLH refuses to think it through, preferring instead to throw lame attempts at insults.

          • RLH says:

            The Foucault Pendulum will correctly observe that the Moon is rotating about its own axis.

            It will not record its orbit around a barycenter.

            Therefore DREMT is wrong (as is Clint R and a small number of others).

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, you are not thinking it through properly. Keep trying.

          • RLH says:

            It is you who has no logic or thought.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            1) The ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball.
            2) The pendulum would indicate that it is.
            3) The moon is not rotating about an axis that goes through the moon.
            4) The pendulum would indicate that it is.

            Either you are wrong that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball or you are wrong that the moon rotates on its own axis.

          • E. Swanson says:

            pups continues to prove it doesn’t understand physics. It’s “ball-on-a-string” doesn’t exhibit gravity’s influence, which is necessary for a Foucault Pendulum’s operation. And, the ball can’t rotate freely because the string holds it in one orientation. However, a tether ball, hanging limp, can rotate around the string’s vector.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “It’s “ball-on-a-string” doesn’t exhibit gravity’s influence, which is necessary for a Foucault Pendulum’s operation.”

            Swanson lacks the imagination to visualize a big enough ball on a string.

            “And, the ball can’t rotate freely because the string holds it in one orientation”

            Irrelevant to the point being made.

          • RLH says:

            1) The ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball.

            Wrong (sort of). It rotates around an internal axis to the whole it is part of.

            2) The pendulum would indicate that it is.

            Wrong. The pendulum will not indicate if something is in orbit. Only if it is rotating on its axis wrt the fixed stars.

            3) The moon is not rotating about an axis that goes through the moon.

            Wrong.

            4) The pendulum would indicate that it is.

            Correct.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So you do not think the Foucault Pendulum would respond in exactly the same way with a giant, moon-sized ball on a string, compared to the actual moon? Even though they are both moving in (roughly) the same way, with the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit?

            “It rotates around an internal axis to the whole it is part of.”

            This is just sophistry. The point is that you agree the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the ball itself…but with the moon you think it is.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH and others.

            Under the influence of gravity, the pendulum will cease to oscillate, and become stationary, with its COG closest to that of the Earth,

            Just as the Moon apparently did.

            No amount of semantic gymnastics can start the pendulum swinging again, nor the Moon to recommence rotating about its internal axis. Nor will gravity.

            This is the delusional realm of perpetual motion believers who do not understand the operation of the force of gravity, or equally delusional GHE crackpots who believe energy from colder bodies can be used to heat hotter ones, while at the same time the colder bodies suffer no loss of energy, and do not get cooler.

            Ah, the wonderfully bizarre world of the true believer!

          • RLH says:

            “nor the Moon to recommence rotating about its internal axis”

            The Moon will continue to rotate on its own axis wrt the fixed stars regardless of your tiny, tiny, minority opinions.

            The Foucault pendulum in question at the Moon’s poles can be restarted if necessary at any time and will continue to show the same behavior (mind you with no air friction to slow it down it will be a LONG time on the Moon between restarts).

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            You wrote –

            “The Moon will continue to rotate on its own axis wrt the fixed stars regardless of your tiny, tiny, minority opinions.”

            Well no, it won’t, any more than a pendulum will keep swinging forever.

            You must be aware that even the Earth’s rotation is slowing, due to – external gravitational influences!

            As to my opinions, they are worth exactly as much as you pay for them. Science is not a matter of majority opinions – it is all about facts.

            Richard Feynman said –

            “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”.

            Without experimental support, one speculation is as valid as any other, in my opinion. You may disagree. Why should I value your opinion any more than you value mine?

          • RLH says:

            “Well no, it won’t, any more than a pendulum will keep swinging forever”

            If the pendulum is in vacuum, the bob weight is high and the support point is low friction, then the time it takes for the pendulum to stop swinging is very, very, long indeed.

          • RLH says:

            “Science is not a matter of majority opinions it is all about facts”

            Science is not a matter of minority opinions either. And the facts are that the Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            RLH found an excuse to avoid answering my questions.

  25. Ricardo says:

    What does this data mean?
    On a side note, September could very well be the warmest month if you take into account ocean temperatures, which we don’t know yet until the NOAA report comes out.

  26. kingbum says:

    The Beaufort Gyre and the AMO have been responsible for the decrease in Arctic Sea Ice. If this was a global warming problem, don’t ya think you would of seen a corresponding ice drop in the Southern Ocean? It hasn’t gotten below 2012 levels yet up in the Arctic. As the Beaufort Gyre reverses and the AMO cools, the Arctic Sea Ice will rebound to 1979 levels eventually debunking all this nonsense once and for all. Of course, before that happens suddenly they won’t be able to monitor it anymore for some made up reason to cover the lies.

  27. Gordon Robertson says:

    rfhirsch…”I doubt that ANYONE who reads this blog “believes” that AGW is NOT happening. We look at the information provided by Dr Spencer and the chart and recognize the rate of about 1.4 degrees per century warming since 1979″

    ***

    How do you get a 1.4 degree (presumably Fahrenheit) per century warming over 40 years?

    How is a positive trend proof of AGW? Where’s the proof? Consensus is not proof.

    The pranksters at the IPCC have a mandate to find evidence of AGW. Thus far, they have found none and their mandate prevents them looking at the obvious cause of warming. The Earth cooled between 1C and 2C for 450 years during the Little Ice Age, ending circa 1850. Since then it has been re-warming at the rate of about 0.5C/century, according to Syun Akasofu.

    During the LIA, glaciers advanced immensely and now they are melting. Also, ocean levels should have dropped while CO2 in the atmosphere should have dropped, both due to the colder oceans and atmosphere.

    The science is there to prove natural variability and not there to support AGW.

  28. Ken says:

    Here is wikipedia diagram showing how the earth and the moon orbit the sun. It brings forward the concept that the earth isn’t a stationary point for the moon to orbit around. The interesting bit is that the moons path sometimes puts the moon ahead of and sometimes behind the earth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg

    This diagram introduces a bit of logic that suggests the moon isn’t like a ball on string orbiting around a fixed point.

    The illusion is that the moon is always facing the earth and therefore isn’t rotating. I’m beginning to rethink that bit; the moons path is around the sun and is influenced by the earth. As a result its path is sinusoidal, crossing the earth’s orbit around the sun twice in each apparent orbit around the earth. Since its path is sinusoidal it must be rotating in order to always present the same face to the earth.

    • Clint R says:

      Ken, there’s a difference between “learning” and “indoctrinating”. If your goal is to find ways to believe in the cult nonsense, then you’re just indoctrinating yourself. You’re NOT learning.

      Anyone familiar with orbital motion realizes Moon is orbiting Earth as Earth orbits Sun. That’s nothing new. If you’re just not learning that, good.

      But believing that the ball-on-a-string is a model of Moon’s orbital motion means you have fallen for the indoctrination of the braindead cult idiots. They have tried to use that straw man for months, to confuse the uninformed and uneducated. The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. One side of the orbiting body always faces the inside of the orbit. The ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of Moon’s actual orbital motion, but it proves that Moon is not rotating about its axis.

      The fact that one side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit is NOT an “illusion”. Trying to make that claim means you are trying to further confuse the issue to the point of confusing yourself.

      You get to believe whatever you want to believe, but you don’t get to pervert reality.

      You’re welcome to “rethink” your entire comment.

      • RLH says:

        The Moon orbits the Sun more than it orbits the Earth.

      • Ken says:

        The problem with the concept of moon orbiting earth is that earth is orbiting sun.

        If the moon is orbiting earth then the problem is in how it is at one point in its orbit in the path of the earth’s orbit and at the other end is in the trail of the earth’s orbit. That implies moon is speeding up and slowing down so it maintains a constant distance from the earth. Clearly its not changing its velocity. Clearly its path is not looping around the earth; its a sinusoidal pattern around the sun.

        • Clint R says:

          Wrong Ken. What is clear is that you do not understand orbital motion. You can not apply kinematics, kinetics, or dynamics to orbital motion.

          • RLH says:

            Your version maybe. In the real world the fixed stars are considered a reference frame against which all others can be measured.

        • RLH says:

          The Sun’s gravity has a greater influence on the Moon than the Earth’s does as any calculation will show.

  29. William Wilson says:

    Not so much a cooling trend as El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo. From personal experience summers of 1985, 1986 and 1993 were cold. Tip – check for massive pyroclastic volcanic eruptions before booking summer holidays.

  30. Clint R says:

    Mark B ran another script count. RLH and Willard are the leading trolls, again.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-892964

    Empty brains lead to empty lives. And the funny thing is both RLH and Willard believe they are brilliant!

    • RLH says:

      Clint R is the leading idiot with no shame or thought.

    • Willard says:

      Pup forgot a few things:

      Our Dark Trolling Trio had 488 (Kiddo), 223 (Pup), and 108 (Mike Flynn) commments. Together they represented 17% of the comments in that thread. And that’s notwithstanding Gordo, who had 246 comments. Add them and you got more than 20% of the contributions from the Moon Dragon cranks.

      He also forgot to do the Pole Dance Experiment.

      • Swenson says:

        “Moon Dragon cranks” and “Pole Dance Experiment”?

        Mike Flynn?

        Woeful Wee Willy’s fantasy world is indeed a curious one.

  31. Bindidon says:

    For the umpteenth time

    To write that the Moon ‘rotates with respect to the fixed stars‘ is just wrong and only adds confusion rather than clarity.

    Above all: It literally opens up an argumentation highway for the lunar spin deniers, since they can now claim that the Moon only rotates in relation to the fixed stars, but otherwise not at all!

    Newton explained a long time ago that the fixed stars merely serve a determination of the rotation time of celestial bodies that is independent of the movement of the observer.

    They have nothing to do with the question of whether celestial bodies rotate or not.

  32. ren says:

    With the current decline in solar activity, I predict a long-term La Nia trend.
    https://i.ibb.co/qMHtTzf/inino34-daily-2014-2021.png
    The largest positive anomaly temperatures are now in the Arctic.
    https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2min_10-day.png

  33. ren says:

    Is global warming limited to the Arctic? Poor seals and polar bears.
    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/january2021/202101_Map.png

  34. studentb says:

    We have just observed the hottest (or joint hottest) October days in recorded history for 4 countries.

    Iran 46.0°C (new record)
    Morocco 43.5°C (new record)
    China 38.9°C (tied record)
    South Korea 32.3°C (new record)

  35. studentb says:

    91% of new car sales in Norway this year were electric or hybrid, with well over two thirds of those being fully electric

    • Swenson says:

      s,

      And more than 91% of new car sales in the parts of the world that aren’t Norway weren’t.

      Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, you seem both clueless and pointless.

      Carry on,

    • Clint R says:

      No Norwegian, or no hybrid, has ever won NASCAR.

      • E. Swanson says:

        And nobody drives a real NASCAR race vehicle on the street in their daily commute. Besides, electric cars can exhibit absurd “performance” without all the BS.

        21 Tesla Model S, 0-60 = 3.1 sec, 1/4-mile = 10.69 sec
        21 Porsche Taycan 4S, 0-60 = 3.8 sec, 1/4-mile = 12.3 sec

        Here’s a 2016 video.
        And another comparison for your entertainment and enlightment

        • Clint R says:

          No hybrid has ever won NASCAR.

        • Swenson says:

          ES,

          Or you could buy a tuned Nissan GT-R, which can run the 1/4 mile in 8.9 secs.

          An electric car would suit me fine, but my present non-electric vehicle suits me fine as well.

          Horses for courses, cars for customers, I suppose. The future probably holds all sorts of surprises.

          Fusion power? Anti-gravity? Boiling oceans? Michael Mann a Nobel Lareate? I wouldn’t bet against fusion power.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      student…”91% of new car sales in Norway this year were electric or hybrid, with well over two thirds of those being fully electric”

      ***

      I pity them when it comes time to change the batteries, or get even simple maintenance performed.

  36. studentb says:

    Global mean sea level (MSL) continues to rise

    The latest satellite altimetry data has now been processed through mid-2021
    https://sealevel.colorado.edu

    • Clint R says:

      The problem is, no one knows what global MSL is SUPPOSED to be.

      It has been hundreds of feet higher and hundreds of feet lower.

      Maybe we should just panic anyway….

    • Swenson says:

      s,

      You really are gullible aren’t you?

      Do you realise that a thick human hair is about 0.1 mm?

      Your idiot MSL measurers use references that claim precision to 0.01 mm! These donkeys couldn’t even measure a stationary rigid object to this precision with the instrumentation they depend on, let alone human hair!

      Global sea level?

      You should actually read your reference. Here’s part –

      “Tide gauges may also move vertically with the region as a result of post-glacial rebound, tectonic uplift or crustal subsidence. This greatly complicates the problem of determining global sea level change from tide gauge data. Differences in global sea level estimates from tide gauge data usually reflect the investigator’s approach in considering these vertical crustal movements.”

      Read the rest before you start blathering about “but satellites . ..”.

      Off you go now, reject reality and substitute your fantasy de jour. Good luck.

    • RLH says:

      As the short term MSL anywhere on the planet is very dependent on the Moon’s and Sun’s orbits and the Moon’s in particular is being continuously changed by the other planets in the solar system, so deriving the ‘true’ height of the MSL at a particular spot is not as easy as it first seems.

      There is a well known ~18.6 year cycle in the Moon’s orbit compared to the Earth/Sun but that is just a fraction of the actual orbital changes that occur.

      Added to that is the problem of compensating for vertical pressure differences and ocean basin behaviors which complicates things even further.

      Also, at the level of accuracy claimed, there is a need to account for wind/wave surface friction and direction and for the time period over which it acts.

    • barry says:

      Thanks for the heads up. Colorado used to update a few times a year, but now it can be more than a year between updates.

      Someone is apparently interested in knowing the GMSL for a given hour on a given day or something. I’m pretty sure that micropoint interest will give way to something a little more long term as soon as there are a few months where GMSL drops.

  37. Bindidon says:

    While I get more and more bored by these endlessly repeated pingpong comments about ‘orbital motion without rotation’ versus ‘inertial reference frames’ etc etc, I get more and more impressed by the fact that astronomer Tobias Mayer computed in 1750 Moon’s rotation period about its polar axis with the same precision as that delivered by today’s evaluations of lunar laser ranging data.

    And what is incredible is that Mayer had, for his observations of a few craters on the Moon, no more than a little telescope, a micrometer with 1 arcmin precision, and a metronome with 1 second precision!

    • Clint R says:

      Bindidon, what Mayer was measuring was “libration”. He did not understand, as we do today, that Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.

      • RLH says:

        Only you and your tiny, tiny, clique claim quite incorrectly that the Moon is not rotating on its own axis. It is.

        • Swenson says:

          RLH,

          And only a tiny, tiny, clique claimed that tectonic plates drifted, or that Maxwell’s wave theory was simply wrong in certain ways. Einstein was one of a large clique who totally rejected quantum theory.

          Tiny cliques are not always right, and the majority are not always wrong.

          Nature cannot be fooled, try as you may.

          • RLH says:

            If you believe that you and your tiny, tiny, clique are of the same inherent quality as tectonic plate scientists then you are very, very deluded and wrong.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            You wrote –

            “If you believe that you and your tiny, tiny, clique are of the same inherent quality as tectonic plate scientists then you are very, very deluded and wrong.”

            Which tectonic plate scientists are you referring to?

            The vast majority who claimed that continental drift was preposterous, or the tiny, tiny, clique who claimed that it could be fact?

            Are you claiming that Einstein was not deluded and very, very, wrong by refusing to accept quantum theory? What has “inherent quality” to do with facts?

            History is littered with brilliant men who got it wrong – as it turned out. I don’t accept the caloric theory of heat, as Lord Kelvin did, nor his estimate of the age of the Earth!. I don’t agree with the meteoric impact explanation of the Sun’s heat output, as the brilliant experimenter John Tyndall did, nor his belief in the luminiferous ether.

            You might well say that both these brilliant scientists are of far greater “inherent quality” than myself. All meaningless, if they are wrong. As to Sir Isaac Newton, even some of his lunar theory has been shown to be wrong. I’ll let you find out if I’m right for yourself. You won’t need any more “inherent quality” than I possess.

            Have fun.

          • RLH says:

            No-one in the days of GPS and the like would claim that the Earth under us is not moving. Both vertically and horizontally all the time.

            No-one in the days of lunar ranging and actual landings on the Moon would claim that the Moon is not rotating on its axis either.

          • bobdroege says:

            It’s a little simplistic to say Einstein rejected Quantum Theory, and even wrong.

            Einstein was not in the Copenhagen camp, but that’s not a rejection of the theory, and it looks more and more like the Copenhagen interpretation is not the best.

      • Bindidon says:

        As always, Clint R is completely wrong.

        Of course: my English is somewhat poor, Clint R keeps making fun of it over and over; but if that Clint ignoramus would understand as much German as I understand English, he would immediately see in

        https://tinyurl.com/h28489ck

        that Mayer’s treatise concerning Moon’s rotation about its own axis has nothing to do with libration.

        This word namely occurs only once in the treatise’s 130 pages. Here is the translation:

        Dominicus Cassini finally got into the right lane. 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.

        It is not sufficient to read articles written about Mayer by e.g. Eric Gray Forbes, who manifestly was not aware of what was written in Mayer’s treatise.

        You have to go deep into the stuff, Clint R.

        But… that is exactly what you are unable to, regardless what you write about.

        • Clint R says:

          It’s not just your English, Bindidon. It’s your inability to face reality.

          We know Moon is NOT rotating, as it always has one side facing the inside of its orbit. The same face always faces its direction of motion, like a horse running on an oval track.

          The concept is really easy, except for braindead cult idiots.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”I get more and more impressed by the fact that astronomer Tobias Mayer computed in 1750 Moons rotation period about its polar axis with the same precision as that delivered by todays evaluations of lunar laser ranging data.”

      ***

      Mayer was wrong. He missed the obvious while he had his head buried in his spreadsheets, that the Moon’s motion is translation. That’s what you get with a mathematician who is unable to observe objectively.

      Lunar ranging has not proved the Moon rotates on a local axis. In fact, it solidifies the obvious, that the same side of the Moon always points at Earth. If the Moon rotated locally the ranging equipment would be broad.casting to space for more than have of the alleged orbital rotation.

      • RLH says:

        The Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit, thus the equipment placed on it always are always facing towards the Earth.

      • Bindidon says:

        As always, Robertson shows us the real dimension of his ignorance.

        In contrast to Robertson, who did not really learn anything and whose ‘knowledge’ is based 100% on Wiki pages and contrarian blogs, Tobias Mayer was an educated scientist with in-depth knowledge of mathematics and astronomy, as well as a clever engineer.

        Unlike Robertson and his laughable clique, Mayer has read – and understood – all of Newton’s work, what made him able to start his treatise with a Newton based proof that the Moon’s shape is of sufficient sphericity to allow the use of spherical trigonometry in all his computations.

        It is a pity that no one until now was interested in a translation of Mayer’s treatise in English.

        *
        But the most amazing proof of Robertson’s absolute stupidity we can best see when he denies both Mayer’s genial work and today’s LLR evaluations, though they come to the same result (Mayer’s and LLR’s decimal day values first differ behind the fifth position after the decimal point).

        LLR evaluation of Moon’s motion is so exact that it not only delivered the value for Moon’s rotation, but also has shown tiniest irregularities in that rotation, called ‘free physical librations’.

        But… as all stubborn people (and there are a lot of on this blog), Robertson will endlessly repeat his denial.

  38. gbaikie says:

    A New Paper Claims Photosynthesis Could Be Possible in The Clouds of Venus
    MICHELLE STARR1 OCTOBER 2021

    “Specifically, the level of solar irradiation at specific altitudes is comparable to solar irradiation on Earth, meaning that airborne photosynthesizing microbes could conceivably survive at those altitudes. Moreover, the thick cloud layer would provide some protection against harmful ultraviolet radiation, and it’s possible that the acidity in those clouds is less than predicted and within acceptable parameters for life.

    “Together,” the researchers wrote in their paper, “these photophysical and chemical considerations support a potential for phototrophy in Venus’ clouds.”
    https://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-deems-life-supporting-photosynthesis-possible-in-the-clouds-of-venus
    Linked from https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

    • gbaikie says:

      {that posted, now,,,}
      ” If that weren’t bad enough, it’s lander-meltingly hot, with an average surface temperature of 471 degrees Celsius (880 degrees Fahrenheit).”
      Hmm, will note no agreement this. But average is like Earth surface is 15 C. Earth is cold and Venus is hot there is wide difference of temperature on both planets, and with Venus apparently less agreement as what is an average temperature {or Venus is getting hotter- you pick}.

      “From these and other historic measurements, the researchers were able to calculate the light levels within the clouds, and determined that irradiances in Venus’s middle and lower clouds are similar to those at Earth’s surface, where photosynthetic life is abundant.”

      Oh something I didn’t know:
      “Current estimates place the concentration of sulfuric acid at 75 percent for the middle clouds and 98 percent for the lower clouds.”

      98%!!!
      Anyhow, we streams with same acid on Earth and life in it- but not as brutally concentrated. I think such streams is more similar car battery acid concentration. Venus is like “Alien” blood acid concentration

      My thoughts on idea. I would tend to pick the dark side on planet and some kind chemical reaction rather than direct sunlight.
      And Venus underground. Or there could a lot crustal volume which not molten. Of course Venus has not been explored and idea there could life on Venus, could make harder to explore and/or use.

  39. gbaikie says:

    Space Force says upcoming meeting with industry won’t be business as usual
    by Sandra Erwin — October 2, 2021
    https://spacenews.com/space-force-says-upcoming-meeting-with-industry-wont-be-business-as-usual/
    {from instapundit}
    “This will not be a traditional briefing about contract opportunities, Cox said. It’s an attempt to bring the private sector into early deliberations on what capabilities the Space Force will need in the coming years.

    “I have never seen an instance where we’ve put this level of work into detailed threat models that industry will now have in their hands to help them understand what kind of threats and targets we need to worry about for the foreseeable future,” he said. ”

    Interesting. But if they talk about UFOs- space aliens. Then NOT at all interesting. I don’t much of clue what main points would be, but would not be surprised if some of it was about Space Power Satellites and nuclear rockets. Neither of which seem to me, as pressing concerns.

    • Swenson says:

      Space Force?

      What’s next – a War on Space? The War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, even the Wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t turn out all that well.

      I suppose that fighting in space will take the spotlight away from fighting on land, at sea, or in the air, none of which seem to achieve a great deal apart from wasting a lot of money and killing lots of people who probably preferred to live.

      At least the Space Force seem to realise their models are defective, to say the least. Contracting everything out all, at least, absolve them from responsibility if the future doesn’t turn out the way the models predicted. Like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

      • gbaikie says:

        US has always had space force but it something air force mostly did-
        or US military was doing space before NASA was created. And US military space has always had bigger budget than NASA {except maybe in the peak of spending of Apollo Program} Military is why US has a launch capability. Military even helped Musk start SPACEX. But NASA did Saturn V, shuttle, and only recently helped companies such as SpaceX. So Saturn V and Shuttle were not vehicles which explored all planets and ect, these missions were launched US Military developed rockets.
        So before Trump was even running, people have wanted the Space to have separate branch of Military [rather various branches doing some space related stuff}. And Trump started the Space Force, and probably take a few more years before really up and running. Or what doing right now get it more organized give more direction to new branch of Military. Or we using airplane in various branches miltary before we got the Air force- same thing. Just late in coming.

        • gbaikie says:

          In my opinion, one advantage I hope we will get with Space Force is
          less black programs {black programs is secret programs- which usually cost a lot money- but I am sure how much money, as they were black programs, or something you find out about 20 or 30 years [or never] later}. I am not fan of these secret stuff, as usually it’s American public that find out them as the last to know. I would limit them or put a 10 year limit on them to be disclosed.
          One branch one responsibility would seem to go in that direction.

          • barry says:

            Space Force is part of the Dep of Defence. What makes you think there will be less secret stuff when the Force is tied to US security?

  40. SAMURAI says:

    A rare back-to-back La Nina cycle starting from the end of this year and lasting through the summer of 2022 will likely cause global temps to drop 0.6C~0.7C from current levels of around 0.3C, for a UAH global temp anomaly of around -0.3C~-0.4C by June of next year, providing NINO 3.4 SSTs hits at least -1.5C which looks very plausible.

    Moreover, both the PDO and AMO are quickly approaching their respective 30-year ocean cool cycles, which will bring 30+ years of global cooling, as occurred from 1880~1913, and 1945~1979 when the same event happened.

    It’ll be hilarious to see the excuses Leftists concoct to explain away 30 years of global cooling, and 30 years of increasing Arctic Sea Ice Extents, despite CAGW’s predictions of a global warming trend of +0.2~0.3C/decade to 2100, and a projected Summer Arctic Ice Minimum of 1 million KM^2 in a few decades.

    I can’t believe this silly CAGW scam has been taken seriously for so long and will be delighted when global governments stop wasting $100’s of trillions on this utter nonsense.

  41. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”“Angular momentum = 0 radians/second”

    Wrong. Angular momentum = PI radians per orbit”.

    ***

    You should know better than to throw out a ‘wrong’ without thinking a problem through. I am talking about the angular momentum about the Moon’s alleged axis. There is no reference to such an angular velocity in calculations involving the Moon, only an inference that it rotates once per orbit. No proof is offered to support that claim.

    The mistake I made was saying angular momentum = 0 radians/sec, I should have said angular velocity = 0 radians/sec, therefore angular momentum = 0.

    The Moon has no angular momentum in its orbit since that would require an angular velocity thus a rigid attachment to the Earth. There is no such mechanical relationship between the two. The Moon is an independent entity with only linear momentum. It is diverted from its linear path gradually by the force of gravity into an orbital path.

    That means gravitational force is not enough to move the Moon toward the Earth but sufficient to move it a bit off its linear path.

    • RLH says:

      “I am talking about the angular momentum about the Moons alleged axis”

      I am too. And the axis is real, not alleged.

      The Moon rotates wrt the fixed stars, therefore it has some angular momentum around its axis wrt to them at the very least.

      You can try and claim that is somehow part of the orbital momentum but you would be wrong.

      Of course gravity turns a linear motion into an orbital one. But it does not make the Moon turn to ‘face’ Earth as it does so.

      The Moon orbits the Sun as much as it orbits the Earth. In fact the Sun’s gravity has a greater effect than the Earth’s does over a year. Why does the Moon not ‘face’ the Sun then as you claim it does to Earth?

      • Clint R says:

        Since Moon has NO axial rotation, It has NO spin angular momentum.

        The fact that one side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit is due to the fact that it is NOT rotating. Moon orbits Earth while Earth orbits Sun. But, that does NOT translate to Moon is orbiting Sun. People that believe Moon is orbiting Sun don’t understand orbital motion.

        • RLH says:

          Since Moon has an axial rotation wrt the fixed stars, it has spin angular momentum wrt to them..

          • Clint R says:

            Imaginary spin creates imaginary spin angular momentum.

            How are you with unicorns?

          • RLH says:

            Are you saying that there is no sunrise and sunset on the Moon. Even though they are clearly visible from Earth?

        • E. Swanson says:

          As expected, pups continues to ignore the fact that the Moon rotates wrt the Sun and it’s rate of rotation is once an orbit. The “no spin” cult’s claim can only work if the Earth is the center of the solar system and the Sun rotates around the Earth. That question was settled centuries ago.

  42. Earth receives 29% less SW EM energy from sun than Moon per sq. meter. It is almost a one third less!

    With the two thirds of SW EM energy Moon receives, Earth appears to be a much warmer on average surface temperature than Moon planet.

    Question:
    How it happens Earth receiving only the two thirds of SW EM energy Moon does, for Earth to be a much warmer than Moon planet?

    Because no one disputes Earth has 29% less SW EM available energy per sq. meter to interact with than Moon has.

    What we observe here is that for 29% less available energy per sq. meter Earth is, nevertheless, a much warmer planet!

    Answer:
    Earth surface is on average much warmer than Moon because of planet Earth 29,5 times shorter diurnal cycle, which is a result of Earth faster rotational spin.
    Also, planet Earth is covered with water, and water has 5 times higher specific heat than the regolith covered lunar surface has.

    It is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon we observe here.
    It states that planets mean surface temperatures (everything else equals) relate as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.

    Please also visit my new blog:

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com/450665358

    • ren says:

      “Lets assume the planet F spins on its axis Faster, and the planet S spins on its axis Slower.

      Both planets F and S get the same intensity solar flux on their sunlit hemispheres. Consequently both planets receive the same exactly amount of solar radiative energy.

      The slower rotating planets S sunlit hemisphere surface gets warmed at higher temperatures than the faster rotating planets F sunlit hemisphere.

      The surfaces emit at σT⁴ intensity it is the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.

      Thus the planet S emits more intensively from the sunlit side than the planet F.

      There is more energy left for the planet F to accumulate then.

      That is what makes the faster rotating planet F on the average a warmer planet.

      That is how the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon occurs.”

    • DMT says:

      Pure crap raised to the nth power.
      You can tell it is crap if that retard ren approves it.

  43. Austrian says:

    Hi I am new here,

    is it possible to ask a question?

    Greetings from Austria.

    • DMT says:

      You idiot. There is no such thing as “ozone radiation”.
      Go back to school please.

    • ren says:

      “Since the beginning of 2016 (highest spike in Arctic blue on the left), Global seems to follow the Arctic signal (which is 60N-90N) and has the same profile. The last data point is Oct 2018. [Note: The reference period for this graph is 1981-2010]

      Here is my list of questions: (I have no answers — and I hope the readers here can shed some light on the matter)

      Why is the Lower Troposphere Temperature in that circle at the top of the world, 60N-90N, behaving so differently than the rest of the world ?
      How much does that odd behavior affect the global record?
      The DMI modelled Arctic Temperature, for north of the 80th parallel, also shows anomalously warm winters and springs, seemingly confirming that there is something going on, but only since 2005. Why is that?
      How is it that the DMI above 80N seasonal graphs show seasonal anomalies from 5-8 degrees, but UAH Arctic Lower Trop shows less than 1.5 as an extreme? Is there some physical measurement error in the DMI figures since 2005? Was there some change in the measurement or model? Or is there something physical happening (sea ice doesn’t change in the same period)?”
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/10/uah-arctic-temperature-profile/

      • DMT says:

        What percent of the globe does 60N – 90N represent?
        Why post such dumbass questions here?

      • Mark B says:

        It’s mostly down to the decrease in sea ice and the observation periods.

        During the freeze and thaw seasons there is much more open water which exchanges heat much better than does an ice covered ocean. There was a dramatic change in ice cover around 2005-2012 so the annual temperature profile is notably different than the baseline (1958-2002).

        During the Arctic summer the surface air temperature has a hard time going above 0 C because energy is absorbed as ice melt in ice covered areas or because the sea surface temperature is essentially 0 C.

        One factor in the UAH data showing less variation is that it uses a more recent baseline (1981-2010 in the linked article, 1991-2021 currently). The UAH baseline thus includes more recent data so observations would be expected to show less seasonal deviation.

        Also UAH is a monthly average so it is much smoother than the daily DMI plot.

    • ren says:

      If I am not mistaken, the LT range reaches over 10 km, when in winter the tropopause over the Polar Circle drops to about 6 km on average, and even lower over the pole.
      http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif

      • DMT says:

        Somebody take this child home please.

        • Swenson says:

          Says the idiot who wrote –

          “You idiot. There is no such thing as “ozone radiation”.
          Go back to school please.”

          • DMT says:

            Nobody except idiots refer to “ozone radiation”.
            You obviously have no clue about the topic.

          • Swenson says:

            As E Swenson said (correctly) –

            “Ozone is a greenhouse gas and both absorbs and radiates thermal IR.”

            So who’s the idiot? Rhetorical question, idiot!

  44. RLH says:

    So we have those who claim that we have an excess of ground measuring stations and we could safely reduce those that we have and still be able to measure the climate accurately by kriging between them.

    So there’s a simple test that will prove that wrong. Withhold 10% of the existing stations, preferably ones of known good quality such as USCRN, and then accurately reproduce what they say from the ones that are left.

    So there are 138 USCRN stations currently active in the USA. Reduce that by withholding 14 randomly (or a as group) to make it 124. Then show that you can accurately produce the data that corresponds to those stations from the 124 that are left.

    Good luck.

    (Mind you those same people will also claim that climate models can only be improved by INCREASING the density or number of grid points without a blink of an eye).

    • Mark B says:

      The claim is that one can reproduce certain ensemble statistics (average anomaly, ensemble trend, etc) with a station data set significantly more sparse than that which is available. There is ample evidence for this claim in the literature for anyone inclined to look for it.

      Your test is apparently to go in the opposite direction, that is, reproducing some parameters for a deleted station from the remaining ensemble. Ignoring that you haven’t clearly defined what parameters you like to see reproduced it’s not a valid test of the actual claim.

      • RLH says:

        Temperature data (or any other climate data in fact) for the 10% ‘missing’ stations. If it is as easy as you claim there should be no problem with accurately reproducing that data from a sparser dataset.

        I dispute the literature as being overly optimistic in being able to do this simple task.

        • RLH says:

          If one were to remove the top or bottom outliers in this dataset

          https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude.jpg

          the results would be biased in one direction or another.

          You may claim that the ensemble statistics (say trends) are unaltered by this 10% reduction but that is a supposition, not fact.

          In absurdism you could reduce the stations to just one and still be able to predict the rest. Good luck with that.

          • RLH says:

            Well as each individual station only covers 1 square mile at best, we already have a sparse dataset. (and only for ~30% of the globe’s surface at that).

          • RLH says:

            Which single station would you like to choose as representative of all the rest?

          • Willard says:

            How about the triangle between Lancashire, London and Bristol?

          • RLH says:

            Does that only contain 1 station? I think not.

          • Mark B says:

            Temperature anomalies are well correlated between stations at much greater distances, particularly in the mid-latitudes. See, for instancesHansen/Lebedeff (1987) figure 3.

            The math is clear that for the purpose of computing temperature anomalies and trends over climatically relevant intervals the available station data is many times more than sufficient.

          • RLH says:

            And if you mean the CET that is slightly more than a triangle

            https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/cet

            and I’m not sure you would want that as a full global representative sample.

          • RLH says:

            “Temperature anomalies are well correlated between stations at much greater distances, particularly in the mid-latitudes”

            That is definitely true at higher elevations in ‘free atmosphere’ above the surface boundary layer.

            The presumption is that the SBL is consistent across that span also. It isn’t.

          • RLH says:

            “A circle of 1200-km radius is drawn around each station”

            That’s a pretty big extension of a point sample.

          • Mark B says:

            RLH says: The presumption is that the SBL is consistent across that span also. It isn’t.

            Correlation coefficients aren’t a “presumption”, it’s standard mathematics applied to real station data. Correlation says averaged station temperature anomalies are well correlated across significant distances.

            RLH says: ‘A circle of 1200-km radius is drawn around each station’

            That’s a pretty big extension of a point sample.
            It’s not particularly intuitive but it appears to be objective reality.

          • RLH says:

            “It’s not particularly intuitive but it appears to be objective reality”

            The SBL changes by day and night over quite a short geographic distance and is rarely repeatable location to location as such.

            I can average all the paleoclimate proxies together to produce a flatish straight line too. Doesn’t mean that they have any reality though.

            Decided yet which summary statistics are appropriate for semi-sinusoidal data yet?

          • RLH says:

            Willard: I am sure that the CET is fairly good representation of mid-level northern latitudes to the east of the Atlantic. I doubt it holds for the Tropics, the Poles, or the rest of the world though.

          • Willard says:

            Of course you won’t throw the Auditor under the bus, dummy.

          • Mark B says:

            RLH says: The SBL changes by day and night over quite a short geographic distance and is rarely repeatable location to location as such.

            Objective mathematical analysis says otherwise.

            I can average all the paleoclimate proxies together to produce a flatish straight line too.

            If the series are positively correlated averaging them cannot produce a flat line. This follows trivially from the definition of correlation.

            Decided yet which summary statistics are appropriate for semi-sinusoidal data yet?

            So we’re done with the sparse station topic then?

          • RLH says:

            “Objective mathematical analysis says otherwise”

            Averages of random data produces what? Averages of sparse data produces what?

            “If the series are positively correlated averaging them cannot produce a flat line”

            They are quite randomly different in fact, hence the straight line of the hockey stick. That’s what happens when you average random data I’m told.

            “So we’re done with the sparse station topic then?”

            No, and there can be more than one observation going at the same time.

            Sparse station data can be interpreted many ways. Because it is sparse.

            How you turn point samples into a wider area or volume is a lot trickier than just doing some maths or statistics. You can convince yourself of correlations, trends and many other things that are not really there if you try.

          • RLH says:

            Willard: Actually I understand about trying to create wider implications of narrow sub-sets of data. You either don’t or won’t.

          • Willard says:

            You’re new to Climateball, dummy, so of course you don’t or won’t read about the Deming Affair:

            https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/demingaffair

            The Auditor finally conceded that Hubert’s cartoon was a cartoon.

          • RLH says:

            Willard is an old hat at being an idiot. Nothing changes there.

          • RLH says:

            Mark B: Do you think that climate models can be improved by shrinking their grid size? If so, how do you reconcile that with not wanting to do the same with measuring stations spacings?

          • Willard says:

            Richard’s a 74 Hall Monitor who, instead of dealing with the fact that once upon a time one of his gurus indeed took Hubert’s graph as authoritative, waves his arms and spits.

          • RLH says:

            Willard being an idiot as usual.

    • Ken says:

      There is a video by Carl Otto Weiss where he uses the long term records from 6 cities in Europe (because there are not other long term records) and compares them to each other.

      Then he compares the average of the 6 to the ice core reconstruction from Greenland and finds the pattern of warming and cooling over 200 years is similar enough to draw conclusions that its valid for the entire planet.

      The conclusion is corroborated with tree ring and sediment proxy data.

      So the argument that there are not enough ground measuring stations from which to draw meaningful conclusions about temperature trends is rather specious.

      It would be great if there were more ground measuring stations but there are not.

      Here is Carl Otto Weiss video: https://schillerinstitute.com/media/carl-otto-weiss-le-changement-climatique-est-du-a-des-cycles-naturels/

  45. RLH says:

    The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles, of which about 33% is desert and about 24% is mountainous. Subtracting this uninhabitable 57% (32,665,981 mi2) from the total land area leaves 24,642,757 square miles or 15.77 billion acres of habitable land.

    So if each temperature measuring station on land covers/represents 1 square mile (quite an exaggeration in itself) and is set within that habitable land area then we are more that a few short of a representative sample.

    And that only covers the ground, not the volume of air above it.

    • dmt says:

      “The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles”

      A prize for the first person to spot the problem with this statement.

        • DMT says:

          Is that a correction?
          If so, that is not the problem.
          Have another look at what you wrote.

          • RLH says:

            I forgot to put where I got that quote from (and include the quote marks). That is all. Are you claiming that they are wrong? If so, what is the figure that you prefer for land surface area?

            I’ll downgrade the area that a temperature measuring station covers to 100m by 100m if you like, so give to us m * m.

          • DMT says:

            RLH – you haven’t a clue have you?
            A scientist can see the problem quite easily.
            You are obviously a scientifically illiterate amateur or, even worse, an engineer.

          • RLH says:

            Are you saying that the point samples that the climate stations cover is a significant fraction of the Earth? I thought not. Idiot.

          • bobdroege says:

            RLH,

            They are not point samples.

            A point even less so than a single molecule or atom, can’t have a temperature.

      • Swenson says:

        dmt,

        You are a lying swine. There is no prize, is there?

        You are just being stupid.

  46. DMT says:

    Honestly, we have reached the bottom of the barrel in this thread in record time.

  47. Brent Auvermann says:

    To throw him a bone, I’m going to pose DumbAss’s position in terms of the more precise question he should have asked himself in order for his answer to be correct.

    “Does the moon rotate in a frame of reference whose coordinate system is fixed to the vector from the earth’s center of mass to the moon’s center of mass?” No (approximately). If the only valid measure of the moon’s rotation is whether or not it rolls up an imaginary string between the two bodies (it isn’t), then that is one way to frame his premise in reasonably precise, mathematical terms, and no, the moon does not rotate in that frame of reference.

    If, however, we ask a different question, say about the face the moon presents to the sun, then that implies an altogether different frame of reference is appropriate.

    All that to say: Clint, there is no single frame of spatial reference that is universally “correct.” The “correct” frame of reference, if one exists, is implied by the particular question being asked. That’s what we mean by “arbitrary.” SMH

    • Clint R says:

      Brent, that’s why the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string is so useful. If the ball is rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it. If Moon were rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.

      And don’t get confused by Sun. Moon orbits Earth. Trying to somehow mix in Sun makes it appear you’re just trying to confuse the issue.

      • RLH says:

        The Moon orbits the barycenter of the Moon/Earth which in turn orbits the Sun.

        The Sun has a greater influence on the Moon than the Earth does.

      • E. Swanson says:

        No worries, pups. The Moon isn’t connected to the Earth with a string (or any other solid link). The Moon rotates once an orbit, causing the lunar illumination cycle.

      • Willard says:

        > If the ball is rotating about its axis

        You always forget the tne who holds the ball, Pup.

        You also always forget that the string is not attached to the center of the ball.

        You also always forget the stars.

        Why is that?

      • Clint R says:

        RLH, Swanson, and Willard have formed a comedy trio!

        They were unable to solve the simple problem about the barbell. They know NOTHING about orbital motion, as they continue to demonstrate.

        A trio of braindead cult idiots.

        Funny.

      • Ken says:

        Please see the trajectory of the moon and earth around the sun. Explain how ball-on-a-string applies:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg

        • Clint R says:

          Ken, the reason you can’t understand that the ball-on-a-string is only a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” is that you may be a braindead cult idiot.

          • RLH says:

            Alternatively Clint R is the member of a cult whereas everybody else is not.

          • Bindidon says:

            Clint R

            Did you ever think about the fact that while the amount of people you ignoramus dare to name ‘braindead cult idiot’ permanently increases, the amount of people agreeing to your ignorant nonsense decreases?

          • Ken says:

            Stipulated.

            You still haven’t explained why ball-on-string applies given the moon’s trajectory around the sun.

          • Clint R says:

            Ken proves braindead Bindidon right. Ken can NOT understand the simple analogy is only about “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Five simple words, and they can’t understand.

            That’s what is called “braindead”.

          • RLH says:

            ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ means that there are no sunrise or sunset on the Moon. As there are, it is obviously not true for the Moon.

          • Clint R says:

            I keep saying these idiots have no clue about orbital motion. And they keep proving me right.

            No wonder this is so much fun.

          • RLH says:

            Clint R keeps proving he is an idiot.

          • Clint R says:

            I’m learning not to respond to RLH. He not only is a braindead cult idiot, but he’s mentally deranged. That’s why he makes far more comments than anyone else, without being able to contribute any intelligence.

            The reason Moon has “day” and “night” is due to it’s orbit around Earth. It always keeps the same side facing the center of its orbit around Earth, but presents different sides to Sun.

            RLH has now mentioned several times that the calculated value of gravitational attraction is greater for Moon/Sun, than Moon/Earth. This has been known for over a century, but RLH just learned it. I’ve been watching to see where RLH would go with his new info, but he clearly doesn’t understand the implications. Orbital motion does NOT fit with the other sciences of kinematics, kinetics, and dynamics. Orbital motion is a field of study all its own. It’s fun to watch RLH flounder about, cluelessly making a fool of himself.

            RLH will respond with something inane and juvenile, but I will just let it go. I don’t have time to deal with a braindead idiot that comments more than 40 times a day!

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-894795

      • Ken says:

        I thought for a while that ball on a string is good analogy but it assumes earth is center of the universe and that is clearly not true.

        I’m beginning to think balloon on a string might be a better analogy.

        • Willard says:

          Try a yo-yo with an axle that spins freely, without creating a torque on the yo-yo.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          “I thought for a while that ball on a string is good analogy but it assumes earth is center of the universe and that is clearly not true.”

          Yes, it is clearly not true that the ball on a string analogy assumes Earth is center of the Universe.

          • RLH says:

            It is nearly as daft as that though.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It is not daft at all.

          • RLH says:

            If it’s not daft, you are.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, all you have to remember is, if the string is always taut, the attachment to the surface of the ball cannot apply a torque about the ball’s internal axis.

          • RLH says:

            A string attached to a surface is nothing like gravity acting on a center.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            All you have to remember is, if the string is always taut, the attachment to the surface of the ball cannot apply a torque about the ball’s internal axis.

          • RLH says:

            A string attached to a surface is nothing like gravity acting on a center..

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Actually, gravity acts on the whole object. Every part of the moon is attracted to the Earth. It is only “on average” that it acts on the center. So there is a way in which a string attached to a surface is something like how gravity operates.

            In any case, all you have to remember is, if the string is always taut, the attachment to the surface of the ball cannot apply a torque about the ball’s internal axis.

  48. studentb says:

    “Global monthly sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were above the 20th Century average for the 544th consecutive month.”

    • RLH says:

      The coming La Nina will make that harder to sustain.

    • Bindidon says:

      544 months are about 45 years.

      The probability that the 2021/22 Nina signal power reaches any of the strongest ones since 1979 (2010-12, 2007-09, 1998-2000, 1988-1990)

      https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png

      is not so terribly far from zero when we
      – compare it to these, and
      – look at even the worst forecast for 2021/22 (that of NOAA).

      Thus… wait and see, as usual.

      • RLH says:

        Wait and see if others are correct means that you are never wrong. Go it.

        • Mark B says:

          Looking at HadSST the 50 year trend line is more than 0.6 C above the 20th century mean. Historically large deviations from that are on the order of 0.3 C. To go under the 20th century mean at this point seems really improbable in the absence of a large scale volcano or some such.

  49. ren says:

    This is how the 25th solar cycle goes – after a momentary increase again a strong decrease in solar wind speed.
    https://i.ibb.co/Y3gh09R/latest2day.gif

  50. Stephen P. Anderson says:

    Great wisdom and insight from Dr. Patrick Moore, ex-President of Greenpeace.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEOLKEc5eRM

  51. Eben says:

    Solar update final

    The wrong SC25 start date has been moved back by 6 months to correct for the miss shifted data, the original prediction remains plotted in light-blue

    https://i.postimg.cc/yxtvfP8f/4cycle25-prediction.png

    This will be a big surprise for Bindiclowndon who keeps posting his misaligned chart as some kind of proof of higher solar cycle

  52. Brent Auvermann says:

    With all due respect, Clint, you are completely missing the point even after the way you frame the question has been put into its proper context. The way you defined “rotation” is in a particular frame of reference that you have privileged over all other possible frames of reference. By asking a certain question (“does the moon roll up the string?”), you privilege one of many frames of reference. That’s OK, but at least you should be intelligent enough to admit it…and its implications. Because: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A UNIVERSALLY “CORRECT” FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR ALL POSSIBLE QUESTIONS IN MECHANICAL DYNAMICS, orbital or otherwise.

    • Clint R says:

      Like Ken, Brent STILL can’t understand the simple analogy. And he’s so braindead, he’s even claiming I said things I never said!

      Now, he’s off creating the straw-man “UNIVERSALLY correct frame of reference”!

      He’s just another desperate braindead cult idiot. In fact, I suspect “Brent” is really that idiot Folkerts. They both attempt the same type of subterfuge.

      It’s so easy staying lightyears ahead of the idiots. That’s why this is so much fun.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      brent…”The way you defined rotation is in a particular frame of reference that you have privileged over all other possible frames of reference”.

      ***

      What you don’t get, Brent, is that frames of reference are irrelevant to whether the Moon is rotating about its axis. Rotation about an axis requires an angular momentum about that axis. If it’s not there in one FOR it’s not there in any frame of reference. The requirement that the Moon keep the same face to the Earth rules out local rotation.

      The Moon does not rotate locally, it’s change of orientation throughout its orbit is caused by translation, like an airliner flying around the Equator at 35,000 feet.

      • RLH says:

        “The requirement that the Moon keep the same face to the Earth rules out local rotation”

        But there is rotation wrt the Sun therefore it has angular momentum wrt that at least. And no, that is not the same as orbital momentum which is wholly different thing, both wrt the Sun and the Earth.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo repeats his failure to understand physics:

        Rotation about an axis requires an angular momentum about that axis. If it’s not there in one FOR it’s not there in any frame of reference.

        For a body in space (a “free body”), rotation must be defined in a non-rotating coordinate system, i.e., an inertial reference frame. When measured against an inertial reference frame, (the far distant stars), the Moon obviously rotates. The Earth-Moon vector represents a rotating reference frame and can not be the basis of determining the Moon’s rotation or it’s angular momentum.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          “When measured against an inertial reference frame, (the far distant stars), the Moon obviously rotates…”

          …but not on its own axis.

        • Nate says:

          Repeating declared ‘truths’ such as these is simply argument by assertion, and pointless trolling.

          Just stop.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”Repeating declared truths such as these is simply argument by assertion, and pointless trolling.

            Just stop.”

            Nate makes an assertion with pointless trolling. DREMT’s point is both correct and relevant to Swanson’s error in making a spinner argument completely devoid of any logical validity.

            Swanson’s argument arises out of putting one hand over one eye to blot out a cherry-picked 50% of the horizon.

            Rotation around an external axis is exhaustively described by Dr. Madhavi. . . .put one hand over one eye to blot out the external axis and it does indeed appear the moon rotates on an internal axis. . . .but that is just another conclusion arrived at by spinners out of complete and self-imposed ignorance.

          • Nate says:

            “Rotation around an external axis is exhaustively described by Dr. Madhavi.”

            Yep.

            Both Madhavi and the Brown University Lecture Notes on Rigid Body Kinematics make it absolutely clear that DREMT is not using the correct definition of rotation.

            Our Moon is in an elliptical orbit. Both sources are unambiguous that this type of motion cannot be described as rotation around an external axis.

            Why do you guys insist on making up your own facts?

            Our Moon librates significantly. It has significant axial tilt.

            Neither of these can be explained WITHOUT rotation around its own axis.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That’s right, bill, but most of them don’t even agree that a ball on a string is rotating around an external axis, without rotating on an internal axis. They keep making arguments that the attachment to the ball applies a torque about the internal axis, hence they (you would assume) must believe it is rotating about an internal axis. Even though in the next breath half of them will acknowledge that a ball on a string would be a textbook example of what Madhavi would describe as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis…

            …then the other half of them believes that the ball on a string is rotating about an internal axis because that is how they think Madhavi defines it! Just look at Ball4 and bobdroege, for instance. There is a huge amount of disagreement between the Spinners, and a huge amount of confusion and contradiction within some of their arguments individually. Until they sort all this out, there is no reason to take any of them seriously.

          • Nate says:

            Both Madhavi and the Brown University Lecture Notes on Rigid Body Kinematics make it absolutely clear that DREMT is not using the correct definition of rotation.

            And thus his model for the Moon’s motion is proven completely wrong.

            What to do?

            Return to the trusty Ball-On-A-String faulty analogy!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "Rotation around an external axis is exhaustively described by Dr. Madhavi…"

            …and some of them want to make an exception for the moon, and orbits in general, because orbits aren’t circular! They want to argue that rotation about an external axis has to happen in a perfect circle! The desperation is laughable. So why can you find multiple sources that describe orbits (which we are all well aware are not perfectly circular, but elliptical) and revolution in general as "a rotation about an external axis"!?

            Another fact that they have to deny in order to keep their beliefs going…they have to just pretend that these sources are wrong, or do not really exist, or are really talking about something else. Even though they use perfectly clear language such as:

            "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."

            It’s just crazy, bill.

          • Nate says:

            “Its just crazy, bill.”

            Apparently DREMT thinks Brown University and Madhavi get rotation wrong.

            It is just crazy.

          • Nate says:

            “Another fact that they have to deny in order to keep their beliefs goingthey have to just pretend that these sources are wrong, or do not really exist”

            Yep. To keep the argument going, DREMT does EXACTLY that!

          • bill hunter says:

            So now Nate’s argument is the moon doesn’t rotate around the earth because it doesn’t go around in a perfect circle. That argument boils down to Madhavi only teaches interesting little conceptual tidbits that have zero application in the real world as no perfect circles exist. ROTFLMAO!

          • Nate says:

            But this is the crux of DREMTs argument, that our Moon’s orbit is a pure ROTATION.

            It is at best, a semantic argument.

            But if it relies on twisting basic Kinematic definitions, then even the semantic argument falls away.

            Beyond semantics, our Moon librates significantly, and it has significant axial tilt.

            These things can be EASILY explained with axial rotation and conservation of angular momentum.

            WITHOUT the Moon’s rotation around its own axis they are impossible to explain, beyond vague hand-waving.

            But feel free to try again to explain them. No hand-waving. Specifics please.

            “but that is just another conclusion arrived at by spinners out of complete and self-imposed ignorance.”

            It is really hard to believe that you think that the universal descriptions of planetary motion that have worked well for Astronomy, Astrophysics and engineering for > 300 y, are somehow ‘self-imposed ignorance.’

            Science needs revision when it fails to predict what is observed. Are there specific failures you can point out?

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate it is laughable to try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist. All you have is an unsupported claim that Madhavi makes clear that DREMT has an incorrect definition of rotation.

            you seem to believe that Dr Madhavi’s teachings in kinematics with perfect circles and a 2 dimensional world is the be all end all teachings of kinematics. You are of course completely wrong about that as in the real world one can extend those concepts into the 3 dimensions and work with various materials to pull off some amazing pieces of engineering. but you are such a total novice you haven’t even yet imagined such an engineering much less seen and recognized one.

            if you are confused by that in short what it says is you are wrong.

          • Nate says:

            “try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist.”

            Where have I done that? Im not claiming that.

            Madhavi and Brown and every other Kinematics course explain non-circular motion as General Plane Motion. Which is described as a combination of Translation of the COM plus Rotation around the COM.

            It is an approach that has worked perfectly well for 300 y. It applies universally to all orbits….even nearly-circular ones.

            It works perfectly for our Moon in its moderately elliptical orbit. It worked well for NASA and others to send spacecraft to Orbit and land on the Moon.

            Again, I ask, can you point out where this standard model has produced errors? Nothing offered so far.

            Again I ask you to account for axial tilt and libration with your model? Nothing offered so far.

            If you guys want to model elliptical orbits as approximately circular, to enable you to then be able to call them ‘pure rotations’, then you can certainly do so for self-gratification.

            But you will never land a spacecraft on the Moon with that model. You could miss it by as much as 22,000 Km.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter still can’t comprehend that kinematics does not apply to a free body moving in a gravitational field. The result is some form of an elliptical orbit with six degrees of freedom, i.e., three translation and three rotation vectors. Kinematics does not depend on the velocity of the elements but dynamics does.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            October 17, 2021 at 6:21 AM
            try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist.

            Where have I done that? Im not claiming that.
            ————————

            You have argued that the elliptical orbit of the moon and its resultant librations disqualifies the earth’s center of gravity as an axis of rotation.

            In the real world everything librates and all rotations follow imperfect circles. Its the same thing as arguing that tidal movements on the surface of the earth disqualifies the axis of the earth as an axis of rotation. You may as well be a science denier by not recognizing the difference between concepts and reality.

            —–
            —–
            ———

            Nate says:

            ”Madhavi and Brown and every other Kinematics course explain non-circular motion as General Plane Motion. Which is described as a combination of Translation of the COM plus Rotation around the COM.”

            Wrong! Did you even read Madhavi?

            She describes a translation as: 1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.

            and adds:
            It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the body move along parallel paths. If these paths are straight lines. The motion is said to be a rectilinear
            translation (Fig 1); If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a curvilinear translation.

            No example of a general plane motion given by Madhavi includes a rotation being described as merely a translation. She in fact warns the reader: ”Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.”

            and adds that general plane motions include ”other types” of plane motion. That would be multiple axis situations where a non-rotation is combined with a rotation on a different axis.

            You have to be dork to run roughshod over Madhavi’s carefully laid out hierarchy of motions and try to claim her explanations as the source of your argument.

            —–
            —–
            ———

            Nate says:

            ”It is an approach that has worked perfectly well for 300 y. It applies universally to all orbits.even nearly-circular ones.

            It works perfectly for our Moon in its moderately elliptical orbit. It worked well for NASA and others to send spacecraft to Orbit and land on the Moon. Again, I ask, can you point out where this standard model has produced errors? Nothing offered so far.”
            ———–

            LMAO. Its your claim Nate that NASA only uses rotation models for a COM axial spin of the moon.

            You haven’t proven thats the case.

            Where I think you really go wrong is in your assumption that the axial rotation you imagine was derived from some remnant of a pre-orbital axial rotation. It is now well recognized that the motion of the moon derives from an adequately rigid connection to an external axis.

            You simply rely on archaic astronomical assumptions that predated that knowledge. . . .assumptions that astronomy doesn’t have a grant or need to fix as they aren’t yet in the business of creating worlds.

            One might be deceived into thinking the earth is in general plane motion but the non-concentric movement of the earth’s particles is due to there being two rotations on two different axes simultaneously. That isn’t a general plane motion.

            Finally, as DREMT has clearly shown there is no unanimity in astronomy or science that an orbit is not a rotation.

            But that doesn’t deter Nate he will claim like he does elsewhere that there is a consensus of all scientists he is right without providing a shred of evidence.

            —–
            —–
            ———

            Nate says:

            ”Again I ask you to account for axial tilt and libration with your model? Nothing offered so far.
            If you guys want to model elliptical orbits as approximately circular, to enable you to then be able to call them pure rotations, then you can certainly do so for self-gratification.

            But you will never land a spacecraft on the Moon with that model. You could miss it by as much as 22,000 Km.”
            ———
            Again Nate completely ignores Madhavi’s carefully crafted differences between rotations, translations, and general plane motions and starts making stuff up, completely without a shred of scientific support, to distinguish between them.

          • bill hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”Hunter still cant comprehend that kinematics does not apply to a free body moving in a gravitational field.”
            ——————-
            Source please for this claim!

            May as well say kinematics doesn’t apply to anything IMO. You need to provide a source that specifies what it applies to and does not apply to. Yet all you do is provide links to NASA rotational models that suggest otherwise. Even the scientists call orbits rotations and Swanson claims here otherwise without evidence. I am sure DREMT has tired of providing you proof of scientists calling orbits rotations and having you ignore them.

            Your argument seems to devolve down to the three monkeys who hear, see, and speak no evil.

          • Nate says:

            “Wrong! Did you even read Madhavi?”

            Yes and I Never denied any of it. So where am I wrong?

            “She describes a translation as: 1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”

            Where do I disagree?

            “It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the body move along parallel paths. If these paths are straight lines. The motion is said to be a rectilinear
            translation (Fig 1); If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a curvilinear translation.”

            When do I disagree?

            “No example of a general plane motion given by Madhavi includes a rotation being described as merely a translation.”

            I never said any such thing!

            “She in fact warns the reader: ‘Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.’

            Yes, that is a warning YOU should heed. An orbit on an elliptical path is NOT a rotation, as she makes ABSOLUTELY CLEAR!

            It is a curvilinear translation.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            “She in fact warns the reader: ‘Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.’

            Yes, that is a warning YOU should heed. An orbit on an elliptical path is NOT a rotation, as she makes ABSOLUTELY CLEAR!

            It is a curvilinear translation.
            ———————-

            You are wrong because the defining element is concentricity. You are trying to make the defining element eccentricity and you do it via grasping at the most limited definition of words used by scientists that are irrelevant to the actual point they are making but use the word only for the sake of simplicity of concepts.

            this type of making up of limiting conditions is a problem with greenhorn scientists whose egos drive them to elevate the simple forms of their education over the complex substance of real world problems.

            So are you going to take the stand that kinematics of rotation has no meaning except for ellipses with an eccentricity of precisely zero? If so that’s pretty stupid of you. And if that is not your stand you need to quantify what is your stand.

            This is same problem you have when you claim an orbiting body depending upon gravity to hold it in place has zero rigidity.

            I will agree that an object in rotation around an external axis where the paths of the individual particles are not concentric has another axis somewhere. If the motions of the particles are concentric it does not. Thats why concentricity is the only element of an ellipse that matters.

          • bill hunter says:

            Thats why concentricity is the only element of an ellipse that matters. . . .in the defining of a location of an axis.

          • bill hunter says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            and some of them want to make an exception for the moon, and orbits in general, because orbits arent circular! They want to argue that rotation about an external axis has to happen in a perfect circle! The desperation is laughable.

            Its just crazy, bill.
            ———————-

            Indeed DREMT.

            It is born of desperation like a bible thumper relying upon narrow definitions of every word uttered in the bible.

            As you have repeatedly shown orbits are described as rotations by many scientists and to my knowledge there are no orbits that are perfect circles.

            And of course that would be stupid if one actually did make such a claim because the eccentricity of a elliptical orbit doesn’t change any of the energies or rigidities necessary for an orbit.

            Talking about minds that live in hermetically sealed inculcation boxes, learning only by inculcation and devotion to the words of their Gods!!! Appeals to God work for stuff we don’t understand. But we do understand the physical manifestation of gravity and in that realm they have absolutely zero to support their argument.

            I guess they are just a bunch of science deniers.

          • Nate says:

            Nate “Yes, that is a warning YOU should heed. An orbit on an elliptical path is NOT a rotation, as she makes ABSOLUTELY CLEAR!

            It is a curvilinear translation.”

            Bill sez: “You are wrong because the defining element is concentricity.”

            I am simply taking what Brown and Madhavi say at FACE VALUE.

            IDK how you are arriving at your quite different interpretations.

            “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.

            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.”

            Neither of these is consistent with an elliptical orbit.

            Here is another nice one that agrees with the others

            http://courses.washington.edu/engr100/me230/week6.pdf

            See fig 16-1

            A body keeping a fixed orientation to the stars but travelling on an elliptical orbit is clearly consistent with the motion described as Curvilinear Translation.

            A body in elliptical orbit AND changing its orientation wrt the stars can only be described as General Plane Motion.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Bill sez: “You are wrong because the defining element is concentricity.”

            I am simply taking what Brown and Madhavi say at FACE VALUE.
            ———————-
            Right! A face value that ignores Kepler’s laws.

            Thats what I said about you Nate. You treat the words of scientists as the words of Gods with zero skepticism and full of artificial conceptual limitations of a rote learner like a boot licking sycophant.

            So we are in agreement on what you did.

            BTW, circular is a word that includes ellipses.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter again fails to comprehend the physics of gyroscopic motion. He also ignores the fact that the rotational momentum of a free body is conserved. The Moon’s rotation around an axis passing thru it’s CM results in an astronomical angular momentum, the magnitude of which does not change when revolving around it’s orbit. As a result, the Moon’s axis points toward a fixed point in the stars, just as the Earth’s axis points to another point in the stars. Both experience precession, due to the effects of gravity.

          • Nate says:

            “Right! A face value that ignores Keplers laws.”

            ??? You’re just not making any sense, Bill.

            “Thats what I said about you Nate. You treat the words of scientists as the words of Gods with zero skepticism and full of artificial conceptual limitations of a rote learner like a boot licking sycophant.”

            Now you are just tossing out gibberish and ad-homs.

            You seem frustrated that you have no science facts to back up your views.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Now you are just tossing out gibberish and ad-homs.

            You seem frustrated that you have no science facts to back up your views.
            ===================

            LMAO! Nate science is a process of hypothesis and proof. You are using a definition in place of that. You simply just believe everything a scientist says and what you read in a book or a study.

            An auditor cannot rely on such evidence as it has no value as evidence. You have to actually read everything in the book or study and determine that indeed a hypothesis and proof was offered for what you want to believe to be science. If its not there or there isn’t a reference you can trace to real evidence elsewhere you have to assume the words you want to believe are based on nothing but ignorance.

            People ignorant of science on a topic tend to automatically form an opinion based on nothing but ignorance. The difference between you and I is I conceptually understand the concept of rotation, control of rotation, and source of the energy of that rotation which defines an axis.

            You rely on conjecture about such stuff as residual energy after a force slowed an existing rotation down to one turn per orbit. But that is stupid because what happens if the spin was in the opposite direction of the orbit?

            The forces that can slow down a rotation to one turn is a force that can create a new rotation. So all objects in the universe are destined to become tidally locked on external axes.

            Finally kinematics is about efficient machine/apparatus design. Rotation in a sufficiently rigid system has a specific characteristic that is linked to its true axis or variations on a rotation linked to more than one axis.

            Tesla got that. DREMT gets that. I get that. Many others get that like Madhavi who is simply not dealing with astronomical phenomena and has no need to consider that orbital ellipses are identical in all energies to a corresponding circle.

            Kepler’s laws establish that identity. And unless you can come up with a credible source with a mechanical real world body of evidence that says otherwise, one should consider the moon’s primary external axis to be the COM of earth the mean position of which is identical to the barycenter related to the earth moon system.

            Madhavi provides the logic and the engineering of such.
            Kepler provides the laws that extend the concept to any orbital ellipse to a corresponding circle.
            And the defining characteristic of the correct axis is the source of energy that creates the rotation.

            If you want to stick with stuff of taking words at FACE VALUE you need to elevate your game from just being a bootlicking sycophant to actually being able to present a physics argument that properly identifies an axis whether it be internal or external or involve multiple axes.

            If you can actually do that then you could perhaps effectively argue that you are NOT a bootlicking sycophant. I would actually hope that you are not because if you are not perhaps you could teach us all something. . . .and I love nothing more than learning something new.

          • bill hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            Hunter again fails to comprehend the physics of gyroscopic motion.

            =========================

            why is it Swanson that you are always presenting arguments that apply to all rotations no matter where the axis is?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote:

            why is it Swanson that you are always presenting arguments that apply to all rotations no matter where the axis is?

            That’s because in physics, the location of the axis is defined by the rotation of a free body. The rotation of a symmetrical free body in space is a three dimensional vector which points toward a point in the celestial sphere. In the case of General Plane Motion which you “no spin” yo-yos keep alluding to, the motion of a rigid body can be pictured as an instantaneous rotation about an external point in a 2-D plane, but that no longer applies when there is continuous motion in 3-D and there’s no expectation that said rotation-around-an-external-axis would continue about that point as a body moves in an elliptical orbit.

            As I demonstrated in previous calculations, the assumption of the Moon rotating about an external axis leads to impossible consequences. Not that my demonstration would deter a dedicated yo-yo from spouting reams of nonsense, since none of you guys appear to be able to put pencil to paper and actually do some math.

          • Nate says:

            “orbital ellipses are identical in all energies to a corresponding circle.”

            Gibberish.

            Then you mention Kepler again and again?

            Youve completely lost your mind, Bill.

          • Nate says:

            “Madhavi provides the logic and the engineering of such.”

            Initially you wanted us to pay attention to Madhavi description of Rotation. Then when it didnt fit your POV, you decided Madhavi’s description of rotation should be ignored!

            Thus facts and logic are expendable!

            “Kepler provides the laws that extend the concept to any orbital ellipse to a corresponding circle.
            And the defining characteristic of the correct axis is the source of energy that creates the rotation.”

            Kepler discovered that orbits were elliptical, NOT circular. As such planets speed up and slow down in their orbit. Thus their positions on any future date could be accurately predicted for the first time.

            The difference between elliptical orbits and circular orbits are quite real. Elliptical orbits are not pure rotations. Basic kinematics. Basic geometry.

            Your insistance that these differences can be ignored is…ridiculous, and magical thinking.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            “orbital ellipses are identical in all energies to a corresponding circle.”

            Gibberish.
            ——————–

            Thanks Nate for continuing to show your religious devotion.

            I realize you have no source for your claim ”Elliptical orbits are not pure rotations. Basic kinematics. Basic geometry.” but thought I would point that out anyway.

            If you think you do perhaps while you are at it perhaps you can also demonstrate Swanson’s claim of an ellipse leading to impossible circumstances for a rotation, since its obvious he cannot either.

            The two of you are simply the two biggest nutcases in this forum running around like monks repeating yourselves and never providing any evidence of your claims for why your point of view is correct.

            You simply cannot arrive at a cause for the moon’s tidal locked condition that does not involve the external axis it rotates around. OTOH, the non-spinners have done that thousands of times that you have just chosen to ignore.

          • Nate says:

            “You simply cannot arrive at a cause for the moon’s tidal locked condition”

            This has been explained countless times.

            Before Newton could explain the cause of motion via forces and his laws he needed a universal way to DESCRIBE motion in terms of translation, velocity, acceleration, rotation, etc.

            That is Kinematics. He got it largely from Galileo. It makes no attempt to find the cause of motion.

            Thus astronomy’s description of orbits in terms of translation and axial rotation is simply giving the motion in a form that can be most easily explained.

            Newton found that he could account for the translation of planets along elliptical paths with gravity, independently from rotation or orientation.

            His equation explains the PATH thru space of a planet’s COM. It has nothing whatsover in it about orientation or rotation rate.

            One can go on to include spin-orbital coupling, tidal locking and perturbations from the sun and other planets to explain synchronous orbits, orbital precession and axial precession.

            But none of that changes how orbits are universally described.

          • Nate says:

            “I realize you have no source for your claim ‘Elliptical orbits are not pure rotations.’

            You mean other than the unambiguous definitions given by Brown, Madhavi, and UW?

            Have you gone over to the Pure Troll side? It seems so.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            blah blah blah

            ”One can go on to include spin-orbital coupling, tidal locking and perturbations from the sun and other planets to explain synchronous orbits, orbital precession and axial precession.”

            Go on to? LMAO! Pull your head out of your arse thats the only discussion that has been going on. The rotation of the moon is caused by the COM of earth. That is the correct way to describe the cause of that rotation and the physical nature of that rotation. If you choose to ignore that you must argue that the moon’s rotation is coincidental, has nothing to do with forces from the COM of earth, and above all you must describe how this rotation came about in a way that none of those other criteria are to blame.

            Nate says:
            ”But none of that changes how orbits are universally described.”

            I aren’t talking about how orbits are described universally or not. And they aren’t described universally. . . .Tesla and this forum and other examples show that definitively. Any way how something is described tells you nothing about the physics of the system unless the description is that the moon rotates around an external axis then it does describe the physical reality of the situation.

          • E. Swanson says:

            hunter wrote:

            …perhaps you can also demonstrate Swanson’s claim of an ellipse leading to impossible circumstances for a rotation, since its obvious he cannot either.

            Hunter ignores the implications of the math I presented, providing no critique to support his comment. He still fails to offer any math to describe the “no spin” model of motion, which is easily captured in the math of an elliptical orbit with the Moon rotating once each orbit. Hunter displays no understanding of gyroscopic motion of a free body in space, which involves the basic principle in physics, conservation of angular momentum. The Moon’s rotational axis has been proven to point in a direction which is not perpendicular to it’s orbital plane, therefore the no-spin mental model is grossly flawed. The Moon can not rotate about two different, non parallel axes at the same time.

            I can’t claim to understand how the Moon became tidal locked with the Earth, but the “no spin” yo-yos hand waving and cartoons don’t work either.

          • Nate says:

            “The rotation of the moon is caused by the COM of earth. That is the correct way to describe the cause of that rotation and the ”

            Notice YOUR source Madhavi, as well as Brown and UW dont discuss what CAUSED the rotation or translation AT ALL.

            Because thats NOT KINEMATICS.

            Yet here you are talking about a theory of what may have been the cause of the present motion, millions of years ago. As if that changes the KINEMATIC description of the motion.

            Why would it?

          • bill hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            Hunter ignores the implications of the math I presented, providing no critique to support his comment.
            ——————-

            Why should I critique your math Swanson? The math is the same if the moon rotates coincidentally and synchronously or if it rotates due to the forces of gravity of earth.

            Your math simply removes the radius of the orbit for the portion of the problem associated with Lspin. This formula is simply a derivation of a formula that determines the sum of an infinite number of point masses rotating around the earth. Another way it could be done would be to start with a spinning disk the diameter of the orbit and with a thickness the diameter of the moon (like an mgr disk they mount the ponies on). Then you remove all but the globe of the moon. It is merely conicidental that the math can be devolved down into two simple calculations. The math doesn’t have a life of its own where you can start describing physical realities to the object you are calculating as the math can be determined in many ways and the physical reality doesn’t change depending upon the mathematical approach you select.

            Multiple models can be built and they all end up with the same result Swanson. Once you grasp that you will discontinue talking about different models and unique gyroscopic motions that simply ignore the reality of the earth and moon relationship.
            ——–
            ———-
            ———-
            E. Swanson says:

            The Moon’s rotational axis has been proven to point in a direction which is not perpendicular to it’s orbital plane, therefore the no-spin mental model is grossly flawed. The Moon can not rotate about two different, non parallel axes at the same time.
            ———
            Yes it can. That is simply a unique quality of gravity is that the moon can rotate around the earth, and be influenced by other strings of gravity from the sun, the other planets, and the stars without having its strings get tangled up. Evidence of that is the moon is not significantly tilted in respect to the ecliptic plane, which is the earth’s solar orbit plane.

            ——–
            ———-
            ———-
            E. Swanson says:

            I can’t claim to understand how the Moon became tidal locked with the Earth, but the “no spin” yo-yos hand waving and cartoons don’t work either.
            ————
            When you can’t explain something it should serve notice to you that you are ignorant about something important regarding what you are talking about . . . .leading to ignorant opinions. Science is not confused about how the moon got tidal locked. Perhaps you should do some more reading.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            The rotation of the moon is caused by the COM of earth. That is the correct way to describe the cause of that rotation and the

            Notice YOUR source Madhavi, as well as Brown and UW dont discuss what CAUSED the rotation or translation AT ALL.

            Because thats NOT KINEMATICS.

            Yet here you are talking about a theory of what may have been the cause of the present motion, millions of years ago. As if that changes the KINEMATIC description of the motion.

            Why would it?
            ———————

            Nate what is it about the concept of an external axis that you don’t get?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter continues to display his failure to understand physics. The Moon’s orbit can not be modeled as a spinning disk because the orbit is not circular and because the Moon is not attached by a solid link. Removing all the mass from the disk except that of the Moon can not describe the Moon’s rotation about an axis which is parallel to that of the initial disk, since the measured axis is tilted relative to the orbital plane. Gyroscopic rotation which describes the axis of a rotating body is not “unique”, it’s a fact of physics.

            Tidal locking of the Moon is a fact. How it happened doesn’t change the other facts that the Moon is a free body and rotates once an orbit wrt the stars. You yo-yo’s still can’t figure out that all rotations are defined in inertial space.

          • bill hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”Hunter continues to display his failure to understand physics. The Moons orbit can not be modeled as a spinning disk because the orbit is not circular and because the Moon is not attached by a solid link. Removing all the mass from the disk except that of the Moon can not describe the Moons rotation about an axis which is parallel to that of the initial disk, since the measured axis is tilted relative to the orbital plane. Gyroscopic rotation which describes the axis of a rotating body is not unique, its a fact of physics.”
            —————-
            You just ignored everything I said about the tilting and the link and did so with terms that have no meaning in physics. So who doesn’t understand physics. The real choice of an axis is between and axis that has a physical controlling link to the rotation and one that does not. By selecting the one that does not you are effectively claiming no control over the rotation.
            ——–
            ———-
            ———

            E. Swanson says:
            ”Tidal locking of the Moon is a fact. How it happened doesnt change the other facts that the Moon is a free body and rotates once an orbit wrt the stars. You yo-yos still cant figure out that all rotations are defined in inertial space.”
            ————–

            So does your claim boil down to that from a distant star you can’t see the moon rotating around the earth?

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”Notice YOUR source Madhavi, as well as Brown and UW dont discuss what CAUSED the rotation or translation AT ALL.

            Because thats NOT KINEMATICS.

            Yet here you are talking about a theory of what may have been the cause of the present motion, millions of years ago. As if that changes the KINEMATIC description of the motion.

            Why would it?”

            —————————

            Well it is clear as a bell that if the moon had no rotation before entering orbit, or at any time during its orbit; the gravity of the earth will cause a tidally-locked rotation. But it in orbit with a spin and it will do the same thing but it might take longer.

            That is precisely why they teach kinematics to engineers.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote some more silly stuff, including:

            So does your claim boil down to that from a distant star you can’t see the moon rotating around the earth?

            To quantify rotation for a free body in space, one simply must use a coordinate system which is fixed against the stars which thus does not rotate. Such a coordinate choice is called an Inertial Reference Frame. This isn’t about the view from space, it’s that the reference frame must point toward fixed spots in the celestial sphere.

          • bill hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            To quantify rotation for a free body in space, one simply must use a coordinate system which is fixed against the stars which thus does not rotate. Such a coordinate choice is called an Inertial Reference Frame. This isnt about the view from space, its that the reference frame must point toward fixed spots in the celestial sphere.

            ———————–

            Fixed spots? The moon does not stay in a fixed spot in space!

            So your strategy is to zoom in so close so as to eliminate the view of the planetary system for the purpose of just seeing the moon, then putting the viewer on a oscillator that moves the lense in an elliptical pattern so as to continue to focus on the moon and not allow any other part of the planetary system into your field of view. . . .then judge which axis the object is rotating upon?

            And that is required by the laws of physics?

            reference please. . . .sounds like you have over imagined all this.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote:

            Fixed spots? The moon does not stay in a fixed spot in space!

            then judge which axis the object is rotating upon?… And that is required by the laws of physics? …reference please.

            I gave you a reference which yu appear not to have bothered to read. Here’s a quote:

            “The state of motion (i.e. the velocity) of any object is always defined with respect to a reference frame/b>.

            Newton’s first law, also called the law of inertia, defines a special class of reference frames, called
            inertial frames. It states that, when viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion continues in motion with constant velocity unless it is acted on by an external net force.”

            Note that an Inertial Reference Frame is also not rotating. All the “no spin” arguments fail because the yo-yo clowns keep using a rotating reference frame, such as one based on the vector from Earth to the Moon.

            In engineering, the need for a celestial reference frame can be ignored, since the problems are low speed/acceleration and the time frame is short. It’s unlikely that engineers would even think of using an inertial reference frame, unless they are working on aeronautical or satellite problems or shooting long range artillery.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Wrong, as always, Swanson. From an inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.

          • E. Swanson says:

            pups, Select 3 inertial reference frames, the origin of one fixed in the CM of the Earth, the second fixed at the Moon’s CM and the third fixed at the barycenter. Fix one axis for each parallel to the orbit’s semi-major axis and the second parallel to the Moon’s orbit plane. The third would be orthogonal to the first two, using the right hand rule. With those three coordinate systems, the axes would all be parallel and using them would show that the Moon rotates once an orbit.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            From an inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.

          • Nate says:

            “Well it is clear as a bell that if the moon had no rotation before entering orbit, or at any time during its orbit; the gravity of the earth will cause a tidally-locked rotation. But it in orbit with a spin and it will do the same thing but it might take longer.

            That is precisely why they teach kinematics to engineers.”

            Again, you seem to miss the point. This WHOLE argument has been about how to properly describe the motion of the Moon. That is precisely what Kinematics does.

            Madhavi, Brown, UW, and all other courses describe motion as rotation or translation or a combination of the two.

            They don’t give a sh*t how that motion came about. They don’t use the words force or torque or gravity. Because no matter how it came about, the description of the motion is unchanged.

            Thus your statement above, speculating about the Moon’s prior state of rotation, and what cause it to change, is completely irrelevant to deciding how to properly describe the PRESENT motion.

            It is interesting to astrophysics to explain the causes of the motion. But FIRST it needs to be described in terms that are universally understood. That’s why they teach Kinematics to scientists and engineers.

          • Nate says:

            Thats why they teach Kinematics to scientists and engineers, BEFORE they teach them about forces and torques and how those produce translations and rotations.

            So you guys cite the Kinematics authority of Madhavi, Brown and UW.

            But when the Kinematic rules they teach contradict your prior beliefs and intuitions, you end up breaking those rules, as DREMT does repeatedly, then of course you come to nonsensical, contradictory conclusions, as he does again here.

          • bill hunter says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            ”Wrong, as always, Swanson. From an inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.”

            And of course DREMT is correct here and Swanson wrong.

            Swanson has improperly cherry picked the reference frame he wishes.

            As pointed out in his own source which he apparently didn’t read himself it says:

            ‘The frame fixed in the airplane moving with constant velocity v and the frame fixed on the ground are inertial frames.’

            One can add additional frames for the sun, solar system, and distant stars.’

            From the distant stars one can see the moon rotating around the earth, Swanson simply wants to ignore much of the moons motion so as to artificially specify it as a motion around its own axis.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter, As I pointed out, there are some situations where it is convenient to use a local coordinate system as if it were actually an inertial frame. That would apply to many problems on Earth, but the Earth both rotates and is accelerated by the gravity of the Sun, so there are problems for which this does not work. Gyroscopic motion is one such situation. Orbital mechanics and attitude control of spacecraft are others.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            blah blah blah blah blah

            ”Thus your statement above, speculating about the Moons prior state of rotation, and what cause it to change, is completely irrelevant to deciding how to properly describe the PRESENT motion.”

            Then more blah blah blah

            —————————
            I agree:
            ”Kinematics is the branch of classical mechanics that describes the motion of points, objects and systems of groups of objects, without reference to the causes of motion (i.e., forces ).”

            And while kinematics doesn’t refer to causes ”Both kinetics and kinematics are areas of study in physics that deal with the motion of an object, but the difference between them is that only one also addresses the causes of that motion. Together, they help a physicist to understand both the “what” and the “why” questions related to moving things.”

            Since you don’t know how the various parts of physics fits and you misclassify the motion of the moon’s points you would never ever be able to divine the what and why questions as detailed above.

            Madhavi makes it clear that this classification is necessary as a student moves into actual designs for various axes.

          • bill hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”Hunter, As I pointed out, there are some situations where it is convenient to use a local coordinate system as if it were actually an inertial frame. That would apply to many problems on Earth, but the Earth both rotates and is accelerated by the gravity of the Sun, so there are problems for which this does not work. Gyroscopic motion is one such situation. Orbital mechanics and attitude control of spacecraft are others.”

            Sure a frame that ignores the movement of earth is just fine for looking at the earth which does rotate on its own axis. But that would not apply to the moon which doesn’t. . . .that is other than to tell you doesn’t after you have already accounted for the orbital rotation.

          • Nate says:

            “without reference to the causes of motion (i.e., forces )”

            You agree. Good. Then you agree that discussion of the causes of the Moons motion is irrelevant to deciding how to describe it.

            Only Kinematics is needed.

            Then lets simply ask how Kinematics whether DREMTs repeated declaration:
            “the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.”

            is consistent with Kinematics.

            Madhavi, Brown, and UW are all absolutely clear:

            “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.

            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.”

            So it is they are absolutely clear. An elliptical orbit does not qualify as a ‘rotation about a fixed axis’.

            DREMTs repeated declaration does not agree with Kinematics. It is is simply wrong.

            Then why does he repeatedly cite Kinematics (Madhavi) as a basis for his argument, then turn around and ignore Kinematic definitions?

            Because that is the only way he can keep this argument going indefinitely and continue to troll based on it.

          • Nate says:

            Earlier you had noted that “it is laughable to try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist.”

            Right no perfect circles exist in planetary motion. In science we use approximations when they give us answers with an acceptable error.

            Thus when the Earth or Moon rotate on their axes, all the mass parts are moving in circles around the axis, with an error of a couple of meters. That is an acceptable error. GPS works just fine in locating these points using that model.

            Whereas, for the Moons elliptical orbit, a circular approximation would be off by as much as 22,000 km. That is not an acceptable error for landing spacecraft on the Moon.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Only Kinematics is needed.
            ————————

            Indeed and instead motion is divided into classes. You just screw up what the classes are.
            ——————–
            —————-
            —————

            Nate says:

            Then lets simply ask how Kinematics whether DREMTs repeated declaration:
            “the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.”

            is consistent with Kinematics.
            —————
            Yes it is.
            ——————–
            —————-
            —————

            Nate says:

            “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.”
            ————–
            Circular equals elliptical. Kepler’s 2nd law.

            ——————–
            —————-
            —————

            Nate says:

            ”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.”
            ——————-
            The moon travels in a pure rotation. . . .evidence is the lack of reality of the value denoted for your claim of a non-rotating curved translation. The orbit is a single indivisible motion as far as angular momentum is concerned and possesses an axis. One can only separate the motions conceptually via a mathematical derivation.

            ——————–
            —————-
            —————

            Nate says:

            ”So it is they are absolutely clear. An elliptical orbit does not qualify as a ‘rotation about a fixed axis’.”
            —————————–

            But it is and you declaring otherwise doesn’t make it so.

            ——————–
            —————-
            —————

            Nate says:
            DREMTs repeated declaration does not agree with Kinematics. It is is simply wrong.
            —————–
            DREMTs and Tesla’s and many others view of this matter is supported by math of real motions of real objects. Your math is only supported by unreal motions of an unreal object (point mass)

            ——————–
            —————-
            —————

            Nate says:
            Earlier you had noted that “it is laughable to try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist.”

            Right no perfect circles exist in planetary motion. In science we use approximations when they give us answers with an acceptable error.
            —————–
            No perfect circles exist. . . .period. And per Keplers law the answer doesn’t change due the elliptical nature of the moon’s orbit. e.g. no error remains. . . .per Kepler.
            ——————–
            —————-
            —————

            Nate says:
            Thus when the Earth or Moon rotate on their axes, all the mass parts are moving in circles around the axis, with an error of a couple of meters. That is an acceptable error. GPS works just fine in locating these points using that model.
            —————–
            The earth has a far greater tidal bulge due to its independent daily rotation that exposes different sides to the moon and moves around the earth. If the moon were not tidal locked its tidal bulge that moved around the moon would be much greater than earths tidal bulge due to the moon. So you are just babbling nonsense and ignoring evidence.

            ——————–
            —————-
            —————

            Nate says:
            Whereas, for the Moons elliptical orbit, a circular approximation would be off by as much as 22,000 km. That is not an acceptable error for landing spacecraft on the Moon.
            ———–
            Indeed but that isn’t a determination of what a rotation is and is not. the fact you think you need to mention this is just desperation because of the weakness of your other arguments.

            Non-spinners have the brilliant Tesla, Kepler, kinematics, and a single motion identically similar to a ball on a string or a chalked circle on a merry-go-round deck.

            Spinners are alone in their arguments attempt to break Kepler’s law (denying equality), rely upon undefined words, unilaterally narrow definitions of words that are not explicitly narrowed in science, deny an orbital rotational axis, rely upon an unquantified concept of adequate rigidity that changes from claim to claim, and deny Tesla without evidence.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter continues to ignore reality. The axis of rotation of a free body is defined by the fact that the body is rotating.
            He has agreed that the Moon does exhibit an axis of rotation and that said axis is tilted wrt the orbit’s plane. For General PLANE Motion, all rotations exhibit axes which are perpendicular to the plane and this must also apply to the “no spin” yo-yos claim that the Moon rotates around an external axis.

            It should be obvious that a body can’t possibly rotate around two axes at the same time, especially one with a rotational inertia as large as the Moon. Hunter’s confusion is so complete that he can’t see the conflict presented in these facts and is left to repeat his usual delusions without facts, references or supporting math.

            The Moon rotates once an orbit wrt inertial space.

          • Nate says:

            “Yes it is.”

            Ok so argument by assertion, is it.

            Straight up denialism is the way to go?

            “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.’

            Circular equals elliptical. Keplers 2nd law.”

            No. You are not even trying to live in the world of facts!

            There are circular orbits and elliptical orbits that have the the same energy. That is ONE property that is equal. All other properties are NOT equal.

            The MOTION is NOT the same.

            That is why Keplers discovery of elliptical orbits and Newton’s explanation of them was such a big deal.

            Im glad you are not in charge of landing things on the Moon.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "For General PLANE Motion, all rotations exhibit axes which are perpendicular to the plane and this must also apply to the “no spin” yo-yos claim that the Moon rotates around an external axis."

            General plane motion is what the "Spinners" are arguing the moon is doing, Swanson, not the "Non-Spinners".

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”Im glad you are not in charge of landing things on the Moon.”

            ———————-

            Landing a vehicle on the moon or the disk of rotating merry-go-round has absolutely no relevance to kinematics Nate. It is ridiculous for you claim it is relevant. Produce a source that supports that viewpoint!

          • bill hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”Hunter continues to ignore reality. The axis of rotation of a free body is defined by the fact that the body is rotating.”
            —————–
            the moon is not a free body Swanson it is a captured body enslaved to its orbit around earth due to earth’s gravity. I think a grammar school kid should know that.

            ————
            ———-
            ———
            E. Swanson says:

            ”It should be obvious that a body cant possibly rotate around two axes at the same time, especially one with a rotational inertia as large as the Moon.”
            ——————-
            the earth does dude! There aren’t many kids in grammar school that don’t know that. You guys have gotten so desperate you are now babbling nonsense.

            ————
            ———-
            ———
            E. Swanson says:

            ”The Moon rotates once an orbit wrt inertial space.”
            ————-
            Yes indeed it does. . . .around an axis defined by the COM of earth. You finally got something right.

          • Nate says:

            “Landing a vehicle on the moon or the disk of rotating merry-go-round has absolutely no relevance to kinematics Nate.”

            You think the shape of the Moon’s orbit has no relevance to landing things on it?

            Again, you guys are free to approximate the Moon’s elliptical orbit as circular, so that you can then call its orbit a ‘rotation’ and thus continue to believe that the Moon doesnt spin, and feel like you won ‘something’.

            But if you expect NASA or astronomers or aerospace engineers to adopt such a POV, and thus to give up a huge amount of predictive accuracy, just so that a small cult of morons can feel better about themselves, you will be very disappointed.

          • Nate says:

            “Whereas, for the Moons elliptical orbit, a circular approximation would be off by as much as 22,000 km. That is not an acceptable error for landing spacecraft on the Moon.

            Indeed but that isnt a determination of what a rotation is and is not. the fact you think you need to mention this is just desperation because of the weakness of your other arguments.”

            Yes it is according to our Kinematics textbooks! Are you saying that we can ignore those definitions, because…why? Because any definition that doesnt work for you can be dismissed as invalid?

            “Non-spinners have the brilliant Tesla, Kepler, kinematics, and a single motion identically similar to a ball on a string or a chalked circle on a merry-go-round deck.”

            Kepler and kinematics do not agree! A ball-on-a-string is a mantra, but not helpful for the real moon.

            “Spinners are alone in their arguments attempt to break Keplers law (denying equality)”

            Nobody has suggested ‘breaking’ Kepler’s Law, loser-troll.

            “rely upon undefined words”

            That is YOU GUYS.

            “unilaterally narrow definitions of words that are not explicitly narrowed in science”

            It’s right there in black and white in Kinematics textbooks. Sorry but you lose that one!

            An ellipse is not a circle. Nor is a square or a triangle a circle.

            Even though there are no ‘perfect’ circles, that doesnt mean that ellipses or squares or triangle can be considered equivalent to circles.

            That is moronic.

            A child can discern the differences between these shapes. Categorizing shapes is useful.

            “deny an orbital rotational axis, ”

            Orbital axes are not denied. YOU are erroneously adding the word ‘rotational’ to it.

            “rely upon an unquantified concept of adequate rigidity that changes from claim to claim”

            This like the circle thing again. There are no infinitely rigid objects. And yet the concept of a Rigid Body is quite useful in science and engineering!

            How can that be? Because people can often easily categorize rigid and non-rigid bodies.

            The Moon-Earth system is clearly not in the Rigid Body category!

            “and deny Tesla without evidence.”

            Discussed the logical flaws in his argument in great detail a half dozen times. Where were you?

            Why do you defer to one person’s Authority?

            Clearly state the logical basis of his argument, then we can discuss it.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            Kepler and kinematics do not agree!
            ——————–

            Really? where are your references? if there is a disagreement it just shows you to be wrong about there being agreement in physics on this topic. So that argument doesn’t help you.
            ——–
            ——-
            ——-
            Nate says:

            “unilaterally narrow definitions of words that are not explicitly narrowed in science

            Its right there in black and white in Kinematics textbooks. Sorry but you lose that one!
            ——————

            Sorry but you just believe this because of poor reading comprehension skills on your part. 1st Brown uses the word ”circular” which is used more often for paths that aren’t the shape of a perfect circle.

            2nd Madhavi uses the word ”circle” improperly if she intends the geometric definition of the word. She says:

            ”Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation. For example, the
            plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles,
            while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles. ”

            A good reader would realize she is not talking about perfect circles nor near perfect circles but is instead distinquishing between concentricity vs parallel paths for the individual particles.

            She is just using the common concept of curves often in common language noted as a circle or circular vs the geometric definition of a perfect circle.

            And of course in the study of kinematics dealing with real world objects then there is no such thing as a perfect circle rendering the discussion as irrelevant to physics without an accompanying quantification of how perfect something needs to be. Do you have a reference for us on this? I didn’t think so.

            ——–
            ——-
            ——-
            Nate says:
            An ellipse is not a circle.
            ————-

            Indeed all circles are ellipses. so if a circle equals a circle then it also true a circle equals an ellipse. And in common language circle is used more often improperly than the word ellipse. But with the addition of the words parallel and concentric the meaning she is getting at becomes clear and your argument looks more and more like nitpicking.

            ——–
            ——-
            ——-
            Nate says:

            Even though there are no perfect circles, that doesnt mean that ellipses. . . .can be considered equivalent to circles.

            That is moronic.

            A child can discern the differences between these shapes. Categorizing shapes is useful.
            ——————-

            OK provide a reference that specifies how out round and circle can be to not be considered a circle. You allow for imperfections. How did you arrive at the idea the lunar orbit isn’t within that allowance? Source please so I can apply this test to all circles. Either that or admit you just pulled the idea out of your arse.

            But I guess it suits your penchant for obfuscation to not support your argument.

            ——–
            ——-
            ——-
            Nate says:

            deny an orbital rotational axis,

            Orbital axes are not denied. YOU are erroneously adding the word rotational to it.
            —————-
            LMAO! I am far from the only one Nate. How many references can you find that states that orbits are non-rotational?

            ——–
            ——-
            ——-
            Nate says:

            ” ”rely upon an unquantified concept of adequate rigidity that changes from claim to claim”

            This like the circle thing again. There are no infinitely rigid objects. And yet the concept of a Rigid Body is quite useful in science and engineering!

            How can that be? Because people can often easily categorize rigid and non-rigid bodies.”
            —————–
            We are in agreement here Nate.

            But the typical way to do such categorizations is to determine if it is rigid enough for it to dependably perform its function.

            I think the moon qualifies on that score since its been doing it for a billion years or so. If you disagree you should state why.

            ——–
            ——-
            ——-
            Nate says:
            Why do you defer to one persons Authority?
            ————-
            Do I? I happen to agree with Tesla based upon the preponderance of the evidence. the only evidence you have offered falls rather neatly into the class of nit picking (e.g. circles about .05 away from being perfect)

            So far you have merely projected what you believe from Madhavi’s use of the word circle as a strict geometric definition when in fact it is not used that way saying both translation and rotational motions move in circles.

            Since that is true then the differentiation comes down to the modifier adjectives. There you clearly lose and what I have been telling you over and over the issue is concentricity vs non-concentricity.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ” ”Landing a vehicle on the moon or the disk of rotating merry-go-round has absolutely no relevance to kinematics Nate.”

            You think the shape of the Moons orbit has no relevance to landing things on it?”

            Sheesh Nate take a course in reading comprehension for Gods sakes!

            I didn’t say the moon’s orbit has no relevance to landing things on it. I said landing things on the moon has no relevance to kinematics!

          • Nate says:

            “Indeed all circles are ellipses. so if a circle equals a circle then it also true a circle equals an ellipse.”

            You fail at basic logic, Bill.

            ‘All circles are ellipses’ does not equal ‘All ellipses are circles’.

            If you dont get that, then you are a moron.

            Madhavi’s, Brown’s definition of ‘Rotation’ is unambiguous. Your efforts to spin it in your favor is laughable.

            You lose on that point. Move on!

            Asking me for ‘sources’ to explain standard geometric facts to you, is ludicrous trolling.

            Aint gonna work with me.

            At this point you are just wasting words defending indefensible nonsense.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote:

            the moon is not a free body Swanson it is a captured body…

            No, it’s a free body moving in a gravitational field. It’s rotation follows the laws of physics and it has rotational momentum defining an axis which is not perpendicular to it’s orbital plane. Because of this well known fact, the Moon can not also be “rotating” around the Earth’s CM (or the Earth-Moon barycenter).

            For the Earth, there’s no doubt that it’s rotational axis is not perpendicular to the ecliptic plane as it revolves around it’s orbit of the Sun. Revolving around an orbit is not rotating around an axis.

            You need to go back and study physics, especially regarding gyroscopic motion and the conservation of angular momentum.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Madhavi’s, Brown’s definition of ‘Rotation’ is unambiguous.
            ===========

            i agree its unambiguous. but you can’t use a perfect circle as a determinate for rotation when she uses a circle as an example for both rotation and for a translation.

          • bill hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            No, it’s a free body moving in a gravitational field.
            ——————

            you can’t call it a free body when its movement, particularly its rotation is controlled by that gravitational field

          • Nate says:

            “i agree its unambiguous. but you cant use a perfect circle as a determinate for rotation when she uses a circle as an example for both rotation and for a translation.”

            Demonstrating that you dont know what ‘unambiguous’ means!

            Your ongoing use of the word ‘perfect’ suggests again that categorization in the real world is pointless and cant be done.

            Which is obviously FALSE!

          • Nate says:

            “you cant call it a free body when its movement, particularly its rotation is controlled by that gravitational field”

            Controlled by???

            At best weakly influenced by. So weak that millions of years required to see its influence.

            This is again a ‘perfection fallacy’. The idea that in the real world there are no ‘perfectly’ free bodies, thus nothing can ever be put into that category.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter, Did you again use the word “rotation” to refer to the Moon’s orbit?? There are two main components of that gravitational field. That of the Sun causes the Moon’s orbital precession and, as you’ve noted several times, the Moon’s rotational axis is close to perpendicular to the Ecliptic. So, the Sun is also “controlling” the Moon’s rotation.

            From Wiki article: “The Sun’s gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of Earth’s on the Moon”.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Your ongoing use of the word ‘perfect’ suggests again that categorization in the real world is pointless and cant be done.

            Which is obviously FALSE!

            ————————

            Nate you have been doubling down on stupid for months. All circles are out of round to some extent and that includes ellipses. I have stated the word circle is a particular concept of an ellipse with certain properties that ease calculations when calculations don’t have to be perfect. It doesn’t serve as unique identifier of motion as you have been wrongly maintaining for months.

            The only reason you have doggedly held to that argument is you didn’t do your homework and read what you should have read.

            A circle is used to describe both translations and rotations. Thus it is also describes general plane motions. It is not as you have stupidly maintained a unique quality of rotations.

            You need to come up with an entirely new argument.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”Controlled by??? At best weakly influenced by. So weak that millions of years required to see its influence.”
            ——————

            Controlled by not in how long it took to gain total control by the fact the moon has been under adequate control now for an estimated greater than a billion years.

            Thats a lot longer service time than any device that an engineer has built in compliance with kinematic principles.
            ———————-
            —————–
            —————
            Nate says:
            ”This is again a perfection fallacy. The idea that in the real world there are no perfectly free bodies, thus nothing can ever be put into that category.”
            ————————–
            Its all too obvious this criticism applies to the standard of control you are claiming Nate.

            And your claim that nothing would qualify, thats a strawman. Most of the objects it seems in the universe would qualify to some extent, such as the diurnal spin of the earth – that is not controlled. It is merely in the process of falling under control.

          • bill hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”Hunter, Did you again use the word rotation to refer to the Moons orbit?? There are two main components of that gravitational field. That of the Sun causes the Moons orbital precession and, as youve noted several times, the Moons rotational axis is close to perpendicular to the Ecliptic. So, the Sun is also controlling the Moons rotation.

            From Wiki article: The Suns gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of Earths on the Moon
            —————-

            It should be readily apparent to you Swanson that you can’t name a lunar motion that isn’t under gravitational control. But one can name one for the earth. Its daily spin.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate you have been doubling down on stupid for months. All circles are out of round to some extent and that includes ellipses. I have stated the word circle is”

            As Bill quadruples down on stupid and very weird.

            So a theme is appearing here: since nothing in the real world fits ‘perfectly’ in a category, there really are no categories or boundaries between categories that cant be distorted, relaxed as needed.

            Circles. There are no perfect circles in the world, thus any closed curve is pretty much a circle.

            Rigid body. Since there are no perfectly rigid bodies, any material, even vacuum with a gravity field can be called a Rigid Body.

            Free body. There are no truly free bodies in the universe. Everything is controlled by some galaxy far far away a long time ago. So its pointless to apply free body physics to anything.

            What else? Kinematics..might as well blur the lines between it and Dynamics.

            In Bills universe, all facts are flexible.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate, A circle is used to describe both translations and rotations. Thus it cannot be used as a unique qualifier for rotations.

            what other argument do you have?

          • Nate says:

            ” circle is used to describe both translations and rotations. Thus it cannot be used as a unique qualifier for rotations.”

            Both rotation and translation are unambiguously defined. Yet you are still confused.

            Lets see the quote that is confusing you.

            You have argued that an elliptical orbit is also a ‘rotation’ even though it doesnt satisfy the Kinematic definition.

            Give us your alternative definition of ‘rotation’ then.

            It must be clear and unambiguous.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ” circle is used to describe both translations and rotations. Thus it cannot be used as a unique qualifier for rotations.”

            Both rotation and translation are unambiguously defined. Yet you are still confused.
            —————–

            Thats correct if the particles move in concentrically its a rotation and if they don’t its a translation.

            thus the moon’s orbit is a rotation.

          • Nate says:

            “Thats correct if the particles move in concentrically its a rotation and if they don’t its a translation.”

            So your definition of rotation is ‘all particles must move in concentric somethings around a fixed axis’ ?

            Concentric what? Any shape ok? Square shape ok? Highly eccentric ellipse ok? Any close curve? What if not a closed curve?

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ” ”Thats correct if the particles move in concentrically its a rotation and if they don’t its a translation.”

            So your definition of rotation is ‘all particles must move in concentric somethings around a fixed axis’ ?

            Concentric what? Any shape ok? Square shape ok? Highly eccentric ellipse ok? Any close curve? What if not a closed curve?”
            ————————

            Hmmm, I think we are in agreement, or at least close. ‘all particles must move in concentric imperfect circles around a fixed axis’ So yes it could be an ellipse. The moon’s orbit is only a bit more that .05 eccentric, very low. But I see no reason for the relationship to change because of eccentricity.

            As to a square, thats a lot more complicated. I would not rule it out. I don’t hold an opinion on this and it doesn’t seem to be directly addressed by Madhavi. However she does mention that uniform rotation and uniformly accelerated rotation are frequently encountered forms of rotation. That would suggest the non-uniform rotation/acceleration of a concentrical square motion could possibly be considered a rotation that might not be frequently encountered. IMO, if such a mechanism was encountered it would be useful to study its dynamics very closely.

          • Nate says:

            “As to a square, thats a lot more complicated. I would not rule it out. I don’t hold an opinion on this, it doesn’t seem to be directly addressed by Madhavi. ”

            All sounds very vague.

            Madhavi addresses it quite directly when she defines rotation as all mass moving in circles around the axis. Squares need not apply for that job.

            What is your clear, unambiguous definition of rotation? And do you have a source that agrees with you?

            In science we need clear definitions that everybody understands and uses, and not left to the whims random opinion.

          • Nate says:

            “So yes it could be an ellipse. The moons orbit is only a bit more that .05 eccentric, very low. But I see no reason for the relationship to change because of eccentricity.”

            For a Moon in a circular synchronous orbit, where the moon keeps a face oriented, (to the center), is unambiguous. Thus all its mass moves in concentric circles around the center. It is unmabiguous, and can be called a pure rotation.

            For a Moon in an elliptical synchronous orbit like ours, it will not always keep the same face to the orbit center– it has libration. And it will not have all mass moving in concentric ellipses. It will not satisfy Madhavi’s or even your proposed definition of rotation.

            For a Moon in a quite eccentric elliptical orbit, the libration becomes extreme. We see the Moon wobbling back and forth so much that we will see all sides of it. And the mass will fail in the extreme to move concentrically.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ”For a Moon in a circular synchronous orbit, where the moon keeps a face oriented, (to the center), is unambiguous. Thus all its mass moves in concentric circles around the center. It is unmabiguous, and can be called a pure rotation.”
            ——————
            hmmmmmm, Making up conditions on the fly Nate? How about a source to back up this condition of the face being required to always point precisely at the same point?

            You seem to be arguing with yourself. That condition will not be met with any imperfect circle; yet you argued vehemently for imperfect circles qualifying. You ought to make up your mind as to what the conditions are, provide source material for each condition, and ensure they are not contradictory to the wide variety of arguments you employ.

            As to a square I have no disagreement with you and stated clearly I had no position on the matter. how did you arrive at a position here?

          • Nate says:

            “hmmmmmm, Making up conditions on the fly Nate? How about a source to back up this condition of the face being required to always point precisely at the same point?”

            Bill, your hopelessly confused by simple sentences.

            I said ‘For the given situation’ you get pure rotation.

            Nothing made up about it!

            “You seem to be arguing with yourself. That condition will not be met with any imperfect circle; yet you argued vehemently for imperfect circles qualifying.”

            The ONLY ONE who argued for that was YOU, dimwit-troll!

          • Nate says:

            “As to a square I have no disagreement with you and stated clearly I had no position on the matter. how did you arrive at a position here?”

            Squares are not circles, moron!

            I have been consistently in agreement with Kinematics in this discussion, that Rotation involves all mass moving in concentric CIRCLES.

            Where did you get a different idea?

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            October 27, 2021 at 5:22 AM
            “hmmmmmm, Making up conditions on the fly Nate? How about a source to back up this condition of the face being required to always point precisely at the same point?”

            Bill, your hopelessly confused by simple sentences.

            I said ‘For the given situation’ you get pure rotation.

            Nothing made up about it!

            “You seem to be arguing with yourself. That condition will not be met with any imperfect circle; yet you argued vehemently for imperfect circles qualifying.”

            The ONLY ONE who argued for that was YOU, dimwit-troll!
            ————-
            Liar!

            you argued: ”Your ongoing use of the word ‘perfect’ suggests again that categorization in the real world is pointless and cant be done.

            Which is obviously FALSE!”

            I said a circle was a concept of a perfect ellipse and didn’t have an analog in the real world. You took strong exception to that which is a vehement argument for imperfection.

            ———-
            ——-
            ——-

            Nate says:
            October 27, 2021 at 5:26 AM
            “As to a square I have no disagreement with you and stated clearly I had no position on the matter. how did you arrive at a position here?”

            Squares are not circles, moron!

            I have been consistently in agreement with Kinematics in this discussion, that Rotation involves all mass moving in concentric CIRCLES.

            Where did you get a different idea?

            ——————

            Why do you have so much difficulty reading Nate. I said twice now I have no position on that matter. To arrive at a position for me isn’t just accepting authority as it is obviously for you. You are a born sycophant. I may well agree with you but to arrive at that I would need to see a sample mechanism and then I would limit my opinion to that mechanism. You though just ignore that circles are not being used as a unique qualifier even by Madhavi.

            And when you accept that then you may begin to understand that kinematics is a branch of dynamics and that its classification system is based on dynamics. And it might even come to you at some point after you accept that, that the use of a word isn’t a law in kinematics, but instead is just a sample. These are the things that experience teaches you once you start using the tools taught to you as a kid.

          • Nate says:

            “you argued vehemently for imperfect circles qualifying.”

            Real world circles qualify. Circles with imperfections that are within an acceptable error is what i said.

            Ellipses with 5% deviations from a circle, 20,000 km are well outside a tolerable error for most applications of astrophysics or space science need.

            If you thought i agreed with you that elliptical orbits qualify as ROTATIONS then you have not been paying attention. No surprise.

            So becoming an expert at a subject like physics, then using it correctly is, to you, being a sycophant.

            Whereas, not really studying a subject, instead using intuition, and thus getting a lot of it wrong, is being an independent thinker!

            Right?!

            Ok so I never bothered to study or learn Auditing theory or practice, but by winging it and using intuition, I should be able to out do you!

            Riiight?

          • Nate says:

            “The moons orbit is only a bit more that .05 eccentric, very low. But I see no reason for the relationship to change because of eccentricity.”

            so here you are making it quite clear that even an ellipse of extreme eccentricity, not remotely circular, should qualify as a ROTATION.

            Then you need STILL need to define ROTATION in a way that works for such cases, but not for squares because.

            Concentricity won’t work for our Moon, its mass is not moving concentrically.

            For extreme ellipses, the paths of various parts of the moon may even cross each other.

            And AGAIN, whatever your definition, show us a source that agrees with it.

            We’ve seen three sources that insist ROTATIONS are circular motions.

            If you continue to argue that there are no perfect circles so we can’t use CIRCULAR as descriptor in the real world, then you will need to argue it out with Brown, Madhavi, UW, and most of humanity.

          • Nate says:

            The point is this.

            Since Kepler we have understood that describing orbits as elliptical is a BETTER and much more accurate description of the motion than circular. in fact some orbits, like comets, have high eccentricity, and approximating them as circular is ludicrous.

            They needed a Kinematic description of orbits that is universally applicable. Thus orbits are not considered rotations because in general they are not circular.

            Orbits are thus described as translations on an elliptical path. Axial rotations are separate parameters.

            IDK why that bothers you guys so much, given that you cannot point out instances where it has failed.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            Real world circles qualify. Circles with imperfections that are within an acceptable error is what i said.
            ==================

            So what the heck Nate are you the arbiter of what is ”acceptable”? If not then provide a source.

            And there is no application in astrophysics that demands a kinematic description of the moon’s rotation around the earth. Navigating to the moon doesn’t change a nit by properly identifying the axis. Perhaps you could come up with something relevant. . . .though I suppose you don’t understand what would be relevant.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ”If you thought i agreed with you that elliptical orbits qualify as ROTATIONS then you have not been paying attention. No surprise.”
            —————
            Nope! you agreed that imperfect circles qualified.

            Now we are waiting for a rationale that applies to kinematics that would establish how imperfect, though, Madhavi certainly didn’t create any limitations.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            So becoming an expert at a subject like physics, then using it correctly is, to you, being a sycophant.
            ————————–
            Perhaps Nate. Actually most physicists do only what they are instructed to do.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Ok so I never bothered to study or learn Auditing theory or practice, but by winging it and using intuition, I should be able to out do you!
            —————————–

            Out doing someone can occur many ways. . . .like coming in on budget. But to be an auditor Nate you would have to develop an attitude of skepticism to have a prayer of even getting the job done no matter how long you took.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Concentricity wont work for our Moon, its mass is not moving concentrically.
            —————–
            That would be incorrect.

            ”For extreme ellipses, the paths of various parts of the moon may even cross each other.”
            ——————–

            That also would be incorrect.

            Nate says:
            Weve seen three sources that insist ROTATIONS are circular motions.
            —————–
            Circular is not a science term it applies to tracks of all sorts of shapes. Synonyms for circular: circuitous, indirect, roundabout.

            this is a problem you have with virtually everything you post where you read stuff written by a scientist and you impute a precise meaning to every word in the study that simply isn’t referenced or proven anywhere in the study. If you actually had any real world experience as a scientist you would be aware of what you are doing.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            in fact some orbits, like comets, have high eccentricity, and approximating them as circular is ludicrous.
            ——————
            Says who?

          • Nate says:

            “Circular is not a science term it applies to tracks of all sorts of shapes. Synonyms for circular: circuitous”

            If you really think that then no wonder you are confused.

            This is a good example of you winging it and using (bad) intuition rather that real science.

            A circle has precise geometric definition. And no doubt Rigid Body Kinematics courses are using that one!

            Just stop with ridiculousness.

          • Nate says:

            “Actually most physicists do only what they are instructed to do.”

            You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual. And your constant anti-science bias is not appealing on a science blog.

            Maybe go troll elsewhere.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate you simply are too inexperienced to understand the purpose of kinematics. At this point in time you have failed to express anything that has anything to do with dynamics that are the basis of kinematic classifications.

            You want to use language of your personal Gods as the defining characteristic of a dynamic concept. . . .when in fact they are based on their dynamic nature instead.

            Madhavi rules nothing out except motions that upon inspection are not due to the controlling nature of the axis of rotation.

            I expressed this many months ago. I have experience in structural engineering and get it. In this case ‘control’ is the main characteristic. Madhavi expresses that indirectly with a large number of examples of rotating lever arms, with the axis being the point around which the lever operates.

            Control for the moon is manifested in its axis at the COM of earth, not at its own COM axis. If it did have some spin on that axis it would require its own positive force to put it in motion and would be additive to the forces responsible for motion of the moon.

            You guys even realize that in some of your awkward arguments for example when you claim the moon’s motion is the residual of a more rapid spin sometime in the past.

            But thats a poor excuse because that could only occur if the present spin was in the same direction as the historic spin. . . .a 50/50 proposition assuming the historic spin was either directly in line with the current spin or directly opposed to it. . . .a proposition that has infinite possibilities of a historic spin on an axis pointing in a different direction. Thus the probability of such a condition is incredibly small. Synchronous rotation by coincidence has such a low probability one can just discard the idea.

            And even if it were in the same direction and in line with the current axis you would have to ignore the axis of control. You go to great lengths to ignore the dynamics of the moon’s motion in order to satisfy your sycophantic reverence to the words of your heroes of bygone times. . . .you are like a Bible thumper reading every word in the Bible as the word of God.

            No sorry Dude but that so naive and so ignorant of the concept of dynamics its actually laughable.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          My stalker admonishes Swanson. Will Swanson listen?

        • Nate says:

          It is astonishing that any adult could think this is a clever retort.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Will Swanson listen?

          • E. Swanson says:

            pups, why should anyone listen to people like you who don’t understand physics and repeatedly ignore facts?

            The Moon rotates wrt the stars, including our local Sun. From a point on the Sun-Moon vector, the Moon always appears fully illuminated, but each day presents a different “face”, which proves rotation. Of course, the Sun-Moon vector is not a inertial reference frame, since it rotates once a year wrt the stars.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, Swanson. The moon rotates…

            …but not on its own axis.

          • Ball4 says:

            …as observed on the moon.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Just look at Ball4 and bobdroege, for instance”

            Ball4 would argue that in Madhavi Fig. 2(b) the rectangle is rotating on its own internal axis once per rev. inertially. Despite that being physically impossible due to the rod connecting the rectangle to point O.

          • Ball4 says:

            …being physically impossible more or less than once per rev. due to the rod connecting the rectangle to point O.

            As bill writes 8:59am, DREMT also forgot to mention whether that’s observed with “one hand over one eye” or not.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            See? He actually does argue that! Plenty of “Spinners” would disagree with him…will they challenge him here?

  53. ren says:

    Low solar activity and easterly QBOs are already causing circulation blockage in the lower stratosphere. This will cause Arctic airflow in various regions of the northern hemisphere. Arctic air will reach Europe on October 11.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_NH_2021.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren …”Low solar activity and easterly QBOs are already causing circulation blockage in the lower stratosphere. ”

      ***

      Thanks, Ren.

  54. Swenson says:

    RLH wrote –

    “orbital motion without axial rotation’ means that there are no sunrise or sunset on the Moon. As there are, it is obviously not true for the Moon.”

    No, it means that the Moon’s parent body (the Earth around which it falls) does not rise and set in the lunar sky.

    Just as the Sun would not rise or set if the Earth was tidally locked to the Sun (around which the Earth falls).

    Orbital motion for the Moon is indicated by the Earth being at one focus of the Moon’s elliptical orbit.

    Feel free to fire of another silly gotcha, starting with “So that means . . .”. Or just play more silly semantic games.

    • RLH says:

      The Moon orbits the Sun. The Earth only gets to play a bit part.

      The Sun’s influence on the Moon is greater than the Earth’s as any calculation regarding mass, distance, etc. will show.

    • RLH says:

      P.S. Orbits are only to do with the path. The orientation is a separate affair.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…”P.S. Orbits are only to do with the path. The orientation is a separate affair”.

        ***

        There is no path, an orbit is simply and instant by instant relationship between the Earth and the Moon. In other words, it’s an imaginary path created in the human mind of the summation of each instant.

        The orientation is a product of curvilinear translation. Already explained that with the airliner orbiting the Equator at 35,000 feet.

        • RLH says:

          An object follows a path to make an orbit of something else. Curvilinear translation is your word salad for an orbit.

    • Swenson says:

      You wrote –

      “P.S. Orbits are only to do with the path. The orientation is a separate affair.”

      And the Moon orbits the Earth, perpetually falling towards the Earth. The orbital path is elliptical, with the Earth being at one focus. If you believe the Moon is actually falling perpetually towards the Sun, in line with the Law of Universal Gravitation, you will have to indulge in some very silly semantic games.

      I know you don’t like it, but that’s the reality. The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, with one face perpetually facing the Earth, not the Sun. As a result, there is no Earthrise or Earthset seen from the surface of the Moon. It does not rotate about an internal axis.

      If you claim the Moon is not orbiting the Earth, but rather the Sun, then you probably realise that the same reasoning has the Earth orbiting whatever the Sun is orbiting! The centre of the Milky Way galaxy? It gets pretty silly pretty quickly.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swenson…”If you claim the Moon is not orbiting the Earth, but rather the Sun…”

        ***

        RLH thinks the Moon has momentum about the Sun. He thinks, if gravity was suddenly turned off, that the Moon would continue to orbit the Sun.

      • RLH says:

        Tha paths than the Moon and the Erath follow wrt the Sun are well known and documented.

  55. barry says:

    Oh look, the anomaly for Sep 2021 is higher than the anomaly for Dec 2020. Does this mean the world is in a warming trend again?

    Or did I just apply the 2 main dumbass metrics used in this blog to talk about a trend?

    • DMT says:

      Barry, the standard dumbass response to facts is to:
      (A) shriek
      (B) deny
      (C) start talking about the moon

    • Swenson says:

      b,

      DMT wrote previously –

      “You idiot. There is no such thing as “ozone radiation”.
      Go back to school please.”

      All matter above absolute zero radiates energy. As NASA puts it –

      “The Stefan-Boltzmann law, a fundamental law of physics, explains the relationship between an object’s temperature and the amount of radiation that it emits. This law (expressed mathematically as E = σT4) states that all objects with temperatures above absolute zero (0K or -273C or -459F) emit radiation at a rate proportional to the fourth power of their absolute temperature.”

      Others can decide what to believe, and how reliable DMT might be as a source of information. He is probably stupid enough to believe that air cannot be heated with IR radiation unless it contains miracle “greenhouse” gases!

      If so, what a delusional fool he is! The very embodiment of a climate crank!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”Does this mean the world is in a warming trend again?”

      ***

      No, Barry, it means you can take the bag off your head that you were forced to wear when it started showing cooling. You will likely have to put the bag back on early next year.

    • barry says:

      Gordon’s stupidity seems to have no bottom.

  56. Swenson says:

    Earlier, DMT wrote (in a fit of thinking that obscure nonsense indicates intelligence) –

    “”The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles”

    A prize for the first person to spot the problem with this statement.”

    Unless the prize is to watch DMT repeatedly poke himself in the eye with a hot needle, he is unlikely to get many takers.

    Of course there is no prize! Just another example of a delusional climate crackpot making promises he has no intention of fulfilling.

    What an idiot he is!

    • Ian N Smith says:

      As I predicted.
      Idiot non-scientists start complaining.
      The problem is obvious to any science student !

      C’mon – have another look at the statement and tell me what is wrong.

      • Swenson says:

        INS,

        Who’s complaining?

        Why do you think anyone should take any notice of your request? In what insane fantasy do you imagine anybody should “tell” you anything?

        You wrote –

        “As I predicted.”

        And? Is this “prediction” supposed to be important to someone?

        If you have a “problem”, maybe you could specify what the “problem” is. Or just poke yourself in the eye with a hot needle. That at least would get a laugh or two.

        Go away, you silly little climate crank.

        • DMT says:

          Calm down.
          There is no point in getting agitated simply because you don’t know the answer.

          • Swenson says:

            DMT,

            What are you babbling about?

            What “answer” is it that you are claiming that I don’t know?

            Are you another one of those idiots who claim they can read minds?

            Questions, questions!

            Go away, you silly little delusional climate crank.

      • RLH says:

        He’s obsessing, I suspect, about square miles and miles square.

        Either way the number of square meters the climate stations cover is a tiny, tiny fraction of the Earth’s surface.

        And no, I didn’t create the original quote (or correct it).

        Let us say that each point sample made by a climate station covers 100m by 100m at best. The Earth has approximately 510,100 million m. The ratio that the climate stations we have now or have ever had is a tiny, tiny fraction of that. Almost 0 in fact.

        • bobdroege says:

          RLH,

          No let’s not say

          “Let us say that each point sample made by a climate station covers 100m by 100m at best. ”

          It’s actually much better than that, See Hansen and Lebedeff.

          “The temperature changes at mid- and high latitude stations separated by less than 1000 km are shown to be highly correlated;”

          You are close, only off by a factor of 10,000.

          Well done.

    • Ian N Smith says:

      Apart from using ridiculous imperial units.

  57. Eben says:

    The funny thing about the Solar science is how little we know about how the Sun actually works, we can observe a number of things happening but we have no idea what the causes are.
    The run of the mill climate climate shysters are even more clueless about how the sun works and what it does other than that it shines.
    The average radio amateur knows a lot more than the so called climate scientists. I too was becoming a radio amateur 50 years ago but dropped out when analog things started turning digital.

    https://youtu.be/28TloH_ZnCU?t=2238

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      eben …”The run of the mill climate climate shysters are even more clueless about how the sun works and what it does other than that it shines”.

      ***

      Declaring the solar intensity as 1300 watts and change at TOA is a lie in itself. It’s an average of the intensities of an extremely broad bandwidth of frequencies. If the intensity of any of those frequencies change, especially in the more intense UV range, the Sun could be hotter without changing the average much.

      My unscientific theory is that it has been hotter the past decade or so around Vancouver, Canada and I base that on the effect it has on my skin. There is likely more intense radiation from the UV end of the spectrum, making the Sun feel uncomfortably hot.

  58. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”You are absolutely right: we must wait until surface data is available (NOAA oceans, HadSST).

    Because UAH measures temperatures of around 264 K i.e. -9 C, at an average altitude of about 4 km”.

    ***

    I am promoting you to blithering idiot. You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.

    The centre frequency of oxygen emission frequency may be located at 4 km (weighting function) but the bandwidth of that channel extends to the surface. In other words, the AMSU data collected extends to the surface.

    Look at this weighting function. Channel 5 peaks at around 4 km but the curve extends on the lower end to the surface where it is still collecting a good proportion of O2 emissions near the surface.

    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/AMSU-weighting-functions_fig9_252235249

    Furthermore, NOAA fudges their data to show warming and Had-curt uses NOAA data.

    I have pointed this out several times. NOAA declared 2014 the hottest year ever based on a probability of 48%. Only a blatant fudger/cheater would manipulate statistics so egregiously to show warming that does not exist.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson

      Regardless what you write, it shows lack of intelligence, experience, knowledge.

      Roy Spencer has explained ad nauseam that O2 emissions collected near the surface cause tremendous biases, especially above the oceans.

      But such things can’t reach your crackpot brain.

      Feel free to name me a ‘blithering idiot’. You are anyway one of those here who insult the most (‘cheating SOB’ and the like).

      In comparison to what you are, that ‘blithering idiot’ sounds to me like a honorific distinction.

  59. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”Are you in between so incredibly dumb that you even dont see that this graph represents solar data for only FOURTY EIGHT HOURS ?”

    ***Words from a blithering idiot. On his worst day, Ren is a light year ahead of you in intelligence.

  60. ren says:

    Currently, the fastest temperature decline in the equatorial Pacific is in the Nino 4 region.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png

  61. hristo says:

    Again – I think it is unfair that in the title it is +0.25C and reference is changed with the excuse that it does not change the trend.

    And fun fact – more C02 makes your food less nutricious – more carbs, less proteins.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_K2Ata6XY

  62. ren says:

    Here you can observe solar activity in real time. You can see very few active sunspots.
    https://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/swx-overview-small.gif

  63. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    The Nobel Prize in Physics 2021

    The Nobel Prize in Physics 2021 was awarded “for groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of complex systems” with one half jointly to Syukuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann “for the physical modelling of Earth’s climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming” and the other half to Giorgio Parisi “for the discovery of the interplay of disorder and fluctuations in physical systems from atomic to planetary scales.”

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      Complex systems are characterized by randomness and disorder and are difficult to understand. This year’s Prize recognizes new methods for describing them and predicting their long-term behavior.

      One complex system of vital importance to humankind is Earth’s climate. Syukuro Manabe demonstrated how increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to increased temperatures at the surface of the Earth. In the 1960s, he led the development of physical models of the Earth’s climate and was the first person to explore the interaction between radiation balance and the vertical transport of air masses. His work laid the foundation for the development of current climate models.

      • Swenson says:

        TM,

        Not the first Nobel Prize awarded for something later proved to be totally wrong, and probably not the last.

        Couldn’t possibly get physics wrong? In 1938, Fermi revived a Nobel Prize for discovering two new elements – Ausonium and Hesperium. Unfortunately, these elements don’t exist. Fermi fooled both himself and the Nobel Committee.

        You quoted “Syukuro Manabe demonstrated how increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to increased temperatures at the surface of the Earth.” Well, no, he didn’t, any more than Fermi discovered Ausonium and Hesperium.

        Nobody has demonstrated that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface, results in the thermometer becoming hotter. Fantasy.

        No magical free energy from CO2.

        • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

          Swenson at 5:42 AM

          off your face already, huh?

        • Clint R says:

          TM follows the pattern of other cult idiots. He finds something he believes supports his nonsense. When he brings it here, it gets debunked, and TM gets upset. It’s a pattern we see often.

          Manabe is NOT a physicist, yet he’s awarded the NP in “Physics”! The “old buddy” system at work.

          Manabe makes the same mistake as others. He assumes CO2 warms the planet, then he “proves” CO2 warms the planet based on his false assumption. That ain’t science.

          That why we end up with obvious anti-science like Earth tides can add energy to Moon! (That was some more nonsense from TM.)

          • bobdroege says:

            Sorry Clint R,

            But that spaghetti doesn’t stick to the wall.

            Manabe didn’t assume CO2 warms the planet.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll bob validates my comment with his childish incompetence.

            I only get concerned if the cult idiots ever agree with me.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            You are just jealous because Manabe and others have passed more physics classes than you.

            If you can prove Manabe assumed CO2 warms the planet, I’ll give you 50 bucks, and you can use RLH’s math to turn it into 5 Billions.

          • Clint R says:

            bob rushes back to validate my comment even more.

            Like someone once said, “You can’t have too much validation”.

            Thanks, bob.

          • bobdroege says:

            Yeah, Clint R,

            I validated your comment as the pile of garbage that it is.

            You didn’t support your claim.

            You flunked out.

          • Clint R says:

            bob, your misrepresentations and personal attacks validate me, since you are a proven ignorant troll.

            Thanks.

            Please feel free to continue, but I don’t always have the time, or interest, to respond.

          • bobdroege says:

            CLint R,

            You made a claim, you failed to back it up.

            Put up or shut up!

            And you started the personal attacks!

            “Troll bob validates my comment with his childish incompetence.”

            Thanks for playing, but you lose.

          • Clint R says:

            That’s not a personal attack, bob. It’s REALITY.

            You are a troll, childish, and incompetent.

            If you weren’t such an incompetent troll, you could find the material that won Manabe the NP. Then, you could obtain the computer code for the subroutine that calculates the CO2 effect. Finally, you could make a flow diagram that would indicate it’s the code that is providing the imaginary CO2 warming effect.

            Or, you could go to one of his previous “papers”:

            http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/ManabeWetherald1967.pdf

            Where you would find in the abstract:

            “According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C.”

            Assumptons, extimates, and invalid computer models ain’t science.

            Maybe it’s time for some of your immature profanity now?

          • Nate says:

            Before Manabe’s paper it was unclear why the atmosphere had the temperature profile (lapse rate) that it does. Manabe’s work explained all that. It is important in atmospheric physics and meteorology.

            Nobel well deserved.

            If someone thinks they can find the flaw in the work, that no one else has found in 50+ years, please show us what it is!

          • bobdroege says:

            So now Clint R has a tantrum and throws more spaghetti on the wall, hoping it will stick.

            Posts links to papers he doesn’t read and doesn’t understand!

            That ain’t science!

          • Clint R says:

            Nate, heat transfer through a medium usually exhibits a “lapse rate”. It’s not a mystery.

            They just don’t teach basic physics in your keyboard school.

          • Nate says:

            “why it has the temperature profile (lapse rate) that it does”

            The specific lapse rate that our atmosphere has, on average, was not understood before Manabe’s model explained it. It introduced ‘radiative convective equilibrium’.

            Next time maybe read the work before dismissing it.

        • Nate says:

          “Fermi revived a Nobel Prize for discovering two new elements Ausonium and Hesperium. Unfortunately, these elements dont exist. Fermi fooled both himself and the Nobel Committee.”

          Uhhhh no.

          Fermi won the Nobel for using neutrons to transmute elements and to artificially produce radioactivity. He also explained Beta decay and discovered one of the four fundamental forces. Well deserved.

    • m d mill says:

      This is what Manabe says about current GCM’s:
      SM: As the models get ever more complicated – or, as some people say, sophisticated – no one person can appreciate what’s going on inside them. One modeller can be an expert in one component of the model, but doesn’t know the other parts. But now it is impossible to do so. If you make a prediction based on the model and you don’t understand it very well then it is no better than a fortune-teller’s prediction.

      ( https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-syukuro-manabe )

  64. Entropic man says:

    RLH

    For global average temperatures you can calculate how many stations you need.

    The precision of the mean is measurement accuracy * 1/√sample size.

    As sample size increases precision improves. For example, if you conservatively estimate that the measurement accuracy is +/- 1C, 100 samples will give the mean to +/- 0.1C, 10,000 will give you 0.01C.

    Alternatively, take random sizes of sample from the data and plot confidence limits against sample size. The confidence limits improve as sample size increases. However the graph is not straight. It flattens when the 95% confidence limits of the mean equal the internal variation due to weather. This occurs when the 95% confidence limits are +/- 0.1C.

    This means that for a global average you need enough stations to bring the 95% confidence limits down to +/- 0.1C. Any extra stations serve local needs, but won’t improve the quality of your global average.

    In theory you could get by with 100 stations. In practice their distribution isn’t optimum , so they use 1500.

    It’s rather like microscopy. You measure performance by magnification( apparent multiple of size) and resolution (the minimum distance at which you can separate two objects).

    There’s no point using greater magnification when you reach the resolution limit. You don’t get extra detail, you just make the fuzz bigger.

    • Swenson says:

      EM,

      Major problem.

      No one can define “global average temperature”, in any meaningful sense.

      Maybe you mean the average of randomly located temperature measuring instruments situated at various heights above ground, in enclosures of variable construction, and thermal properties, containing instruments generally calibrated to plus or minus 1 C or so at only two points spaced 100 C apart, and read by an assortment of semi-skilled lowly paid or voluntary observers.

      By the way, only on land, and in relatively densely populated portions of the globe.

      What was the “global average temperature” on 1 January 2010 – at 0900 UTC, say? Who calculated it, and where can their definitions, assumptions and calculations be found?

      All fantasy – well meaning, perhaps but unsubstantiated fantasy nevertheless.

    • RLH says:

      “The precision of the mean is measurement accuracy * 1/√sample size”

      So for accurate climate models how big a grid do you need?

    • RLH says:

      “As sample size increases precision improves. For example, if you conservatively estimate that the measurement accuracy is +/- 1C, 100 samples will give the mean to +/- 0.1C, 10,000 will give you 0.01C”

      Ah that old delusion again.

      You cannot make thermometers with +/-0.5c accuracy (at best) any more accurate than they actually are, regardless of how many you add together. Your statistics assume that all errors are distributed in a normal curve and randomly. Real measurements are just not like that.

      They also assume that point samples faithfully represent the gaps in-between with simple linear interpolation. They don’t.

      Nor do they represent the vertical temperature profiles that occur locally. Differently during day and night.

      And don’t get me started on time distortions that will occur. A weather front travelling over a set of measurement points will display smears in the direction of its movement that no linear statistics applied later will correct.

      • bobdroege says:

        RLH,

        “Ah that old delusion again.”

        Yeah, that old delusion, it’s called the Central Limit Theorem.

        Perhaps you haven’t heard of it.

        Google it and see how wrong you are.

        • RLH says:

          So you think the average mean is directly relevant for U shaped distributions? Even though small variances at each end of it have large differences in the outcomes?

          “In probability theory, the central limit theorem (CLT) establishes that, in many situations, when independent random variables are summed up, their properly normalized sum tends toward a normal distribution (informally a bell curve) even if the original variables themselves are not normally distributed”

          The one thing that temperature has is that it is not random over days or years and place to place, but strongly correlated which CLT does not directly address.

          Sure you can conclude that given enough results CLT then applies, but that assumes that the distribution of the mean turns out to be a bell curve in the end which temperature itself does not exhibit on any time scale.

        • Nate says:

          “So you think the average mean is directly relevant for U shaped distributions?”

          What do you think is a U shaped distribution, and how is it relevant here for T averaged over a month?

          “The one thing that temperature has is that it is not random over days or years and place to place, but strongly correlated which CLT does not directly address.”

          Because of weather, T is effectively randomized after a few days.

          Weather is not strongly correlated when measured at sufficient distances. Example, in Cleveland and Denver.

          Thus for a Global average of monthly temperatures, the CLT most certainly does apply.

          • RLH says:

            “What do you think is a U shaped distribution”

            Anything that resembles a sinusoidal waveform. Like temperature does on a daily/yearly basis.

            Sure there is ‘random’ weather to be added to that but that is smaller than the daily/yearly thing. Otherwise where do the anomalies all come from?

          • Nate says:

            The diurnal T oscillation is not the source of variation that leads to the statistical distribution of daily or monthly mean temperatures.

            That quasi-random variation is caused by weather.

            That variation is what leads ultimately to the statistical distribution of Monthly Hemispheric or Global Mean Temperature that are reported in the data sets.

            The CLT is playing an essential role in arriving at the Gaussian distributions in the Mean T data sets.

            Look at any record of monthly temperature anomalies in an arbitrary town.

            I tried it for monthly T in South Bend, Indiana. I downloaded the data into a spreadsheet, and looked at the histogram of T anomaly.

            Even at this single location the anomaly distribution closely resembled a Gaussian distribution. Try it yourself.

            https://tinyurl.com/25bmvtp3

          • RLH says:

            “That quasi-random variation is caused by weather”

            Over periods of days/weeks only.

            How about over periods of 15 years or more?

          • Nate says:

            “How about over periods of 15 years or more?”

            I detect a change in subject.

            We were talking about the applicability of the CLT.

          • Nate says:

            “How about over periods of 15 years or more?”

            That is the signal of interest. The error on the measurement comes from much shorter time scale weather noise.

          • RLH says:

            “We were talking about the applicability of the CLT”

            We are indeed. CLT specifically says pure random events that are not correlated at all. Temperature data is not like that.

            It uses the sample mean which is a poor statistic to use on cyclic data.

            e.g.
            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne_profile.jpg

            “The error on the measurement comes from much shorter time scale weather noise”

            Correlated data is not noise, or at least not in the way you mean it.

          • Nate says:

            Again.

            As explained several times:

            1. T variation at a sufficient distance separation is un-correlated.

            2. T variation at sufficient time difference (few days) is uncorrelated with its previous value, due to randomness of weather.
            ,
            That is all we need to apply CLT.

            It means that T averaged over time-distance scales large enough (much larger than correlation scale) will become Gaussian.

            This is why monthly T anomaly for one location looks roughly Gaussian distributed.

            This is why monthly T anomaly for the US48 looks very Gaussian distributed.

            This is why monthly T anomaly for NH, SH, or the Globe looks extremely Gaussian distributed.

    • angech says:

      Entropic man says:
      October 5, 2021 at 5:23 AM

      For global average temperatures you can calculate how many stations you need.

      You only ever need 1 well located station at a suitable elevation.
      If you need to know the temperature anywhere else you just plug in lat long elevation and time and voila every site on earth has an expected temperature.

      Of course if it differs from the expectation the observation must be wrong. Put it down to clouds or wind or ice, human error or hangover.

      Amend it to match what it should have been from a composite of nearby places which matched the algorithm.

      Hat tip Zeke and Mosher.

      • RLH says:

        So why is it that climate models can be improved by increasing their resolution/grid spacing but measurements go the other way?

    • Nate says:

      This was what started the discussion.

      “You cannot make thermometers with +/-0.5c accuracy (at best) any more accurate than they actually are, regardless of how many you add together. Your statistics assume that all errors are distributed in a normal curve and randomly. Real measurements are just not like that.”

      This is simply incorrect. The errors are Gaussian and driven by random weather.

      How Global temperature varies on 15 y or longer time scales is NOT ERROR.

      It is the signal of interest!

      • RLH says:

        “The errors are Gaussian and driven by random weather”

        You ASSUME that the errors are gaussian and therefore prove your point.

        Weather is strongly correlated, not random in any sense.

      • RLH says:

        “How Global temperature varies on 15 y or longer time scales is NOT ERROR.

        It is the signal of interest!”

        Hence my constant use of low pass filters of 15 years. In fact the energy in the system has a low point at around then which is why I chose it.

      • Nate says:

        “Weather is strongly correlated”

        This is missing important context. Weather is correlated over some length scale. Beyond that scale it is NOT correlated.

        That means that weather variation is independent at a distance.

        Time spans of a few days have independent weather variation, at each location.

        TO obtain a Global average Temperature, these independent regions are averaged.

        To obtain a monthly average in one town, the independent time spans are averaged.

        Both of these involve the CLT, and produce Gaussian distributions.

        As seen in the data.

        Oh well.

        • RLH says:

          “Weather is correlated over some length scale”

          In both time and space.

          There is a strong correlation at 24 hours and 365 days across both hemispheres. There is a weaker correlation at both days and weeks within them.

          There appears to be a correlation at 60 years or so also, certainly greater than 15 years.

          The globe is a gigantic thermal machine with looping feedbacks which range from minutes/hours to years/decades.

          Those feedbacks cause the correlations. There is almost nothing that is pure random at any scale other than minute.

  65. Bindidon says:

    The austral polar winter ist quite heavy this year.

    Vostok: -79.4 C (-89.2 C in July 1983 was lowest known to us).

    Amundsen-Scott directly at the Pole reported this year the coldest average for September since 1957.

    https://tinyurl.com/scspebx5

    Globally, the South Pole area was during the winter months 4.5 C below the recent 30 year average.

  66. Soon everything will bw water.

  67. Entropic man says:

    Testing

  68. Stephen P. Anderson says:

    This site’s been hacked.

  69. Gordon Robertson says:

    Anybody home?

  70. Gordon Robertson says:

    dear moderator…can you fix this problem or is the site closed for business?

  71. Gordon Robertson says:

    No posts since Oct 5th…I thought it was just me.

  72. Ken says:

    It was fun to participate in some of the discussion here; I learned a few things and dredged out topics I haven’t thought about for a long time.

    Too bad the site has attracted too many trulls that couldn’t maintain civility and filled the blog with meaningless tripe. It was getting too hard to find signal in the noise.

    Regards,

    Ken

  73. Roy W Spencer says:

    Testing.

  74. Tim Folkerts says:

    Roy,

    Thanks for all your hard work collecting the data and posting your results.

    And now to give you just a *little* more work — a friendly reminder you were going to update the spreadsheet to include the running averages going into 2021.

    The running average is down to about 0.175 now, and it looks like it will drop a bit more in the next few months (unless the global temp jumps back up to ~ 0.4)

  75. Gordon Robertson says:

    more testing

  76. Gordon Robertson says:

    We’re bordering on a record low for October (7C at 5:40PM PDT, October 12, 2021) in Vancouver, Canada. Normally at this time of October, temps are above 10C and often as high as 15C.

    Mind you, it’s approaching evening.

    • Clint R says:

      It’s not even an official La Niña yet, but Seattle can’t wait to plunge to record low temps.

      https://komonews.com/weather/sea-tac-sets-record-low-at-37-degrees-continuing-coldest-october-since-1981

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        clint…from your link…

        “Sea-Tac reported a new all-time record low of 37 degrees on Oct. 12, breaking the previous record of 37 degrees set in 1946, while some areas in Western Washington even dipped into the 20’s early Tuesday morning”.

        These temps are in Fahrenheit, the standard in many parts of the US. Therefore 37F ~ 3C. I thought we were getting chilly at 7C, and Seattle is about 130 miles south.

        In the Sun it still feels warm but once in the shade, one notices a definite nip in the air, especially if there is a wind blowing.

        For those not familiar with this area, Sea-Tac means Seattle-Tacoma, two cities side by side. Also, the 20s is 20F, about -7C.

        They also noted this is the coldest start to October since 1981….in the early days of UAH.

        • E. Swanson says:

          So, Gordo, tell us what climate impact would YOU expect from all that smoke recently dumped into the high latitude NH atmosphere?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”So, Gordo, tell us what climate impact would YOU expect from all that smoke recently dumped into the high latitude NH atmosphere?”

            You think it’s still there, hovering over us in a dome of smoke?

            I think the cooling is a precursor for La Nina. All warming/cooling is natural.

          • bill hunter says:

            Indeed its affecting the entire westcoast. It is a good month early for La Nina situations over the past couple of decades. 3 months early over typical El Nino situations. Coldest October I can remember here down at the southerly end of the US west coast.

            Even getting some winter like storms in what is traditionally the month with the fairest weather of the year.

          • E. Swanson says:

            You guys are both hilarious. The effects are wide spread and also cumulative. Here in Western NC, we experienced lots of smoke starting in August and continuing thru early October. My sinuses suffered even in doors until I rigged a 3M 1900 filter to a box fan to clean the particulates. After time indoors, when I went outside, my nose would start to respond like a cold within about 10 minutes.

            Increased number of fires were reported in Siberia, where they don’t attempt to fight them, just let them burn. Added together, the impact would likely be an increase in NH albedo, which would produce a temporary cooling which, coupled with the normal seasonal flow from the poles toward the south, would appear as colder temperatures. Not to forget that last year also saw many large fires in California, with colder than normal winter months, such as the deep freeze with snow in Texas.

            Your back yards aren’t the whole world.

          • Clint R says:

            Swanson is very distraught over this approaching La Niña. His cult preaches the oceans should be boiling!

            Swanson is so confused.

          • bill hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”You guys are both hilarious.
            Your back yards aren’t the whole world.”

            you are hilarious Swanson. who claimed or even suggested their backyard is the whole world?

            do you react when somebody suggests a hurricane or spate of wildfires in a region is the result of a global calamity? rotflmao!

  77. stephen p anderson says:

    They attacked Ed Berry’s site too. Leftists can’t handle non-conformity.

  78. Bindidon says:

    It’s just a month ago that one of the cleverest Coolistas wrote:

    The linear warming trend since January, 1979 has now dropped slightly, at +0.13 C/decade

    Some will get real busy now, You gonna have to reslice redice your numberz

    *
    Oh dear. What will the genius write this month?

    I hope Mr Spencer will have one day some idle time to display the global trend with 3 digits after the decimal point on top of his monthly posts :- )

    • Bindidon says:

      Oh I see it’s there.

    • RLH says:

      “The linear warming trend since January, 1979 is +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land)”

      Why would you want 3 digits precision?

      • Eben says:

        He must think it would improve his forecasting inability

        https://i.postimg.cc/Ls15FT07/Baghdadidon.jpg

        • Bindidon says:

          I have admitted many times to have been wrong on that Nina stuff.

          But you, Eben, are as usual unable to admit your mistakes, let alone your lack of understanding.

          Try to read at least Tim Folkerts’ comment.

          • Eben says:

            Your science is only as good as your ability to predict future results, which in your case that is zero.

            Your endless dissecting of past temperatures is as useless as last week weather forecast.

          • Bindidon says:

            Eben

            You are such an ignoramus.

            Look at a forecast like this:

            https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Sea.html

            From the same source as the Nina forecast, but a guy like you would permanently try to discredit and denigrate that source because it shows exactly those excessively warming winters we experience in Germany since years.

            *
            Moreover, look at page 21 in the pdf

            https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

            and compare the Nina 21/22 prediction with the past:

            1974, 1988, 1999, 2007, 2011

            instead of endlessly ranting against me with your stoopid

            ” Your endless dissecting of past temperatures is as useless as last week weather forecast. ”

            We will see in May 2022 what remains of your permanent discrediting, denigrating and poorish insulting.

          • RLH says:

            Assuming that the ‘standard’ 5 months delay between ENSO and global temperatures holds true, then we will see a constant downwards trend in global temperatures until at least May next year.

          • Eben says:

            Yes Bindragon, your forecast is perfect and you have a dragon in your garage , we believe you , now spare us your psychobabbles replies

            https://youtu.be/frI5y6tNsZg

      • Bindidon says:

        RLH

        I repeat:

        Its just a month ago that one of the cleverest Coolistas wrote:

        ” The linear warming trend since January, 1979 has now dropped slightly, at +0.13 C/decade

        Some will get real busy now, You gonna have to reslice redice your numberz ”

        *
        If Mr Spencer would use 3 digits for the trend instead of 2, the trend wouln’t move from 0.14 down to 0.13 in the next month, and then back up to 0.14 one further month later, just because the trend with 3 digits atdp moved by 0.001 or so.

        Then the Coolistas woudn’t write such a nonsense as above.

        Do you really have difficulties to understand such a simple matter?

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Why would you want 3 digits precision?”
        Short answer: because the trend in Aug dropped by 0.0001, not by 0.01.

        The calculated slopes this year based on the reported data are …
        J 0.137474158
        F 0.137439686
        M 0.136817681
        A 0.136088872
        M 0.135724628
        J 0.135113855
        J 0.135082784
        A 0.134967084
        S 0.135067267

        It is clear that the only interesting change is occurring in the 3rd digit (or even the 4th digit!). Therefore, reporting the third digit tells us useful information about the *change* in the trend. The trend did not suddenly change by 0.01 for one month, dropping to 0.13 in Aug from 0.14 in Jul and rising back to 0.14 in Sept. The trend actually dropped by about 0.0001 and then rose again by about 0.0001, which just *happened* to bring the trend slightly below 0.1350000 for 1 month.

        For the most general of overviews, 2 digits suffice. For people moderately interested in the trends (eg anyone reading this comment), 3 digits is MUCH better. 4 digits is interesting too. Then you can see that the trend changes about 0.0000 to 0.0007 any given month.

        J 0.1375
        F 0.1374
        M 0.1368
        A 0.1361
        M 0.1357
        J 0.1351
        J 0.1351
        A 0.1350
        S 0.1351

        There is a whole separate issue about how accurate the data themselves are and how that would affect the trends. But the trend as measured was (approximately) 0.13508 in JUL and 0.13497 in AUG. There is usually little reason to throw away information.

        • Bindidon says:

          Thanks Tim for the support: I’m on holiday, no desktop computer with all the data I usually have.

        • RLH says:

          Anyone who understands rounded number knows that it means +/-0.01 where 1 is the last place. So in essence 0.13 and 0.14 are the same thing and should be considered as that.

          Extending it to 3 digits assumes that the accuracy of the summation extends also but as there is no proof that the calculations allow that and it is all too easy to end up with precision that is not justifiable. I will defer to Roy on that.

          Most people also know not to use already rounded number in later calculations or thoughts without considering that inherent uncertainty.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Anyone who understands rounded number knows that it means +/-0.01 where 1 is the last place. So in essence 0.13 and 0.14 are the same thing and should be considered as that.”

            Well, sometimes it means +/-1 in the last place. More commonly it means +/- 0.5 in the last place.
            “0.13” might mean “between 0.12 and 0.14”. But that is not “rounding”.
            “0.13” might mean “between 0.125 and 0.135”. Those are the numbers that round to 0.13.

            “Extending it to 3 digits assumes that the accuracy of the summation extends … “
            Only if we assume that we are using “significant figures” to express uncertainly. Sig figs are a quick, easy … and poor way to express uncertainly. They are adequate only for the most basic of analysis. In this case, rather than 3 digits indicating too MUCH accuracy, 2 digits indicates too LITTLE accuracy.

            For “real” analysis of data, you should write what you mean. You should not assume that the data is always accurate to +/- 1 in the last digit.

          • RLH says:

            I said there was an uncertainty about the data when rounded. +/- 1 of last digit. If you want to dispute that go right ahead.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “I said there was an uncertainty about the data when rounded. +/- 1 of last digit. If you want to dispute that go right ahead.”

            Numbers between .12500000…. and 0.1349999999… round to 0.13. That is +/- 0.5 in the last digit. Not +/- 1 in the last digit. When Roy writes that the trend is 0.13, using an algorithm that rounds to other nearest 0.01, he does NOT mean the original number could have been anywhere between 0.12 and 0.14.

            ‘In essence’, 0.13 and 0.14 are different numbers and should be considered as such. ‘In essence’, numbers that round to 0.13 and numbers that round to 0.14 are different numbers and should be considered as such.

            This is why serious scientists don’t use “significant digits” or arbitrary rounding in serious reports. Sig figs are sufficient for a high school chem lab. Sig figs are sufficient for casual conversations. Sig figs are sufficient for Roy to present a non-technical monthly summary.

            But when you and/or I and/or anyone else want to REALLY discuss the data, we need to move beyond this simplistic system. To truly indicate how the slope is changing, the slopes should be listed AT LEAST as
            J 0.137
            F 0.137
            M 0.137
            A 0.136
            M 0.136
            J 0.135
            J 0.135
            A 0.135
            S 0.135
            (And then there should be an indication of the uncertainty as well. Perhaps even separate indications of statistical uncertainty and experimental uncertainty.)

          • RLH says:

            “When Roy writes that the trend is 0.13, using an algorithm that rounds to other nearest 0.01, he does NOT mean the original number could have been anywhere between 0.12 and 0.14”

            So the last digit is +/- 1.

          • RLH says:

            “Numbers between .12500000. and 0.1349999999 round to 0.13. That is +/- 0.5 in the last digit. Not +/- 1 in the last digit”

            Now subtract 0.12500000 from 0.1349999999. I get 0.0099999999 which I will round to 0.01.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            That is still +/- 0.5 in the last digit, not +/- 1.

            0.13 means 0.13 +/- 0.05

          • Bindidon says:

            ” So in essence 0.13 and 0.14 are the same thing and should be considered as that. ”

            This is one of the dumbest staements I ever had to read.

            No wonder that an arrogant always-everything-better-knowing person was the source.

          • Nate says:

            According to Cowtan’s calculator the UAH6 trend is 0.135 plus-minus 0.05 deg/decade (2sigma)

            So a large error bar because of large variation due to ENSO.

            For comparison GISS over the same period is

            0.188 plus-minus 0.037 deg/decade (2sigma)

            http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

          • RLH says:

            “0.13 means 0.13 +/- 0.05”

            Which when rounded to 2 significant digits can then turn it into 0.12 or 0.14 (or approximately) from 0.13.

            The odds of a floating point number, especially a calculated one, being exactly …50… or …00… are vanishingly small as we are constantly warned about in computing.

            P.S. Did you really mean +/- 0.05?

          • RLH says:

            “According to Cowtans calculator the UAH6 trend is 0.135 plus-minus 0.05 deg/decade (2sigma)”

            So are the measurements that UAH make that are themselves faulty and, if so, how?

            Or is it just the estimated ‘real’ temperature trend that you are so constantly searching after and can only estimate from the data?

            Do you really think that you know the current temperatures less well than those of a few years ago as Cowtan’s calculator says that you do?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “So are the measurements that UAH make that are themselves faulty and, if so, how?
            The calculator is assuming the data are accurate, but that it has some inherent variability.

            “Or is it just the estimated ‘real’ temperature trend that you are so constantly searching after and can only estimate from the data?
            That is more or less correct.
            If you sample a few random data points from a set with a fixed (but unknown) mean and standard deviation, you can calculate a mean and standard deviation of your data. But this will only be an approximation to the true mean and standard deviation. All you can says is something like “I am 95% confident that the true mean is between x1 and x2.”
            Similarly, if you sample a few random points from a set with a fixed (but unknown) trend, you will can calculate a slope. But this will only be an approximation to the true slope. All you can say is something like “I am 95% confident that the true trend line is contained within the two blue lines.”

            “Do you really think that you know the current temperatures less well than those of a few years ago as Cowtan’s calculator says that you do?
            That is NOT what the calculator is telling us. You fundamentally misunderstand the graph.

            The calculator is telling you where the *trend line* falls, assuming that there is
            a) some underlying linear trend.
            b) some random variation each month.
            The ‘true’ trendline is 95% confident (based on this data and based on statistics) to be within those bounds. The ‘true’ trendline might be a little higher or a little lower; the true trendline might be a little higher slope or a little lower slope. If you draw all the expected lines, you get that curved boundary.

            This tells you nothing specifically about the uncertainty of any given point.

          • Mark B says:

            Do you really think that you know the current temperatures less well than those of a few years ago as Cowtan’s calculator says that you do?

            Visualizing the uncertainty of curve fits

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Thanks Mark B for that informative link.

          • RLH says:

            “If you sample a few random data points from a set with a fixed (but unknown) mean and standard deviation, you can calculate a mean and standard deviation of your data”

            But if your data contains a variable (random) mean and standard deviation then you are all at sea.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “But if your data contains a variable (random) mean and standard deviation then you are all at sea.”
            I’m not sure what your point is.

            First of all, from a purely mathematical perspective, I could choose a random mean (say between -1 and 1) with a random standard deviation (say between 0.1 and 1) and then choose a random value from that set. If I repeat this, I will still eventually get a specific mean and standard deviation for the set of random sets. And no one will be ‘out to sea’.

            For climate in particular, if there were no climate change over some period of time, then the mean and standard deviation for the global temperature would, pretty much by definition, be constant over that time. And no one will be ‘out to sea’.

            If there IS climate change, then we can model that change on top of the chaotic short-term changes. And again we can calculate useful things. And no one will be ‘out to sea’.

            Of course we don’t know a priori if there is a trend or what sort of a trend. That is why we try various statistical models.

          • RLH says:

            I chose the word ‘random’ inadvisably. What I really meant was a long periodicity. With a pure ‘random’ then the statistics will drop out as you say. With a cycle of long periods of any form they will not.

            There is no doubt that it has been warmer in the past than now. How far back you have to go is disputed. The Carboniferous (to name but one) is generally agreed to be warmer across the whole planet than it is right now. We don’t see the large and dense forests that it implies anywhere at present.

            We also mostly agree that the ‘little ice age’ was colder than it is at present, though some have challenged if that was world wide.

            The real question is if the ‘rise’ perceived at present is larger than this long term periodicity. I think it is at least the same.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            I’ll certainly agree that periodic and quasi-periodic trends complicate the analysis.

            “The real question is if the rise perceived at present is larger than this long term periodicity. I think it is at least the same.”
            This is the crux of the matter. If the current uptrend is indeed unusual, then we as a race would be advised to pay attention and maybe try to ‘fix’ it. If the trend is ‘random’ or ‘periodic
            then the danger is less.

            I agree that the current uptrend is at least as stonng as natural variations would predict.

            PS, be careful with the term “periodic”. There are few truly periodic trends.

          • RLH says:

            Well aperiodic seems to fit even worse implying truly random behavior.

            The world is a large gigantic thermal machine with looping resonances and semi-resonances that run from daily to decades at least.

  79. Ken says:

    Was the site hacked or was the ‘moderator’ temporarily annoyed enough to shut down the discussion?

    • RLH says:

      Neither. I brought it to Roy’s attention and he sorted it out.

      • E. Swanson says:

        There were reports in the media that some providers of social content decided to remove posts or blocked advertising on those sites which denied Climate Change. As we know from Roy’s books advertised on the main page and his repeated presentations to various groups, Roy is at best a “luke warmer”.

        • Clint R says:

          You mean the cult idiots would go as far as to try to block science and free speech?

          Shocking….

          • stephen p anderson says:

            The left is annoyed it can’t control the climate narrative. It was an ATTACK. They did the same to Berry.