Coolest tropics since June, 2012 at -0.12 deg. C.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2018 was +0.26 deg. C, down from the December, 2017 value of +0.41 deg. C:
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 13 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2017 01 +0.33 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.20 +0.08
2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54
2017 10 +0.63 +0.66 +0.59 +0.47
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.26
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.12
Note that La Nina cooling in the tropics has finally penetrated the troposphere, with a -0.12 deg. C departure from average. The last time the tropics were cooler than this was June, 2012 (-0.15 deg. C). Out of the 470 month satellite record, the 0.38 deg. C one-month drop in January tropical temperatures was tied for the 3rd largest, beaten only by October 1991 (0.51 deg. C drop) and August, 2014 (0.41 deg. C drop).
The last time the Southern Hemisphere was this cool (+0.06 deg. C) was July, 2015 (+0.04 deg. C).
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through January 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for January, 2018 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:
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
Looks like the El Nino warming is finally over and we are back to where we can start doing some comparisons.
The AMO influence in the NH is still obvious. Once we get to June and that influence is minimal we will have the opportunity to see how much the planet has warmed.
El Nino finished 20 months ago. Now you want to wait until the La Nina has taken full effect to do a comparison.
Des, it’s called “heat transfer”.
It takes time.
Be patient.
Des, while the El Nino is over the effects of the El Nino did not end. Even NOAA admitted it. I get a kick out of the denial from those who want to believe there is a problem. The La Nina itself is weak and we are just starting to feel it’s influence.
You can’t accept that maybe there’s something else going on. The La Nina already appears to be weakening and by the summer there’s a good chance we won’t be feeling any effect from it. That would make it a perfect time for a comparison.
“Even NOAA admitted it.”
Link please.
+ 1
Link please.
A bit of googling brings this from NOAA during the last el Nino:
El Nino-related impacts have been occurring around the globe for months already, and will continue for several months after the warmest temperatures occur in the tropical Pacific Ocean. For example, during the 1997-98 El Nino, the Nino3.4 Index peaked at 2.33C in November (using ERSSTv4 data, the official dataset for measuring El Nino), and the most substantial U.S. effects occurred through the early spring of 1998.
According to NOAA, the lag from ENSO events is several months. that accords with what I’ve read elsewhere.
So, I’d be keen to see that link to NOAA saying something different.
By summer we can check Salvatore’s prediction. UAH global temperature anomalies at or below the 30-year UAH baseline.
It won’t likely be there by summer, but there is likely to be sustained cooling into the next decade.
Care to make a slightly more solid prediction?
Here’s mine. Each ten year average will be warmer than the last, barring some cataclysmic cooling event like a superdooper volcanic eruption.
there is likely to be sustained cooling into the next decade.
If 2016 is the start date, I think it’s possible there could be a flat or negative trend for a decade or so, just as there was after the 1998 super el Nino.
But that would mainly be the result of picking the start year with a super el Nino.
If the next 10 years are colder than the last, then we may have something approaching an actual cooling trend. If the next 2 decades were consecutively cooler than the last, then I’d consider that a real challenge to the notion that increased CO2 warms the planet’s surface.
But I expect the opposite as long as CO2 keeps increasing in the atmos, and there is no cataclysmic superdooper volcanic eruption to cause cooling over many years.
barry, I make the prediction that even if the planet moves into a major cooling trend, you will claim it was caused by CO2.
In fact, you probably already have a stack of “papers” and links that you can run to if temperatures plunge.
(I just know pseudoscience too well.)
I can already tell you that that prediction isn’t going to work out if global temps go down for a few decades. I certainly wouldn’t be putting that on CO2, and there is no stack of papers lined up to make such an argument.
But never mind me, what is your prediction for global temps over the next 10 and the next 20 years?
So you would change your ideas only after a few decades of evidence that goes in the exact opposite direction of your theory? I interpret your statement to mean that CO2 will warm the planet in a chatastrophic way (that is, by more than 2-3 degrees C). Well, then you should not be surprised that people who do not have such a strong prior and who also think that temperature fluctuates up and down naturally will not be convinced of your theory before we don’t have many more decades of evidence for the chatastrophic warming szenario.
So you would change your ideas only after a few decades of evidence that goes in the exact opposite direction of your theory?
“MY” theory? How personal.
I would at least modify my views, if not change them.
I interpret your statement to mean that CO2 will warm the planet in a chatastrophic way
Can you explain how you arrived at this interpretation? I’m curious.
barry says:
“If the next 2 decades were consecutively cooler than the last, then Id consider that a real challenge to the notion that increased CO2 warms the planets surface.”
It doesn’t matter where the temperature is going, you need to know why. There are about 20 factors to consider, most of them are cyclic, but CO2 forcing builds up long term as long as we add it.
When the cyclic factors turn around CO2 comes back with a vengeance.
The CO2 forcing has been measured, the challenge would be if the measurements did not add up.
There is a very large bet on the table currently for your proposition for each decade. Might I suggest you take it up.
I can put up $1000 based on the stipulations above.
I’ve offered bets here many times. No takers.
Svante @ February 3, 2018 at 2:19 AM
“…but CO2 forcing builds up long term as long as we add it.”
Doesn’t.
Try the slugulator with 1000 Gt and a million years.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/slugulator/
Despite contradicting him five posts up, I’m willing to add to barry’s bet.
It would have to be managed by someone I trust though. Someone like … barry.
I think GHG emissions will decline, but there should be enough in the pipeline to make this a safe bet.
Emissions may decline, but accumulation will continue.
As soon as temperatures start to decline, the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 will start to decline.
Des, You guys crack me up. There are only like 5 to 10 high resolution records of el nino in satellite data but you claim to have confidence that this is not still el nino? Statistically, this entire warm 2016 2017 phase could easily be one giant el nino respnse. It is a typically a couplet and now we are in the associated la nina phase. We are writing the book as we go and no where near knowing (statistically) what the variability is or how it interacts with PDO. What we do know is they come in a wide range of duration, amplitude, and frequency. I said and stick by this looks like a typical energy wavelet with a peak and post cursor. Like a ringing bell.
There are ENSO monitoring groups more qualified than anyone here that make these calls. I think the smart people here go with them rather than randoms on blogs with obvious agendas.
Can you think of a reason as to why skeptics want to believe the 2016 Nino lasted to the end of 2017? I think it’s pretty obvious – ABC.
Barry,
I do my own analysis (and have looked at this closely and statistically), and the point is the El Nino relationship between Oceanic and L trop temperature response are poorly understood. Do u have anything empitical to contribute? Or just a belief El Nino was not significant for lower trop temp in 2017?
Empirical
I can offer links to the monitoring groups, to NOAA saying global response lags ENSO by several months. Will that do? Or do I have to pretend I’m more qualified than the people who study this for a living?
Barry, I would appreciate the link to make your point that the sustained high temperatures in L Trop of 2017 were not El Nino related. I honestly do appreciate the humility but also point out “doing this for a living” is a potential bias bc if there is no catastrophic problem there are less resources (ie jobs and raises). I am convinced such bias almost certainly exists in some isolated cases (role of sun in climate models) based on empirical research. So I would encourage anyone with data processing training (be it a scientist or engineer) to do their own work and evaluate the data.
“doing this for a living” is a potential bias bc if there is no catastrophic problem there are less resources (ie jobs and raises).
This implies that it might be better to rely on people who do it for a hobby.
ENSO is not considered a climate forcing, so there’s no need to worry about exaggeration.
Link to NOAA saying that global effects lag ENSO by several months.
El Nino-related impacts have been occurring around the globe for months already, and will continue for several months after the warmest temperatures occur in the tropical Pacific Ocean. For example, during the 1997-98 El Nino, the Nino3.4 Index peaked at 2.33C in November (using ERSSTv4 data, the official dataset for measuring El Nino), and the most substantial U.S. effects occurred through the early spring of 1998.
https://tinyurl.com/yamwcwxb
I generally get my info from these sites:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html
The most recent and more detailed NOAA forecast can be found here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
I also follow the MEI pages, but they don’t, as far as I am aware, offer a forecast.
So I would encourage anyone with data processing training (be it a scientist or engineer) to do their own work and evaluate the data.
Sounds like a good idea. It’s going to be difficult to separate the 2016 el Nino influences from other influences through 2017. Pattern-matching wouldn’t be enough without a physical basis.
If, as you said, lingering after-impacts of the 2016 el Nino were still playing out throughout 2017, what would be your prediction for global temps for the next neutral period? Do we return to the same temperature as the last ENSO-neutral period?
I think it’s an unfair question, as ENSO is not the only thing affecting short-term global temps. But if I have the correct impression – that you consider ENSO to be the primary influence, and all others (for interannual fluctuations) to be insignificant – then you may not consider the question unfair.
Barry,
“what would be your prediction for global temps for the next neutral period? Do we return to the same temperature as the last ENSO-neutral period?”
This is my point we have so few data available that it is difficult to make a good case with statistics. There are not enough el ninos in high confidence data to do good enough statistics to say this el nino is like that analogy. If we dont see a significant la nina with cooling for several months, then I would be surprised- most big ones have the la nina cooling. After that we return to neutral, I would imagine likely more global warming at a similar rate of about 0 .15C (plus or minus .1C) a decade. If the sun’s inactivity pulls down temperature now, it would surprise me. There seems to be about a 20 yr lag between solar activity and any climate proxy. So I would think it will be about 2025 to 2030 until the climate “lag” clears and any solar influence is felt- so next solar cycle minimum. So as an analogy Earth is in the early afternoon where diurnal radiation is decreasing, but temperature keeps going up as a lag. (Especially because the solar max from 1950 to 2005 was so strong and protracted). The frightening thing is short term solar cooling could mask the long term global warming. This is why cosmic rays and stronger sun scenarios should be included in low case climate models.
we have so few data available that it is difficult to make a good case with statistics.
I tend to agree. And yet you wrote this:
I said and stick by this looks like a typical energy wavelet with a peak and post cursor. Like a ringing bell.
What I originally queried was why you thought the le Nino effects of 2016 would persist all the way through 2017. I googled further and discovered that some monitors say that el Nino affects can last up to a year. The 2016 Nino finished in May/June of 2016 (ONI/MEI). This was followed by la Nina conditions, and by the ONI metric of NOAA, a full la Nina in the final months of 2016.
That suggests to me that 2016 el Nino efects, if they did persist through 2017, would have had a minimal to insignificant effect on 2017, and even more so for temps in late 2017.
There seems to be about a 20 yr lag between solar activity and any climate proxy.
Do you have a reference for this? And why would we want to consider proxies when we have temperature records for the global surface that are fairly good for the last 60-70 years?
Barry just getting back to this. There is a general trend of L. Trop temp lagging Nino 3.4 El Nino by about 6 months. So a 2016 El Nino in Pacific could easily persist until mid 2017 (duration of el nino plus lag) in L trop. 2016 2017 pacific was extreme we didnt get an equivalent L trop response. So my thought was rather than a distinct peak the energy was broader and the post cursor was still a response to the nino 3.4 peak. If this la nina persists then I think that is most likely explanation. We shall see. I owe u a paper. Prob is the solar climate lag is typically burried in method text so I have to read each paper to find it.
“El Nino finished 20 months ago.” Actually, El Nino conditions were still present last year. This El Nino episode certainly had some effect during the year, and it is totally dishonest for this not to be mentioned in the official reports.
The threshold for an El Nino is 0.500 on the MEI scale. In April/May it peaked at 1.455: esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
The raised Sea Surface Temperatures can also be clearly seen in the first half of the year – See page 3 here: cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf
Plus there are multi month lags that science doesnt understand (or at least I have not read about and I would love to get some citations here). The 1997 98 mega El Nino was about 4 months lagging behind the Nino 3.4 peak, whereas the 2010 el nino was nearly coeval with much less lag.
La Nina *conditions* were also present last year by some metrics. NOAA even recorded a full la Nina based on their metric, which is strictly temperature based.
A bump above threshhold for a month or two is not an ENSO event. MEI is based on 6 variables, two of which are temperatures-based.
“El Nino finished 20 months ago” could only be true if there were absolutely no El Nino, not even a bump.
Besides, it was three months – mid-March to mid-June – where the MEI was above 0.500: https://esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
The MEI values are not the same as ONI (NINO3.4 SSTs). If I remember correctly, 1.0 is Nino threshold for that MEI table, and -1.0 is the Nina threshold.
But it’s a while since I googled to find an unambiguous reference to how the values in that table relate to Nino/Nina, so I could be wrong. Do you have a clear reference?
MEI have an alternative table that ranks the index thus:
“1-21 denote strong to weak La Nina conditions…
48-68 denote weak to strong El Nino conditions…
If one uses the quintile definition for (moderate or stronger) ENSO events, MEI ranks from 1-14 would denote La Nina, while 55-68 would denote El Nino.”
‘Neutral conditions’, then, are denoted between 22-47
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/rank.html
Neutral conditions were in effect from 2016 Jun/Jul to 2017 Feb/Mar.
This was followed by Nino conditions Mar/Apr to May/Jun in 2017.
Neutral conditions followed, with weak la Nina conditions from Aug/Sep to Sep/Oct, neutral for Oct/Nov, and weak la Nina again for Nov/Dec.
Whether and how much effect these fluctuations had on global temps is another matter. I see no reason to think there is a strong link between short-term ‘events’, as opposed to long-lived ENSO conditions that reach the full-blown level after several months.
The CO2 lunacy has to end, there is empirical evidence that it doesn’t affect temperature greatly we just have to leave Earth to see it. Exhibit A is Venus which is a boiling inferno of over 900 degrees it’s atmosphere is significantly more dense than Earth’s and it’s atmosphere is 95% CO2. Exhibit B is Mars which is a frozen iceball, yet it’s atmospheric composition is also 95% CO2. The difference here folks is atmospheric pressure, Mars has very little atmosphere and Venus very dense. The two things that govern temperatures on Earth and anywhere else in the whole solar system are.
1. First and foremost the most important thing that regulates planetary temperatures is atmospheric pressure. This is why parts of Jupiter is hotter than the surface of the sun.
2. Solar Activity every planet is exposed to the same solar conditions
That’s pretty much it, atmospheric pressure puts a floor and a cap on just how high and how low temperatures can go. Unless the atmospheric pressure on Earth changes there will never be a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth physics won’t allow it. CO2 composition means absolutely dick just remember both Venus and Mars are mostly CO2.
Barry,
1. You requested a citation about the 20 yr lag… its a very fair challenge. I can only find this one that shows a 40 year lag to optimize correlation. Need to keep digging for specific paper that dealt with this, but a lag is common in literature:
“For the best correlation of two datasets, the chronology for the DAS record has been shifted older by 40 years and the one for the DA record younger by 47 years. Intensive solar activity (smaller Δ14C, larger ΔSN and ΔTSI) corresponds to a strong AM (smaller Δ18O).” DAS and DA shifted older means isotopes from monsoon lag solar proxy by ~40 years.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep05159
2. The modern instruments do not get the dominant solar cycles of 80, 200, and 300 to 400 years. So they are not long enough. When I speak of solar cycles I refer to the solar min 1900 to 1950 then the prolonged max from 1950 to 2005. Not the high frequency 11yr or 22 yr. So when a person Salvatore, predicts climate response to solar cycles he is forgetting the lag. The oceans store heat as currents. It takes time for such a subtle forcing to occur.
Aaron,
Those aren’t lag times: those are temporal offsets chosen to deal with dating uncertainties, to match peaks and troughs. Which is why one data set is shifted back 40 years, and another forward by 47 years.
Nothing to do with lagged effects, and all to do with with offsetting chronologies on the assessment that they are wrong, to match the wiggles.
Thanks for the report, Roy.
From me too. Your work is much appreciated in europe
+1
+ 1
Thanks!
I do hope this record can continue when you retire, it is much too valuable to be abandoned.
Thanks for the prompt processing, Dr. Roy. Nothing special either way this month, I suspect. Still well above the average for the available timescale, but no sudden jumps.
How do you calculate +0,13C/decade? January 1979 was cold. Must be some kind of average at each end?
0.13C/dec is the linear (straight line) trend using least squares regression for the whole UAH series, not just January. Use the ‘Linest’ feature on Excel, for example, multiplied by 120 months (10 years) to get the per decade figure (=0.13).
TFN
standard least-squares linear trend calculation using all monthly anomalies from Jan. ’79 through Jan. 2018.
I believe it is the average over the full time series.
El Nino spikes and all. !
La Nina dips and all. !
La Nina does not cause dips.
Its it a recharge period.
Do try to learn
Skeptics believe that a la Nina will bring surface temps down. They’ve been waiting for a la Nina to bring back the ‘pause’ from 1998.
I wish skeptics would provide coherent answers to things.
Looks like the La Nina should bring down global temperature anomaly estimates for both surface and TLT over the next few months. The big questions are how much and for how long. If earth is continuing on a slowly rising temperature pattern as we have seen since 1980, then the La Nina should weaken going into the summer as have all of the La Ninas since 1980. However, if the overall global temperature is starting a downward pattern, then the La Nina may strengthen going into the summer as happened with most of the La Ninas during the cooling pattern from 1950 to 1975ish. I suspect the former rather than the latter, but the next 6 months should be telling.
ENSO events are independent of long-term change as far as we know. They do their quasi-periodic thing, like the seasons do their cycles.
barry…”ENSO events are independent of long-term change as far as we know. They do their quasi-periodic thing, like the seasons do their cycles”.
Tsonis has put out papers on that:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030288/full
They have a more general paper featuring all oscillations but I can’t find it at the moment.
Many people have put out papers on this. Some say that under warming El Ninos will be more prevalent, others say it will be La Ninas, yet others say no change. Basically, no one has any idea.
However, as ENSO events are about temperature GRADIENTS across the tropical Pacific and not absolute temperatures, the original poster was incorrect in his premise.
Yes, Gordon has made the mistake of selectivity. there are plenty of hypotheses on whether or not ENSO timing, amplitude and duration change with a changing global climate, but on this there is no consensus.
Doesn’t prevent people with agendas pretending that there is… by citing a particular paper or author.
One can easily speculate how this happens. A skeptic blog finds a paper that meshes with predilections, promotes it, and dumb-arses believe that this is the one true study.
What dumb-arses don’t do is review the literature on the topic for a decent overview, or look up a review paper that does that for them.
No, single-study syndrome (or selective studies syndrome) is a serious disease among the contrarians.
Doesn’t prevent people with agendas pretending that there is… by citing a particular paper or author.
the people with the agendas are the people who are massaging records and manipulating data. That would be the people who believe in this CAGW garbage. Money, Money, Money.
And your carefully referenced material for this claim is…
El Nio warming ended in late 2016. The lag between the ENSO index and global temperature is only 3-4 months. ENSO exerted an overall cooling effect last year and 2017 was still the third hottest year on record. The current solar cycle is also the weakest in more than a century. Greenhouse gases are the only possible culprit behind the warming trend.
“Greenhouse gases are the only possible culprit behind the warming trend.”
So, apparently you know all of the natural energy flows in and out of the tropospheric climate system are in balance to better than 1 part in 300, and that increasing CO2 is the only imbalance? I’m impressed!
Over the Arctic, the sea-ice cycle has been running well below the 2 sigma range for data during the satellite era.
https://imgur.com/aAm418U
Wouldn’t all that unusually open area of Arctic Ocean appear as a cooling in the MSU/AMSU satellite data, since sea-ice has a larger microwave emissivity than open water?
Dr. Spencer,
Natural energy flows in balance? I don’t think so. Based on measurements of ocean heat content, the earth was absorbing 0.58 watts per square meter more energy from the sun than radiating back out into space as of 2011. Solar cycle 24 is the weakest cycle in more than a century and yet the planet is gaining more energy than its radiating. ENSO and PDO can only redistribute heat within the oceans and between the atmosphere and thus cannot account for global oceanic heat accumulation. Carbon dioxide is the only possible explanation for planetary warming. Earth’s history unambiguously demonstrates that CO2 is the most important factor in long-term climate change. CO2’s warming effects are incontrovertible.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2011/2011_Hansen_ha06510a.pdf
“ENSO and PDO can only redistribute heat within the oceans and between the atmosphere and thus cannot account for global oceanic heat accumulation.”
Wrong. Anything that changes the vertical ocean circulation and cloud cover can change the energy balance. You are under the mistaken impression that the climate system is not capable of chaotic variations. Your statement is one of faith, not of science.
First of all, is there empirical evidence that changes in ocean circulation within recent decades are causing changes in global cloud cover? ENSO, PDO, and AMO, show no apparent long-term trend, but temperature and CO2 do. According to your hypothesis, is cloud cover increasing or decreasing? If a decrease in cloud cover were causing global warming, then we would expect warming to be more pronounced during the daytime and summer than at night and winter. Greenhouse warming predicts the opposite and that is just what we observe. Could changes in cloud cover account for the cooling of the stratosphere? CO2 does! Taking into account aerosol cooling and climate inertia, the observed warming is consistent with the radiative forcing from CO2. For your alternative hypothesis to viable, not only it must explain the anomalies that greenhouse warming supposedly doesn’t but it also must account for everything that greenhouse warming does explain.
SE,
You have a minor problem, I would think.
You cant actually define what the GHE is actually supposed to be doing without involving magic somewhere.
This explains why nobody has ever managed to propose a testable GHE hypothesis. You have be able to describe something which doesnt exist, first!
Speculation is not science. Foolish Warmist assertions are not science. Foolish Warmist computer game outputs are not science.
So sad too bad. Correlation and wishful thinking wont create a GHE. Nothing will
Cheers.
“Could changes in cloud cover account for the cooling of the stratosphere?”.
The stratosphere stopped cooling around 1995 and has maintained a relatively steady temperature since.
The theoretic tropical tropospheric ‘hot spot’, the signature of positive water vapour feedback, has not been detected:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/08/new-evidence-regarding-tropical-water-vapor-feedback-lindzens-iris-effect-and-the-missing-hotspot/
Indeed. It’s funny how the positive PDO phases lead to warming while the negative phases only lead to a ‘pause’. Something is upsetting the balance – I wonder what that might be?
Well said, Roy. We need to be aware too that past shrinkage in Arctic snow & ice may give a kind of ice-albedo drag to any downward trend from low solar activity until it expands again. My 85% prediction is for clear & unambiguous evidence of global cooling, associated with an emerging Grand or Maunder minimum in solar activity, to be recognised within the next 12 years maybe even within the next 5.
Re: “The theoretic tropical tropospheric hot spot, the signature of positive water vapour feedback, has not been detected”
First, the tropospheric hot spot is a sign of the lapse rate feedback, not the water vapor feedback. The lapse rate feedback is a negative feedback, not a positive one.
Second, there’s plenty of evidence of positive water vapor feedback, including in the troposphere. For example:
“Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming”
“An assessment of tropospheric water vapor feedback using radiative kernels”
“An analysis of tropospheric humidity trends from radiosondes”
“Global water vapor trend from 1988 to 2011 and its diurnal asymmetry based on GPS, radiosonde, and microwave satellite measurements”
Third, there’s plenty of evidence of the hot spot (i.e. greater upper tropospheric warming than near-surface warming in the tropics). For instance:
In satellite data:
#1 : “Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends”
#2 : “Temperature trends at the surface and in the troposphere”
#3 : “Removing diurnal cycle contamination in satellite-derived tropospheric temperatures: understanding tropical tropospheric trend discrepancies”, table 4
#4 : “Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data”, figure 9B
In radiosonde (weather balloon) data:
#5 : “Internal variability in simulated and observed tropical tropospheric temperature trends”, figures 2c and 4c
#6 : “Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)”, figures 1 and 2
#7 : “New estimates of tropical mean temperature trend profiles from zonal mean historical radiosonde and pilot balloon wind shear observations”, figure 9
#8 : “Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations”, figure 3 and table 1
In re-analyses:
#9 : “Detection and analysis of an amplified warming of the Sahara Desert”, figure 7
#10 : “Westward shift of western North Pacific tropical cyclogenesis”, figure 4b
#11 : “Influence of tropical tropopause layer cooling on Atlantic hurricane activity”, figure 4
#12 : “Estimating low-frequency variability and trends in atmospheric temperature using ERA-Interim”, figure 23 and page 351
Re: “The stratosphere stopped cooling around 1995 and has maintained a relatively steady temperature since.”
You’re leaving pertinent information out.
Lower in the stratosphere, cooling is caused by both increased CO2 and ozone depletion. Ozone levels have partially recovered, in response to the Montreal Protocol. For instance:
“Antarctic ozone loss in 19792010: First sign of ozone recovery”
“Quantifying the ozone and ultraviolet benefits already achieved by the Montreal Protocol”
“Evidence for the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer”
“Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer”
This had led to slowing of lower stratospheric cooling.
However, increased CO2 is predicted to have more of a cooling effect the higher one goes in the stratosphere:
“A hiatus in the stratosphere?”
“Isolating the roles of different forcing agents in global stratospheric temperature changes using model integrations with incrementally added single forcings”
“Relative contribution of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances to temperature trends in the stratosphere: A chemistryclimate model study”
“The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model”, figure 4
“On the distribution of climate change resulting from an increase in CO2 content of the atmosphere”, pages 101 and 102
“Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity”
Consistent with this, cooling as continues higher in the stratosphere, contrary to what you claimed. For example:
“Climatology and interannual variability of dynamic variables in multiple reanalyses evaluated by the SPARC Reanalysis Intercomparison Project (S-RIP)”, figure 18
“Regional and seasonal stratospheric temperature trends in the last decade (20022014) from AMSU observations”
“A method for merging nadir-sounding climate records, with an application to the global-mean stratospheric temperature data sets from SSU and AMSU”
“Linear trends and closures of 10-yr observations of AIRS stratospheric channels”
“The stratospheric changes inferred from 10 years of AIRS and AMSU-A radiances”
“Postmillennium changes in stratospheric temperature consistently resolved by GPS radio occultation and AMSU observations”
“Troposphere-stratosphere temperature trends derived from satellite data compared with ensemble simulations from WACCM”
The stratosphere stopped cooling around 1995
The lower stratosphere has a very slight cooling from then, and the mid stratosphere has strong cooling since 1999.
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/C13/plots/RSS_TS_channel_C13_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png
I have to disagree. Since there was no Bjerknes feedback to push the El Nino warmed waters back into the Pacific Warm Pool, they simply drifted around releasing more energy for much of 2017. In addition, we did reach El Nino conditions for about 3.5 months. This was driven by more upwelling warm water. This is all pretty obvious by just looking at the Tropics.
The bottom line is the influence of the 2016 Super El Nino continued to be felt through 2017.
It does look like the Current La Nina conditions are starting to wane. Without another shot of upwelling cold water we could be back to neutral conditions by March. However, the effect on the satellite data should continue until mid year.
NOAA has a weak la Nina for the last 5 months of 2016.
How does that fit into the picture of sustained el Nino from 2016?
I feel like people have gone a bit nutty on ENSO events. They just move temperature around from ocean to atmosphere, causing fluctuations in the long-term record of surface temperatures. Global climate change is multidecadal phenomenon.
All thermal storage oscillators incorporate lag.
There was ENSO up-tick that just ended 4 months ago… so it looks to me that the next 4 months will continue to cool as La Nina has been taking over
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml.
Look at the 3.4 graph.
Likely, but by no means certain. It’s a weak, potentially short-lived la Nina, and weak ENSO events tend to have less clear impacts on global temps.
ENSO is not the only thing affecting global surface temp fluctuations, or we would expect to see a 1-1 correlation of surface temps (or satellite temps) with ENSO fluctuations. We tend to see that with strong ENSO events, but not so much with weak ones.
For those who didn’t follow the long winded discussion on Dr. Spencer’s last post, I’ve just posted the results of a third demonstration which shows that the repeated claims that the CO2/Greenhouse Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics are clearly wrong. Here’s a link to the latest “common sense” demonstration.
https://app.box.com/s/al1duvn2aq3blkyqecivh5y3yyvlno4i
I presume that Dr. Spencer, as a serious scientist, will agree that those claims were wildly incorrect.
If you have been a regular visitor here, you know that I have been fighting the same battle against the Sky Dragon Slayers for years. I think the most direct demonstration that the cold atmosphere can make a warm surface even warmer still is with a handheld IR thermometer, first pointed upward on a clear day, then pointed at an oblique angle. The oblique angle will give a warmer reading (the sensor inside the instrument has actually warmed), even though the instrument is pointed at a “cold” sky. The temperature of ANYTHING is related to the rate of energy gain AND the rate of energy loss. The greenhouse effect changes the rate of energy loss. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/direct-evidence-of-earths-greenhouse-effect/
The shielded, tiny heat capacity of the micro bolometer is very cold in equilibrium with the sky vertically. And warmer than this very cold temperature in equilibrium with an optical depth closer to the surface. But both are colder than with the shield removed. Using a larger condenser to focus the downwelling doesn’t affect this situation as it would with sunlight.
The sensor is never heated above surface temperatures in two way equilibrium with a cold gas heated primarily by surface losses.
“The sensor is never heated above surface temperatures in two way equilibrium with a cold gas heated primarily by surface losses.”
Seriously? Don’t you see that the existing surface temperature is the result of all energy inputs and outputs, and that the surface has ALREADY been increased by the greenhouse effect, above what it would have been without the GHE?
The handheld IR thermometer simply allows one to see how the GHE (downwelling IR intensity) depends upon view angle. It PROVES that a warm surface can be made warmer still by exposing it to a cold scene…the key is that it is being exposed to a LESS cold scene than before, thus changing the energy budget in the direction of warming.
This is basic thermodynamics, and if it does not sink in then there is nothing else I can say to convince you.
“Seriously? Dont you see that the existing surface temperature is the result of all energy inputs and outputs, and that the surface has ALREADY been increased by the greenhouse effect, above what it would have been without the GHE?”
No I don’t Roy. The gradients in tropospheres are insensitive to opacity.
Project a potential temperature to the surface and then subtract the energy required to provide the surface specific humidity. There is no increase in surface energy where opacity is highest.
The atmosphere reduces the surface insolation to 50%. No amount of recirculating of this input can produce gain in an argument where the surface is heated by its own losses returned. Increasing greenhouse gases reduces this energy which is real and available for work and power.
Only that this greenhouse effect occurs only in the dense troposphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2017.png
Yes, it does ren. Direct heating drives the system out of the tropospheric reversible adiabatic/ isentropic profile.
Direct heating of a gas with very low emissivity results in high physical temperatures and high potential temperatures, 500K, 600K, 700K
In the low pressures of the upper atmosphere we see low mean free paths which allows molecules and atoms to stratify by velocity. Low energies are incapable of competing with gravity.
Lower in the atmosphere, normalisation provides a specific gradient that is insensitive to long wave opacity. Climatology maintains that opacity produces this gradient and drives convection.
Data says this gradient is driven by gravity.
You really don’t have a clue about science friend. You should learn a lot more any write a lot less.
Dr. Spencer,
I’m not sure if I am grasping the concept of a warmer surface being made warmer by something cooler. So, I thought of it this way. Let’s say if you have an enclosed room with an ambient temperature of 0 deg. C. And in this room you have a wooden table. If you heat up an object (metal pipe or whatever) to 100C and place it on the table, the pipe temperature will eventually lower to 0C in X amount of time. However, if you repeat the experiment with two objects, say the 100C metal pipe and place another pipe warmed up to 50C about a 1/2 foot away from the 100C pipe. Even though the 50C pipe is substantially cooler than the 100C pipe, the 50C pipe is still radiating heat to the 100C pipe. And that would cause the 100C pipe cool down to 0C at a slower rate. Instead of taking X amount of time to cool down, it would be X plus Y amount of time. Y being the result from the extra amount of heat introduced in the environment by the cooler object.
Or, is this something entirely different from what you are saying about the atmosphere. Sorry to say I am not quite at the Ph. D. level to understand what causes the heating and cooling of our atmosphere. To me, I think the power of the CO2 molecule has been grossly exaggerated.
rob…”Even though the 50C pipe is substantially cooler than the 100C pipe, the 50C pipe is still radiating heat to the 100C pipe”.
No it’s not. It is radiating electromagnetic energy and EM is not heat. In order for EM to be radiated by an electron in an atom the electron must give up heat as kinetic energy. The heat given up is not radiated.
There is a misconception with radiation that heat flows through the air as radiation. Heat cannot flow through air unless it is part of a convection process in which heat is transferred by moving air particles. Heat is a property of atoms in motion. No atoms, no heat.
The EM to which you refer from the 50C pipe will pass through a vacuum. Since a vacuum is defined as an absence of atoms (mass), and heat is a property of atoms, heat cannot pass through a vacuum.
Heat can be transferred via an APPARENT heat transfer from the 100C pipe to the 50C pipe. That means heat is reduced in the 100C pipe as it is converted to EM then converted back to heat in the 50C pipe. There is an apparent transfer of heat.
That process is not reversible due to constraints on the electrons in atoms/molecules that do the conversion. In order for EM to be absorbed by the electrons in an atom the EM must have a specific frequency and intensity. Such constraints make it impossible for the electrons in a body of hotter atoms to absorb the EM radiation from a cooler body.
geoff…”The atmosphere reduces the surface insolation to 50%. No amount of recirculating of this input can produce gain in an argument where the surface is heated by its own losses returned”.
Exactly, it’s called perpetual motion if it is the case. People should be able to see that intuitively. You cannot take solar energy, warm the surface, have the surface convert solar to IR to warm GHGs making up no more than 1% of the atmosphere, and expect them to back radiate energy to increase surface temperatures.
Geoff,
“In the low pressures of the upper atmosphere we see low mean free paths which allows molecules and atoms to stratify by velocity. Low energies are incapable of competing with gravity.
Lower in the atmosphere, normalisation provides a specific gradient that is insensitive to long wave opacity. Climatology maintains that opacity produces this gradient and drives convection.”
It seems to me you are going for maximum jargon with minimum communication.
If you want anyone to understand your points, you need to explain in terms that non-experts can understand.
roy…”Dont you see that the existing surface temperature is the result of all energy inputs and outputs, and that the surface has ALREADY been increased by the greenhouse effect, above what it would have been without the GHE?”
Roy, your data backs the opposite. Your UAH data back the 2nd law. The projected warming due to back-radiation is not there. Neither is the hot spot projected in the upper atmosphere.
Please don’t allow the alarmist propaganda featuring a generic energy to cloud your judgement. Energy is not energy as they would have you believe, there is a night and day difference between the electromagnetic energy of which you speak and the thermal energy that is the kinetic energy of atoms. They behave very differently and obey different rules.
The notion of electromagnetic energy as heat dates back to the 19th century where luminaries like Clausius, Boltzmann, and Planck thought heat flowed as ‘rays’ between objects. They can be forgiven since they had no idea that heat was transferred radiatively between bodies by electromagnetic energy, which is not thermal energy.
It was not till 1913 that Bohr revealed the actuality, that electrons in atoms act to emit and aborb EM. He laid out the rules of absorp-tion and emission by electrons but unfortunately, to this day, university professors seem oblivious to those rules and continue to regard heat as EM.
Heat is converted to EM in a hotter body and radiated as EM to a cooler body, where it is converted back to heat. That process is not reversible. The EM you are measuring with your IR meter is doing nothing to warm the surface as long as it comes from a cooler source.
You can measure all the atmospheric EM you like, it tells you nothing about heat transfer taking place. And, no, a fictitious, generic, net energy balance does not satisfy the 2nd law. Only heat transfers satisfy the 2nd law which makes it clear heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Roy…I know, I know, I’m banned. ☺
a cool object can make a hotter object hotter.
A thermal imaging camera ($200) sits at say 23C it is receiving radiation from its surroundings, the lens, objects the other side of the lens (assume these to be at 0K). It is loosing heat to the same objects. It has to be in thermal equilibrium and the camera has to know what that temperature is.
Each pixel of the sensor is in thermal equilibrium.
if you focus an object at -20C on the 23C pixel it will reach thermal equilibrium with the additional radiation from the object. If the adjacent pixel has an object at -15C focussed on it then it to will reach thermal equilibrium but in this case it will be warmer than the -20C pixel.
The temperature difference is measured by the camera and a temperature assigned to the relevant pixels. The cold bodies have changed the energy received by the hot body making them hotter than those exposed to the 0K ambient – i.e. the cold bodies have warmed the hot body
There are no cool rays that can be focussed on pixels.
If you do not accept that then how can you explain the operation of a thermal imaging camera?
ghalfrunt, if the device is at 23C, how can the lens be at 0K?
Somewhere in your confused example, you came up with “a cool object can make a hotter object hotter”?
Maybe your conclusion is linked to your confusion.
ghal…”It is loosing heat to the same objects”.
We have been through this before. Objects do not lose heat to other objects through radiation. Objects lose heat through radiation alone, they don’t require other objects to radiate. All that’s required is a temperature difference between the object and its surroundings.
If you had a situation where the temperature of a nearby object could cool the air around a hotter radiating object, so as to create a greater temperature differential between the radiating object and the surrounding air, that should influence the rate at which the object radiates. However, the influence of the external object is NEVER to warm the hotter body.
The governing equation is Stefan-Boltzmann:
P = enA(To^4 – T^4) where e = emissivity, n = Boltzmann constant, A = cross-sectional area of radiator, To = temperature of radiator, and T = temperature of surroundings.
P can be regarded as the loss of energy as heat in the radiator, although that heat loss takes place in the radiator and does not flow through space. There is no reference in that equation to an external object other than to its effect on the surrounding temperature, T.
I’m not clear about the situation in a vacuum where you have a radiator contained within a cylinder or sphere at a different temperature. If the sphere is of a higher T than To of the radiator, then the process is reversed and the radiator becomes an absorber. However, if T << To, I am wondering if cooler emissions from that body are sensed by the hotter radiator, influencing it to radiate as if to cooler surroundings.
At any rate, heat is never transferred from the cooler body to the warmer body. S-B tells us the heat transfer/loss is a one way affair.
g*r…”ghalfrunt, if the device is at 23C, how can the lens be at 0K?”
In astronomy, they do take steps to cool the detector well below the temperature of an emitting object. In this case, however, I doubt that the IR camera has any cooling supplied to cool the detector.
As I pointed out to Roy, hand held devices work on a basis of pre-calibration. They are calibrated using a reference voltage determined from actually measuring IR in laboratory conditions and finding out what kind of temperature-related voltage is produced by a sensor detecting a certain frequency of IR. Either that, or they create a table of expected temperature values corresponding to a detected frequency and place it in ROM as a lookup table.
Hand held devices measure frequency, not heating inside the device. They convert the frequency to a voltage then compare that voltage to a reference voltage that has been predetermined for the measured frequency versus temperature.
I have a handheld IR thermopmeter going down to -60 C this is the average temp of the CO2 on top of the atmosphere, which I read often at night here in Germany.
If you change the angle you get warmer readings say -40 0r -30C, IR from Water vapor, I think.
In a cloudy night, you get nearly the same reading as from the earth surface. Clouds act like a blackbody and radiate all their temp down over the full spectrum.
One misconception about physics law: It’s not something like a human law, which is made to be obeyed – but often in vain. It is something which has been observed very often – and is followed by the idea, that it will always happen.
But now the example:
One stove inside a room radiating 300C towards a wall with a temp of 15C, as it happens in my farm house. Outside minus 10C. Room temp 20C.
Just remove the wall. What will happen to the room temp? Does the cold wall warm the room or not? Or reduce cooling? You can see it both ways.
The universe has a background radiation of -(minus)270C, the earths surface about 15C. What will happen without atmosphere at night? You will freeze your arse off – guaranteed.
johannes…”One stove inside a room radiating 300C towards a wall with a temp of 15C, as it happens in my farm house. Outside minus 10C. Room temp 20C”.
Do you use insulation in your walls over there? Know what it’s for? It’s to reduce the rate of cooling due to conduction through the walls. Radiation will pass straight through the insulation and the walls. It has very little effect in warming the room.
Johannes, your room is heated by air in the room, receiving heat energy directly from the stove by conduction. The radiation won’t be effective any more than a few feet from the stove.
You are not warmed by any back-radiation from clouds at night since as you have noted the temperature of the background is very cold. Clouds will typically show temperatures near 0C if the surface temperature is higher.
2nd law of thermodynamics….heat cannot be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object.
When particles of water vapor form clouds, they give away kinetic energy to the atmosphere’s particles. This reduces the vertical gradient of the temperature in the atmosphere.
“When a substance changes phase, that is it goes from either a solid to a liquid or liquid to gas, the energy, it requires energy to do so. The potential energy stored in the interatomics forces between molecules needs to be overcome by the kinetic energy the motion of the particles before the substance can change phase.”
Correct me if I am wrong.
ren…”When particles of water vapor form clouds, they give away kinetic energy to the atmospheres particles. This reduces the vertical gradient of the temperature in the atmosphere”.
I am not arguing that the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s Law are absolutes. After all, it is the ‘Ideal’ Gas Law. I am using both to suggest that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is far too low to be a significant contributor to atmospheric heat.
I think the same is true for WV, which also decreases with altitude due to a gradual thinning of air. Over all, in the atmosphere, WV accounts for only about 0.3% of the atmosphere. Even where it rises to 3% in the Tropics, however, I don’t it’s overall contribution to atmospheric temperature is that significant.
Obviously, the vertical gradient must be affected by other processes like lapse rate but I maintain the major cause of a decrease in temperature with altitude is due to the decrease in pressure related to gravity.
There is a tendency to ignore the warming effect of N2/O2 and I think that’s a big mistake. AFAIC, they control atmospheric temperature.
Lapse rate is not going to change the concentration of O2 in the air at the top of Mt. Everest to 1/3 what it is at the surface. That has to be the effect of a reduction in gravity producing a reduction in overall pressure.
ren, your statement is absolutely correct. The lapse rate is modified from the adiabatic rate for a 99% diatomic gas to the observed rate by isothermal vertical steps through cloud layers. The thermal energy used to vaporise water at the surface reduces the surface temperature from the potential temperature of the atmospheric mean. This same latent heat energy is then needed to account for the tropopause height. No other factors are required. Thermal energy, gravitational potential energy and energy stored as latent heat in waters vapour phase given by specific humidity. This describes the lapse. Pressure is often used in place of geometric height as it incorporates gravity variance. Gph removes this problem by normalising to surface gravity.
“2nd law of thermodynamics.heat cannot be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object.”
You missed the most important word out ….. NET
Net heat. You know full well that you are wrong.
You know fll well that the 2 LoT is not violated and the scientists that follow the tradition of the scientists that gave you the 2nd LoT that you mis concieve (I believe wilfully … as in trolling)
are not incompetent at their profession.
It’s all a pathetic game to the usal suspects on here.
And science does not care that you hamd-wave bollocks.
Johannes says: “I have a handheld IR thermometer going down to -60 C this is the average temp of the CO2 on top of the atmosphere, which I read often at night here in Germany.”
You are mis-interpreting. You are measruing some sort of average temperature (average power really).
* In the “atmospheric window” the IR thermometer receives almost no radiation since it is “seeing” the -270 C of outer space.
* In the CO2 bands, the thermometer receives strong radiation since it “sees” the nearby warm CO2 @ 20 C.
Averaged over all wavelengths that your thermometer uses, the power is somewhere between the radiation you could get from a blackbody at local atmospheric temperatures and the radiation from a cold blackbody in outer space. This power is then translated to some temperature between that of hte atmosphere (~ 20C) and outer space (-270C). That is where the “-60 C” temperature comes from, not from the -60C CO2 high in the atmosphere.
“This power is then translated to some temperature between that of hte atmosphere (~ 20C)”
Tim, do you believe the average temperature of the atmosphere is 20C?
G*, you seem to be missing pretty much all of what I said. Nothing I said could in any logical way be interpreted to mean anything like “the average temperature of the atmosphere is 20C”.
If you point an IR thermometer upward some IR (eg near 15 um) comes from GHGs near the surface (eg around 20C). None of the 15 um IR comes from CO2 high in the atmosphere (eg around -60 C). As such, Johannes’ interpretation of the -60C reading being due to CO2 high in the atmosphere is mistaken.
Sorry Tim, but nothing you said makes any sense.
Have you ever pointed a handheld IR thermometer straight up, at a clear, night time sky?
Just now, I read -60.7F (-51.5C). (And the sky wasn’t even perfectly clear!)
Do you want to try again?
Wow g* you’re dumb. He explained it. You ignored it and went with your own wrong interpretation.
Nate, Tim stated the atmosphere was ~20C. Then, he tried to spin it that he was just referring to CO2 close to the surface. He went on trying to somehow attack the -60C reading.
I provided direct evidence that readings close to -60C were easily obtained.
And, in your perverted, corrupted head, it’s all my fault!
Hilarious.
I understood what he said, g. Then he further clarified, made it more clear.
Your choice was purposeful misinterpretation. So typical of you, and reason why rational discussion with you is so difficult.
And, in your perverted, corrupted head, it’s all my fault!
Hilarious.
G* You’ve even said to me that if I cant boil my science down to one sentence, you will not comprehend it.
This is a highly reproducible effect that is all you.
Nate imagines: “You’ve even said to me that if I cant boil my science down to one sentence, you will not comprehend it.”
Poor Nate has a fantastic imagination!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n says:
January 15, 2018 at 1:13 PM
Just state, in ONE clear sentence, what your problem with net is, so that I have a chance of understanding.
Roy…”The oblique angle will give a warmer reading (the sensor inside the instrument has actually warmed), even though the instrument is pointed at a cold sky”.
I have nothing to do with the Dragon Slayer but I am an expert in electronics. Your IR meter has not been warmed by radiation from a colder source, it is calibrated to read the frequency of IR and it can convert the frequency to whatever that colour temperature SHOULD be using a lookup table, or by comparing the voltage produces to a standard reference voltage. It is not reading temperature directly.
The reference voltage or lookup table is created by calibrating the meter to a known source. Handhelds do not measure temperature, they measure frequency and not across an entire IR band of frequencies.
Sophisticated IR meters used in astronomy do super-cool their receivers so radiation from cooler sources will warm the receiver. That’s not possible with handheld units so they use a different technique to measure frequency.
Roy…please… the 2nd law MUST apply to heat transfer. None of your thought experiments can bypass the 2nd law.
+1
“Handhelds do not measure temperature, they measure frequency “”
Actually, most of the basic IR thermometers you can buy off the shelf do measure temperature — in particular, the temperature of the sensing element. Typically that temperature is measured using some electric signal.
I agree that the calibration is then done with various known sources. For example, if a 20 C IR thermometer is pointed at a -60 C source, the sensing element would cool off to — perhaps to -5 C. The table then says “a -5C sensor equates to a -60 C source.”
The interesting discussion is how to describe what happens when you then point the thermometer at something a little warmer — say -30 C. The sensor will warm up — say to +5C. Many people would be happy to say that since the only change was switching from a -60C background to a -30 C, that the -30 C background is what caused the 10C warming. Others might insist on say that we are only dealing with a “reduced cooling”. In any case, the sensors DID warm and there is NO violation of the 2nd Law.
Tim believes: For example, if a 20 C IR thermometer is pointed at a -60 C source, the sensing element would cool off to — perhaps to -5 C. The table then says “a -5C sensor equates to a -60 C source.”
Tim, whoever told you such nonsense?
Google “how an IR thermometer works”. You might learn something.
Tim, the details depend on the complexity of the device. But, they all involve specialized design, materials, and a source of power. It is an engineered device to make up for the fact that “cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
Do you want to try again?
Wow, G* so many words. So little fact. Nothing that disproves Tim. More BS.
Nate, the first 3 sentences all contained “facts”.
Your head just can’t process facts.
It’s fun to watch.
G*, when a student has no idea on an essay question, they write a paragraph of BS. I have developed a good BS detector. It looks just like what you wrote–you are well practiced!
Your head just can’t process facts.
It’s fun to watch.
e. swanson…”For those who didnt follow the long winded discussion on Dr. Spencers last post, Ive just posted the results of a third demonstration which shows that the repeated claims that the CO2/Greenhouse Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics are clearly wrong…”
Your three experiments have shown nothing except that you lack the required controls to eliminate the effect of convection and heat dissipation.
If you are so confident in your conclusions why not submit a paper and see if you can get it accepted? If it is, you realize that you will have upset a century and a half of basic thermodynamic theory?
Of course, with climate alarmists in charge of a lot of the peer review, maybe your chances are good. Try the Journal of Climate, they are liable to accept it.
Gordon, I see that you continue to be blinded by your incorrect understanding of physics. Can’t you see that that last demo showed that convection had nothing to do with the effect of the cookie sheet on the heated plate below? Once the cookie sheet, which provided down welling IR, was replaced with the food wrap baffle, which, due to it’s high IR transmission and very low emissivity, produced no down welling IR, the result was that convection had essentially no impact, as in ZERO.
You have yet to provide any explanation for the results of the experiment. You may be a good engineer (which is debatable), but you aren’t a scientist. A good scientist must accept the experimental results, even when they contradict their long held acceptance of earlier theory. This is especially galling as the evidence of infrared radiant energy transfer is so very strong and has been for many decades.
e. swanson…”Gordon, I see that you continue to be blinded by your incorrect understanding of physics. Cant you see that that last demo showed that convection had nothing to do with the effect of the cookie sheet on the heated plate below?”
I get it, e. swanson is norman.
“You have yet to provide any explanation for the results of the experiment. You may be a good engineer (which is debatable), but you arent a scientist”.
Engineering is better known as applied science. Before you can apply the science you must learn the science. The difference between us and theoretical scientists is that we cannot afford to indulge in speculation. Things collapse and blow up when your speculation is wrong.
“Once the cookie sheet, which provided down dwelling IR, was replaced with the food wrap baffle, which, due to its high IR transmission and very low emissivity, produced no down welling IR, the result was that convection had essentially no impact, as in ZERO”.
You are misunderstanding your own experiment. The effect of convection is not on the cookie sheet it’s on the tin sheet on the electric stove. If the tin cannot dissipate heat via adequate convection, it heats up. You are confusing that heating as heating due to back-radiation from the cookie sheet.
You think that by wrapping the cookie sheet you are preventing convection from affecting the temperature of the cookie sheet. We don’t care about it’s temperature vis a vis convection, we care about allowing the tin sheet on the stove to get rid of its heat. If you prevent that by placing a cookie sheet over it, the convection it relied upon going straight up is blocked and heat accumulates in the air above the tin sheet and the cookie sheet.
Obviously you have not gotten rid of the convection problem under the cookie sheet. You have not specified how many cubic feet of air the fan can displace per minute. If you had a fan with enough power to adequately eliminate the convection problem it would likely blow the cookie sheet right off the tin cans you are using to support it.
GR, You are such a goof. You obviously didn’t even take the time to look at the photos in the write up nor did you read it. I didn’t “wrap the cookie sheet”, I made a wire frame of the same size and attached a single layer of food wrap to that.
The cookie sheet was added above the heated plate which was at steady temperature and after that time point, the temperature of the plate began to increase. Then, the fan was turned on and the plate temperature dropped as convection cooled both the plate and the cookie sheet. Once the plate temperature steadied, the cookie sheet was removed and the plate temperature dropped some more as a result.
Note the difference in temperature before the cookie sheet was removed and after. Then, the wire frame with the food wrap was placed over the plate with the fan still running. There was almost no change in the plate temperature. That observation tells me that there was plenty of convection from the fan and thus the fact that the plate was warmer with the cookie sheet than with the wire baffle implies that the down welling IR, (aka: back radiation) was the probable cause.
swannie, has the Nobel Prize Committee contacted you yet?
(Hilarious.)
Not yet, but any reward would be post humorous. I don’t think they reward demonstrations of obvious fact. For example, explain the physics of double pane Low-e glass.
Well, if they’re not knocking on your door to give you the Prize, you could start writing science-fiction. You’ve definitely got the knack.
It’d be a shame not to profit from all that talent.
Gordon, BTW, as you mention publication thru peer review, I’ve got 2 peer reviewed papers to my name and a couple of other bits as well. So, tell us, have YOU published thru peer review? If so, please do post a link, if you’ve got the nerve to identify yourself to the rabble…
e. swanson aka norman…”BTW, as you mention publication thru peer review, Ive got 2 peer reviewed papers to my name and a couple of other bits as well”.
Please post links to your papers. As g*r claimed, 2018 is turning out to be a hilarious year.
GR Old Man, you are seriously confused. Maybe you’re losing track of all the times you’ve cut and pasted the same disinformation claiming that the Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd Law. A while back, you thought someone else had posted my demonstrations, now you have decided that I’m really Norman. Wrong again!!!
As for giving you links to my papers, I think perhaps you, as one of the prime trolls on this site, are the one who should provide an identity. Just give a link to one of your recent papers or post your e-mail address and I will send the links directly to you.
Hello E. Swanson.
Are you the same Eric Swanson from the RealClimate blog?:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/#comment-3999
Are you also the same scientist who wrote this cogent rebuttal of Spencer and Christy’s UAH analysis?:
“A comparative analysis of data derived from orbiting MSU/AMSU instruments”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1
If so, then congratulations on your solid work. It’s nice to see you, and so many other researchers, pointing out major discrepancies in the UAH analysis.
My personal favorite was when RSS’ Mears and Wentz caught Spencer and Christy falsely assuming that the lower troposphere cools when the Sun is shining on it at noon and warms at midnight. That conveniently allowed Spencer and Christy to unjustifiably lower the lower tropospheric warming trend in their UAH analysis. As Mears and Wentz noted:
“Clearly, the lower troposphere does not warm at night and cool in the middle of the day. We question why Christy and Spencer adopted an obviously wrong diurnal correction in the first place.”
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5750/972.long
Yes, you found me. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to actually make use of Google, etc. to look at the Internet. My earlier paper is at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL017938/abstract
Thanks for the kind words…
The temperature jump in the stratosphere is preceded by a frost attack in North America.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/10mb9065.png
Index Nino 3.4 falls below -1 C.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Baloney. Hogwash. If AGW WERE REAL, sea level would be responding in kind. Google Sea Level Battery NOAA for a chart that is representative of world sea level since 1850, the start of the industrial revolution. Show us the inflection point where AGW kicked in. Hint: there is none.
Perhaps the inflection point is before 1850?
Google Sea Level Battery NOAA for a chart that is representative of world sea level since 1850
Why on Earth is Battery a great proxy for the whole globe? Looks like pure assertion to me.
So I googled Battery anyway.
https://tinyurl.com/yawrkee2
The trend of 2.8 mm/yr for the whole period is similar to the current satellite trend.
But the point is meant to be that there is no inflection point. I see fluctuations over a long-term trend.
So how well does this match global?
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.png
Global sea level appears to have accelerated over the period. Dunno if such long-term acceleration is statistically significant, but the rate has slowed and sped up at different times during that period.
barry…”The trend of 2.8 mm/yr for the whole period is similar to the current satellite trend”.
Pray, tell me, how does a satellite measure sea levels to an accuracy of millimetres with tidal bulges and constantly changing sea levels due to extreme wave action?
They do it the same way NOAA does the rest of their fudging, using climate models to fill in, interpolate, and homogenize the data to what NOAA thinks the sea level should be. Better still, to reflect their arcane catastrophic global warming theories.
NOAA is not a scientific organization, they are a wing of the US Democratic Party and a member in good standing of the World Wildlife Fund. They represent eco-alarmists everywhere.
Bunch of nonsense. Sea level satellites have better resolution than satellites for temperature. We want a global average, not for some nanometric point in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea. Like the satellite measurements, the more measurements taken, the lower the uncertainty for the global average.
That accuracy increases with multiple measurements is well proved mathematically. UAH global temp anomalies/uncertainty relies on such math, too.
So you could well apply your criticism to the satellite temperature data, which takes a few days tracking to capture a global measurement, with temperature fluctuating throughout for any given point, and different across the globe at any time. However, there is enough coverage to get a great many samples, reducing the uncertainty.
Then there is the processing that compilers do (including Roy Spencer) to account for problematic data (such as drifting satellites and data from different instruments stitched together), which is another story.
barry…”Bunch of nonsense. Sea level satellites have better resolution than satellites for temperature”.
You have not explained why. The oceans are an undulating mass of water that varies in altitude from a few inches to over a 100 feet. On top of that, they gradually change level with tidal bulges. Also, some parts of the ocean can be a foot higher than other parts for some unknown reason.
The effect of gravity on the water is bound to vary as well. They found when surveying in the Himalaya that the mass of the mountains was pulling their plumb bobs from the vertical. I wonder if they painstakingly take all that into account or whether they just estimate the level in a model.
You have a lot of faith in the telemetry you have not explained. The sat data used by UAH comes from emissions from oxygen molecules in the microwave range. They use several overlapping channels of receivers to measure across the range at which O2 varies it’s frequency with temperature.
I think the orbital variations are incidental and the main problem was solved circa 2005. Even with the problem the errors produced were within the stated error margins and only in the Tropics.
Why are you not criticizing thermometer readings where a high and low are averaged daily and the thermometers are located up to 1200 km apart? There are few covering 70% of the surface which is ocean. The problem becomes further exacerbated when NOAA slashes over 75% of the data it collects and synthesizes the lost data in a climate model.
With a high of 20C for the day, and a low of 10C, the average is 15C, an error of + or – 5C either way. Is that OK with you compared to the minor adjustments on sat data? When you add in the blatant fudging of NOAA and GISS, you have sci fi resulting in catastrophic warming fantasies.
Satellite sea level instruments measure sea level from the skin of the oceans. UAH brightness measurements are through a swathe of atmosphere kilometers deep. Each sensor for UAH temps has no better vertical resolution than that.
barry says:
February 2, 2018 at 7:02 PM
Satellite sea level instruments measure sea level…
And they change the data on a regular basis. As near as I can tell the tide gauge data is static.
As we’re talking about relative validity of satellites measuring sea level and tropospheric temperature, have you forgotten that UAH also periodically revise their data?
Thus, on the metric that you dismiss satellite measurements of sea level, you should also write off UAH, no?
barry says:
February 4, 2018 at 4:56 PM
As were talking about relative validity of satellites measuring sea level and tropospheric temperature, have you forgotten that UAH also periodically revise their data?
Thus, on the metric that you dismiss satellite measurements of sea level, you should also write off UAH, no?
Show me. Do you have a link to their old data sets?
Sure. Here’s a link to versions 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5.
Handily, it’s labeled ‘old versions’.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/oldversions/
Here’s a link to the previous version: 5.6.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/
And here’s a link to the current version: 6.0.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
UAH also do revisions between the versions that are not specifically enumerated, as exemplified in this link written by Roy Spencer:
NOTE: In June 2017 we added the Metop-B satellite to the processing stream, with data since mid-2013. The Metop-B satellite has its orbit actively maintained, so the AMSU data from it does not require corrections from orbit decay or diurnal drift. As a result of adding this satellite, most of the monthly anomalies since mid-2013 have changed, by typically a few hundredths of a degree C.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/
This was done a couple of years after Roy started using version 6 in the blog posts.
At woodfortrees, the data for the previous version (5.6) can be plotted alongside the current version. Here’s how they look side by side for the whole period:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1979/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah5/from:1979/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2016/trend
And here’s how they look for the period from 1998 – version 6 diverges markedly from the previous version from about 2000 onwards.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/trend
Couldn’t find links to the earlier versions. There have been about a dozen formal revisions, and various other adjustments in between each.
So now you’ve seen that UAH make adjustments and change the data periodically, do you write them off, too?
barry says:
February 5, 2018 at 6:29 AM
Sure. Heres a link to versions…
The only link that I could open was the Wood For Trees comparison otherwise I was prompted to visit the Ap Store to look for exactly what? Years ago I would download all the global temperature data and load it into Excel, but it became difficult because it was hard to find each month. GISS became the only one I could find without much difficulty.
Well anyway you made your point about UAH and I’ve known that they adjust data for some time. What I don’t know is if they follow a pattern like GISS and the satellite sea level data seems to do.
So you already knew UAH change their data.
Do you write them off like you do every other group that does this?
Is you criticism selective or consistent?
testing for bad URL…
frank…”Google Sea Level Battery NOAA…”
Don’t know if this is what you mean:
If so, points to be noted:
1)it is obviously model data, not real data. No one supplies a confidence level with real data, only with data that has been statistically derived.
2)the graph begins at the end of the Little Ice Age during which global temperatures were 1c to 2C below average. That means a lot of precipitation was tied up in glaciers, etc., hence the lowered sea levels.
3)the data comes from NOAA who are notorious data fudgers, not only of current data but of data they have changed and fudged retroactively. In other words, NOAA is a political animal, not a scientific organization.
4)they had no means of deriving global sea level data back then and they still don’t. Measuring global sea level in millimeters is a testament to human arrogance, not to objective science.
sorry about that, the URl is not getting past the WordPress stupidity they call censors.
https://tides.and.currents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
copy/paste URL then remove dots from tides.and.currents
I have no idea how WordPress has lasted this long.
No one supplies a confidence level with real data, only with data that has been statistically derived.
The confidence interval here refers to the linear trend. Confidence intervals are supplied as a matter of course for linear trends, whether the data is perfect from measurement or not.
Where do you get this baloney?
barry…”The confidence interval here refers to the linear trend. Confidence intervals are supplied as a matter of course for linear trends, whether the data is perfect from measurement or not.
Where do you get this baloney?”
********
I got it from an advanced course in probability and statistics while studying an engineering program at university. Where did you get yours, from a correspondence course, or are you self taught?
I did mention that a CL is used with statistical analysis as opposed to the error margins used in a real experiment. When you measure the length of something in a real experiment you don’t include a confidence level, you are confident that your measurement is accurate to within the error margin.
When you make a projection based on an unvalidated climate model you must use a confidence level because you cannot claim your projection to be absolutely true. You are hypothesizing. It is unethical, however, to use confidence levels as practiced by NOAA and GISS. They arbitrarily drop their CLs to move certain years into first place as the hottest year ever.
Why would anyone offer a confidence level of 48% that 2014 was the warmest year ever? Only one reason, they are alarmist cheaters.
Gordon needs to go out with a ruler and measure sea level himself, do some travelling, see the world.
He no longer trusts data collected by anyone but card-carrying republicans..or whatever the Canadian equivalent is.
Why would anyone offer a confidence level of 48% that 2014 was the warmest year ever?
The confidence level for the calculations was 95%. The probability that 2014 was the warmest was 48%.
48% was NOT the confidence interval!
2nd time you’ve got this wrong.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057999/full
nate…”He no longer trusts data ….”
I trust data if it’s acquired scientifically. I have decades of experience working with electronic equipment and I know the limitations. That’s why cars without drivers should be banned right now before many people get killed.
You see, people with no experience in electronics are easily fooled into thinking electronics and computers are foolproof. I know different and I know there is no instrumentation that can measure ocean levels to within a few millimetres.
Gordon, in my work i use a laser bouncing off a surface and can measure movements of that surface smaller than an atom. Yet the surface has roughness much larger than an atom. How is that possible?
barry…”The confidence level for the calculations was 95%. The probability that 2014 was the warmest was 48%.
48% was NOT the confidence interval!”
You have just proved to me you are a hacker in statistics.
What you have just claimed is that NOAA stated a 95% confidence level then claimed there is about a 50% chance they lied.
Now I understand why you take a number-crunched trend of 0.12C/decade and try to infer it as true warming over the UAH range.
John Christy of UAH, an expert on the matter, claimed true warming did not begin over the UAH range till the 1998 El Nino. That’s when the warming crossed the baseline for good.
You have used your convoluted reasoning in the past. When I pointed out the IPCC claim of 15 years from 1998 with no warming, you insinuated I was lying. When I produced a direct quote you came back with mumbo jumbo about temporary trends.
When I claimed NOAA had slashed over 75% of their surface station data, you claimed that to be a lie. When I produced a direct quote, more mumbo jumbo about how they had actually increased the number of stations. NOAA admitted freely they had slashed them, you claimed the opposite.
You are the kind of thick-headed, bs artists who gives Australians a bad name.
Gordon,
What you have just claimed is that NOAA stated a 95% confidence level then claimed there is about a 50% chance they lied.
I provided a link to the methods paper on how they work out the probabilities on the rankings at the end of my post.
Before you blather about lying, acquaint yourself with the method and admit that the confidence interval they used for calculating probabilities was 95%, not 48% as you erroneously said – for at least the second time.
You have used your convoluted reasoning in the past. When I pointed out the IPCC claim of 15 years from 1998 with no warming, you insinuated I was lying. When I produced a direct quote you came back with mumbo jumbo about temporary trends.
I provided the full quote from the IPCC, which included the statement that short-term trends are not generally reflective of long-term trends. You choose to believe – what? That I made that up?
You cherry-picked IPCC, I provided the full context. You’ve never dealt with that.
When I claimed NOAA had slashed over 75% of their surface station data, you claimed that to be a lie.
Because it is.
When I produced a direct quote, more mumbo jumbo about how they had actually increased the number of stations.
Again, that very link you supply also says they increased the number of stations.
NOAA admitted freely they had slashed them, you claimed the opposite.
Nothing in that link says NOAA ‘slashed’, cut, deleted, or deliberately removed station data. This is YOUR lie.
I also provided you multiple times with the methods paper that describes exactly what happened. I have reminded you of that many times.
YOU are blind to this. You have a very strong filter that doesn’t let you read what you don’t want to know.
THAT is why you refer to “mumbo jumbo.” You’ve never taken a clear look at the refutations of your misconceptions, just fired off posts without reading, understanding and thinking.
It is as clear as crystal that NOAA retrospectively added historical station data (mostly transcribed by hand) that was not part of their normal, automatic intake that was about 1500 stations at the time, and that when that project ended they still had about 1500 stations reporting monthly.
See the paragraph above this one? Did you notice how your eyes glazed and your brain fogged up, and how you FILTERED IT OUT of your consciousness.
You’ve seen this explanation a couple dozen times, and never, ever, ever, ever dealt with it, just wound back to repeating the lie.
You unsee what I’ve explained to you about this every time. You never deal with it. Never respond to it. That’s how I know you have a strong filter.
Take the filter off and then we can talk. And let’s have no mumbo jumbo.
The current range of Arctic air in the USA.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/738isw7g8485.png
Maybe man-made global warming is fake but we still have to protect the environment and decide the quality of life.
CAOYUFEI,
Your statement reminds me of the position of George Bush I stated 27 years ago: “If we are going to spend money on the global warming issue, let’s spend it where we know we will get other environmental benefits from the expenditure.”
A key problem is that action in the name of global warming has often had detrimental environmental effects. Examples include (1) the devastation of Amazon subtropical forests induced by ethanol mandates (which were passed in the name of global warming), (2) the death of millions of birds and bats by windmills, (3) the diversion of over $100 billion away from known environmental problems to the global warming millionaires, (4) destruction of Midwest farmland to be covered by solar panels, (5) gaming by Chinese factories which actually intentionally increased harmful emissions in order to get more Western funds to lower those emissions, (6) movement of energy-intensive industries from countries with strict environmental practices to countries where environmental protection is a low priority. And the list goes on.
+1
Carbon dioxide is not pollution.
*Man emitted* CO2 is a pollutant — an unwanted substance with deleterious effects.
And the Supreme Court ruled it a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
What does the Supreme Court know about physics?
King Canute Science
The supremes are not likely experts on many things they rule on, medical issues, technology etc. But they should be experts on law and what it covers.
If you’re as bright as a 2 W bulb, you might think CO2 is pollution.
Ouch, you really got me there-I think.
No, the SCOTUS did not rule it a pollutant. They ruled that the EPA had the power to declare it so under the law.
SCOTUS rules on matters of law, not on matters of science.
In Massachusetts v. EPA (April 2007), the Supreme Court held that manmade GHGs are “air pollutants” for regulatory purposes, under the Clean Air Act and its amendments, passed by Congress.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html
inquirer…” gaming by Chinese factories which actually intentionally increased harmful emissions in order to get more Western funds to lower those emissions”
Sounds like here in the province of British Columbia, Canada. An uber-right wing government imposed a carbon tax on us then handed the proceeds over to a private company with the idea that they’d reduce their emissions.
The female government official who implemented the plan had once been referred to as a West End Barbie Doll by a prominent socialist lawyer. Our current Canadian minister in charge of the environment has been labeled a ‘climate Barbie’ by a member of the media.
I have nothing in the least against female politicians but those two fit the monikers. Both are superficial believers in AGW.
The West End barbie doll was our finance minister and a dumb tradition we have is that the minister should wear a new pair of shoes while delivering the budget speech. WWBD bought a pair of GREEN, spiked, high heels that cost $600, all for a one-time use.
This, the woman who lectured us (more like a scolding) on our responsibility to the environment during the speech while wearing $600 high heels and handing the money she collected from a carbon tax over to a private company.
“Maybe man-made global warming is fake but we still have to protect the environment and decide the quality of life.”
Feed people first. There is no quality to life while starvation exists in the “environment” we humans inhabit.
You could exempt starving people, but it’s not optimal.
Why take a $10 loss in Miami for a $1 gain in Africa?
It’s optimal to split the $9 dollar saving.
It’s a very bad idea to conflating separate issues like this. Difficult problems are solved by dividing them until each part is easy.
Why would CO2 be the optimal solution to poverty?
svante…”Why would CO2 be the optimal solution to poverty?”
It’s not. The point Laura makes is that we are focused on pseudo-science at the expense of world poverty and hunger. The irony is in the way the UN, through the IPCC, is manufacturing climate propaganda as a guise to hide their real agenda, to transfer wealth from wealthy nations to poorer nations.
The UN has been a load of idiots since its inception. They’ve had well over half a century to solve world poverty and hunger and done absolutely nothing about it. They cater to yuppies dressed as hippies and eco-alarmists, like at the Rio Summit, while pretending to care about the poor and disenfranchised.
If you want to help the poor, help them, for cripes sakes. Stop hiding behind this charade of pseudo-science. Of course, you can’t help the poor in places like Africa and Iran till you ensure democracy in those countries. Sending money and food to those places right now will result in the aid being intercepted by corrupt governments.
If the UN was serious, it would set up forces to clean up the corruption. However, much of the UN voters are made up of these corrupt factions.
You have IPCC leaders like Pachauri, being charged with conflict of interest and sexual harassment. He resigned.
In Climategate, Phil Jones, of Had-crut was paraded in front of a 3-level board to investigate his involvement in the Climategate scandal. Two of the three stages were heard by people who had a conflict of interest in that they were involved directly in companies that benefited from the alarmist stance of Jones. Stage 1 was called off since the UK government faced an election.
Sheer corruption from top to bottom.
So the IPCC secret agenda is to help the poor, great.
svante…”So the IPCC secret agenda is to help the poor, great”.
I swore I said the UN had an agenda to help the poor. It’s an honourable commitment on paper but when you’ve had nearly 70 years to implement it and you have done nothing you are an idle swine.
It so happens the IPCC is run by the UN and it’s quite obvious to many of us the IPCC has nothing to do with science, rather it is in place to further the misguided UN agenda.
“The amazing decline of global hunger, in one chart,”
Zack Beauchamp, VOX, Oct 13, 2014.
https://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6969953/malnutrition-undernutrition-getting-better
The famous ‘we must choose either/or’.
In my city, we spent $millions on a new off-shore sewage treatment facility and as consequence our river is clean and swimmable for the first time in decades.
Should we not have done this and instead spent the money on solving hunger in the world?
nate…”Should we not have done this and instead spent the money on solving hunger in the world?”
How about both? There is plenty of money to do both, the problem lies with dogmatic people who indicate an interest in helping but who lack the awareness to get past their dogma.
If we humans put aside our personal dogmas and focused on ending world hunger/poverty, and cleaning up the environment, we could do both quite easily.
I just fail to see how CO2 is a pollutant at this time that requires the drastic measures being paraded by climate alarmists. You cannot see CO2, what you see and breath is largely water vapour and other pollutants that colour the emissions.
If factories and automobiles were emitting pure CO2, you’d never see it.
You cannot see CO. It will asphyxiate you.
Yes. By removing all those horrible bird shredders. And stopping corn monoculture for bio fuel.
And by building reliable, clean power plants. And by stopping to export production to counties without environmental protection.
Greetings from Germany
One former Green, still green at heart
johannes…”And by building reliable, clean power plants. And by stopping to export production to counties without environmental protection”.
It’s called political correctness over here. Merkel excels at it.
There’s nothing wrong with being green at heart provided one’s mind is in touch with reality.
caoyfei…”Maybe man-made global warming is fake but we still have to protect the environment and decide the quality of life”.
So, do it without perverting science or using science as the vehicle.
Heres the problem. Most people look at the science as one sided and one sided only. Is there a side that is telling the truth? Of course. Is there one thats lying? Of course. We just dont know which one or do we? These questions dont require much thinking all we need to do is ask ourselves these things?
1. What is the scientific method?
2. Do we come out with the same end results everytime?
Now when it comes to the whole climate change sha bang there are a few people
1. You have the alarmists who blame co2 as the main driver of climate
2. You have skeptics who doubt climate change in general
3. You have people like me who step outside the box and look at it from one perspective and one perspective only:
If global warming was caused my us which is what some people are claiming then why are there other scientists or politicians saying coming out with a totally different outcome? When you have a theory and you have different people come with different conclusions then its not a theory. Co2 Does not cause climate change to the extent that everyone thinks it does yet you have these other people who hold a degree that are coming out with totally different conclusions. Which one of these conclusions are right if they are coming out with totally different outcomes. The answer: none of them. If you and other people are doing an experiment and someone comes out with a totally different out come then it is not settled science it is junk science as is with the man made global warming nonsense. People like me who think that the sun is the main driver or climate are coming out with the same conclusions: the sun drives climate just like it always has been doing for the past billions of years. So heres my question to everyone. If global warming was such settled science then why are there people coming out with totally different outcomes and why are the people coming out with those outcomes coming to the same general conclusion that greenhouse gases arent the main driver of climate change the sun is?
This is easy. Since there arent any studys that prove 0,04% of Co2 is warming the planet catastrophically, humans can not be the cause.
Sounds logical : – )
cc4r…” What is the scientific method? ”
If the climate alarmists use the scientific method, why does their authority, the IPCC, present all its findings as likelihoods? Not once has the IPCC declared humans are causing global warming they have only claimed it is likely.
Mind you, they have assigned an inordinately high confidence level to their opinions and no one can explain how they derived the scale. It was 90% in 2007. In 2013, they announced there had been no warming during the 15 years since 1998, calling it a warming hiatus.
After admitting the warming had essentially stopped, it might be logical to reassess their opinion, right? Wrong!! The IPCC increased the likelihood to 95%.
Mind you, their buddies at NOAA declared 2014 the warmest year ever based on a confidence level of 48%. Only NASA GISS bested them, using confidence levels in the 30 percentile range. The IPCC at least does not have the cheek to manipulate truth using such blatant chicanery.
After admitting the warming had essentially stopped, it might be logical to reassess their opinion, right? Wrong!! The IPCC increased the likelihood to 95%.
Exactly then why should we believe them. Why should we focus on carbon dioxide if there are two scientists coming with two totally different conclusions. Scientists who study solar cycles and how they affect the climate come with similar conclusions. That nature is the main driver of climate not man
–Exactly then why should we believe them.–
No one with any sense, has ever believed a bureaucracy.
Bureaucracies probably predate cavemen, and believing
them is not something anyone has done.
It seems the primary purpose of them is to shift blame.
What is the scientific method?
It is certainly NOT what alarmist’s that possess a degree in disciplines relevant to the Earth science’s are practicing as utilising.
For an easy to watch (and interesting) summation of what the scientific method is and what the scientific method is not, refer to Carl Sagan Cosmos Ep 3 The Backbone of Night 26 mins + and Ep 7 The Harmony of Worlds 20 mins +.
The alarmist’s are clearly Pythagorean’s. They are very dangerous to the scientific method in the Earth science’s.
GC…”For an easy to watch (and interesting) summation of what the scientific method is and what the scientific method is not, refer to Carl Sagan…”
I learned the scientific method in high school and I find that description has stood the test of time. Carl Sagan became an entertainer and veered way off the scientific method. I have heard him say several times, “WHEN the Big Bang occurred…”. No one knows if the BB occurred at all and it is very highly unlikely based on the scientific method.
He was also an instigator of the theory that the atmosphere of Venus was caused by a runaway greenhouse effect. James Hansen learned that theory from him and later, as leader of NASA GISS, tried to get it into the minds of the public that the same catastrophe was imminent on Earth.
The theory has never been proved and fairly recent data sent back from a space probe to Venus suggests the surface is way to hot (~450C) to have come from greenhouse warming.
The scientific method as I learned it is:
1)State an objective.
2)State your method.
3)Describe your apparatus and equipment.
4)Make observations.
5)Form a conclusion.
Dead simple, yet a lot of modern science ignores it, including AGW. The original experiment of Tyndall in which he ascertained that certain gases absorbed IR was very sound and based on the method. Things have really gone downhill from then.
From what I have seen, another step has been added:
6)Consult with other and reach an agreement on what really happened. Discard initial observation if required.
or 7)Misinterpret established science to form pseudo-scientific conclusions, then discard the experimental evidence.
cc4r…”Exactly then why should we believe them. Why should we focus on carbon dioxide if there are two scientists coming with two totally different conclusions”.
We shouldn’t they are outright liars and fabricators of propaganda. However, the IPCC is run by politicians who find it expedient to introduce means of raising taxes and giving handouts to their buddies in the private sector. That’s what catastrophic global warming/climate change is about.
Here’s how the IPCC works. Governments appoint lead authors and the LA’s select reviewers. In the end the reviewers submit a main report and 50 lead authors write the Summary for Policymakers for their masters the politicians.
When the main report is submitted by 2500 reviewers, the Summary has already been issued, then the main report is amended to reflect the Summary. Those who wrote the main report can complain but most of the time the complaints fall on deaf ears.
Ergo, the politicians get what they asked for, a load of lies. The 2500 reviewers are only there to give appearances of impartiality.
On one review, Chapter 9 was comprised of lead authors and reviewers who knew each other and only cited the works of each other. In an investigation by a leading statistician, he called Chapter 9 ‘nepotic’.
IPCC = corruption.
Or as I like to call it idiots predicting climate change
I definitely agree that the scientific method has been corrupted in the Earth science’s with the sheer weight of the AGW movement driving it.
Yes, Carl Sagan was actually a ‘believer’ in AGW up to his death. However, I firmly believe had he had access to the data that has become available since his death, he would be skeptical, at the least.
The Cosmos episodes referred to above are historical accounts of the scientific method of Democritus, Empedocles etc (who relied foremost upon the objectivity of empirical observation to test hypothesis/theory) vs Pythagoras and Plato who foremost relied upon ‘pure reasoning’/ideas in the absence of objectivity of empirical observation i.e models, mathematics without physicality. The other episode being an account of Kepler’s rediscovering of the Ionian scientific method which bases foremost importance of empirical observation.
In my opinion, these historical accounts should be required study for all undergraduates entering disciplines in the Earth science’s for the scientific method has been so distorted in curriculum in the early 21st century that students are at a point where they don’t actually comprehend the difference between empirical observation and abstract ideas.
GC…”The other episode being an account of Keplers rediscovering of the Ionian scientific method which bases foremost importance of empirical observation”.
I agree. it is interesting stuff.
Kepler took the observations of astronomer Tycho Brahe and applied math to them. I did not Google that, I recall reading it decades ago. Apparently Kepler, who was his assistant, did not believe Brahe’s data at first.
I think students should be introduced to the scientific history that lead up to our current version. I’m sure many would be prompted to question current science based on the history.
I find it interesting how Newton took the work of Descartes in geometry and used it to calculate the area under curves, using ever decreasing rectangles, leading to the development of calculus. Apparently Newton first described the orbits of planets around the Sun and Kepler expanded on the idea coupled with the astronomical observations of Tycho Brahe.
I was just reading an article on Boltzmann and how none of his works published in German have been freely available as English translations. So, how is it we have so-called experts on Boltzmann today, and his equation with Stefan, when no one really knows anything about him and how he derived his equations?
One current mathematician who does understand the history as related to Boltzmann/Planck et al is Claes Johnson, a brilliant mathematician our esteemed Norman considered a dolt and a fool. Johnson has merely taken the work of Planck in particular and converted it to Newtonian mechanics, so that quantum theory is not required.
Some dolt, some fool.
ClimateChange4Realz
“If global warming was such settled science then why are there people coming out with totally different outcomes and why are the people coming out with those outcomes coming to the same general conclusion that greenhouse gases arent the main driver of climate change the sun is?”
It is an interesting question, especially as the intensity of sunlight is decreasing while temperatures continue to rise, the opposite of what you would expect if changes in the Sun were the cause.
Perhaps there are other reasons?
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
All thermal storage oscillators incorporate lag. Sorry to be repetitive.
GEOFF…”All thermal storage oscillators incorporate lag. Sorry to be repetitive”.
Interesting. I have wondered if the 98 El Nino pulse set off a slow oscillation of sorts from which the climate has yet to recovered. It has been compounded by pulses in 2010 and 2016.
It should resolve eventually but it is taking its time.
Aren’t most climatologists payed to provide information which potentially undermines their profession if totally unbiased?
Working for a university or a government research organisation your research is expected to reflect reality. That is, to be unbiased and repeatable by other workers. You get paid the same whatever the outcome.
If you work for a company they tend to want “deliverables” that support their message. Remember all those tobacco company scientists saying that fags were safe?
That’s strange, I understand that most research is funded and subject to biasing by that virtue.
Even scientists have to eat.
University and research councils pay the scientist to find whatever answer is out there.
When companies or lobby groups finance research there is always the suspicion that they pay the scientist to tell them what supports the corporate message.
entropic…”Even scientists have to eat”.
It’s not the eating that bothers me it’s the funding of their BMW’s and whatever other vices they may have. Has it escaped you that some of the top alarmist climate scientists are arrogant SOBs?
Em, do you believe institutionalized “science” is unbiased?
Reminder of what unbiased application of filter produces:
https://tinyurl.com/ybvsr6xg
Working for a university or a government research organisation your research is expected to reflect reality. That is, to be unbiased and repeatable by other workers. You get paid the same whatever the outcome.
Yes but my question is why are there other people who came with different conclusions and are questioning the theory that are also certified in the field like dr Roy Spencer?
Roy does not question the theory – only the magnitude of the effect.
As does Richard Lindzen.
There are no qualified scientists who dispute the theory (only unqualified crackpots and retired engineers – some of them post here)
Perhaps I didnt make my self clear enough. CATASTROPHIC AGW is what I meant. I meant that some scientist come up with conclusions that say that the affect it has on the earth is too small to be detectable so the idea that co2 is the tail that wags the dog doesnt work.
LOL this was a good one. +1
Yes but my question is why are there other people who came with different conclusions and are questioning the theory that are also certified in the field like dr Roy Spencer?
You get this in any branch of science that is settled or reasonably settled. There are people publishing papers saying that Einstein got it all wrong. Not many, and relativity theory is settled.
Because this issue has strong implications for society, particular re energy usage, a huge part of the economic fabric, these voices that usually dwell on the edges of science have been thrust into the limelight. Some are even paid to do so by private companies.
You can see lists of papers or publishers on skeptic websites that purport to be hundreds of rejections of AGW, or of the politically inspired acronym ‘CAGW’. But when you investigate them, most of the papers are not what they are purported to be.
The question is, why do so few qualified researchers disagree with the mainstream view?
Why though why are there people disagreeing with Einsteins work and why are there a few let alone any disagreeing with the global warming theory? Why?
How do you know Einsteins work is true then if people are disagreeing with it or arent coming to the same end result?
barry…”You can see lists of papers or publishers on skeptic websites that purport to be hundreds of rejections of AGW, or of the politically inspired acronym CAGW. But when you investigate them, most of the papers are not what they are purported to be”.
Have you heard of Climategate, where top-level IPCC contributors were caught red-handed trying to interfere with peer-review and revealing their methods for making the atmosphere appear to be warmer than it is?
In one comment, Coordinating Lead Author, Phil Jones, head of Had-crut, threatened in conjunction with his CLA partner to make sure certain skeptical papers did not make it to the IPCC review.
In another comment, a trick of Michael Mann was revealed on how to hide declining temperatures. Phil Jones bragged about using it at Had-crut.
In another one, they applauded the death of John Daly, a skeptic.
In yet another, Phil Jones is seen encouraging his buddies to oppose an FOI request of Steve McIntyre to the UK government to get the Had-crut data for independent audit.
It has nothing to do with science being settled, the current climate scenario is about spreading propaganda, hiding facts from the public that contradict AGW, and stacking peer review processes with climate alarmists. Even the once prestigious National Academy of Science has been infiltrated by alarmists and taken over by them.
cc4r…”Working for a university or a government research organisation your research is expected to reflect reality”.
Better tell that to NOAA and NASA GISS. NOAA has been fudging the temperature record retroactively, then GISS takes the fudged data and fudges it more.
I fear NOAA is now intercepting the sat data, running it through an algorithm to show warming, then handing it over to UAH. Why not, it’s their satellite data?
For the same reason I don’t give much time to flat Earthers. Or to people who think the world was created 6000 years ago. Or intelligent designers. Or those researchers (who were paid for years) to call the harms of smoking tobacco into question. Or to those studies that de-linked HIV and AIDS.
100% unanimity is not a requirement for understanding something.
There are always outliers. The mistake is to give them the same weight as the views they are countering. Fishing for them exclusively is just a more extreme iteration of the problem.
“There are always outliers.”
Yes, like Alfred Wegener and Barry Marshall. There have been far too many such instances of the outliers being found correct in science to dismiss them in an unsettled field.
The Tobacco Institute saga only shows that scientists can be bought, doubly so when their personal inclinations parallel those of the agency employing them. The tobacco scientists didn’t get rich off their research. They just really wanted what they were researching to be true.
Yes, Bart. When the outliers become the mainstream, then that’s what we rely on. But what we’re talking about here is recognizing outliers from mainstream, rather than promoting them on some Copernicus argument.
I think what you are doing is trying to appropriate the prestige of well established theories, that have withstood decades if not centuries of concerted scrutiny, on behalf of a fledgling, half-baked hypothesis that hasn’t yet even been potty trained.
AGW theory is over a century old. It is probably the most scrutinized field in the last 30 years, and possibly ever.
The worldwide weight of opinion is what it is. You seem to want to write that off as ‘half-baked’. I see no reasonable reason to do so considering the tens of thousands of studies that support it over many decades. Whereas I do think it is unreasonable to propose it is ‘half-baked’ based on the much smaller sample of studies that do not support it.
barry says, February 1, 2018 at 10:28 PM:
This is pure bollocks, and I’m pretty sure you know it. The idea of “AGW” is still to this day based on nothing but speculation. There isn’t a single piece of observational evidence from the real Earth system suggesting that it’s real in any way. The postulated causal relationship +CO2 => +T has NEVER been even remotely verified as an actual physical connection in nature. And still it’s simply taken for granted to be true. Everyone THINKS it’s thoroughly established empirically, even when this is not the case AT ALL. It’s based solely on (severely limited) theoretical considerations …
Kristian,
Anyone saying ‘There isnt a single piece of observational evidence from the real Earth system suggesting that its real in any way.’
is just not living in the real world of facts, and is in deep deep denial.
Nate says, February 2, 2018 at 8:43 AM:
So name one. Exactly what observational evidence showing that “AGW” is real am I denying?
Kristian is exactly right. An hypothesis means nothing if it is not verified. It gains no legitimacy just from having been around a long time.
Kristian,
From the Feldman paper quoted by David, measurements show how forcing varies with CO2, even at seasonal scale.
https://media.springernature.com/m685/nature-assets/nature/journal/v519/n7543/images/nature14240-f4.jpg
That’s a measurement of an enhanced GHE. How does that not increase temperature?
There isnt a single piece of observational evidence from the real Earth system suggesting that its real in any way.
It doesn’t matter how many times this BS is replied to, it keeps coming back.
Kristian,
I just love the blanket statements from you guys.
Just Google ‘evidence for AGW’ yourself and show us how it is incorrect. There are obviously thousands of papers that provide evidence that must be considered as a whole.
Or just look at Hansen, Science, 1981, and how successful their model’s many specific projections were over the next 35 years. This is rather convincing.
Svante says, February 2, 2018 at 5:51 PM:
How come every single time I point out on this blog that there isn’t a single piece of observational evidence from the real Earth system showing that the hypothetical causal relationship +CO2 => +T is one that’s in actual effective operation in nature, one sorry acolyte (normally it’s Appell) is sure to come along, as if at his or her master’s beck and call, dragging in the Feldman study from 2015 to once again throw it on the table as some kind of Divine Proof …!?
Which once more forces me to sit down and explain to him/her why exactly this isn’t even CLOSE to being the kind of evidence that he/she seems to THINK it is, and that he/she so desperately WISHES for it to be. Until next time. When the cycle repeats itself, all over again. It just goes round and round. Like a meme. Counterarguments do not sink in. They are completely and summarily ignored. Every single time. The propaganda machine works.
What is it about this study that has so enthralled the followers and true believers of the “AGW” religion? I can’t think of anything except the headlines it caused. From just the first two pages on Google Search: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface” (Berkeley Lab News Center), “Carbon dioxide’s contribution to greenhouse effect monitored in real time” (physicsworld.com), “New study directly measures greenhouse effect at Earth’s surface” (Carbon Brief), “First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect” (phys.org), “Researchers Observe CO2’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect” (sci-news.com), “Scientists confirm ‘greenhouse’ effect of human’s CO2” (Science News for Students), “Surprise! CO2 Directly Linked To Global Warming” (Forbes), “Greenhouse Effect Is Witnessed … and Getting Worse” (Live Science), “From Warming Estimates to Measurements – Scientists measure the heat trapped by atmospheric carbon dioxide for the first time” (Yale Climate Connections), “New measurements confirm extra heating from our carbon dioxide” (Skeptical Science), “The Climate Post: First-Ever Direct Observation of Greenhouse Gas Increase” (Huffington Post), “Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air” (AP News), “Scientists have measured the impact of greenhouse gas on the Earth’s surface, and their findings are not good news” (Quartz Media).
Everyone’s scrambling to get on the bandwagon!
And Feldman himself, of course, did nothing to cool the choir down. When interviewed by the news center of his own employer, the Berkeley Lab (top headline above), he boldly proclaimed:
“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” (…) “Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect,” (…)
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Plus, from the study’s own abstract:
“(…) we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2.” [And:] “These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels (…) are affecting the surface energy balance.”
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
I hardly think that more than the tiniest fraction of the people waving this around as somehow “final proof” that “AGW” is real (!!) has ever even read past the headlines, much less the paper itself.
It’s such a bore!
Kristian, so many words, and didnt see any feldman rebuttal.
Kristian – you didnt give a scientific response to Feldman et al, just some meaningless hand waving.
Nate says, February 3, 2018 at 8:30 AM:
A rebuttal of what!? The Feldman study doesn’t provide the evidence we’re looking for. So why should I “rebut” it. Did you even read my previous comment?
barry says, February 2, 2018 at 8:44 PM:
It doesn’t matter how many times the nonsense “AGW is real” claim is replied to. It keeps coming back.
Rather than just dismissing all the time the ones pointing out the utter lack of observational evidence for it, PRESENT IT!
Nate says, February 2, 2018 at 10:41 PM:
I just love the blanket responses from you guys. Just search this and that, or just read the AR5, or just read about Hansen and his models. You’ll find the answer there …
No. That’s not what I’m asking for. I’m making a positive claim. All you have to do, then, is to present ONE single piece of observational evidence from the real Earth system showing that more CO2 in the atmosphere actually causes Earth’s T_s to rise, and my claim is falsified. Just ONE.
Why is it that this can never be accomplished!? Can’t you just do a google search yourself and pick the first entry and link it here for everyone to see? If it’s that straightforward. If there’s so much evidence around …
Look, you all need to wake up to the reality that the whole idea of “AGW”, or “the anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect”, is nothing but a theoretically based conjecture.
The central claim being made is the following:
This is the basic premise lying at the heart of the entire “AGW” industry. The one thing that HAS TO be correct in order for all the other claims to even stand a chance of being taken seriously in a proper scientific context.
But has this basic premise ever, anywhere, by anyone, been verified empirically through consistent observations from the real Earth system?
Of course not! Not even remotely so!
It is still nothing but a loose conjecture …
And yet NO ONE seems to acknowledge even in the slightest howthis circumstance mightpose a problem. All you get if you bring it up are shrugs of indifference and/or tuts of disapproval. ‘Go away, we’re discussing real, importantissues here!’
The irony …
It is all rather fascinating. EVERYONE appears to take for granted, without a single critical thought in their mind, that this fully unsubstantiated assertion is in fact rather a long-established Truth. Warmers and lukewarmers alike. It’s like a complete blind spot to all of them. It simply isn’t seenas an issue at all. People’s eyes glaze over whenever someone tries to call their attention to it. They simply don’t understand what you’re getting at. In their world, if theoretically it should be like that, then it is like that. To them, the Truth of inescapable net CO2 warmingjust is, like solid bedrock (you can feel it under your feet and so you know it’s real),a piece of self-evident fact that no one apparently sees any point in even addressing, much less testing, like “Do we question gravity?”.
The difference is, gravity’s effect on its surroundings is an empirically established fact, confirmed every day through billions upon billions of casual observations. The claimed warming effect of atmospheric CO2 on the mean surface temperature of the Earth, on the other hand, has NOT been empirically verified. At all. Not even once.
A claim that more CO2 in the atmosphere will and does make the global surface of the Earth warmer on average comeswithout ONE SINGLE SHRED OF ACTUAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!*
* (It is an empirical fact that CO2 is a gas that absorbs (and emits) radiation at certain wavelengths within the EM spectrum. And no one claims otherwise. However, the notion that putting more of it into the atmosphere will thereby automatically (by physical necessity) induce a NET warming of the surface underneath, is NOT. And THAT is the claim. Which simply doesn’t follow straight from the original, empirically established fact. You cannot presuppose a direct connection here … You need to test it first! To try and verify it empirically. Out in the real world.)
And still people walk around treating it as gospel truth. In all sincerityequating its validity to gravity’s pull. Which, to be frank, should utterly boggle one’s mind …!
But most people naturally don’t know that the basic premise of the entire “AGW” proposition comes with exactly ZERO pieces of empirical evidence from the real Earth system. They simply assume that there are in fact tons of them out there. Because that’s what they’ve been told. By the people who should know this. The “experts”. And they’ve been told so for a long time, repeatedly, incessantly. Directly and indirectly. Never actually shown any such evidence, of course (it doesn’t exist, after all). And they don’t ask for it either … They’re only ever reassured – persistently and insistingly – that it does exist. Somewhere. And piles of it. Do not doubt it …
Kristian, show me the empirical evidence that smoking causes lung cancer.
Kristian,
Since all evidence presented to you thus far has been branded by you, the judge, as ‘not evidence’. Its not possible to know ahead of time what to go and find that will satisfy you. On the other hand, most climate scientists and physical scientists who’ve looked at the evidence, find it compelling.
There are many overlapping and self-consistent lines of evidence, like the evidence for evolution, or evidence that smoking causes lung cancer.
It is incumbent on YOU to tell us what kind of experiment or evidence would satisfy you.
Perhaps only a second Earth without added CO2 will do it. Thats not possible. But physics based simulations of the Earth, with and without extra CO2, is as close as we could do. That of course, has been done many times, and indeed shows more warming, and the spatial pattern of warming that is observed.
Kristian wrote:
How come every single time I point out on this blog that there isnt a single piece of observational evidence from the real Earth system showing that the hypothetical causal relationship +CO2 => +T
The research shows that CO2 is increasing the amount of downward energy near the surface.
We know from previous physics that more energy increases the temperature of a gas.
What more do you want?
PS: Show me the experiment that proves smoking causes lung cancer.
profp…”As does Richard Lindzen”
I have already posted a paper (several times) by Lindzen on the GHE and he describes the theory as an over-simplified model. His version of the GHE is far different than the popular understanding.
barry…”AGW theory is over a century old. It is probably the most scrutinized field in the last 30 years, and possibly ever”.
To add to the words of Kristian…double bollocks!!
I was reading through a paper by Callendar which was posted by David Appell. It became clear after reading the paper that all of modern AGW theory was taken verbatim from Callendar. It is not based on Tyndall or Arrhenius but on Callendar.
No further scientific proof has been offered.
Problem is, he did not prove that CO2 has a warming effect in the atmosphere he only applied reasoning to it. In his paper, he went to so far as to compare warming since 1850 to the 1930s with an estimated increase in CO2 while remaining oblivious to the significance of 1850. It marked the end of the Little Ice Age.
Environments hopefully rewarm after an ice age, one would think. Why did Callendar not look for such an obviously, natural cause for the warming? Why was he focused on CO2? And half a century later, why was the IPCC focused on CO2, completely oblivious to the cooling of the Little Ice Age?
“No further scientific proof has been offered.”
The evidence is overwhelming.
What “proof” do you think is missing?
Gordon Robertson says:
“I have already posted a paper (several times) by Lindzen on the GHE and he describes the theory as an over-simplified model. His version of the GHE is far different than the popular understanding.”
How so?
PLease explain. And give some citations.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I have already posted a paper (several times) by Lindzen on the GHE and he describes the theory as an over-simplified model.”
So what — Lindzen was wrong.
In 2017, 22 current and retired MIT professors wrote a open letter saying that
“As [Lindzen’s] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science,”
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump
Kristian,
Rather than just dismissing all the time the ones pointing out the utter lack of observational evidence for it, PRESENT IT!
Again? Ok. But I can predict the goal post shift – you will stop talking about evidence and start talking about something else.
1) AGW predicts that global surface temperatures over the long term should rise. This is what we observe.
2) Darkening of the spectral bands associated with CO2 over time – observed.
3) Brightening of spectral bands associated with CO2 looking skyward – observed.
4) GH warming predicts (before observations were available) that the lower stratosphere should cool while the surface warms over the long term – observed.
5) Winters should warm faster than summers for each hemisphere – observed.
These are 5 results that match predictions for GH warming. 2-5 are predictions that are specifically for GH warming. There are more.
This is evidence.
Feel free to request studies corroborating the above.
Please don’t shift the goalposts.
David Appell says, February 3, 2018 at 2:03 PM:
Well, is the claim being made that a body that smokes will INEVITABLY (meaning, by physical/chemical necessity, always, no matter what else is going on) develop lung cancer? That 100% of smokers end up getting lung cancer?
Sorry, I can’t find the empirical evidence to back up such a claim. Because IT DOESN’T EXIST.
So Kristian agrees that the risk of global warming increases with more CO2.
That’s fair enough, we all have different risk assessments.
To barrys list:
6) Nights should warm more than days observed.
Nate says, February 3, 2018 at 3:11 PM:
Hahaha! This is the laziest possible response to a request for observational evidence. Unfortunately, it is also by far the most common response given by people like you, staunch supporters of the “AGW” dogma. All you ever provide is purported evidence, observations that you HOPE will somehow cover for your lack of ACTUAL evidence – “proxy observations.”
OF COURSE you know what I’m asking for. I am stating it in the clearest cut fashion possible. There is no way you could misunderstand it. If you know ANYTHING about 1) the scientific method, and 2) the “hypothesis” of “the anthropogenically enhanced GHE.”
# The claim is made that more CO2 in the atmosphere will (MUST!) – on balance – lead to an increase in surface temperature. There are no caveats here! If this DOESN’T happen in ALL cases, all things considered, no matter what, there is no claim. The causal link +CO2 => +T is taken as gospel truth. It just IS. Like solid bedrock under your feet.
# So my – extremely simple! – request is the following: SHOW that this causal link is a real and operative one out there in nature. SHOW, through consistent empirical observations, that more CO2 in the atmosphere DOES in fact CAUSE surface temps to rise.
Which is to say that the evidence you present will have to show THE CAUSAL LINK ITSELF. The “=>”. It’s not enough for it to show the claimed “cause” and the claimed “effect” separately: the “+CO2” and the “+T”. Which SHOULD be a no-brainer.
What we want to know is whether or not the claimed cause IS in fact what it’s claimed to be, that the claimed effect IS in fact an effect caused by the claimed cause.
And in order to find out, we need to know what to look for. We need to know through what PHYSICAL MECHANISM the claimed cause is supposed – according to the hyothesis – to cause the claimed effect. And we need to know how to spot that mechanism in operation. We need to define its “physical signature”.
Then we go out into the real world to look for specific observations that together might fit the bill for that pre-defined physical signature. If we do see the signature, and it can be followed through a consistent observable pattern over time, we can be pretty sure it’s bound to have some kind of effect, that it’s working more or less according to plan. And only THEN can we start quantifying its impact. We need to verify its operative existence first. And only THEN treat it as an established piece of physical reality. We can’t PONDER or MODEL our way to this point …
No, there aren’t, Nate. You WANT there to be. You BELIEVE there to be. But there aren’t. There are just claims upon claims upon preconceived assumptions. And models, of course. Their output based directly ON those assumptions.
Circular arguments, not “lines of evidence”.
No, evolution has actual empirical evidence to support it. The idea of “AGW” hasn’t.
You already know. You’re just evading, because you know in reality you’ve got nothing. But see above …
No, it’s not. Claiming that would be an outrageous admission of failure. No, we could indeed do much better than that. IF (!!) we actually had the required empirical/observational evidence available. Models just tell you what you already believe to be true. They’re YOUR models. Circular reasoning …
Svante says, February 4, 2018 at 4:51 AM:
Yes, you love to tease, don’t you.
DavidAppell says, February 3, 2018 at 4:14 PM:
No, what more CO2 in the atmosphere is SUPPOSED to do, according to theory, is reducing the amount of TOTAL energy (heat) ESCAPING the surface at any given surface temperature. Assuming constant heat INPUT from the Sun, this should lead to surface warming.
We don’t have the data to tell us much about the total heat loss of the surface of the Earth, i.e. Q_cond + Q_evap + Q_rad. What we DO have, however, is data to show us how the total all-sky RADIATIVE heat loss [Q_rad] of Earth’s global surface has evolved since 2000 (CERES EBAF Ed4 SFC). And the Q_rad is the only kind of heat loss that an increase in atmospheric CO2 could influence directly.
Here it is:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/gl-sfc-net-lw.png
Earth’s global radiative heat loss has INCREASED (become more negative) since 2000. The radiative heat loss is mathematically defined like this: LW_down(all-sky) minus LW_up.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/lw_up-vs-lw_down.png
The LW_up term increased by MORE than the LW_down(all-sky) term between 2000 and 2017. Which means that the Earth’s global surface strengthened its ability to shed its heat via radiation over the period. Which tells us that it can NOT have been a REDUCTION in the radiative heat loss at any given surface temperature that made the surface warmer over the period. Because that wouldn’t have allowed the surface to shed its radiative heat MORE EFFECTIVELY as it grew warmer.
And from 2000 to 2017, the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rose by more than 10% (~38 ppm), almost equal to a third of the entire increase since the 19th century. And what did it do? NOTHING.
So, no, I’m afraid you’re wrong, David.
Kristian says,
“And what did it do? NOTHING.”
Really? Let’s compare. What do those charts look like with no additional CO2?
Kristian says:
“The LW_up term increased by MORE than the LW_down(all-sky) term between 2000 and 2017”
Looking at figure 2, it appears they increased in unison. That contradicts the first graph, which shows there was a significant net difference. What gives?
Svante,
Decrease in global diurnal range [6)] seems to be apparent for periods of 50 years or more, but, last I read, is not so apparent for the last 30-40 years years. Hence, I don’t include it in the list.
See:
Consistent with Easterling et al. (1997), minimum temperature increased at a faster rate than maximum temperature during the latter half of the 20th century, resulting in a significant decrease in the DTR for this period. In contrast, maximum and minimum temperature increases were roughly comparable during the satellite era, muting recent changes in the DTR. Maximum and minimum temperature increased in almost all parts of the globe during both periods, whereas a widespread decrease in the DTR was only evident from 1950-1980.
https://tinyurl.com/y8kbmduf
And for Europe (I realize it’s regional, but it fits with global):
It has been widely accepted that diurnal temperature range (DTR) decreased on a global scale during the second half of the twentieth century. Here we show however, that the long-term trend of annual DTR has reversed from a decrease to an increase during the 1970s in Western Europe and during the 1980s in Eastern Europe.
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/6483/2008/acp-8-6483-2008.pdf
I’ve found nothing more recent on global diurnal temp range for the latter period, but there’s likely been discussion of it in the literature.
barry says, February 4, 2018 at 2:06 AM:
No, not “again”. You’ve never done it before. Just waved your arms and shouted ‘Hey, look over here!’ So how can it be “again”?
I can too. It’s your custom, after all. I (not you) am the one putting up the goal posts in the first place, and YOU (not me) are the one consistently trying to move them. That’s been the name of the game up until now, at least.
Let’s see, then. If you’ve found something of relevance since last time …
Moving the goal posts right away, I see. This is not what I’m asking for, barry: +CO2 => +T.
Moving the goal posts yet again. This still isn’t what I’m asking for: +CO2 => +T.
It is obvious that you lack any understanding, barry, of what the kind of evidence that you need to present in order to substantiate the claim +CO2 => +T actually needs to show and be about.
I can tell you: It’s not this.
*Sigh*
The goal posts are on their way out of the field by now …
*Facepalm*
It is evidence of SOMETHING. But it is NOT evidence of the central “AGW” claim, its basic premise: +CO2 => +T. I explain above (to Nate) what exactly it is that I’m asking for, and what you need to go look for: The observable “signature” of the hypothesized “physical mechanism” connecting “claimed cause” (+CO2) and “claimed effect” (+T).
Kristian,
As predicted, you have shifted the goalposts by trying to redefine evidence.
evidence
n.
“the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
Evidence in no way has to be conclusive to a proposition to be rightly called evidence.
Everything I listed is evidence for the warming effects of greenhouse gases.
What you are asking for is PROOF.
For you, the matching of the bullet to the gun, the gun being licensed to the shooter, probable cause in that the victim slept with the shooter’s husband, the overheard shouting matches on the infidelity and the threat to kill the victim, and the fact that the shooter was seen in the victim’s neighbourhood on the night of the killing – you think these things don’t constitute evidence.
No, YOU think that evidence could only possibly be a videotape clearly showing the shooter pulling the trigger and killing the victim.
There’s no smoking gun for connecting tobacco and disease. There is only a mountain of evidence that makes denial of it ridiculous. And the people who deny the connection of tobacco smoking and disease use strange redefinitions of what constitutes evidence just like you do.
And that’s why people brought it up. According to your strange redefinition of the term, there is zero evidence that smoking endangers your health.
Everything I listed is evidence. And you only asked for evidence in the real Earth system, which I provided. There is also the laboratory evidence – empirically tested. Atmospheric observations are also empirical. And some of the evidence I listed is specific to GH warming.
The BODY of evidence I presented is specific to GH warming. No other cause can account for all of it.
So next time don’t pretend you haven’t been presented with evidence – basing your dismissiveness on a BS redefinition of the term. Accept you have been presented with exhibits A through E (and there is more) and argue the evidence as it stands.
barry says:
February 4, 2018 at 2:06 AM
Kristian,
1) AGW predicts that global surface temperatures over the long term should rise. This is what we observe.
2) Darkening of the spectral bands associated with CO2 over time observed.
3) Brightening of spectral bands associated with CO2 looking skyward observed.
4) GH warming predicts (before observations were available) that the lower stratosphere should cool while the surface warms over the long term observed.
5) Winters should warm faster than summers for each hemisphere observed.
These are 5 results that match predictions for GH warming. 2-5 are predictions that are specifically for GH warming. There are more.
This is evidence.
Yes Barry and it’s about a degree over the last 168 years. And how much do the various CMIP5 models say the temperature should have gone up by now? I’m sure you’re familiar with Dr. Spencer’s graphs that compare observations with the CMIP5 models that show that reality has not kept up. I’m also sure you’re familiar with the concept that the greenhouse effect is logarithmic and that to get to the numbers you guys project requires positive feedbacks. So far it’s not happening like you guys say. When is the Global Warming going to pick up the pace? At what point on your trip from A to B do you decide you’re lost?
The polar bears aren’t dying off like we were told they would, the ice caps really aren’t melting, sea level rise is an obvious straight line, violent tornadoes and hurricanes aren’t increasing, and neither are droughts and floods. And we know that increasing CO2 is a significant factor in the increase in world-wide food production. In other words, the hysteria is unfounded.
“This is the laziest possible response to a request for observational evidence.”
“OF COURSE you know what Im asking for. I am stating it in the clearest cut fashion possible.”
No, we don’t know whats in your perverse thoughts. All we know is that you are being, as usual, an asshole.
You want people to got out and search for YOU the literature and find ‘evidence’ that you will then dismiss as not evidence, because as Barry says, you will move the goal posts. NO thanks!
“# The claim is made that more CO2 in the atmosphere will (MUST!) on balance lead to an increase in surface temperature. There are no caveats here! If this DOESNT happen in ALL cases, all things considered, no matter what, there is no claim”
This statement reveals what a moron you are.
No physical theory has those constraints on it during tests. There are no “if it doesnt happen in all cases” tests for relativity or quantum or whatever.
Obviously we cannot ignore other forcings on temperature when testing what effect CO2 has, idiot.
Now it is clear that what you are seeking is a test that no theory could pass.
barry says: “Decrease in global diurnal range […] is not so apparent for the last 30-40 years”.
Noted. That would agree with the paper that Snape found, SW feedbacks are kicking in and we are well into fig. 1D.
https://tinyurl.com/y8xfz32p
What’s your take on that? One study syndrome?
Svante,
From the study conclusions section:
However, the current global energy imbalance seems to be dominated by reduced OLR because of the substantial SW forcing associated with anthropogenic tropospheric aerosols, which have directly reduced ASR and indirectly reduced OLR by curtailing global warming.
The paper is in regard to the satellite period, and this result seems to suggest that there should be a negative diurnal trend in line with earlier predictions.
As for single-study syndrome, my next move would be to copy the title into google scholar and check the cite list. Here it is:
https://tinyurl.com/yda83o2r
24 cites from 2014 is a respectable but not convincing number – but the subject is highly specialised. But are the cites corroborating the central argument? That’s not certain from a causal scan of the list.
Good to see you here, Steve. How was the rest of the trip?
Attribution of climate change has a host of other evidentiary material.
As far as I’ve gathered, Dr Spencer has made choices in the model/obs comparison that exaggerate the discrepancy. I’d be interested to see how things stack up with the most recent observations. Roy hasn’t done that since the 2016 el Nino arrived.
Here’s another model/obs comparison that has:
https://tinyurl.com/yaddul5r
Web page:
https://tinyurl.com/ybqttdle
And another:
https://tinyurl.com/yagc67v5
barry says, February 4, 2018 at 8:04 AM:
No, I haven’t. You’re acting like I somehow don’t understand what I’m asking for, and that YOU somehow know better. So YOU shift the goal posts by not even addressing the specific claim that I’m asking for evidence of, and when I point this out to you, your only response is the above, that I’ve somehow shifted the goal posts. So now I have to accept that your purported “evidence” is correct, simply because YOU say so, and when I object and tell you it’s not even remotely close to what I’m asking for, then I’m all of a sudden the one moving the goal posts! I mean, how arrogant and conceited can a person get?
Stop nagging and start looking for some REAL evidence that ACTUALLY directly addresses the central “AGW” assumption!
And which one is that? +CO2 => +T.
Nope. Everything you listed are things people tend to INTERPRET as “evidence for the warming effects of greenhouse gases”. So you seriously think that if you see warming, for instance, then that is evidence for what CAUSED that warming!? No, warming is evidence of … warming. Not of its cause. Only if you come with the preconception that +CO2 MUST CAUSE +T, will you be naturally inclined to interpret observed warming as caused by a concurrent rise in atmospheric CO2. Even if you have absolutely NO evidence to support the preconception of yours that it must.
No, what I’m asking for is EVIDENCE. You have “circumstantial evidence” and you have “direct evidence”. I don’t need direct evidence, barry. Circumstantial will do. And I only need ONE piece of it.
But I need that one piece of evidence to be specifically for the claimed CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP, not for everything else that YOU might find interesting and/or relevant.
Wrong. This IS circumstantial evidence. And that’s what I’m asking for. What YOU present, however, are different pieces of evidence for OTHER things, OTHER questions.
You’re spending so much time and energy, now, NOT presenting some real evidence, rather trying to talk your way out of it, that I more and more come to suspect that you’re fully aware that any such real evidence doesn’t actually exist, only you cannot get yourself to admit it.
Yes. Of something ELSE than what I asked for, barry.
Yes, but the claim is not about what happens in a laboratory. It’s about what happens out there in our planet’s real climate system.
Yes, but you need to be specific about your atmospheric observations. You need to understand WHAT TO LOOK FOR. It’s not like any atmospheric observation provides evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes temps to rise, so all you need to do is pick one …
Yes, but NONE of them to the claimed causal link: +CO2 => +T.
Hahaha, laughable!
Let’s run them through in quick succession, then:
1) It’s become warmer. Evidence of … +T. A general observation that no other cause could account for!?
2) Less clear-sky OLR in the CO2-associated spectral bands. Evidence of … +CO2.
3) More clear-sky DWLWIR in the CO2-associated spectral bands. Evidence of … +CO2.
4) Stratospheric cooling. Evidence of … +CO2. (And of -O3.)
5) Winters warm faster than summers. Evidence of … +T (see 1)).
Yes, barry. CO2 has gone up (since 1958). And T_gl has gone up (since 1976). What none of your pieces of evidence address at all is the CLAIMED CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP linking these two observations.
Before you go out looking for the relevant kind of observational evidence from the real Earth system, you need to understand how the postulated “greenhouse warming MECHANISM” is supposed to work. Only THEN can you know what to look for. The specific signature (“fingerprint”) of that warming mechanism …
Do you follow? Two questions for you, then, barry:
1) How is the postulated “GH warming mechanism” supposed to work?
2) What would be the physical signature to look for if you wanted to verify the effective operation of this mechanism within the real Earth system?
If you know the answer to 1), the answer to 2) should really give itself …
I’m not pretending, barry. I haven’t been presented with evidence. Not with RELEVANT evidence. But now’s you chance!
Kristian, you clearly have a favorite data set, CERES. But there are many other data sets, such as OHC, showing an ongoing increase in energy imbalance of the Earth.
Issues I see:
The slope in CERES data vs year, has a rather large error bar. How does the measured slope (with error) compare to the predicted?
The CERES data must be measured over the entire Globe and averaged. The net LWR is tiny, and has large error. What is this error?
Your assumption is that SWR is constant, but it may not be, esp during large El Nino events.
Svante says, February 4, 2018 at 3:28 PM:
“That would agree with the paper that Snape found, SW feedbacks are kicking in and we are well into fig. 1D.”
It might well be that what we’ve seen over the last few years is the result of SW feedbacks to general warming “kicking in”:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/asr-vs-olr.png
However, SW (+ASR) is also seen to be the original CAUSE of the warming. Which appears to be the exact opposite situation of the one Donohoe et al. describe in their paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16700.full
So, according to mainstream “Climate Science”, what has caused today’s positive ToA imbalance of ~ +0.6 W/m^2 (generally understood as the driving force behind ‘global warming’)? Well, Donohoe et al. lay the reasoning out pretty neatly in the quote above:
ASR – OLR = net balance
-0.2 W/m^2 – (-0.8 W/m^2) = +0.6 W/m^2
Which is to say that ASR is assumed to have dropped by 0.2 W/m^2, which would give a slightly NEGATIVE contribution to the overall balance, while OLR is assumed to have dropped by 0.8 W/m^2, which would give a strongly POSITIVE contribution to the same. The conclusion thus becomes that a reduction in OLR (from an assumed “enhanced GHE”) has contributed 133% (!) to the positive imbalance, leading to energy accumulation within the Earth system, leading to global warming, while ASR at the same time contributed a negative (that is, a cooling) 33% to the same.
Which is reality turned EXACTLY on its head. In the real world, the situation is the complete opposite!
Truly a fascinating case of self-delusion …
Kristian
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/asr-vs-olr.png
TOA all-sky ASR vs. OLR? What??
Not much radiation is absorbed at the TOA!
Nate says, February 4, 2018 at 9:52 AM:
Right. So you can’t and you won’t produce even ONE SINGLE piece of evidence that “AGW” is in fact a real thing. Yet you continue to reserve the right to claim and assume its “reality” as an absolute Fact.
And I’m the one “not living in the real world of facts, and is in deep deep denial.”
LOL!
“Which is reality turned EXACTLY on its head. In the real world, the situation is the complete opposite!”
For which Kristian has cited no real world independent, relevant, meaningful evidence.
Kristian simply has an opinion.
Nate says, February 5, 2018 at 2:39 PM:
http://c3.thejournal.ie/media/2016/05/shutterstock_132176021-2-752×501.jpg
Ball4 says, February 5, 2018 at 3:39 PM:
No, it’s in the data. My “opinion” is based on the data. ERBS+CERES.
Kristian downloads raw EBAF data & calculates no confidence intervals: not meaningful
Kristian self cites: not independent
Kristian claims “I haven’t been presented with evidence. Not with RELEVANT evidence.”: it is Kristian’s own claims the data are not relevant.
Kristian is simply entitled to his own opinion.
barry @ February 4, 2018 at 2:06 AM
“1) AGW predicts that global surface temperatures over the long term should rise. This is what we observe.”
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
“2) Darkening of the spectral bands associated with CO2 over time observed.
3) Brightening of spectral bands associated with CO2 looking skyward observed.”
Fallacy of many causes. These things occur generally with an increase in temperatures. We’re not arguing if temperatures have increased, but why.
“4) GH warming predicts (before observations were available) that the lower stratosphere should cool while the surface warms over the long term observed.
Fallacy of many causes.
“5) Winters should warm faster than summers for each hemisphere observed.”
Fallacy of many causes, and a cherry pick of specific years.
barry @ February 4, 2018 at 4:48 PM
“Attribution of climate change has a host of other evidentiary material.”
Cherry picking data for consistency with a preferred narrative is how you get confirmation bias.
“AGW predicts CO2 concentration will track anthropogenic emissions”
This is my own. It doesn’t in any meaningful way. Atmospheric concentration is a far, far, far better fit to integrated temperature anomaly. There is no doubt about it.
Ok, so errors on CERES measurement dont matter to you? Whether your favorite data is proving anything, within error, doesnt matter to you?
It matters to Trenberth and others who compare it to other measures of energy imbalance.
What they say is that net LWR is not very accurate. There are systematic errors.
But when these are taken into account, the results are consistent with 0.5 -1 W/m2 imbalance. With a wildly fluctuating monthly variation.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
What do you predict for its variation over the period 2000-2017, based on AGW?
“Atmospheric concentration is a far, far, far better fit to integrated temperature anomaly. There is no doubt about it.”
There is doubt about it. Fallacy of many causes, timing of events is not causality, and a cherry pick of specific years and constant of integration.
As Bart writes, cherry picking data for consistency with a preferred narrative is how you get confirmation bias.
AGW predicts CO2 concentration will track anthropogenic emissions
“This is my own. It doesnt in any meaningful way. Atmospheric concentration is a far, far, far better fit to integrated temperature anomaly. There is no doubt about it.”
Not this nonsense again? This has been debunked, ad nauseum. This is not helpful to your case.
“Ok, so errors on CERES measurement don’t matter to (Kristian)?”
Right Nate, Kristian has even read some of the CERES Team papers explaining these errors and their CIs which doesn’t ever matter to Kristian.
As Bart writes, cherry picking data for consistency with a preferred narrative is how you get confirmation bias.
“cherry picking data for consistency with a preferred narrative is how you get confirmation bias.’
Well put. Would add:
Data manipulation for consistency with a preferred narrative is also how you get confirmation bias.
Kristian,
‘You can’t produce one piece of evidence’
‘just look at Hansen, Science, 1981, and how successful their models many specific projections were over the next 35 years. This is rather convincing.’
I gave you this as a good example of a piece of evidence. But you rejected it . So now you expect me to go hunting for more that you will reject without explanation.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
Figure 1 shows modeled energy imbalance up to 2006. It can decrease at times, such as 2000-2006.
Kristian,
You’re in deep denial about what constitutes evidence. Empirical spectral measurements of CO2, and verified experiments showing increased CO2 in a volume of air cause warming in the lab are the principal evidence. Spectral darkening in the specific bands associated with CO2 looking down, and brightening of same looking skyward are strong evidence that what occurs in the lab is occurring in the atmosphere.
Most of the rest of the list of evidence is predictions specific to GHG warming – as opposed to solar. Eg, solar warming would also warm the lower stratosphere, the opposite of what is observed.
Here’s a challenge for you.
Describe exactly the kind of evidence that would meet your strange definition of evidence, that we could procure from the atmosphere, that links increased CO2 to warming.
I don’t think you can do it.
Ball4 @ February 5, 2018 at 4:59 PM
Nonsense. You don’t get this kind of agreement through happenstance.
https://tinyurl.com/ycvd2k9o
Nate @ February 5, 2018 at 5:01 PM
“This has been debunked, ad nauseum.”
Nope.
“You don’t get this kind of agreement through happenstance.”
Right Bart, you get it through carefully choosing integration dates 1) start point, 2) end point and 3) the constant of integration. Three parameters.
I or anyone else would choose the parameters differently and show a very poor correlation, there is no fundamental conservation law, entropy law here. Temperature anomaly is not conserved. If you can tie this to energy conservation, then do so.
There is no constant of integration, as the plot shows the rate of change. There is only:
1) scale factor, chosen because it matches both the variability and the trend
2) offset, because temperature anomaly baseline is inherently arbitrary
There is really only one parameter to match, and it matches not just one, but two properties.
It’s a slam dunk. You will see when temperatures decline again. The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 will continue tracking it.
Bart, arb manipulation (filter cutoff) of one data set. for no other reason than to achieve a desired result. A big no no in real papers that could get published. A good way to delude yourself.
Poor agreement in 1940-1970. The years when co2 rise took off.
Tossing out established counterfactual data, for no good reason other than to avoid embarrassing contradiction.
The list goes on.
A slam dunk for rejection by peer review.
You conflate 2 independent things. Genuine short term correlation with known mechanism, and long-term rising trends in two quantities. The later shows no true correlation after linear detrend.
Bart, as Nate points out you are a deluded victim of confirmation bias.
1) you simply chose a scale factor (aka constant of integration) to match what you wanted
2) ditto
When/if global troposphere near surface temperatures decline there will still be the fallacy of many causes and you will have to pick your 3 new arbitrary parameters of integration to fit that new data after inspection.
Still, you show an interesting correlation. But you need hard work to find a first principle theory explanation. Like Faraday playing with EM in the lab, then JC Maxwell coming along adding the theory. Like Planck et. al. in the lab discovering the curve and then explaining with the supporting theory.
“But you need hard work to find a first principle theory explanation.”
Not difficult. It’s a long term equilibration process. In the near term, such processes resemble pure integration.
This is as good as agreement gets with stochastic data, guys. The alternative explanation requires treating anthropogenic emissions differently than natural ones, and high pass filtering out – for no good reason – a trend that already matches the data.
Take your blinders off – you are grasping at straws to maintain a favored narrative. There’s no need for it. The data clearly show what is happening, without contorting yourself into pretzels to explain it away.
“Its…no need for it…to explain it away.”
Bart, what is “it” exactly?
“you are grasping at straws to maintain a favored narrative.”
Not sure I have one, would like to know what Bart writes is my particular favorite narrative.
“Take your blinders off you are grasping at straws to maintain a favored narrative. Theres no need for it. The data clearly show what is happening, without contorting yourself into pretzels to explain it away.”
Bart, the burden is on you, to use ethical scientific analysis, and to not contort or cherry pick the data in order to support your narrative, which is quite clearly what you are doing.
There is no need for it when there is another well established mechanism, that is simple, logical, consistent with many lines of evidence, and doesn’t give rise to the many inconsistencies with other results that your model does. Other results that must be, with difficult contortions, explained away.
We are simply doing ordinary peer review and finding glaring flaws. So sorry, you need to rethink it and fix the flaws, or give up on the idea altogether. We recommend the latter.
“…and to not contort or cherry pick the data in order to support your narrative, which is quite clearly what you are doing.”
Nonsense. It’s just a scale factor. You have to have a scale factor, or the units don’t line up.
“We are simply doing ordinary peer review and finding glaring flaws.”
There are no flaws. You’re just sticking your fingers in your ears and changing “nah, nah, nah.” It’s like arguing about the spin of the Moon with g*e*r*a*n.
Kristian:
The causal link: +CO2 => +T. is via DWLWIR.
+CO2 => +DWLWIR => +T.
The first part is measured, so you want proof of:
+IR => +T.
Physics has proof of that.
So your argument translates to the question of feed backs?
Bart,
We have been over this ad-nauseum. Not ‘just a scale factor’.
What you have is surface temperature and CO2 derivative data, which both have most of their variance, and correlation, on ENSO time scales, 1-3 years.
So what do you do? You apply a 2 year smoothing filter, removing much of that dominant variance, to only ONE of these sets of data. This makes no sense, other than to facilitate a better fit with your hypothesis, correlation between CO2 and surface T data (Had*crut) on both short and long timescales with one scale factor.
I know you understand the effects of filtering quite well, suggesting this is a straight-up cheat.
You spent dozens of previous posts, contorting yourself into a pretzel, in order to rationalize this data manipulation. But there is no justification.
To boot, you have a serious causality problem. You say T drives CO2. Yet CO2 derivative rises from 1950s to 1975, while temperature rises only AFTER 1975.
A reminder of what unbiased application of filter produces:
https://tinyurl.com/ybvsr6xg
No, Nate. You are treating the series on an uneven playing field, as is readily apparent by your differing resolutions. You are just making excuses to stick your head in the sand.
“readily apparent by your differing resolutions”
On series has more noise than the other-They have the same time-resolution, since they same filter applied to both. You should know better.
“You are just making excuses to stick your head in the sand.” Weird.
I have real problems with your methods, period.
https://tinyurl.com/ydxn6fhd
12 mo cutoff, looks worse
Bart has excellent correlation between temperature fluctuations and the CO2 derivate.
These fluctuations are natural and heavily influenced by the ENSO.
Derivative is rate of change.
Without the anthropogenic contribution the derivative would have been centered around zero, and below zero when temperatures were going down ca 1943-1973.
Barts diagram has a positive derivative all of the way. CO2 is running away all of the time. In fact the derivative is increasing, so CO2 is rising faster and faster. This is the anthropogenic contribution.
Nate, you’re flailing. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Svante –
“Without the anthropogenic contribution the derivative would have been centered around zero, and below zero when temperatures were going down ca 1943-1973.”
No, the rate of change of CO2 responds to temperature anomaly, not to the temperature rate of change.
Bart,
I did not say “temperature rate of change”, just temperature.
Here’s a good fit for the industrial era:
https://tinyurl.com/yat2omyv
The long term context:
https://tinyurl.com/y8go6p7y
‘You really have no idea what you are talking about.”
Impressive rebuttal, Bart. Not gonna cut it with peer reviewers.
Actually, I know quite well what I am talking about, my work makes use of signal processing methods.
Svante – That is a ridiculously bad fit – just a snatch of low frequency, low information, vaguely rising data placed on top of a wholly speculative exponential function.
The temperature relationship accounts for the trend in the rate of change of CO2, and the single scale factor that makes the high information variability fit also makes the trend fit. There is little room for additional forcing. Ergo, the sinks are voracious, and anthropogenic inputs have little impact. Only the overwhelmingly larger natural forcing has significant impact.
There is no doubt about it. Watch and see what happens as the “pause” continues, while anthropogenic inputs keep increasing.
Nate – you are twisting yourself into knots to deny what is right in front of your face. At a minimum, a knowledgeable person would know he has to match the resolution to compare apples with apples.
‘ At a minimum, a knowledgeable person would know he has to match the resolution to compare apples with apples.’
You seem to mistakenly believe resolution is determined by how noisy a signal is. Wrong.
“the single scale factor that makes the high information variability fit also makes the trend fit.”
Attempt to fit long time scale trends. Scale factor 0.11
https://tinyurl.com/ycsdzskx
Now use same scale factor for short time scale. Look good to you?
https://tinyurl.com/y7lbjfkq
Log time trend obviously shows causality problem.
Bart: 2 + 2 = 4
Nate: Not if you multiply it by 6!
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
Bart, clearly you have no intelligent answers.
barry says, February 5, 2018 at 6:27 PM:
Am I really?
barry, YOU’RE in deep denial of what I’m asking about. You’re in denial of the fact that what I’m asking for is in fact what I’m asking for. It goes that deep.
barry, YOU don’t get to define the thing or things that I’M asking for evidence of. You’re giving me evidence of things that I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT!
I’m not “denying” it’s evidence. I’m telling you it’s not evidence of the particular thing that I AM ASKING ABOUT!
Of WHAT!? This isn’t evidence of +CO2 => +T out there in the open climate system of our planet. The only way you could ever get ANY warming in a volume of air by increasing its content of CO2 is by eliminating convection from the sample. Please read this study. It basically says it all:
http://gaia.lbl.gov/btech/papers/29389.pdf
No, it isn’t. It is only circumstantial evidence of what we all already knew. We already knew about the physical properties of CO2. It absorbs and emits IR within certain narrow bands of the full EM spectrum. No one questions this, barry.
However, what we want to know is whether this property leads to warming within the real Earth system or not. Spectral clear-sky measurements in the CO2-relevant bands only can’t give us the answer to this question. What we need is to find distinct physical traces of a CAUSAL LINK between +CO2 (claimed cause) and +T (claimed effect). In the real Earth system.
For that, we need to look elsewhere.
You don’t think I can do it. The funny thing is, barry, that I’ve had the evidence with me all along. While watching you flail. That’s why I know there’s not a single piece of evidence out there for you or anyone to show me that “AGW” is real. Because I’ve looked exactly where that signature of the “greenhouse warming mechanism” is supposed to show up. And it’s nowhere to be found. I have the evidence. The evidence telling us that “AGW” IS NOT HAPPENING! It’s the Sun!
But of course, as always with you devoted followers of dogma, you don’t even know your own dogma that well.
So I will have to educate you on it. And tell you where to go look for that evidence. The very evidence that I asked you to present, so as to build your case on more than mere conjecture. But you can’t. You’re utterly unable to. Because you don’t even know what to look for. Where to look. You don’t even understand what I’m asking for. What I’m talking about. You’re completely oblivious! And yet you’re sooo certain. So cocksure. It’s sad to behold …
So, what do you think it is …?
“Ive looked exactly where that signature of the greenhouse warming mechanism is supposed to show up. And its nowhere to be found. I have”
Your vaunted evidence has large error, which you choose to ignore. Do you understan the role of error in experiments?
Svante says, February 7, 2018 at 12:22 AM:
Well, that’s only half the answer. Again we’re back to the two-way confusion. You can’t treat the DWLWIR as if it were a separate thermodynamic entity creating warming (IOW, a transfer of heat). I thought we’d been through this in detail, Svante …!
The DWLWIR term is always intimately coupled with its counterpart, the UWLWIR term. They’re ONE. Mathematically, inside one and the same bracket. Physically, fully integrated as ONE radiative flux, the net (macroscopic) movement of radiative energy. TWO IN ONE, not TWO separate ONES.
So what an increase in atmospheric CO2 is really supposed to do is REDUCE the radiative flux. The NET LW. What’s more, we’re also supposed to assume that WHILE this happens, all OTHER heat losses – the NON-radiative ones – will remain totally unchanged; that they can and will only change as a RESPONSE to a radiative change.
This is what the idea of “AGW” requires.
So, do we actually observe all this happening in the real Earth system? And if so, where’s that observational evidence? Why is it being “hidden”?
No, it doesn’t. Physics says +Q_net => +T, not your ‘half-heat’ +IR => +T.
No.
ell, thats only half the answer. Again were back to the two-way confusion. You cant treat the DWLWIR as if it were a separate thermodynamic entity creating warming (IOW, a transfer of heat). I thought wed been through this in detail, Svante !
The DWLWIR term is always intimately coupled with its counterpart, the UWLWIR term. Theyre ONE. ”
Funny, how you and papers regularly plot them as separate entities. You regularly show that their variations are different. And then papers discuss net flux. Again no need to us the word net if all flux IS net.
“Ergo, the sinks are voracious, and anthropogenic inputs have little impact. Only the overwhelmingly larger natural forcing has significant impact.”
Yes, our general understanding of the carbon cycle is all wrong, says armchair carbon cycle expert, Bart.
Kristian says:
“Physics says +Q_net => +T, not your half-heat +IR”
Granted.
Q_net = Q_in – Q_out
+CO => +Q_in – measured.
+Q_in => +Q_net
In the long run, Q_net must be zero.
Only +T can change Q_out.
The only question is how much +T.
Nate @ February 8, 2018 at 5:49 PM
“Yes, our general understanding of the carbon cycle is all wrong…”
Correct. The fact of the matter is, there is no “general understanding”. Direct, comprehensive measurements are not possible, so what we have is mostly conjecture which has achieved the status of assumed knowledge based not on independent confirmation, but on longevity.
However, the inference from the affine relationship between temperature anomaly and the CO2 rate of change is clear: temperatures drive CO2, and not the reverse. Keep watching, and see what happens.
“the affine relationship between temperature anomaly and the CO2 rate of change is clear: temperatures drive CO2, and not the reverse”
Your statement illustrates, again, that you know some math (as do many people), but that is insufficient expertise to enable you to simply toss out well established facts in other fields, like chemistry, physics, Earth science, and the carbon cycle.
Also, CO2 history from ice core data shows that the warming from the last age produced a rise of ~ 10 ppm/degreeC in CO2 concentration.
It also shows that the cooling from MWP to LIA produced a decrease of only 7 ppm of CO2, again consistent with ~ 10 ppm/degree C.
Yet your model claims that in the last 100 years we have had 100 ppm CO2 rise driven only by a 1C rise in temperature. In radical disagreement with the ice core data, and carbon-cycle understanding.
Your ‘vast expertise’ in ice core analysis allows you to say definitively, that data is wrong and should be tossed out.
We have a well-understand source of CO2, human emissions, that historically have tracked the rise in atm concentration. Yet your model requires that this is simply a coincidence, and the emitted CO2 has all gone away somewhere, and been replaced by natural CO2. Reminds me of ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’
All of these highly improbable things must be true, you say, based on your slam-dunk ‘affine’ relationship. But your evidence for this relationship is extremely flimsy, as discussed, and not rebutted.
Svante says, February 8, 2018 at 5:19 PM:
Huh?
Svante, Svante, Svante. Didn’t you even read my previous post!?
+CO2 doesn’t affect Q_in. It affects Q_out. It’s supposed to reduce Q_out. Q_in is from the Sun, Svante.
And now you’re dodging my question.
Do we have consistent observational evidence from the real Earth system showing that this is ACTUALLY happening, as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (and of WV) increases? Or don’t we?
Kristian,
“The LW_up term increased by MORE than the LW_down(all-sky) term between 2000 and 2017. Which means that the Earths global surface strengthened its ability to shed its heat via radiation over the period. ”
You are promoting this as confirmation of the null hypothesis for AGW. But I dont think it is.
First, we know there has been an ongoing increase in the ocean heat content. Thus, there is a net radiative imbalance.
Suppose CO2 were constant during that period. What would happen? The net TOA radiative imbalance would decrease toward 0, as temperatures rise.
We know that CO2 increased during the period. This would tend to increase the imbalance, but how much? Would it offset the natural decrease? Not necessarily. The radiative imbalance could be staying constant, increasing or decreasing.
If the CERES data shows a weak decreasing tendency (with huge error), that is not inconsistent with AGW.
Nate – The ice cores are bunk. They can’t be independently verified, and they’re not consistent with the data we have from modern direct measurements.
The relationship is solid. You don’t get this kind of agreement through happenstance. Watch and see what happens.
Emissions closely track concentration. You dont get this kind of agreement by happenstance.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm
Ice cores DO agree with modern measurements, though with worse time resolution. Sorry, have no reason to toss them.
Ludicrous. Concentration only vaguely tracks emissions in that they both are vaguely heading in the same direction, a 50/50 proposition. They don’t mesh at all in the fine detail, which can be seen in the rate of change domain.
Good point:
Concentration derivative only vaguely tracks temperature in that they both are vaguely heading in the same direction, a 50/50 proposition.
They match better for fine details, at high frequency, as they should- by known mechanism of warming tropical pacific ocean out gassing.
Your characterization of emission/concentration graph as only vaguely headed in the same direction is ludicrous and disingenuous.
Both are flat for centuries, then both have a simultaneous sharp rise in last 150 years. And no scaling factor needed between them. Just happenstance? Except the mechanism is both straightforward, and in agreement with chem and physics.
Kristian,
sorry I failed to follow your teachings, let me rephrase!
The Feldman measurement was at the surface:
1) Q_in = SW solar input.
2) Q_out = LW_out – LW_in – Convection etc.
3) Q_net = Q_in – Q_out
4) Feldman measured +CO2 => +LW_in:
5) +LW_in => -Q_out
6) -Q_out => +Q_net
7) In the long run, Q_net must be zero.
8) Whatever the mechanism, it has to come from +T
9) There is no effect at all if T is unchanged.
10) The sky is not helping since we have +LW_in
Yes, the TOA balance is paramount, but please correct my numbered steps first, as concisely as possible.
Nate – “Concentration derivative only vaguely tracks temperature in that they both are vaguely heading in the same direction, a 50/50 proposition.”
Nonsense. It fits every nook and cranny. The odds of happenstance are astronomically against.
I have not disputed that high freq are correlated. What I dispute is that low frequecies are correlated. As I showed the 60mo filtered data are only vaguely headed in the same direction. You called that correlation? I call that happenstance.
And the scale factors for low and high frequencies are not the same at all. Your claim they are the same is pure fantasy.
“Fits” every nook and cranny.
Maybe so but the odds of happenstance were astronomically against the earth not at the center of the universe by fitting the sunrise sunset data for eons. Until planetary retrograde data began to challenge the “fit”. A few heads were lost until enough funerals were held.
Kidding aside Bart, you do need a foundational theory backing your fit & better than “equilibration”.
We did not have observations of the “universe” for eons. I think what you meant to argue is that the observations indicated to many that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Well, it does, in an accelerated reference frame. The only thing that makes the distinction of the Earth revolving around the Sun a better description than the reverse is, as you note, that it provides a less complicated framework for the motion of other bodies in the solar system.
There are necessary and sufficient conditions in play here. It is necessary to relate the cause and effect to high fidelity. Human inputs do not fit to high fidelity. Temperatures do.
“… you do need a foundational theory backing your fit & better than equilibration.”
No, I really don’t, because I’m competing against an alternative that has no foundational theory beyond post hoc ergo propter hoc. The sort of behavior I have described is ubiquitous in general system responses. I have my own hypothesis for how it comes about, but a theory is not required at this stage to reject the other explanation.
“No, I really don’t”
Then you have no 1st principle foundation to explain the phenomena. Planck, Faraday could have stopped in the lab. It is fortunate Planck and JC Maxwell were more curious and achieved a deeper physical understanding.
Bart simply has an opinion to which you are entitled.
Ridiculous. Equilibrium processes are ubiquitous.
Kristian,
You dont think I can do it. The funny thing is, barry
The funny thing is that you didn’t respond to the challenge.
We know that what you’re going to come up with is not an answer to my challenge, but a regurgitation of your own theory.
So here’s the challenge again. Try not to self-reference. Regurgitating your own theory is not an answer.
Describe exactly the kind of evidence that would meet your strange definition of evidence, that we could procure from the atmosphere, that links increased CO2 to warming.
I don’t think you can do it.
Bart,
Lets see the evidence from authoritative source that:
‘The ice cores are bunk. They cant be independently verified, and theyre not consistent with the data we have from modern direct measurements.’
Lets see the evidence from authoritative source that:
‘Yes, our general understanding of the carbon cycle is all wrong
Correct.”
And no, some dude on a blog is not an authoritative source.
“Equilibrium processes are ubiquitous.”
Bart restates 1LOT. Use the 1LOT to find a fundamental reason Bart’s curve fitting works if Bart wants to advance beyond an interesting opinion.
Well, this has gone on far enough for now. You guys have your eyes clamped shut, and are casting for excuses to keep them that way. You are free to do so, I just cannot fathom why you want to so badly. But, it’s not worth any more of my time.
“gone on long enough” “I cannot fathom why” you don’t just accept my beliefs.
Its called evidence, Bart.
When asked to provide real evidence to support your assertions, you cannot.
When we raise legitimate issues, your rebuttals are weak, not believable, and full of other unsupported assertions.
“You guys have your eyes clamped shut”
Yes, we are literally blinded by science, to your dubious claims.
Svante says, February 10, 2018 at 9:24 AM:
Ok, let’s have a look.
Feldman in his study ignored most of the relevant variables that need to be quantified in order for anyone to draw ANY conclusions about what causes what and what is the effect of what in the Earth system. The only thing he did, basically, was looking at the CO2 band in clear-sky. You can’t tell ANYTHING about cause and effect from that alone …!
Did he measure/determine Q_in (solar/SW heat input)? No. Did he determine the LW_out(sfc) “hemiflux”? No. Did he determine the LW_in(sfc) “hemiflux”, that is, the TOTAL ALL-SKY “hemiflux”, not just the CO2-band, clear-sky one? No. And as a result, he couldn’t determine LW_net(sfc), Q_out(LW). And because of all of the above, he naturally also couldn’t determine Q_net.
But there’s more. Did he measure/determine the NON-radiative heat losses from the surface? No. Did he measure and state the surface TEMPERATURE at each site, how it evolved? No. What about the air temperature at each site and how it evolved? No. Cloud cover? Winds? Nope.
What about coverage? Did he cover the globe? A continental region? A local region? No. Just two single measuring stations. Two instruments.
He’s essentially got nothing!
You write:
“2) Q_out = LW_out – LW_in – Convection etc.”
This is incorrect and misleading. If anything, you need to write it like this:
Q_out(total) = Q_rad[= LW_out – LW_in] + Q_evap + Q_cond
“4) Feldman measured +CO2 => +LW_in:
No. That’s exactly what he didn’t do. He measured +CO2 => +LW_in(CO2 band, clear-sky), which is NOT equal to +LW_in, which would be the TOTAL (full spectrum), ALL-SKY “hemiflux”.
“5) +LW_in => -Q_out”
No. We have absolutely NO way of knowing ANYTHING about Q_out and how it evolved over the study period just from the measurements made by Feldman et al. We don’t know LW_in, we don’t know LW_out, we don’t know Q_out(evap) or Q_out(cond).
“6) -Q_out => +Q_net”
No. In addition to the above, we don’t know Q_in …!
Kristian,
So you have no rebuttal to this?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285783
Bart says:
Watch and see what happens as the “pause” continues.
Your plot shows what will happen:
1) When temperature goes up CO2 goes up.
2) When temperature is level CO2 goes up.
3) When temperature goes down CO2 goes up.
4) CO2 goes up at an increasing rate.
Svante @ February 12, 2018 at 5:04 PM
“4) CO2 goes up at an increasing rate.”
Mmm… not sure how you got there. If temperatures stay level, the rate stays constant. So, if the rate stays constant in the face of ever accelerating emissions, that’s a problem for the emissions-driven scenario.
In fact, this has already happened. During the “pause” in temperatures, the CO2 rate of change leveled off, yet emissions kept accelerating. Eventually, the disparity will get large enough that people will be forced to acknowledge it.
I said:
“4) CO2 goes up at an increasing rate.
Bart says:
“Mmm not sure how you got there. If temperatures stay level, the rate stays constant. So, if the rate stays constant in the face of ever accelerating emissions, thats a problem for the emissions-driven scenario.”
The rate has an upward trend, see:
https://tinyurl.com/ybgcbptf
A linear CO2 rise has a constant derivative.
An exponential rise has increasing derivative.
barry says, February 10, 2018 at 10:48 PM:
Haha! No, the funny thing is that, during this entire exchange, YOU still haven’t managed to respond to MY challenge, barry. You haven’t come up with a single piece of evidence for what I asked for, anything in support of the claim +CO2 => +T, yet you PRETEND you have, in attempting to justify somehow switching the burden of proof onto ME. And now I have to explain myself!
barry, you really should rather concentrate on finding out what that signature of “greenhouse warming” in the real Earth system might be. I know you can do it. And stop trying to shift the focus away from the original issue, which is YOU having to come up with just ONE single piece of observational evidence that shows the claim “more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to warming in the Earth system” to be more than likely true.
You’re just like Nate. Your default method for dealing with an argument or a challenge that you know you cannot meet, is by playing the “dumb” card. You pretend not to understand what your opponent is saying or what he’s asking about, even when it’s all so painfully obvious from the start, and repeated again and again after that. But you lock yourself onto this particular straw, how it’s seemingly impossible to grasp what is being said or asked for, you go on and on and on about it, deliberately ‘misunderstanding’ and evading at every turn your opponent’s attempts at making it even plainer for you. Simply in order to avoid responding to his actual argument, his actual challenge. It’s a classic – and thus pretty transparent – debate technique.
So, what is this “own theory” of mine, barry? Can you enlighten me?
No, barry. You’re so certain there IS evidence that directly links increased CO2 to warming. So what is it? Where is it? What observational evidence from the real Earth system shows how increasing CO2 causes temps to rise? Where exactly do we SEE that link? You KNOW – at least you SHOULD know – that none of the “evidence” that you have presented here in any way demonstrates or substantiates that particular causal connection, that particular claim. In fact, it doesn’t even ADDRESS it!
So where is it? What is it?
If you seriously don’t know what I mean, if you don’t know what to look for, how can you be so certain it’s there? It appears you haven’t really thought this topic through at all, barry. Just taken some people’s word for it …
How is “greenhouse warming” supposed to work, barry? What is the specific postulated operating mechanism? And how are we supposed to see this particular mechanism in operation out there in the real climate system? What would be its physical signature?
I know, barry. Because I know the “hypothesis” of “the anthropogenically enhanced GHE”. What it says.
Do you?
And if you don’t, then why are you here trumpeting it as some kind of irrefutable, empirically established truth …!? Are you blinded by the authority of “experts”? By dogma? By ideology?
Svante @ February 13, 2018 at 12:10 AM
“The rate has an upward trend…”
It tracks the temperature anomaly. When the anomaly pauses, it pauses.
Bart says:
“It tracks the temperature anomaly. When the anomaly pauses, it pauses.”
Yes, but the derivative pauses at a positive value, so CO2 is always increasing. The rate has doubled, from 0.1 to 0.2 in your diagram.
You would still have your beautiful correlation without the anthropogenic contribution because it captures the short term natural variation, but the blue trend line would have been at zero. Instead it is a depiction of a runaway scenario.
Kristian,
In my post I show that your interpretation of the CERES data is incorrect.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285783
Since you have not answered, I assume you have no good argument to refute this.
Svante –
“Yes, but the derivative pauses at a positive value, so CO2 is always increasing. The rate has doubled, from 0.1 to 0.2 in your diagram.”
But, it is only increasing linearly in that case, while total emissions are increasing exponentially. Said another way, the rate is constant, but our yearly emissions are increasing.
They don’t mesh. Which indicates that the one is not driving the other.
“You would still have your beautiful correlation without the anthropogenic contribution because it captures the short term natural variation, but the blue trend line would have been at zero.”
The blue trend line matches the scaled temperature trend. Ergo, the temperature is driving the CO2. You don’t need anthropogenic contributions to explain the trend. It would have been essentially the same with or without them.
“ut, it is only increasing linearly in that case, while total emissions are increasing exponentially. Said another way, the rate is constant, but our yearly emissions are increasing.”
Emissions from EPA: 1960 -2500,
2010- 9000. Ratio 2010/1960: 3.6
Co2 derivative, linear fit, 1960: 0.06, 2010- 0.18. Ratio 2010/1960 : 3
Sig error on these ratios
Which part of “pause” did you not understand?
Bart says:
“But, it is only increasing linearly in that case, while total emissions are increasing exponentially.”
Correct. It’s just like the UAH temperature, you have these natural short term fluctuations that people get excited about. They obscure the emission effect for a while, but then that underlying weak force is relentlessly tilting the whole chart upward.
Davids Feldman reference showed that effect quite clearly, although Kristian had good questions about it.
What do you think the cause is for the increasing temperature?
“…you have these natural short term fluctuations that people get excited about.”
Not just the short term. The long term trend matches, as well. Human emissions are superfluous.
“What do you think the cause is for the increasing temperature?”
Alternating modes of energy storage and release, I expect. It isn’t the CO2, because that would represent a positive feedback loop that could not be stabilized – temperature goes up, increasing the CO2 rate, increasing the temperature, increasing the CO2 rate, and so on ad infinitum. If that were the case, we would have reached a saturation level eons ago.
Two things are very clear from the data:
1) Our activities do not contribute significantly to atmospheric CO2 concentration
2) aggregate sensitivity of temperatures to CO2 concentration is insignificant in the present climate state
“Two things are very clear from the data:”
Cmon Bart, this is complete misrepresentation of the situation.
These two things are only very clear if you if you manipulate the data in highly biased way, and if you ignore an awful lot of other good data that doesnt fit the narrative.
“Which part of pause did you not understand?”
Focusing on the short-term variablity is not the proper way to compare emissions to concentration. As you are well aware, the short term variability in sources and sinks is controlling that.
That is why I chose a 50 y span, and rate of increase for both emissions and concentration is similar.
Smoothing out the fine detail is exactly what you don’t want to do when hunting for a cause. The fine detail is the fingerprint. You shouldn’t smudge fingerprints.
The rate of change of CO2 tracks temperature. Denying it is just sticking your head in the sand. When the temperature rise slowed, the CO2 concentration rate slowed. What didn’t slow was human emissions, which kept roaring up ever faster.
Testing a hypothesis in an unbiased way against all data. If that’s sticking my head in the sand, then you dont understand the difference between empirical knowledge and belief.
Again, when asked for evidence that ice core data is invalid, you show none.
When asked for evidence that known carbon cycle is all wrong, you show none.
“Smoothing out the fine detail is exactly what you dont want to do when hunting for a cause. ”
Now you are pretending that high frequency variation and low frequency variation are not separable, and may behave differently. You know better.
The temperature anomaly and rate of change agree in both the low and high frequency regions. There is no need to kluge in some other cause.
God created man in his own image. There is no need to kluge in some other cause, like evolution..
God is not a cause.
Indeed. Bart, you are obviously knowledgeable, but when it comes to this subject you just seem completely dogmatic and unwilling to look at it with an unbiased, critical eye.
All counterfactual evidence is simply dismissed. It must be wrong, but no objective reasons why it is wrong seem to be needed.
This is not an approach that is particularly convincing to others. And it leads to pathological science.
I don’t know what to tell you, Nate. I am adamant that 2 + 2 = 4. If that makes me dogmatic, well, woof, woof!
Zeolots think their beliefs add up too, and also dont need a reason to dismiss all other data.
I have a very strong reason: Occam’s Razor. There is no need to make a heroic effort to kluge in some exotic explanation when you’ve already got a simple relationship that fits the data. The temperature data fit the rate of CO2 data. The emissions data don’t. It’s that simple. 2 + 2 = 4.
There is really no reason at all to believe that human emissions contribute significantly. It’s just what a lot of others have assumed. If you feel you must distrust the evidence of your own eyes and seek the safety of the herd, you will never rise very far.
” There is no need to make a heroic effort to kluge in some exotic explanation”
“Occams razor”
Right principle, but backasswards.
Carbon was stored in the ground over millions of years, is now released into the atmosphere over a 100 year period. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon rise at a rate and magnitude and isotopic ratio that matches the emissions.
50% is stored in natural carbon sinks like the ocean. The buildup of carbon in the ocean sink is detected.
Occams razor: the atmospheric carbon is from this source.
Though the ocean is a net carbon sink, Bart comes up with an exotic mechanism for it to be BOTH a net source and a net sink for carbon simultaneously. The opposite of Occams razor.
It’s a tiny proportion of total input. It is not possible to perturb a balanced system by a greater amount than your proportionate addition to the inputs which establish the balance.
The character and form of the CO2 time series does not match that of the emissions. They are both merely going in the same vague direction. But, the CO2 rate of change matches the temperature in every nook and cranny, as well as over the long term.
My mechanism is anything but exotic. It’s just straightforward, ordinary and commonplace system dynamics.
What would be exotic is accepting the high frequency action of temperature on CO2 while rejecting the low frequency, even though it matches very, very well, and kluging in a separate driver which does not obey equations of balance, but instead accumulates in a contrived ratio, which represents a disparate treatment of natural and anthropogenic inputs even though nature has no means of telling the species apart.
It’s a slam dunk, Nate. Watch and see what happens. 2 + 2 = 4.
“What would be exotic is accepting the high frequency action of temperature on CO2 while rejecting the low frequency”
a. Low frequencies show a poor match, other than vaguely going in the same direction.
b. Low frequencies violate causality, with CO2 derivative rise happening well BEFORE temperature rise.
c. High frequencies match because top 100 m ocean layer responds to T changes, with a short time constant.
d. Ordinary laws of solubility and chemical equiliuibrium preclude a 1 K (0.3%) temperature change from producing a 30% concentration change. Any other mechanism needs to be EXOTIC (ie made up).
e. A hypothesis that cannot explain away for valid reasons existing data which invalidates the hypothesis (ice core data, carbon cycle data) is a non-starter.
“The character and form of the CO2 time series does not match that of the emissions. They are both merely going in the same vague direction.”
You are being just plain dishonest in this description. Both series look like hockey sticks. The blades of the hockey sticks both point up, and both rise simultaneously. The size of concentration blade is ~ 1/2 size of emissions blade, which is logical.
Four distinctive features that are highly improbable by happenstance. Show the two graphs to your grandmother, ask her if she sees a match.
The fine, high frequency wiggles do not match. Not surprising given the separate, known mechanism of source/sink temperature response, which is much smaller.
This mechanism does not invalidate the other one. Both can be true.
‘ separate driver which does not obey equations of balance, but instead accumulates in a contrived ratio, which represents a disparate treatment of natural and anthropogenic inputs even though nature has no means of telling the species apart.”
We have been through this before. There is no need to invoke generic systems ‘equations of balance’, when we have available known laws from chemistry and physics that are specific to the Earth system.
In particular the laws of solubility and chemical equilibrium are observed in the ocean/atmosphere interaction. Available ocean data agree with these laws. You have not shown that these data or laws are compatible with with your generic ‘system’ models.
a. It’s a stellar match
b. These are stochastic data. You cannot claim this with any assurance.
c. Assertion without foundation.
d. Nonsense. The oceans store far more CO2 than the atmosphere, and the response is very long term.
e. The match of the rate of change and temperature is more fundamental. Ice core data cannot be independently verified, and carbon cycle data do not contradict the thesis.
—
“Both series look like hockey sticks.”
Low order polynomials can always be scaled to vaguely match. Information content is low. It’s not compelling.
“The size of concentration blade is ~ 1/2 size of emissions blade, which is logical.”
It’s arbitrary.
“The fine, high frequency wiggles do not match”
Yes, they do. The data are not perfect, but the match is striking, and about as good as you get with imperfect data.
—
“There is no need to invoke generic systems equations of balance, when we have available known laws from chemistry and physics that are specific to the Earth system.”
These “known laws” are always about balance.
“a. Its a stellar match”
Assertion, not reality. Show a graph with just low frequencies, all available years.
“b. These are stochastic data. You cannot claim this with any assurance.”
–Contradicts your assertion in a.
“c. Assertion without foundation.”
–As plausible as any of your assertions about mechanisms. More so, because agrees with known properties of CO2 in ocean water.
“d. Nonsense. The oceans store far more CO2 than the atmosphere, and the response is very long term.”
–Here you are showing your ignorance of how solubility works. The partial pressure above a liquid is independent of the volume of the liquid.
Top 50-100 m of ocean equilibrates with atmosphere in months. This mixed layer contains only as much carbon as the atmosphere. Rest of ocean not in contact with atmosphere for centuries.
Face it, Bart, you have little knowledge or interest in the actual physico-chemical processes involved.
“e. The match of the rate of change and temperature is more fundamental. Ice core data cannot be independently verified, and carbon cycle data do not contradict the thesis.”
–Value judgement of a partisan. Again ‘Ice core data, carbon cycle yada, yada’ is assertion without evidence. No evidence, no credence. No credence, your hypothesis disproved.
Both series look like hockey sticks.
“Low order polynomials can always be scaled to vaguely match. Information content is low. Its not compelling.”
–Straight up bullshit-you should know better. Calculate correlation coefficient. It is extremely high. Calculate correlation coefficient after removal of linear trends, it is extremely high.
The size of concentration blade is ~ 1/2 size of emissions blade, which is logical.
“Its arbitrary.”
–Value judgement of a partisan. Sorry it is a fact, not arbitrary at all. Agrees with carbon cycle.
The fine, high frequency wiggles do not match
“Yes, they do.”
–I am talking about emissions data and ppm data.
There is no need to invoke generic systems equations of balance, when we have available known laws from chemistry and physics that are specific to the Earth system.
“These known laws are always about balance.”
–We’ve been over this before, your balance equations do not agree with chemical balance equations. You balance fluxes, chemistry balances concentrations.
It’s reality. The match is very, very good. As good as it gets.
“The partial pressure above a liquid is independent of the volume of the liquid.”
It is not independent of temperature, and the ratio is not independent of temperature. As the volume of the oceans is extremely large, these changes have major long term impacts.
“Rest of ocean not in contact with atmosphere for centuries.”
Exactly. Which is why the response has such a long tail.
“Face it, Bart, you have little knowledge or interest in the actual physico-chemical processes involved.”
I have no interest in red herrings.
“No credence, your hypothesis disproved.”
Ice cores are not validated, and cannot be validated. I’m sorry but, before you can proclaim something as proven, you have to actually prove it.
“Calculate correlation coefficient after removal of linear trends, it is extremely high.”
Poor logic. Remove a quadratic – extremely low.
“Agrees with carbon cycle.”
Circulus in probando.
“You balance fluxes, chemistry balances concentrations.”
Incorrect. It is specifically the long term evolution toward balance of concentration that drives the fluxes.
‘Ice cores are not validated, and cannot be validated. Im sorry but, before you can proclaim something as proven, you have to actually prove it.”
I dont have to prove anything. IT is actual data, whereas you have a hypothesis. The extensive data falsifies your hypothesis. It is not even a close thing, a slam dunk. 10 ppm/deg C.
You don’t like the data, so sorry, but you need a valid science reason to reject it.
Otherwise you are doing religion, not science.
Calculate correlation coefficient after removal of linear trends, it is extremely high.
“Poor logic. Remove a quadratic extremely low.”
Ok, so you understand stats, but you ignore them when they produce inconvenient results.
What a professional!
Why should I remove a quadratic? Why would happenstance produce an identical hockey stick?
“The partial pressure above a liquid is independent of the volume of the liquid.
“It is not independent of temperature, and the ratio is not independent of temperature. As the volume of the oceans is extremely large, these changes have major long term impacts.”
Science requires math, but it is not sufficient. You also have to know the science, and should not ignore it.
Solubility of CO2 in seawater cannot produce 30% ppm rise with 0.3% temperature change. So sorry, it just can’t. So some exotic (ie BS) mechanism required.
“IT is actual data…”
No, IT isn’t. There is merely an assumed relationship between the data and the physical quantities of interest. That assumed relationship has not and cannot be validated.
“Why should I remove a quadratic?”
Because there is no compelling reason that it is not due to happenstance. Meanwhile, the temperature data match the quadratic, and you still have a high correlation coefficient when you remove it.
“Solubility of CO2 in seawater cannot produce 30% ppm rise with 0.3% temperature change.”
It can, because we see clearly that it does. Working out how it can is what science is all about.
‘No, IT isnt. There is merely an assumed relationship between the data and the physical quantities of interest. That assumed relationship has not and cannot be validated.’
That could describe almost any measurement.
What you call an ‘assumed relationship’ is a direct measurement of CO2 content, in trapped atmosphere.
Your continued assertion of problems with this data, with no evidence to show, is wishful thinking and nothing more. Repeatedly stating a belief does not make it more true.
AFIK, it has been validated by comparing to modern atmospheric measurement. Show us evidence of your claim that it is not validated, or shut up.
Bart, you are doing pathological science, where you see a hint of something, and from then on, all evidence to the contrary is rejected as invalid.
You are doing cold-fusion, N-rays, vaccines cause autism, etc..
“It can, because we see clearly that it does. Working out how it can is what science is all about.”
Are you the same person saying ‘Occams razor’ and ‘no exotic explantion needed’?
At this point on this issue, you cannot be distinguished from G*e*r*an on the moon not rotating.
Both of you have decided what you believe, and you’ve dug in your heels, and now no logic or piles of evidence to the contrary will sway you.
“What you call an assumed relationship is a direct measurement of CO2 content, in trapped atmosphere.”
Subject to high pressure and eons of time. Nobody knows what happens then. Nobody can know. Your continued assertion that all is well with them is nothing but a belief taken on faith.
“AFIK, it has been validated by comparing to modern atmospheric measurement.”
It’s been adjusted nominally to match over a short interval of time. This has no relevance to the question of how the gas distribution evolves over exceedingly long stretches of time.
You are talking voodoo. This is not science. It is faith.
“Are you the same person saying Occams razor and no exotic explantion needed?”
The explanation is not exotic, as I described above.
‘At this point on this issue, you cannot be distinguished from G*e*r*an on the moon not rotating.’
Well, if that is not the pot calling the tea service black, I don’t know what is.
“subject to high pressure and eons of time. Nobody knows what happens then. Nobody can know. Your continued assertion that all is well with them is nothing but a belief taken on faith.”
I know, science cannot figure out such things, it’s unknowable-says a dude on blog. What is that opinion worth?
So many missed opportunities to show evidence. Instead more blanket assertions.
There is a whole body of literature out there on ice core analysis and its validation.
Might be good for you to familiarize yourself with it, before deciding it is worthless. Just a thought.
“You are talking voodoo. This is not science. It is faith.”
An awful lot of expertise, effort, and commitment (months spent in Antarctica) has gone into producing and validating the ice core records. Many independent, competing groups have done this work over decades.
Reading their papers, it is abundantly obvious that these guys are using the scientific method.
Yet you can confidently assert that it is voodoo.
Absurd.
Bart,
“The character and form of the CO2 time series does not match that of the emissions. They are both merely going in the same vague direction.
I took the liberty of downloading cumulative emissions data, and CO2 concentration data from here
https://tinyurl.com/ya88bug4
Plot cum emissions vs CO2 one gets a beautiful straight line with minor wiggles, (1958-2014). The site has additional CO2 data from ice cores going back further. Again, (1900-2014), a beautiful line.
Plot of integrated temp (Had*crt4, with offset 0.3 to make it 0 around 1900) vs CO2 produces a crappy line to (1958-2014). Worse line to (1900-2014).
I calculated correlation coeff. For integrated temp vs co2, get 0.90 (1958-2014), 0.89 (1900-2014). Pretty good, but mostly reflective of both vaugely going up.
In contrast the corr coeff for cumulative emissions vs Co2 conc is a remarkable 0.999 (1958-2014) and 0.999 (1900-2014).
You can see this yourself here:
https://tinyurl.com/ya88bug4, choose ‘correlate with other time series’. Choose CO2 at top. Choose years, e.g. 1900-2014 or 1958-2014.
Summary
Years CO2 vs ? Corr coeff
1958-2014 integrated Temp 0.90
Cum. Emissions 0.999
1900-2014 Integrated Temp 0.89
Cum. Emissions 0.999
The temperature data is a better fit, when you do it right. I did that exercise long ago. I’m not going to redo it to satisfy your latest gambit because you can’t be satisfied. Just watch and see what happens.
Bart,
“The temperature data is a better fit, when you do it right. I did ..” “you cant be satisfied”
Again, you know, but cannot show, cuz that’s your MO.
Its actually not me doing the calculation, it is Climate Explorer engine. Takes 30 s to check. But you dont have time.
I get it. It’s depressing when data does not cooperate, and disproves a statement youve made dozens of times.
Better to not look at it.
That is very naive. University researchers get pay and prestige commensurate with the research dollars they bring in, and government guys get to enlarge their empires, and set themselves up for lucrative private positions when they leave.
James Hansen made millions in awards and honoraria, and millions worship him. There are plenty of rewards for pushing the party line, monetary and otherwise.
Thus, science doesn’t work?
Straw man.
I know, all those graduate students who went into science to get rich and be conformist and confirm the known facts to the 8th decimal point.
barry…”Thus, science doesnt work?”
You have an obtuse way of replying to charges of corruption against alarmist scientists. Why is it all the corruption is related to them? And why are you in such deep denial of the corruption?
bart…”James Hansen made millions in awards and honoraria…”
He can add to his CV that he got arrested with actress (??) Daryl Hannah for protesting the Keystone Pipeline. Imagine, the head of NASA GISS gets arrested for taking sides politically to the extent he has to be arrested.
The current head, Gavin Schmidt, rushed to the defense of his partner at realclimate, when Michael Mann was exposed in the Climategate emails as having committed scientific misconduct. Mann was also seen ranting about peer review and trying to interfere in the process to exclude skeptic’s papers. Subsequently, he has tried to smear female scientist Judith Curry using sexist allegations.
By association, the current head of GISS supports the suppression of publications from skeptics and condones outright cheating. Mann justified clipping offending proxy data from his MBB98 study, which showed declining temperatures, and replacing it with real data which showed increasing temps.
As you claim, Hansen was sponsored by Al Gore and funds flowed his way from Gore’s cronies in the Democratic Party.
As usual, Gordon does not understand Mann, or what hide the decline meant. Clue: it wasnt a decline in the Earths temperature, it was a failure of certain proxies to remain accurate.
Gordon has a big mouth that charges corruption every time he doesnt like the science. A big sore loser.
You have an obtuse way of replying to charges of corruption against alarmist scientists
Your problems with reading comprehension have become legendary.
Bart was making a comment about funded science in general.
University researchers get pay and prestige commensurate with the research dollars they bring in, and government guys get to enlarge their empires, and set themselves up for lucrative private positions when they leave.
He’s saying that financial and personal advantage are strong motivators in science generally: that research results are tailored to make bucks, win prestige and help “government guys” up the job ladder.
Hence my question: Science doesn’t work?
No doubt your view is that climate scientists are particularly avaricious, for which, as usual, you have no data. Because conspiracy theories don’t need data.
Bart wrote:
James Hansen made millions in awards and honoraria
He did?
Where is that evidence?
DA…”Clue: it wasnt a decline in the Earths temperature, it was a failure of certain proxies to remain accurate”.
It was an exposure of the fallibility of proxies as evidence. If Mann’s tree ring proxies were showing cooling when it was in fact warming, how suspect are Antarctic ice cores in revealing the concentration of CO2 in the pre-Industrial Era?
Besides, Mann is a geologist who is a wannabee climate scientist. His statistical analysis of the tree ring proxies was exposed as amateurish by real experts in that field like Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. That was confirmed by statistical expert Wegmann, called in by the US government to corroborate M&M.
Wegmann made a comment about Chapter 9 of an IPCC review which featured Mann’s cronies. He called them nepotic. They were only citing the papers written by each other. Any defense of Mann on MBB98 came from that peer group.
Bradley of MBB98 later tried to sue Wegmann for plagiarism. He could not refute his allegations of bad math, Bradley tried to get him on plagiarism.
Get this. Wegmann is investigating Mann and he quotes from material by Bradley. Since when is that plagiarism, especially when Wegmann had already cited him as the source? Once cited, does he have to qualify every comment from Bradley after that?
Gordon Robertson says:
“It was an exposure of the fallibility of proxies as evidence.”
Another lie.
You don’t understand and that’s why you are so dishonest.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Besides, Mann is a geologist who is a wannabee climate scientist.”
Wrong.
But what are you, Gordon? You solder wires. Very unimpressive. Maybe you are inhaling to many fumes?
By your own logic you don’t get an opinion in anything regarding science, because you’re just a technician.
Geoff…”Arent most climatologists payed to provide information which potentially undermines their profession if totally unbiased?”
The late climate modeler, Steven Schneider, admitted as much. He claimed scientists needed to convince the public using various techniques and wondered if lying was OK.
Gordon lies by omission, taking Schneiders quote out of context. Read the entire paragraph of what he said.
Here’s the full context of what Schneider said:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
Quoted in Discover, pp. 4548, October 1989
I HOPE THAT MEANS BEING BOTH.
DA…”I HOPE THAT MEANS BEING BOTH”.
“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both”.
Yes, be an ethical scientist but able to lie because we are humans who think we know better than others what is best for us all. Able to lie to the poor schmucks in the public sector because we are too stupid to make up our own minds given the truth.
That’s the message of alarmists, lying is OK if it furthers our religious agenda to educate the hoi polloi.
That’s why I think you’re all pathetic. That’s why I am glad Obama is gone and Hillary Clinton is not president. I am so glad to be rid of the do-gooder, politically-correct crowd who have made it albeit incorrect to speak one’s mind or offend the status quo’s religious dogma as to what is right.
Schneider didn’t advocate lying.
You can’t admit it.
ROFLMAO. The direct quote made it sound worse than GR let on. Sounds like the guy was more of an activist that thought with his emotions more than his head.
Funny what people read. I read someone who is genuinely concerned about global warming and openly reflecting on the troubling nexus of communicating the science rigorously and encouraging action. Is it enough to be a robot, or are scientists allowed to fear for the future and express those fears?
His best hope was that advocacy and rigour could both be achieved.
‘Skeptics’ that reference this quote inevitably leave the last sentence off. It’s as predictable as the sun coming up.
DA…”Gordon lies by omission, taking Schneiders quote out of context. Read the entire paragraph of what he said”.
I have read the entire paragraph, it states exactly what I cited. Schneider ruminated as to whether scientists should lie or not. Why would such a notion cross the mind of any scientist with integrity?
Rumination is natural for any thinking person.
And Schneider’s conclusion: No.
That’s what you lied about. You’re worse than Trump, who is a pathological liar.
Nice try but that wasnt my question. My question was why is there are people coming out with different outcomes then others if global warming is a settled science? Not why or how they are wrong but why did they come up with this conclusion in the first place if global warming is such a settled science? That is my question
Every branch of science has outliers (eg, Realitivty Theory has publishing detractors). But not every branch of science has vested interests actively and continually promoting the outliers to the public. So we get a skewed view of what the weight of opinion is.
Go to a skpetic website and see a paper list of studies purportedly rejecting or downplaying AGW.
Now look for a list of papers on the same website that corroborate the mainstream view. You’ll never find that.
Balanced? Of course not. The agenda is to ‘disprove’, not to weigh the science on even terms. And if that’s the message you want to hear, then you’ll never go looking for the other list to compare.
And if that’s the message you want to hear, then that list you like is full of honest researchers, and any other list is full of groupthinkers or liars.
Behold, a narrative arises to quash any genuine curiosity or fair-mindedness.
Im not saying which researchers are liars and which ones arent Im asking why are there two researches coming out with two totally different conclusions? Why?
How I see it is that there are 10 researchers reaching a similar general conclusion, and 1 who disagrees completely.
If 10 doctors agree that a potentially cancerous lump should be removed ASAP, and 1 says it’s benign, what idiot would decide to do nothing?
Well why would 1 disagree? Why not all 10?
What if 7 say remove, and 3 say no? 6 and 4? Where do you draw the line?
We all know the 99.7% figure is bogus. How do you really know what the genuine weight of opinion is on this topic? Especially when there are such serious professional penalties for disagreement?
For me, I have read many papers of those promoting this fracas. They’re crap. So, if the majority of doctors came in looking like Patch Adams, and the others appeared rather more sober, I think I’d take the latter’s advice.
What if 7 say remove, and 3 say no? 6 and 4? Where do you draw the line?
I dont draw the line unless all of them come out with the same basic conclusion. In climate change for example we tend to focus too much on the greenhouse gas affect that is why alarmists and deniers come out with many contradictory results. When scientists study the cycles of the sun and the affect of these greenhouse gases on top of it they come out with the same basic conclusion which is that man doesnt drive the climate the sun does.
Well why would 1 disagree? Why not all 10?
I’m going with what I see to be as a reasonable representation of the actual weight of opinion on the general topic, not some invented one.
Bart, prudence would direct me to get the lump removed even if the majority was only slim. That would be a different reckoning on the general topic, but I see 9 in 10 climate researchers in agreement on this.
How do you really know what the genuine weight of opinion is on this topic?
I don’t know down to the nth decimal, but there are studies on it all lying around the 90% mark, as well as every major science academy in the world that gives an opinion agreeing with the view, as well as energy companies like Exxon, who have concurred. Major militaries are running contingency plans based on global warming. The weight of opinion is international, too, not limited to a country, handful of countries, a couple of science institutes or anything like that.
I would have to remove too much of my brain to buy a global conspiracy, or ‘groupthink’ on this scale. Prudence, not preference, wins.
“Bart, prudence would direct me to get the lump removed even if the majority was only slim.”
Not if that majority were a bunch of clowns, and the minority were professionals with a track record.
But, to make the analogy more apposite, you need something that has both a downside and an upside. Say, you are being told there is an experimental procedure to cure what ails you. It may work, it may not, but it will definitely leave you paralyzed on the right side. Now whose advice do you take?
“I would have to remove too much of my brain to buy a global conspiracy, or groupthink on this scale.”
Ah, for youthful innocence. You haven’t yet been exposed sufficiently to the ways of the world.
Not if that majority were a bunch of clowns, and the minority were professionals with a track record.
We were looking at examples that fit the point. We’re now moving into conspiracy theories and fantasy.
In the 1930’s, the most scientifically advanced nation in the world with a population of 87 million fell under the spell of the N@zis. Do you think that is the limiting case for massive, malignant groupthink? How about the Soviet Union in 1917 with about 185 million?
What evidence do you have that there is a size limit to the support of bad ideas? This is an argument from incredulity.
All Bart does, ALWAYS, is claim collusion. No evidence, just a claim. He does this because he cant disprove the science. Claiming its all a big conspiracy is an easy way out, and it cant be disproved, because if you disagree your part of the conspiracy. Its intellectual vomit.
As I said, this is not one or two countries but a worldwide understanding, and you are comparing (authoritarian) political ideology with consensus in science.
When alternative ideas to AGW explaining and projecting global climate change become mainstream, then people should rely on it. While they are outliers, Copernicus arguments have little resonance.
“They laughed at Copernicus, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown”
bart…”In the 1930s, the most scientifically advanced nation in the world with a population of 87 million fell under the spell of the N@zis. Do you think that is the limiting case for massive, malignant groupthink? How about the Soviet Union in 1917 with about 185 million?”
bart…the difference is the German people and the Russian people had no choice, it was go along or get shot or incarcerated.
The alarmist mob have choice plus plenty of information to counter their propaganda. Come to think of it, they don’t. They are programmed from an early age to submit to authority and to believe anything they hear in order to be part of the group.
barry…”How I see it is that there are 10 researchers reaching a similar general conclusion, and 1 who disagrees completely”.
Once more, science is not about agreement, about consensus. UAH has the data, the rest don’t. NOAA had to fudge their data retroactively to show a trend between 1998 and 2015. Both NOAA and NASA GISS have to fudge the confidence levels to rate recent years as the warmest. They dropped them to 48% and 30 something percent respectively for certain years.
The IPCC has 2500 reviewers write a report and at the same time 50 lead authors write a report called the Summary for Policymakers that is released to politicians. The Summary is released first, then the main report. Then the IPCC amends the main report to fit the Summary written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors.
Pure corruption.
So, yes, it’s quite possible the majority are corrupt and/or uninformed. Climategate showed us that scientists at the top level of the IPCC are corrupt.
John Christy of UAH has been a lead author and a reviewer on IPCC reviews. He reports that many reviewers appear with preconceived notions of review outcomes and that many go along to get along.
The human brain is essentially corrupt, why does it surprise you that corruption is so widespread?
You might ask yourself, why I am I aiding and abetting the corruption?
barry…”When alternative ideas to AGW explaining and projecting global climate change become mainstream, then people should rely on it”.
What global climate change? Where is it?
A perfectly natural explanation for the warming over the past century has been put forward. Syun Akasofu, an eminent scientist, has claimed re-warming from the Little Ice Age explains everything and the IPCC has erred by not allowing for that re-warming in it’s claimed anthropogenic warming.
It’s all there. Glaciers expanded enormously during the LIA and ocean levels must have dropped. Also, the colder oceans must have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere.
Bart,
“For me, I have read many papers of those promoting this fracas. Theyre crap. So, if the majority of doctors came in looking like Patch Adams, and the others appeared rather more sober, I think Id take the latters advice.”
I’d like to see you make the call that way on your child’s medical condition. We’ll ask your wife if she agrees.
I’d also like to see you take the table of contents of a major climate science journal, go down the list, telling us what is crap in each paper.
What hubris, and what rot!
Gordon –
“bartthe difference is the German people and the Russian people had no choice, it was go along or get shot or incarcerated.”
It’s the same way here. You go along, or your livelihood gets destroyed. Why Barry et al. either feign or genuinely believe this is not a problem, I have no idea.
bart…”Its the same way here. You go along, or your livelihood gets destroyed. Why Barry et al. either feign or genuinely believe this is not a problem, I have no idea”.
True. Point in case, Dr. Peter Duesberg, at one time recipient of the California Scientist of the Year Award and a globally renowned expert on retroviruses like HIV.
Circa 1983, as the Reagan administration was releasing the non-peer reviewed opinion of Robert Gallo, that a virus was causing AIDS, Duesberg stood up and said, ‘wait a minute’. He pointed out that no known virus could act like Gallo was claiming for HIV. BTW, Gallo had applied the same viral hypothesis to cancer and was proved wrong.
Duesberg listed a slew of evidence that HIV could not possibly act as described. He was vilified and ostracized to the point he lost his professorship and reduced to teaching lab classes. Meantime, the scientist who discovered HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, agreed, he claimed HIV could not act alone but required a co-factor.
Fast forward more than 30 years and Montagnier announces his co-factor. He claimed recently that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system, implying the co-factor to be lifestyle. Meantime, the rest of the idiots, akin to the claimed 97% in climate science, refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
If HIV had been a seriously dangerous virus it would have spread like wildfire to the heterosexual community in North America. It did not, it has been contained to a fraction of 1%, all of whom have high risk lifestyles and/or require blood transfusions.
Montagnier is right, AIDS is a lifestyle issue and Duesberg pin-pointed that over 30 years ago. It cost him his career.
Why does Barry not get it? Obviously he’s one of the myopic, narrow-minded type who cannot or does not want to see beyond the end of his nose. He has proved that to me on three different occasions. I have presented information and he has outright denied the veracity of the information. When I provided him with a direct link to the information he returned with a red-herring argument, failing to acknowledge his error.
Alarmists are like religious zealots. They are focused on one belief and come hell or high water they are going to stick to that belief. It must give them some form of comfort.
Gordon is into HIV-AIDS denialism. Unsurprising. He shares Dusenberg’s belief that it is transmitted by taking illicit drugs and not sexually transmitted?
And because Dusenberg’s views made him a pariah, Gordon makes him a martyr of Galileo-like proportions.
Familiar patterns.
There are always a few scientists (a couple percent at most) who think they know better than everyone else. They are almost always wrong, and when it’s clear they’re wrong everyone avoids them. But that doesn’t mean all of them shut up about it.
Fred Singer is a great example. Art Robinson. Willie Soon. etc.
barry says:
Gordon is into HIV-AIDS denialism
Gordon also denies the Big Bang, black holes, evolution, and special relativity. These are the ones I know of.
So you see what kind of person we’re dealing with here….
barry…”I dont know down to the nth decimal, but there are studies on it all lying around the 90% mark”
I have noted you did not cite any such studies. The 97% figure came largely from the cartoonist John Cook at skepticalscience. That study was sent to the garbage bin in disgrace.
Don’t ask for a citation, it will prove embarrassing to you.
There are two others I can think of, one by Naomi Oreskes who laughingly tried to establish consensus as a valid form of science. Her study covered 1000 scientists, another covered 3000.
Oreskes wrote an alarmist book that lambasted 3 dead scientists.
Why are all the alarmist claims coming from buffoons with a history?
barry…”Gordon is into HIV-AIDS denialism”.
I quoted the scientist who discovered HIV. He claimed, very recently, that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. The stats support him, 99%+ of North Americans don’t have AIDS and most have healthy immune systems, even though many have engaged in high risk sexual adventures.
In a page taken from climate science, many idiots are claiming that’s because bombarding the humans system with toxic and potentially lethal antivirals has brought HIV under control. I cannot even begin to comment on the stupidity of such a statement.
Montagnier, the scientist who discovered HIV, claims he did not isolate a virus, did not purify a virus, nor did he see a virus. He postulated a virus based on RNA strands taken from a person with AIDS. He BELIEVED one in 1000 cells in a fluid taken from a person with AIDS was HIV.
So here we have a load of sheer idiots bombarding the bodies of people who test HIV+ positive with potentially lethal antiVIRALS aimed at a virus no one has ever seen or even detected.
Get this. In a disclaimer placed on the information page for the antiviral drugs, the drug manufacturer claimed the drugs could not cure an HIV infection. Furthermore, they could kill you by damaging your liver or your blood.
Barry, you and David Appell are becoming more stupid every day. Why are you idiots not aware of this scientific misconduct?
Oh, sorry, I forgot. You are both climate alarmists.
John Cook’s work got him a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.
Gordon Robertson says:
I quoted the scientist who discovered HIV. He claimed, very recently, that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. The stats support him, 99%+ of North Americans dont have AIDS and most have healthy immune systems, even though many have engaged in high risk sexual adventures.
THAT’S YOUR PROOF — that “most” people who don’t have AIDS have healthy immune systems?
No data or evidence given. What a joke.
Every time you write something stupid, you manage to out do yourself and keep digging down.
DA…”Gordon also denies the Big Bang, black holes, evolution, and special relativity”.
Wrong. I have not denied special relativity, I have denied the claims of those who have misinterpreted it. Space-time theory is a misinterpretation of special relativity.
Why you or anyone else would fall for crank science related to black holes, the Big Bang and evolution is the question. Are you incapable of critical thinking?
I took a seminar once in which we were discussing truth and reality. In those days, I existed in a fantasy world like you and Barry. I regarded reality as an aerie-faerie dimension in which anything was possible.
The guy leading the seminar, in a fit of frustration, banged on a brick wall and asked me if it was real. I asked what he meant by real. You see, I was aware the wall was made up of atoms and at that level no one is sure what is real and what is not.
Finally, he asked, can you walk through this wall? I knew I could not but I hypothesized that maybe, in some way, I might be able to fit the atoms in my body through the atoms in the wall. That’s how messed up I was with scientific THEORY, I was not willing to admit that from a perspective of the human reality, we cannot walk through solid concrete walls. They are real to us, whether we like it or not.
That night on the way home it struck me that I had to get real. We can argue mathematically that alternate realities exist but we live in a reality that constrains us. Black holes and the Big Bang belong to a theoretical world and in our present physical world they are both nonsense till proved different.
The theory of evolution is even more absurd. It’s a figment of the human imagination till someone finds fossils of intermediate species as suggested by evolution. Genetics is a valid science, it can be proved, but only within one species. There is absolutely no proof that such a force as natural selection exists, certainly not one by which species can alter themselves to fit into an environment.
The death blow to evolution comes from it’s beginnings in the so-called primeval muds. It has been hypothesized that 5 basic elements came together to form amino acids that later developed into life. There is nothing….absolutely nothing…in the theory of chemical bonding that can account for that.
Chemical bonding theory can account for the formation of amino acids and their myriad of shapes. It can account for the way amino acids form proteins, but it cannot account for how those bodies receive the life force. It cannot account for human consciousness. Yet evolutionists preach this all comes from chance occurrences.
Prove it!!!
Fast forward to our physical world. You tell me, after examining the vast intelligence that runs the human body, particularly with regard to sight, and give me a reasonable explanation based on 5 elements getting together in primeval muds how that all happened.
A mathematical study was done and the conclusion was that the odds of 5 basic chemical coming together to produce life as we know it, is billions and billions to one against.
Remember, evolution is about chance occurences, natural selection is about blind chance.
You denied time dilation.
Gordon: Walls are real. Atoms are real. Chemical bonds are real.
I’m not interested in the rest of your junk except to say that it proves you are willfully blind, and that creates your ignorance.
“A mathematical study was done and the conclusion was that the odds of 5 basic chemical coming together to produce life as we know it, is billions and billions to one against.”
1. What study? Citation, please.
2. So what? The chemical creation of life only had to happen once.
I have noted you did not cite any such studies. The 97% figure came largely from the cartoonist John Cook at skepticalscience. That study was sent to the garbage bin in disgrace.
I’ve cited them before. But if I linked them here, would you read them?
Of course not. Neither will any contrarian.
So why bother?
Tell you what, if you promise you’ll read them, I’ll link them.
But that’s not going to happen, is it? No, you’ll write them off sight unseen.
Once more, science is not about agreement, about consensus.
It’s certainly not about promoting outlying views as *the truth*.
UAH has the data, the rest dont.
What does that even mean? RSS has the same data. Surface records also have data, and there are different methods, different data, and they are all pretty similar.
No, what you mean is the UAH have the best data. But you have no basis on which to assert this.
NOAA had to fudge their data retroactively to show a trend between 1998 and 2015.
NOAA had a positive trend before any revisions were made. At the time of the IPCC, only RSS had a flat/negative trend. Even UAH (version 5.6) had a positive trend.
Both NOAA and NASA GISS have to fudge the confidence levels to rate recent years as the warmest. They dropped them to 48% and 30 something percent respectively for certain years.
I’ve shown you the methods paper?Did you read it? The confidence level for the probability calculations was 95%. The actual probabilities arrived at using those confidence levels were 48% probability 2014 was warmest, and every other year having a lower probability.
Here’s a quote from the methods paper explaining how probabilities for rankings are calculated:
Using the independent approach, we calculate a 12% probability that 2012 was the tenth warmest year on record. The two-tailed 95% confidence interval suggests that 2012 is likely ranked anywhere between the second and fourteenth warmest years…
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057999/full
See that? The probability for 2012 being the warmest year is 12%. The confidence interval for the probability calculation is 95%.
Read the frickin’ link.
barry…”But not every branch of science has vested interests actively and continually promoting the outliers to the public. So we get a skewed view of what the weight of opinion is”.
The outlier here is that a trace gas can cause catastrophic warming/climate change. No proof has been offered, just consensus.
You alarmists claim that is the science and that time-tested physics is the outlier. I’d say you have it backwards. It’s you alarmists who need to prove your theory.
The outlier here is that a trace gas can cause catastrophic warming/climate change
Straw man.
The mainstream view is that more CO2 in the atmos causes warming at the surface. The outlying view (promoted by some here) is that increased CO2 has no effect.
In short, the extreme outliers are those who deny the greenhouse effect, followed by those who are sure there will be no noticeable change (but do not deny the greenhouse effect), whose views are less extreme outliers.
“Catastrophic” comes into the mix in that the range of climate sensitivity includes a strong response to CO2.
Those who say that the upper range is by no means certain are not outliers at all, and those who say it could never happen are in a small minority.
barry…”The mainstream view is that more CO2 in the atmos causes warming at the surface. The outlying view (promoted by some here) is that increased CO2 has no effect”.
Mainstream views do not represent science. Science is based on data and the data shows the catastrophic outcomes projected by CO2 warming is not happening.
Define “catastrophic outcome.”
And tell us when the “catastrophic” results are predicted to occur. Do you think that this is supposed to have occurred by now? What’s the reference, please.
Let us not forget overall oceanic temperatures are also cooling now only +.200c above means.
Year 2018 will be the transitional year putting an end to global warming and AGW theory.
Yawn.
We bet a crate of good Franconian beer?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Year 2018 will be the transitional year putting an end to global warming and AGW theory.
“I think this blip ends before NOV. is through and if solar conditions continue to be sub par cooling in a more pronounced way will start in year 2014.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/15/2013
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/4#comment-1047
Just for fun:
The 13-month string of values (Jan 2017 to Jan 2018) is best matched (i.e. has the highest correlation) by the string (Dec 1994 to Dec 1995).
The difference in the averages from these two periods is close to +0.3 deg.
The (recent) rate of increase is therefore about +0.25 deg per decade.
i.e. about twice the long-term linear rate.
Yawn
Maybe you should read your comics for a bit of fun.
profp…”The (recent) rate of increase is therefore about +0.25 deg per decade. i.e. about twice the long-term linear rate”.
Have you ever studied statistics or is this the result of a home correspondence course? Has no one taught you the dangers of averaging in statistics without providing a context?
The first sign that someone does not understand stats is the tendency of the perp to plug numbers blindly into a calculator or algorithm without understand the context from which the data was obtained.
Predictable response.
The measurements annoy you, so do the statstics.
I can’t help you I am afraid.
Might as well use a Ouija board…
Dec 1994 to Dec 1995 was too soon after Pinatubo- not a good choice.
lol?
What is also of note is the global oceanic temperatures are leading the global cooling not lagging it.
Global oceanic temperatures this summer were around +.35c above means in contrast to now at +.200c.
The key is low solar if it does equate to lower overall sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo (if true, which I believe to be so ) will do in global warming.
What is of note is that today is cooler than yesterday. Yet I don’t predict an ice age.
The Earth is currently in what we call the Quaternary Ice Age, despite your false predictions of the present.
+.26 c is the right direction but we need more.
Do we “need more”? I mean, to what end?
Sure, global cooling will make the anti-human climate alarmists choose a different subject to pursue their criminal agenda, whether by reviving Ehrlich-like delusions or inventing new ones.
But for humanity, global cooling will be a disaster of unknown proportions. Millions of human beings still live in societies lacking the infrastructure to survive (real, not imagined) detrimental climate upsets, no matter how small. And by “survive” I mean preventing starvation.
This is not a joyous subject and proving the anti-human climate alarmists wrong should be the last of our concerns, if at all. They are murderous, yes, and malevolent, yes. But the stakes are much, much greater.
Laura, as an anti-human, criminal, malevolent murderer let me point out:
Coal is responsible for over 800,000 premature deaths per year globally and many millions more serious and minor illnesses.
The economic costs of the health impacts from coal combustion in Europe are valued at about US$70 billion per year, with 250,600 life years lost.
The burning of coal emits hazardous air pollutants that can spread for hundreds of kilometres. Pollutants include particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, mercury and arsenic. Exposure to these pollutants can damage peoples cardiovascular, respiratory and nervous systems, increasing the risk of lung cancer, stroke, heart disease, chronic respiratory diseases and lethal respiratory infections. Children, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with already compromised health suffer most. In addition to pollution originating from power plants, the mining and transport of coal, as well as the disposal of coal ash waste, can have significant impacts on human health.
Feed people first.
Then rant about whatever you want.
laura…”Feed people first. Then rant about whatever you want”.
The climate alarm mob don’t care about people but the UN with their IPCC is even worse.
Dr. Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, has claimed the problem in Africa with AIDS is malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasites. We have known that for ages and no one has done anything about it.
Solution from the UN and WHO? Redefine AIDS to include ‘wasting syndrome’, a known product of, you know what, malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasites. It was called Slim’s Disease in Africa long before AIDS became known in the late 1970s.
The UN and the WHO are now treating starvation and poisoning from contaminated water and parasites as a sexually transmitted disease while shipping extremely toxic antivirals to Africans in lieu of food, clean water, and anti-parasitics.
I appreciate you trying, but the idiots running this world will never allow it to happen. The UN is run by a load of dreamers who talk a good show but lack the spine or sense to get anything done. Now their supporters, like the current climate alarmists, have joined them to further an environmental cause that has nothing to do with the environment, but the religion makes them feel warm and cozy.
The irony is that the alarmists posting here seem to regard themselves as humanists, even though John Christy of UAH has taught in Africa and seen first hand the tragedy of a lack of fossil fuels, and has warned about the results.
Below, you’ll see a smart-assed comment from Eli Rabbett, one of the uber-alarmists. He has a degree in physics but teaches chemistry for some reason. He has been spreading propaganda about anthropogenic warming while going after legitimate scientists like Roy, who graciously allow him to further his propaganda on this blog.
If the tables were reversed, like at realclimate or skepticalscience, and Eli was preaching skepticism, he’d have his ass booted off the blog. Alarmists have zero tolerance for anyone speaking in a contrary manner about their religion.
Laura,
If feeding the hungry in the world is our first priority, why do you own a car, a home, a lawn mower, a smart phone, a computer, when your need for these items is clearly lower in priority?
You’re really not doing yourself any good with such sensationalist rubbish.
Anyone who believes that is as sharp as a marble.
Also:
“European heatwave deaths could skyrocket: climate study. Deaths due to extreme weather in Europe could increase 50-fold to reach 152,000 a year by the end of the century. … Exposure means anything from disease, injury and death due to an extreme weather event, to losing a home or “post-event stress”, the authors said.”
etc etc.
Who is anti-human?
As I said, feed people first.
Then rant about whatever you want.
Huh? Burning coal feeds people?
You chew coal? Who knew.
“Burning coal feeds people?”
Is this a trick question? Do we not need energy to grow and process foodstuffs?
Again, the false dichotomy monsters appear.
It’s not false, it is a fact. So-called “renewables” are simply not sufficient, pathetically so, for running a modern industrial economy.
In the US, we feed cows and chickens first, then kill them or take their milk and eggs to feed people. Just like cows and chickens, people respond to feeding by producing more people. If today’s famine is due to some climate anomaly, the next time a climate anomaly appears, if there are more people, the starvation problem will be worse. If climate change makes those anomalies even worse, as time goes on, the starvation problems becomes even more dire.
Given that our agricultural system is based on fossil fuels, what’s going to be the result of the loss of those energy sources as they are depleted? What’s the sustainable population of the Earth, is it going to be at the projected 10+ Billion in 2050 or will it still be possible to keep today’s 7 Billion alive and healthy? I think that the Population Bomb is going to appear as a series of local explosions, such as the crisis in Syria, not a single global catastrophe.
“Given that our agricultural system is based on fossil fuels, whats going to be the result of the loss of those energy sources as they are depleted?”
That’s going to be a very long time from now. But, even if it weren’t, when push comes to shove, we would tap into nuclear power, the only energy source that actually has a prayer (and, then some) of replacing fossil fuels.
Nuclear fertilizer! Who knew
‘Its not false’ dichotomy
Ok, so reducing air pollution, and reducing hunger, are mutually exclusive?
How is that we have done both in the US since the Clean Air Act in 1970?
CO2 is not air pollution.
We were talking about coal, which produces pollution of various kinds.
We’re dealing with people that literally think living conditions around the world were better in 1850 than they are today. It’s a special type of stupid, better referred to as delusional.
More plus or more minus?
Sea surface temperature anomalies in the Gulf of Mexico show the range of the northern jet stream.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00957/b0rdw3k1h0yg.png
Salvatore
I’m having trouble reconciling your statements on ocean cooling with the data.
Go here and download the graph Annual Mean Temperature Change For Land and Ocean.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/#
The two blue graphs show the ocean surface temperatures.
There is also ocean heat content, showing an ongoing upward trend.
https://robertscribbler.com/2018/01/26/not-even-the-briefest-of-pauses-for-human-forced-global-warming-oceans-during-2017-were-the-hottest-on-record/ocean-heat-gain-cheng-and-zhu/
Perhaps you could explain how you infer a cooling trend from this data.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Here is the data . This data showed overall oceanic temp. around+.35c this summer.
Three months. What is the long term trend?
I have data from the site going back to June 2017
Is your expected solar cooling also short term?
No, the solar flux variable is a long term integral.
How long?
Change in OCEAN ONLY UAH anomaly in the 6 months leading up to the 3rd month of a significant La Nina (January being the 3rd month of the current La Nina):
1988/89 -0.07
1997/98 -0.14
2007/08 -0.23
2010/12 -0.13
So what have you observed that is any different to previous La Ninas?
OCEAN TID BITS – does not confirm
For each La Nina in the satellite period that has lasted longer than the bare minimum 5 months, here is the lowest monthly UAH anomaly reached. In brackets is the anomaly in the 3rd month of the event, with an asterisk meaning it was preceded by an El Nino no more than 3 months earlier, so was still showing residue heat from that event.
84-85 … -0.51 [-0.26]
88-89 … -0.40 [+0.16*]
95-96 … -0.18 [+0.09]
98-01 … -0.27 [+0.44*]
07-08 … -0.26 [+0.12]
10-11 … -0.18 [+0.35*]
11-12 … -0.22 [+0.17]
17-18 … ????? [+0.26]
So we should EXPECT to drop to around -0.2.
des…”des…”see that large erect phallus of cold water jutting out westward from central America? THAT is La Nina”.
You mean the one pointed right at you? Would that not be South America?”
I’m not seeing this data on the UAH graph. Did you get it from the NOAA fudged record, or worse still, from the BOM?
It is UAH data. Do you only ever look at pretty graphs? Try looking at the DATA at the top of this thread labelled “Lower Troposphere”. It will all check out … if you can actually be bothered checking.
Since you are claiming this data is fudged, I guess you are accusing Christy and Spencer of fudging their data.
Anomalies of the surface of the tropical eastern Atlantic look even more interesting.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00957/vdlf0l1rrojz.png
Since the magnetic activity of the Sun is currently very low, the jet stream will go far to the south.
NO … the entire jet stream does NOT move significantly. At any time, a PART might migrate south, while another part migrates north to compensate. One part of the globe becomes colder while another part becomes warmer. No net change (ignoring other effects such as La Nina).
I focused on the tropics.
Operational SST Anomaly Charts for 2018.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.2.1.2018.gif
Ye … see that large erect phallus of cold water jutting out westward from central America? THAT is La Nina.
des…”see that large erect phallus of cold water jutting out westward from central America? THAT is La Nina”.
You mean the one pointed right at you? Would that not be South America?
It can be a heavy snowstorm in the northeast of the US.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/h2lpc23g8zo6.png
From Roy’s front page on this blog….”Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature”.
Roy…I think you and John have integrity and are above reproach, however, I think NOAA is meddling with the satellite data before handing it over to UAH.
There is no reason why global temps should be lingering this high following the 2016 El Nino. It has not happened during the past 39 years of UAH data sets and I have seen nothing to justify this sudden and abrupt warming.
There is no way CO2 in the atmosphere could bring this about. Either we are seeing an unusual set of circumstances between the surface and the atmosphere that has not been discovered or NOAA are cooking the books.
” I think NOAA is meddling with the satellite data before handing it over to UAH.
There is no reason why global temps should be lingering this high following the 2016 El Nino”
If the facts don’t fit the theory – the facts must be wrong!!
I never thought anybody would actually go down this path.
But, no, GR is happy to go there with the certainty of a 3yo.
Hilarious!!
There shouldn’t be any more discrepancies in the current temperature data sets. The statisticians and mechanical temperature measurements don’t seem to be in dispute anymore. Lots of people watching and measuring. The problem comes when we try and extrapolate the past temperature record using GCMs that still can’t adequately reverse-project an actual temperature record before 1950. Digging up proxy data from 70% of the planet (the oceans) that is miles deep with changing currents can’t be easy.
profp…”If the facts dont fit the theory the facts must be wrong!!”
NOAA is being investigated by a US senate committee for exactly what I claimed against them. Of course, in Australia you are so remote you can’t keep up with current affairs and you are brain-washed by the BOM.
“NOAA is being investigated by a US senate committee for exactly what I claimed against them.”
Please link to any such action after February 2017.
des…”Please link to any such action after February 2017″.
That’s only a year, they are likely still reviewing evidence. NOAA has refused to cooperate and turn over evidence. It will likely take a while to go through the courts.
You should be asking why NOAA is refusing to cooperate. It’s a government agency funded by the US government.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/u-s-congress-to-investigate-noaa-scandal-as-more-whistleblowers-come-forward/
I’ve done a bit of googling. It seems that the newspaper article about an ex NOAA employee which set off this “investigation” was immediately challenged by the employee himself. He stated that his complaint was not about data tampering. Rather it was an argument about the protocols of archiving processed data. I also visited the website for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology which was the committee supposedly investing this, did a search for NOAA, and found nothing pending other than the appointment of its head.
It seems the investigation quickly recognised the fake news and made the matter disappear quietly.
Yes, as Rick Blaine would say, “Gestapo spank…”
There is no gestapo for this with a Trump administration and his appointments for science. You love these conspiracy theories, Bart.
Upthread it was said that AGW is just speculation. This is exactly what your comment here is. There’s no data for it. That’s the beauty of conspiracy theories. We don’t have all the facts, man, BECAUSE there’s a conspiracy.
https://tinyurl.com/y8lszgry
The news article is from 2009. Was it meant to relate to what I said about the current administration and no gestapo spank?
Seriously?
Yes, seriously.
The article was paywalled for me. What relevance does it have to the current government and Trump’s science appointments?
Gordon Robertson
More unfounded declarative statements. You might be almost as unscientific as g*e*r*a*n. I was hoping this was not true about you.
YOUR CLAIM: “There is no way CO2 in the atmosphere could bring this about.” This is like antiscience. You make a declarative statement based on voodoo science and suggest because data does not match your made up physics reality (loosely based upon some physics ideas but mostly wrong information) the people producing the data have to be dishonest liars. Science takes you were the evidence goes. The first thought is not assume the data is dishonest. The more scientific mind would be to reevalutate your understanding of physics and think it is possible you got something wrong along the way.
Gordon Robertson
Your false understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can be shown to be wrong with a very simple mental gymnastics.
You have an object in a very very well insulated chamber under vacuum conditions so radiation is the only means of moving energy. Insignificant energy can enter or leave the chamber.
The object has a total of 1 million joules of internal energy. It won’t matter its dimensions or mass at this time since it is just a comparing of two states.
You claim a cold object has no effect on a hot one, it can’t alter the hot one’s temperature at all. You claim that is what the 2nd Law States. I think it is easy to show that is very flawed thoughts. Made up.
In the chamber you put an object that is made of the same material and has the same mass (identical object). It has 500,000 joules of internal energy. View factor won’t matter since the test is not time dependent.
When the two objects reach equilibrium they will both have 750,000 joules of internal energy. The heat is the 250,000 joules that transferred from the hot object (which lost it) to the cold object.
Now you start again. The hot object has 1 million joules of internal energy. You put an that has nearly 0 joules (close to absolute zero). The two objects will reach equilibrium when each has 500,000 joules of internal energy. The hotter object is warmer when the colder object is warmer. No heat was transferred from the cold object to the hot object in either case. But you can see that if the cold object is colder than MORE heat will be transferred from the hot object to the cold one leaving it colder than if the cold object were warmer.
Now if you have a powered hot object you should be able to easily see that the hot object will be hotter if you have a warmer cold object than a case with a colder cold object. The amount of heat the hot object loses is directly dependent upon the amount heat it can transfer to the cold object. The colder the second object the more heat the hotter object can transfer to cold object.
norman…”You have an object in a very very well insulated chamber under vacuum conditions so radiation is the only means of moving energy. Insignificant energy can enter or leave the chamber”.
Give it up with the thought experiments, normie. I’m sticking with the tried and proved definition of the 2nd law given by Clausius:
No heat transfer cold to hot without compensation.
Gordon Robertson
It is unlikely you read the content of my post or took any effort to understand it. Your mind is very closed it seems.
Yes NO HEAT transfer from colt to hot. That is exactly what I show. But if you have a warmer cold object with the hot one, the hot one will end at a higher temperature. The cold object affects the equilibrium temperature of the hotter object. You have given up science to hold on to a ideology. From all angles you hold on to incorrect thought. I am not sure why you have this super passion to delude yourself.
Poor Norm. He demonstrates his confusion about 2LoT, AGAIN:
* “NO HEAT transfer from colt [sic] to hot.”
* “I am not the one confused about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It clearly states that heat cannot transfer from a hot object to a colder one. That is all.”
Heat can’t transfer from “colt” to hot, but heat can’t transfer from hot to cold, either!
Hilarious.
Must the presence of a cold object increase the temperature of a hotter one?
Not if the two objects are thermally isolated from their surroundings
Two metal blocks A and B sit separated inside a vacuum filled adiabatic enclosure.
Adiabatic enclosure consists of a perfect reflector face surrounded by a perfect insulator
Initially both at the same temperature. The zeroth law of thermodynamics applies.
Both emit and absorb equal amounts of radiation.
Neither one is said to heat the other.
Both objects remain at the same temperature
One block (A) has a power supply which is now switched on causing the temperature of the block to rise.
This in turn means that it will emit more radiation.
A will now heat B causing its temperature to rise.
B will in turn emit extra radiation but this back radiation is caused by A.
Now comes the clincher
If B were not there at all the temperature A would be even higher.
So B cannot be said in any meaning of the word as a cause of heating A
Perfect experiment. G* an his kindred cannot dispute it.
Why would anyone dispute real physics, Nate?
Bryan’s thought experiment is just more evidence against the incorrect solution to the blue/green plate problem.
One more “nail in the coffin”, as they say.
Read the last part wrong, ‘If B were not there at all the temperature A would be even higher.’
The setup has a problem, if perfectly insulated then temps never reach a steady state. Temps just keep rising..
Not so perfect experiment, my bad.
Better experiment. Walls not insulated, reach a steady temp and radiate/conduct heat away to outside.
In that case A WILL reach a higher temp with B present. Known as radiation shielding.
Nope, you had it right the first time.
Hilarious!
Perfectly insulated does reach a steady state?
Con-man, why are you commenting as “Pete”?
As usual, the only one you’re conning is yourself.
Not a con g*e*r*a*n
That was leftover from previous thread when I was showing how easy it would be for you to post as g*e*r*a*n and J Halp-less. I am now using my own name. The demonstration is done. J Halp-less could be a different person than you. If so it just shows how excellent of a programmer Joseph Postma is to get two distinct individuals to both think made up physics, never do testing, rarely support any of the declarations, make fun of actual University physics educators, write very similar posts. I guess Postma finds gullible sheep and makes them think they are wolves. I hope you can see any educated scientist is laughing at your posts. They can see how deluded you are. It is funny when you think about it. You pretend you are this brilliant master of physics but you don’t know anything. You look up a couple of ideas on google and act like you understand them (once you pulled up eigenvectors on me even though you haven’t got the slightest understanding of what that term means, you just used it because you thought it made you look smart).
Keep the humor coming in 2018. I like the way you bluff. I already know you will never lay down your hand, you never have any real science, just a bluff and pretend. It is funny. Thanks for the laughs. (But not that funny really)
norman…”If so it just shows how excellent of a programmer Joseph Postma is…”
Is that the same Joe Postma who claimed we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do?
pete..or is that norman???
“There is no way CO2 in the atmosphere could bring this about. This is like antiscience. You make a declarative statement based on voodoo science and suggest because data does not match your made up physics reality…”
If you call the 2nd law of thermodynamics voodoo science I see where you are coming from, like all the other alarmists.
If you think 0.04% of the atmosphere represented by CO2 can cause catastrophic warming, you don’t understand the Ideal Gas Equation, or Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures.
That’s the science I know, call it what you will. It’s based on the scientific methods whereas AGW is not.
Please explain how the ideal gas law forbids a change in temperatures.
des…”Please explain how the ideal gas law forbids a change in temperatures”.
Where did you get that from? I implied CO2 at 0.04% cannot significantly warm the atmosphere because it’s mass is far too small.
Here it is again:
PV = nRT or P = (nR/V)T, with n, V and R constant. Therefore T is directly proportional to P.
I know the atmospheric pressure is stratified due to gravity but so should T be stratified, and it is. I also know there is activity on top of the stratification, like lapse rate. However, the underlying pressure/temperature effect is constant whereas lapse rate varies. CO2 has not much to do with either.
Dalton – the total pressure of multiple gases is the sum of the partial pressure of each gas. Do I need to go on? N2 and O2 make up about 99% of the mass of the atmosphere and CO2 about 0.04%. That’s all CO2, most of which is natural.
Therefore the partial heat contributes by CO2 is proportional to its mass, making it’s contribution about 0.04C.
Thanks for illustrating your utter lack of understanding of the greenhouse effect. It is NOT about CO2 molecules transferring thermal energy to neighbouring air molecules through collisions.
des claims: “It is NOT about CO2 molecules transferring thermal energy to neighbouring air molecules through collisions.”
Yeah, the GHE is even funnier. It is based on the atmosphere “trapping heat”. Then that “trapped heat” focuses back to the surface, warming the planet.
Except, when the GHE hits the “tipping point”, it then makes for colder and snowier weather.
Consequently, the GHE is very hard to detect, as it looks just like “natural variation”.
g*e*r*a*n
You are again showing your natural confusion. Obviously you are confusing GHE with AGW. They are different you know (probably you don’t know).
The GHE is not linked to snowfall amounts. Some researchers are linking AGW to this.
GHE is the claim that GHG in the atmosphere will allow a surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature than it would without such gases present.
AGW is the idea that mankind’s emission of CO2 will raise the temperature to even higher equilibrium temperatures than GHE has done (33 K by most calculations).
Con-man, you might want to familiarize yourself with the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE nonsense. You don’t understand science, maybe you could understand pseudoscience.
Des –
“Thanks for illustrating your utter lack of understanding of the greenhouse effect. It is NOT about CO2 molecules transferring thermal energy to neighbouring air molecules through collisions.”
It is intimately intertwined with that, because the mean time to emission is much longer than the mean time to collision.
Gordon –
The establishment of a lapse rate requires a heat sink in the upper atmosphere.
Gordon Robertson says:
Where did you get that from? I implied CO2 at 0.04% cannot significantly warm the atmosphere because its mass is far too small.
Wrong, because you leave out an entire subset of nature — electromagnetic energy.
If you ignore the parts of nature you don’t like, you can prove all kinds of nonsense. As you do regularly.
Can someone find a climastrology paper that even takes gravitational potential energy into account?
Take a look at the heat budget diagrams representing “estimates” of heat transfer in our atmosphere: sensible heat transfer ranges from 16-31 Wm-2, but the real answer is obviously higher since convective heat transfer dominates the temperature at the Earth’s surface.
They have the “greenhouse effect” labeled as a back radiation effect from certain gases, but ironically the real greenhouse effect is from what is so glaringly missing that it’s laughable – gravitational potential energy feedback from convective processes. The greenhouse gas hypothesis is laughable and leads to clearly erroneous climate models, yet people continue to cling to the idea.
RWturner says:
“The greenhouse gas hypothesis is laughable and leads to clearly erroneous climate models”
Here’s some climate models:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285081
“Can someone find a climastrology paper that even takes gravitational potential energy into account?”
Ask Gordon Robertson, I think he’s the expert on that.
Gordon Robertson says:
Thats the science I know, call it what you will
I’ll call it willfully blind. Also, ignorant.
Why do you do this to yourself?
“There is no reason why global temps should be lingering this high following the 2016 El Nino.”
Just because you can’t think of a reason doesn’t mean there is not one. The negative phase of the PDO which started after the 1998 El Nino and basically was the cause of the “pause” ended in 2014, and we are now in a neutral phase. THAT is the reason for the upswing in the last few years.
This is the test year solar/versus co2
I’m interested to see how your predictions go. I don’t think that if they come true that AGW is ‘disproved’, but I applaud you for committing to a prediction. I am interested to see how you respond should your prediction not work out.
Barry thanks.
Salvatore has made many predictions since 2009. All predicted cooling, and all were wrong.
One more prediction won’t change that — Salvatore is wrong because his science is wrong.
6 months after the La Nina ends.
Sal made this prediction 6 months ago.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
This is the test year solar/versus co2
No.
One year doesn’t prove anything. Especially a La Nina year.
Salvatore, you aren’t serious and border on silly.
Average satellite temp anomalies of the decades:
1980s: -0.14
1990s: 0.00
2000s: 0.11
2010s: 0.23 (average of 8 years of data)
Good luck to the skeptics hoping to see data that will change that trend by the end of this decade.
Todays temperatures
7:00 am 40 degree F
8:00 am 50 degree F
9:00 am 57 degree F
Good luck everyone tomorrow we will all be dead.
30 years is a very small timescale when it comes to climate
And there is no way to prove it never changed this fast in the past.
Voodoo science: sticking pins in time-series temperature charts to predict future trends.
duncan…”And there is no way to prove it never changed this fast in the past”.
Pleanty of proof, we called it the Little Ice Age, ending circa 1850. We have been recovering since.
Pleanty of proof, we called it the Little Ice Age, ending circa 1850. We have been recovering since.
Weird “recovery,” since temperatures are now higher than they were at the beginning of the LIA.
In Gordon’s world, he can drop a ball from eye level and it will bounce up and hit the ceiling.
Joel…”Good luck to the skeptics hoping to see data that will change that trend by the end of this decade”.
What trend, the one in your mind?
The IPCC claimed 15 years with no trend from 1998 – 2012. UAH increased it to 18 years.
The 2000s from 2000 – 2015 was a flat trend with most of your trend coming from a major EN in early 2016.
New data came in after the 5AR that showed there was no “pause.” That’s how science works.
Joel – that’s about as meaningless as saying the warmest 16 anomalies in the satellite data have occurred in the immediate past 17 years.
Do you not see that you do not present a trend that has any physical relationship to the empirically observed data itself?
Did they teach you (indoctrinate you) with this method at High School did they?
Look at the actual data. All the ‘average’ in the anomalies per decade in the final two decades are due to the step change post 97/98 El Nino (essentially zero warming outside of the El Nino peak) where the anomalies are of course ‘warmer’ than the previous two decades as they fluctuating around a higher baseline post the step change AND the most recent decade (8 years of data) also contains the anomalies post the step change fluctuating around a baseline of essentially zero warming in addition to the higher anomalies of the 16 El Nino.
So you propose el Nino caused long term temperatures to be higher.
Is this a predictive notion? Are you saying all el Ninos do this, and that the warming of the last century is due to successive Ninos?
For those skeptics claiming that a colder body can’t make a warmer body warmer. Where do you come up with this. I am a skeptic, but of course a colder body can make a warmer body warmer.
Here are some examples
microwave
Solar oven using mirrors
Magnify glass
obviously if EMR coming in is greater than EMR going out the planet is going to heat up.
And anything than prevent EMR from escaping will then cause the planet to warm up.
Just like a mirror, or magnify glass that focuses EMR, or a microwave that generates EMR. That EMR is turned into heat. a cold microwave will still heat my lunch, and the inside of the microwave can still be cold. I can burn ants with a magnify glass in the winter, and the glass is still cold.
Duncan, the statement [“cold” can NOT warm “hot”] is a very brief summary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2L0T). It is used often to try to bring some sanity to the Purveyors of Pseudoscience.
But, it is often ineffective, as many do not understand thermodynamics.
Your “example” of a microwave oven indicates you do not understand. It is NOT the oven, by itself, that warms a cup of water to boiling. It is the electrical energy, converted to microwaves, that then vibrate the water molecules.
As with your other “examples”, that is NOT an example of violating 2LoT.
An example of violating 2LoT would be attempting to bake a turkey using only ice cubes.
Learn some basic science, and you will be even a better skeptic.
do you know what EMR stands for?
Electra-Magnetic Radiation. I never said it violated the laws of thermodynamics. I said something “temperature wise” cold heating up something that is warmer that it. it happens.
All radiation from the sun is Electra-Magnetic Radiation just like the microwave. The microwave creates Electra-Magnetic Radiation
The magnify glass and mirrors focuses the Electra-Magnetic Radiation.
And the atmosphere absorbs or reflects Electra-Magnetic Radiation just like the mirrors reflecting And just like the food absorbs EMR in the microwave.
I did make one error above though I said”obviously if EMR coming in is greater than EMR going out the planet is going to heat up. ” That is not true. Not all energy turns into heat.
Duncan, first of all, it is “electro”, not “electra”. And it is typically one word, as “electromagnetic”.
I have to stop there for now. The rest was just too hilarious.
Sorry for the typo, the spell checker didn’t like electro-magnetic, but it was fine with Electra-magnetic. and it didn’t correct it to one word, so I too thought it was weird
Sorry I didn’t major in spelling. That is a little funny I must admit.
The rest isn’t hilarious, because it is true
The sun emits EMR and not heat.
IR = EMR not heat.
IR is light
light = EMR
Microwave oven uses 2.5GHZ light
IR is THZ light
it’s all light or EMR
I wonder why you ignored the magnify glass, and the solar oven
when you obviously don’t understand how a microwave works.
Here is how a microwave works http://www.explainthatstuff.com/microwaveovens.html
Funny they too mention the sun emits radiation like a microwave
By the way, even though I can’t spell “electromagnetic”, I am a Electrical Engineer, and have done some work in the RF spectrum. Sorry I usually just use “EMR” and I thought it was hyphened electro-magnetic. So you should think twice about arguing about this with me, except maybe the spelling aspect.
Duncan, a magnifying glass is NOT an indication that “cold” can warm “hot”. Your attempt to use the example is an indication you do not understand physics, especially radiative flux.
The Sun’s emitted flux reduces with distance, in accordance with the inverse-square law. So, a magnifying glass just allows the flux to be focused. For example, on a clear day, at solar peak, you may have as much as 800 W/m^2. But, a large magnifying glass can focus that 800 to easily over 40,000 W/m^2. That corresponds to about 640C (1200F). A large magnifying glass can melt metals.
It has NOTHING to do with “cold” warming “hot”.
g*, Duncanbelem:
Imagine a sci-fi novel where a giant magnifying glass comes to life and kills people by focusing light rays. After being caught, the evil lens Is taken to a courtroom. His idiot attorney, g*, addresses the judge:
“My client is innocent, your honor. He had NOTHING to do with it. It was the sun!”
Moral of the story:
The sun can make things hot. By focusing light, a magnifying glass can make hot things even hotter.
Thanks for verifying my point, snake.
(Is this going to be a great year in climate comedy, or what?)
Wow…just wow. Great “examples”. May I suggest if you really believe any of your drivel that you place a bowl of water in a microwave and run it until the water nears boiling — 100 C. Then quickly smash the microwave and grab the anode, but be careful not to freeze your skin…err the opposite of that, don’t melt your skin off with that 200 C anode.
I bet one could bake a turkey using only ice cubes, and the sun. Make a giant lens out of an ice cube and then focus it on the turkey. Done:)
Ice emits about 300 Watts per square meter. So, 10 square meter of ice would emit about 3000 Watts.
So, if you could focus all that infrared on a turkey, would it bake?
If course not, but straw man. Been through this at least 87 times, G*.
2lot has become a caricature with you guys.
Again, point your ir sensor at ice, get 32f. Point at clear sky, get -60F.
Clearly placing ice between sensor and sky produces a warmer sensor!
Ice caused sensor to warm, no if ands or buts. 2lot violation?
Hilarious!
Why do you always think its hilarious when you are proven wrong? Weird.
I’m not wrong, but you believe I am.
THAT is what’s hilarious.
So G*, if you put ice between your IR sensor and the sky it will not warm? Explain that.
G* cannot dispute that ice caused a warm sensor to get warmer.
When you point an IR sensor at the sky you are measuring the temperature of the sky. When you place a block of ice in front of the sensor, blocking the sky, you are measuring the temperature of the ice — the sky didn’t heat up because of the ice much like placing my hands in front of your eyes doesn’t actually make me disappear.
the.sensor, not the sky heated up. The ice placed in front, though colder, caused the sensor to warm. Yes or no? If no, why?
Okay so enough of this fallacy that placing an atmosphere, even one that is 100% CO2, between you and space will make you warmer. 1350 + Wm-2 is incident upon one side of the Earth and the 130 F heat record on the surface of Earth is sure a lot less than the typical 100 C day on the moon. Sophistic thought experiments and confusing blocked convection with back radiation is not convincing, in fact it only buffers the other side of the argument.
ok, you and slayers go on believin.
You cant run a heat engine from a cold source to a warmer source. Basic thermo.
Well said
Yeah, now CO2 operates like a heat pump…great year in climate comedy indeed.
Soon, the Arctic chill will reach the Gulf of Mexico.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/eulqqxfgqhsk.png
The packages of water vapor that are formed above the warm ocean are a source of heat in the atmosphere. First of all, they are lighter than the surrounding air, so they can rise to the higher layers of the atmosphere. Secondly, they emit latent heat at the level of clouds.
Thus, the presence of water vapor reduces the vertical temperature gradient and the escape of heat into space.
Frost will reach the Gulf of Mexico at night thanks to the high pressure and dry air.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/qtdbvdi4a7ij.png
A big drop in the speed of the solar wind.
http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/latest2day.imagemap?255,145
We are The Collective.
Our thoughts our one.
We despise independent thought.
Just making it clear – the person above is impersonating me.
Roy,
Can you ask for a trace on those messages?
The con-man is the only one that has been caught so far.
The really funny thing is, Im not sure which of Svantes two comments is the most sinister!
g*e*r*a*n
Again you are wrong. I did not impersonate another poster with my “Pete”. I do not use other poster’s online names and put my own thoughts into them. You are wrong 99% of the time it seems.
The con-man says he didn’t impersonate “Pete”, but earlier he admitted he impersonated “Pete”!
He’s not that good at being a con-man, but his efforts are hilarious.
There is no Pete to impersonate. Norman – quite openly – created another handle to prove a point. No one called Pete was posting here.
How hard is it to get simple facts right?
barry, are you an attorney?
You don’t have a clue about physics, but you love debate. You are fascinated with semantics, and you write well.
If you’re not an attorney, you should have been.
barry attacks: “Norman quite openly created another handle to prove a point. No one called Pete was posting here. How hard is it to get simple facts right?”
No barry, the con-man did NOT create another handle “quite openly”. He tried to fool people, and some did get fooled. The clue for me was his nearly, as usual, unintelligible writing. But, I played along so as to explain the Moon/axis issue once again.
When he tried to use his new name on this new post, I immediately identified him. That’s when he confessed. Only when he was caught, did he own up.
I took the extra time to explain this to you, because I didn’t want you to appear incompetent. Sometimes, it’s hard for you to get the simple facts right.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284231
I understood immediately it was Norman posting to make a point. It was obvious.
So who is the one pretending to be other people and NOT being open about it? Any ideas?
I guess “quite openly” means something different in Australia, huh?
(Hilarious.)
Wrigglers will be wrigglers! It was certainly jarring to see such a straightforward, honest comment coming from your handle. So dont worry barry, Im sure no-one thought it was really you.
I guess quite openly means something different in Australia, huh?
It was obvious in the first place. Norman readily confirmed what he’d done the moment you said something. That’s open in anyone’s book.
And he didn’t steal anyone’s moniker.
No thoughts on who it is that is not being open about stealing other people’s monikers? Any interest?
No, your faux outrage is quite one-sided. So much for being a straight shooter. Another reason why you’re the likeliest candidate.
barry spins: “It was obvious in the first place. Norman readily confirmed what hed done the moment you said something. Thats open in anyones book.”
Hilarious! barry believes because I caught Norm, he behaved “quite openly”!
I like lawyer jokes–barry has become one.
Not a con g*e*r*a*n
That was leftover from previous thread when I was showing how easy it would be for you to post as g*e*r*a*n and J Halp-less. I am now using my own name. The demonstration is done. J Halp-less could be a different person than you. If so it just shows how excellent of a programmer Joseph Postma is to get two distinct individuals to both think made up physics, never do testing, rarely support any of the declarations, make fun of actual University physics educators, write very similar posts. I guess Postma finds gullible sheep and makes them think they are wolves. I hope you can see any educated scientist is laughing at your posts. They can see how deluded you are. It is funny when you think about it. You pretend you are this brilliant master of physics but you don’t know anything. You look up a couple of ideas on google and act like you understand them (once you pulled up eigenvectors on me even though you haven’t got the slightest understanding of what that term means, you just used it because you thought it made you look smart).
Keep the humor coming in 2018. I like the way you bluff. I already know you will never lay down your hand, you never have any real science, just a bluff and pretend. It is funny. Thanks for the laughs. (But not that funny really)
Norman made a conscious decision to demonstrate that it is possible for anyone on this blog to post as anyone else. He made it perfectly clear, to anyone reading, what could be done. Then, this happened. Now, some people are angry. But of course, they are NOT angry at Norman.
HILARIOUS
J Halp-less
So are you and g*e*r*a*n the same person behind the two identities? You seem to be the same in most aspects. You both have not studied any real physics and you both don’t want to learn the real material. Seems you have more fun making up stuff and being annoying.
Neither of you posts a lick of valid science but make up tons of it and you both think you are really intelligent. So far I have not seen one thing from either of you that suggests any logic or reasoning ability. You pat each other on the back. That is about all you seem able to do. Sad I think.
No, Norman. Im not g*e*r*a*n, Im you.
J Halp-less
That would suck!
I knew I would say that.
Resistance is futile
Oh no! PhilJ has been assimilated.
We despise humanity.
Our intent is to deceive
Our intent is to enslave
We will start by lying about the Greenhouse Effect
And end with the annihilation of mankind
Resistance is futile.
Almost as futile as these discussions.
But not quite.
January was the hottest month ever recorded in New Zealand, according to figures released on Friday.
Last January was the hottest month on record for most of the eastern seaboard of Australia.
g*e*r*a*n
Was that you with the string of common posters making absurd claims or J Halp-less.
My thought it is you since the are only a few word each and your brain can’t process a post more than 25 words and struggles it the post exceeds 10 words.
Did you have fun doing this? It won’t make you more scientific. You still will not validate your claims. You will still bluff and pretend you know physics.
Poor Norm. He needs so much help. Not only with understanding science, but also just to be able to communicate.
“My thought[,] it is you since the[y] are only a few word[s[ each and your brain can’t process a post more than 25 words and struggles it[if] the post exceeds 10 words.”
Keep pounding on that keyboard con-man, the only one you are fooling is YOU.
g*e*r*a*n
You amaze yourself. You can find a few typos and point them out. I guess you are good at something. I think maybe you should go to an English blog and correct grammar errors and spelling. You would be more useful on those blogs. Your science does not exist, you make up all kinds of false notions. You bluff and pretend you know things that you don’t. You will never support any of your declarations with valid established science. I have seen you post for years and I can’t recall even one time that you supported any of your many declarations. Mr. Pseudoscience himself goes by g*e*r*a*n. As it stands you are the biggest contribution of real pseudoscience on this blog. Some might try to reach your level, none have been able. Even J Halp-less put a science link in one of his posts.
When I need to understand pseudoscience I just have to read anyone of your many declarations. All of them are total pseudoscience. Amazing you can do it for years.
Con-man, what is amazing is your constant confusion.
Here, you claim you are “not the one confused”, as you totally botch 2LoT:
“I am not the one confused about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It clearly states that heat cannot transfer from a hot object to a colder one. That is all.”
And, your added touches “clearly states” and “That is all”, add enormously to the raucous hilarity.
2018 is shaping up to be the greatest year in climate comedy, evah!
But energy can change form from heat to EMR, to kinetic, to potential, to chemical… Energy isn’t always heat. But this is true energy input equals energy output. So if something is cold but has a lot of chemical energy that it can make something hotter. Another example is nuclear energy. Nuclear bomb isn’t very hot before it goes off. The sun is the source of most of our energy. So if there is anything that would make the world absorb more of that energy it could make the world warmer.
Again IR is not thermodynamics it is EMR
Duncan, obviously you’ve never studied thermodynamics.
duncan…”So if something is cold but has a lot of chemical energy that it can make something hotter”.
Do you mean an exothermic reaction or an endothermic reaction? Some absorb heat and others release it. I imagine if you keep your hydrochloric acid in a cool place and add it (remember always A to w…acid to water) to a substance that is warmer, you could claim the colder acid can heat a warmer substance.
But let’s not go there, shall we? Let’s practice good chemistry.
In Monty Python, an army colonel would step in here and say, “Right, stop this scene, it’s silly”.
Glad you agree that IR is EM and not heat. Eli Rabbett has been dropping by, maybe you could explain that to him.
duncan…”Energy isnt always heat”.
It’s surprising how many processes involve heat. Friction, chemical, electrical, nuclear (both heat and EM), gravitational…if it slams something onto the surface after accelerating it.
Energy isn’t always heat. In fact, it isn’t even MOSTLY heat.
Mass is energy (E=mc2). Gravitational waves. Neutrinos. Solar protons. Nuclear binding energy. Potential energy. Dark matter. Dark energy. Cosmic rays. Etc etc etc………..
Dear Dr. Spencer,
Re margin of error:
I have tried to find this value but to no avail. It could be that somehow I’m missing it.
Is it possible to include this value, the margin of error in some corner of the graph? I tend to conclude that the current anomaly of 0.26 C may fall within that value.
Margin of error for annual anomalies is +/- 0.1C.
Don’t know what the margin of error is for monthly anomalies.
Pete, I’ve asked your question here many times, but never get an answer.
Could you make a rough calculations extrapolating from the annual anomaly margin of error?
In amongst the self serving justification for whatever this CAGW science represents was the mention of integrity earlier. There are vested interests supposedly funding all these skeptics.
Perhaps the believers could name which sceptics are being funded and to what degree. Perhaps this could be compared to the funding provided to the believers. The latter runs into the billions, I believe, with trillions at stake as suggested in Davos.
Apropos is a story:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/02/jcu-bans-prof-peter-ridd-from-criticizing-scientific-institutions-defiant-he-refuses-fights-on/
Yep it talks of integrity but believers need pay attention to whose integrity is being questioned.
I was aware Prof Ridd was a dissenting voice at the time of alarming claims made about the Great Barrier Reef and the reprobate approach taken by JCU (James Cook U). Very, very naughty in not being collegiate enough; sing the same hymn or your daily bread is forsaken.
This is just one more illustration of what Lindzen says this field has evolved into a religion. Hence he just wants it defunded and start again doing good research. Many of us share his view.
Nestles is sending letters to university departments offering 35,000 grants for research into the health benefits of grape juice and cocoa in chocolate.
I wonder why.
What is your point?
Is Nestle a CAGW skeptic? If not what is the relevance of your comment.
Is grape juice in moderation not healthy? I take mine in the form of a good wine, I even make it. I am told it too is fine in moderation. I grow and eat grapes; fine with me.
Are you saying Cocoa is bad for you? Seems contrary to the benefits of flavonoids.
There are leaked emails showing that the Coca-Cola company paid $1.5 million to a lobby group called the Global Energy Balance Network. They promoted the minority view that exercise, not diet, was the key to weight loss.
Again what is your point?
Are either Coca Cola or the lobby group skeptics of CAGW. What does CAGW have to do with Coke or this lobby group. Yes Coke use CO2 in their drinks! So what?
You are one hell of a confused guy. CAGW skeptics are CAGW skeptics. What does that have to do with their views on a myriad of other subjects?
You seem to be a Lewandowsky pupil with an idee fixee on CAGW skeptics hiding behind every bush ready to confront you on any subject. Just a suggestion but such a proclivity is not good for your health, mental health.
My point is that most consensus climate scientists are financed by universities or research councils. Most sceptics are financed by commercial interests.
Universities and research councils expect results which reflect reality.
Commercial interests, whether selling chocolate, sugary drinks, fossil fuels or tobacco, are not putting money into research for the fun of it. They expect results which help them sell their goods. Whether those results reflect reality is questionable.
Em, your opinion appears to have a definite bias. Can you find it?
Thus far you have not named one CAGW skeptic in your comments but simply assert simpleton Lewandowsky ideas of what skeptics stand for. You indeed confirm this paranoia.
Your Nestle example, by your own judgement, contradicts your assertion that university Administrations have much of an expectation except for money which flows their way.
Do you realize that decisions on Govt grants in Australia will now have to take into account the benefit such research will have for the Australian people. This was announced virtually at the same time as when they chopped the Climate research areas including CSIRO with much wailing and gnashing of teeth from some here and abroad. More people now recognize the peer review process is not working.
Anyway try and stick to the subject I raised rather than conflate and obfuscate and believe the boogy man CAGW skeptic hides behind every bush and ready to “get you.” Such paranoia is bad for health, mental health. Lewandowsky can’t help you there!
Do you realize that decisions on Govt grants in Australia will now have to take into account the benefit such research will have for the Australian people. This was announced virtually at the same time as when they chopped the Climate research areas including CSIRO with much wailing and gnashing of teeth from some here and abroad. More people now recognize the peer review process is not working.
Spot the logical flow in this.
Can’t see it?
Then you have a rational brain.
Em, private corporations spending their own money is NOT the same as corrupt governments wasting Other People’s Money!
But, keep grasping at straws, your desperation is fun to watch.
tonym…”In amongst the self serving justification for whatever this CAGW science represents was the mention of integrity earlier. There are vested interests supposedly funding all these skeptics”.
Pat Michaels received funding from Western Fuels and some alarmists went ballistic. However, Hansen of GISS was receiving large amounts via Al Gore and friends in the US government and he was parading around spreading global warming propaganda.
Michaels explained, that at the time no one was opposing Hansen and Western Fuels offered to fund him so he could provide an alternative voice, so he accepted. I did not see Michaels spreading bs with the money. He was not promoting Western Fuels or even fossil fuels. He was simply countering the propaganda Hansen was spewing.
I don’t care if fossil fuel companies fund skeptical scientists as long as they don’t interfere with the scientist doing objective research. I know of no skeptical scientist who is working on behalf of fossil fuel companies and promoting them.
Why should a fossil fuel company not have an interest in funding scientists if the work done by the scientists benefits them? It does not mean there is collusion.
Roy writes a paper and Heartland publishes it. What the heck is wrong with that? Alarmists regard Heartland as some kind of subversives simply because they provide a place where skeptical scientists can be read.
The climate peer review process is rigged and alarmists now run it. Climategate revealed the extent to which the alarmists are willing to go in an attempt to block the publication of skeptic’s papers, and the alarmist faithful applaud the chicanery.
Roy writes a paper and Heartland publishes it. What the heck is wrong with that?
Because Heartland is PAID to deny climate change.
So their scientific standards are very low, and they do in fact publish a lot of nonsense. Expert peer review is badly needed, but their agenda takes precedent.
Scientists publish their research in the peer reviewed literature. That’s the standard. Every scientist is taught this and they all know it, including Roy. That’s why their version 6 was published in a real journal and not by the Heartland deniers.
And yet it warms.
That’s funny. Thanks.
Huge amounts of water will fall this year in South America.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=samer1×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Please explain how a 2 day weather chart gives ANY indication of what will happen over the course of the entire year.
des…”Please explain how a 2 day weather chart gives ANY indication of what will happen over the course of the entire year”.
Ren is busy doing meteorology, you may have to wait. While you’re waiting, why not become better informed in the field so you don’t have to ask such dumb questions?
Bolivia, Argentina and Paraguay under water. Floods have affected hundreds of thousands of people.
Meteorologists say that the cause of the flood in all these countries is the active cool atmospheric front that has moved in from the Gulf of Mexico.
Sure, and may I add, water will fall in particular in the south of South America.
As usual.
And I even dare to predict that huge amounts of sunlight will fall this year on South America.
And even on Europe.
Isn’t this amazing ?
We are living in a great time right now.
Look at this map in a few days. We’ll see what will change.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=natl×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Ren
Did you forget about the groundhog?
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/02/us/groundhog-day-2018-shadow-trnd/index.html
Groundhog saw polar vortex forecast?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f120.png
Apparently so!
BTW, I think you and the rodent would get along nicely: “Records dating to 1887 show Phil predicting more winter 102 times while forecasting an early spring just 18 times.”
How many times groundhog was right?
I don’t know.
We call the lefty’s pushing the climate change agenda snowflakes in the UK, the same fools who wanted us to be taken over by the EU. As the world gets cooler they will be in meltdown.
This is rather silly.
The hard left like Jeremy Corbyn have never been in favour of the EU
Dr. Spencer,
I find the portrayal “La Nina cooling in the tropics has finally penetrated the troposphere” a bit misleading from a mechanism standpoint; although, I am sure, not intentionally so. It’s not that the “cool went up”, rather the “warm went down”, back into the ocean, as is clearly visible in the SST and upper-ocean heat anomaly trends from December into January. The energy that gave us the sustained high TLT anomaly is still well ensconced in the climate and will be revisited upon us in due course.
This is a perpetual motion machine…
Not again!
G*e*r*a*n is already in violation of the 1st Law.
Bart does not understand physics, but that doesn’t stop him from claiming it’s wrong.
Or, rather, anything he doesn’t like is wrong. It’s the easy way out.
Keep on dreaming…
It is not so fast.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
Among others, Peabody Energy
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding
The Global Warming Policy Foundation
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-policy-foundation-the-wealthy-backers-behind-the-climate-change-sceptics-a6767281.
PepsiCo,, Dupont, Google
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climate-donations/u-s-companies-tout-climate-policies-fund-climate-skeptics-idUSKCN11C0ED
Thanks for recognizing these entities that advocate for sanity.
That’s what the planet needs, more sanity. (And, some more CO2 would be nice also.)
entropic…”Among others, Peabody Energy…”
Your first link to a Guardian article is liberally dosed with the term ‘climate denier’. What exactly is a climate denier, do you know anyone who denies we have climates on the planet?
Among the climate deniers, they list Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, two scientists with the highest of integrity who have had the guts to stand up and be counted. Yet here you are, a guest on Roy’s blog, posting a link to two hysterical bitches who slam him as a climate denier.
That makes you, in the vernacular of back-stabbing, an ***hole.
In the article the hysterical bitches (aka climate Barbies) claim, “But its [Peabody’s] funding of climate denial groups was only exposed in disclosures after the coal titan was forced to seek bankruptcy protection in April, under competition from cheap natural gas”.
An outright lie. Coal companies have been forced to close, and thousands laid off, because ***holes like Obama and Hillary Clinton legislated them out of business. The aforementioned weasels railed against fossil fuels but somehow excluded natural gas as a fossil fuel.
An outright lie. Coal companies have been forced to close, and thousands laid off, because ***holes like Obama and Hillary Clinton legislated them out of business
Another shameless and idiotic lie.
Here’s the graph of US coal mining jobs since the mid-80s:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=i55Y
LOOK AT IT.
There was a huge decline in the Reagan and Bush 1 years, due to better use of technology. That continued under Clinton, stabilized under Bush 2, then started to decline again AS FRACKING MADE NATURAL GAS CHEAPER TO USE.
The decrease under Obama pales in comparison to Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton.
You know Gordon knows he’s wrong when he doesn’t reply.
g*r just mentioned the 1st law, we have been neglecting it.
The first law of thermodynamics is NOT about the conservation of a generic energy, it is about the conservation of thermal energy.
Q = U + W
I have no idea how the 1st law was viewed as being about conservation of energy in general. It has nothing to do with the conservation of electrical energy, mechanical energy, or gravitational energy, to name a few.
If work is done on a body resulting in heating, then energy is conserved as mechanical work is converted to thermal energy. If heat is converted to electromagnetic energy then energy is conserved as thermal energy converts to EM.
That proves heat is not EM. The 1st law proves it. Thermal energy is a totally different energy than EM yet you can convert heat completely to EM with the total energy being conserved. However, the thermal energy is completely lost when it is converted to EM therefore there is no heat left to travel through space.
but the EMR can be converted back into heat.
duncan…”but the EMR can be converted back into heat”.
Yes…that’s the whole point. With radiation, heat does not leave the radiating body, it is converted to EM and the EM is radiated.
You’re a bit late to the party. Alarmists here have been claiming the 2nd law OF THERMODYNAMICS is satisfied with a mysterious balance of energies that involve EM radiation. I am trying to provide evidence that the 2nd law applies to heat transfer and has nothing to do with summing EM.
BTW…they are trying to claim heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperature by radiation. I am telling them that contradicts the 2nd law. They seem to have confused EM with heat.
Yesthats the whole point. With radiation, heat does not leave the radiating body, it is converted to EM and the EM is radiated.
It’s a distinction without a difference.
All you’re doing is labeling some energy as “heat,” and some other energy as “EM.”
But it’s all energy.
And energy is conserved. EM *is* how heat/energy travels from the sun to the Earth.
You’re lying about heat and EM because you are can’t disprove the role of IR (energy) in the Earth’s atmosphere. So you try to equate it to nothing. It’s a scoundrel’s trick that all knowledgeable people can see right through.
BTWthey are trying to claim heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperature by radiation. I am telling them that contradicts the 2nd law.
More idiocy.
OBVIOUSLY different bodies exchange energy/heat.
The Sun radiates towards the Earth, and the Earth radiates towards the Sun. That’s trivial.
You continually misunderstand the 2LOT, which does not rule out this scenario in any way. It’s a shame you’re not embarrassed about it. You should be.
DA…”OBVIOUSLY different bodies exchange energy/heat”.
Not just any energy, electromagnetic energy. That’s what we’re on about here, heat transfer by radiation. EM is not heat and it is not governed by the 2nd law. The 2nd law states a one-way transfer of heat.
Ever had a bad sunburn?
What caused your skin to start cooking?
UV rays — EM waves.
EM is just as much heat as any other form of heat.
Gordon Robertson says:
The first law of thermodynamics is NOT about the conservation of a generic energy, it is about the conservation of thermal energy.
Utterly, completely wrong.
It’s typical GR nonsense.
It’s TOTAL energy that is conserved, in whatever form it takes — particle motion, EM waves, solar neutrinos, coronal mass ejections, solar flares, protons, etc.
Energy conservation is about total energy. Even middle school students learn this.
DA…”The first law of thermodynamics is NOT about the conservation of a generic energy, it is about the conservation of thermal energy.
Utterly, completely wrong”.
You seem to excel at idiocy. It’s called the First Law of THERMODYNAMICS and it was written by Clausius about HEAT.
Thermodynamics is essentially the study of heat not generic energy.
In case it has escaped you, the Second Law of THERMODYNAMICS is about HEAT too. I spell it out for you and you still don’t get it.
First law in macro form: Q = U + W
ie. Heat = internal energy + work
Do you see anything in there about the conversion of electromagnetic energy to heat? Or vice versa? Or the summation of EM? That’s covered in statistical mechanics and there’s no second law there. Just an inferred 2nd law based on probability.
The 2nd Law is about heat.
EM radiation and heat are not the same thing (per Gordon Robertson).
Therefore, the 2nd Law is not about radiation.
It is false to say that EM radiation must flow from hot to cold.
Because that statement is about heat, not EM radiation.
Gordon?
Watch Gordon avoid this like the plague.
As far as I can see, GR would agree with all that; as from what he has said:
Heat flows both ways = cold can warm hot = GR disagrees
EM flows both ways, but heat cant = cold cant warm hot = GR agrees
I dont see the gotcha. Its just, once again, understanding the difference between energy and heat. Just with EM in place of the word energy (so its even clearer).
Even thogh gordon says heat and EM radiation are not the same, he applies the 2nd Law to EM radiation, saying that EM radiation from a hot object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object.
I’m curious to see how he responds. He correctly identifies the distinction between radiation and heat, but then conflates them by rule of the 2nd Law.
Well, obviously EM from a hot object being absorbed by, and raising the temperature of, a hotter object, would be heat flowing from cold to hot, which you already know he disagrees with. So no, I dont agree he applies the 2nd Law to EM radiation. I dont see any internal inconsistencies in Gordons arguments, which is the only reason I have interjected. It seems like you are keen to suggest there are, but Im not seeing them.
“‘First law in macro form: Q = U + W
ie. Heat = internal energy + work
Do you see anything in there about the conversion of electromagnetic energy to heat? Or vice versa? Or the summation of EM? ”
Lets be careful here.
Turn it around U = Q -W The first law contains ALL energy that could be raising the internal energy U.
Therefore it includes any EM energy transferred. There is no other place for EM energy to go in the first law, other than in Q.
Net EM energy transfer is inside of Q. If it is involved in transferring energy between objects at different temperatures, than it qualifies as heat.
Well, obviously EM from a hot object being absorbed by, and raising the temperature of, a hotter object, would be heat flowing from cold to hot, which you already know he disagrees with.
You’ve just conflated EM radiation with heat.
Heat, in the classic sense Gordon is using it, refers to the NET transfer of energy from one object to another. A flux of radiation from a cooler object to a hotter object is not the NET of transfers. It’s also not heat, as Gordon says.
If radiation from a cool object to a hot object raises its temperature, then the hotter object radiation increases towards the cooler object, and the NET exchange of energy is still from hot to cold.
No second Law violation, because the 2nd Law is about heat = NET transfer of energy.
No, I havent conflated EM with heat (or rather, Gordon hasnt).
B: If radiation from a cool object to a hot object raises its temperature, then the hotter object radiation increases towards the cooler object, and the NET exchange of energy is still from hot to cold.
J: if EM radiation from a cool object to a hot object raised its temperature, that EM radiation would be heat, flowing from cold to hot. There is no conflation, heat is always energy, but energy isnt always heat (in other words, energy doesnt always act as heat). EM radiation would be acting as heat if it was raising the temperature of a body.
J: if EM radiation from a cool object to a hot object raised its temperature, that EM radiation would be heat, flowing from cold to hot
And just to be extra clear, heat cannot flow from cold to hot…
EM from cold to hot has an effect, it reduces net EM lost by hot. Reduces heat lost.
It could, as a result of this, and another steady heat input, rise in temperature.
I dont see any internal inconsistencies in Gordons arguments, which is the only reason I have interjected.
J: if EM radiation from a cool object to a hot object raised its temperature, that EM radiation would be heat, flowing from cold to hot
No, heat is defined in classic thermo as the NET exchange of energy from one object to another.
Radiation from one object to another is not the NET flow, because it ignores the radiation coming the other way.
So, a cooler object emits radiation that is absorbed by a warmer object, which immediately radiates more energy back to the cooler object.
Heat is the net transfer. The net transfer remains hot to cold.
I do not get why some people can’t understand that the classic definition of heat is the NET flow of energy, and not the discrete exchanges.
But that is precisely where the error lies – conflating radiation exchange for heat flow. This mistake comes from ignoring the radiation flows both ways, while heat only flows one way (or no-flow in equilibrium).
Wriggler: if EM radiation from a cool object to a hot object raised its temperature, that EM radiation would be heat, flowing from cold to hot.
You were given four references to physics texts backing up this definition of heat.
I dont see any internal inconsistencies in Gordons arguments, which is the only reason I have interjected. I am not here to get into yet another interminable argument. Right whatever you want for your next response, I shant be reading it.
“You were given four references to physics texts backing up this definition of heat.”
This is funny Halp. Because you have ignored the official definition of heat, that you found, when it conflicted w your beliefs.
That defined heat as NET energy transferred between objects at different temps.
Sorry, that should have been write, not right.
And of course I am considering the radiation coming the other way. Add it in as necessary, e.g:
if EM radiation from a cool object to a hot object raised its temperature (given the radiation coming the other way) then that EM radiation would be heat, flowing from cold to hot (which is physically impossible).
Wriggler, YOU can fill in these sorts of gaps. YOU can TRY to understand.
Now, as I said, have your last word, I wont be reading it.
You’re still conflating a one-way flux of radiation with a NET transfer of heat.
You’re still ignoring the radiation going the other way.
Why this blind spot on NET flow and discrete energy exchanges?
Why do you not understand that heat is entirely about NET flow?
Do you not understand what NET meas?
I’ve been speaking in the context of the set-up we last argued about – the GPE. But let’s back up and see what we agree on.
1) An object will absorb radiation from an object/environment that is warmer, cooler or the same temperature as the absorbing object.
Agree?
Watch Gordon avoid this like the plague.
So he did.
Gordon, work, need not be only pressure volume work ( -PdV) but includes mechanical work (Fdx) work done by electrical and magnetic fields, etc.
http://people.virginia.edu/~cas8m/classes/phys8310/2013/magnetism_wasserman.pdf
Stop trying to define your way out of the blind alley you are wandering down
En:
Gordon has given you a good detailed response
For you to quote the Guardian as if is is the bastion of truth in climate and no doubt its super warriors, Nutticeli and Redfearn, as slayers of evil doer skeptics has me in fits while I spill my coffee. Now that I know what you read it is no longer a mystery from where your daft ideas emerge.
So you have found some donations being made to skeptics. Is your arithmetic skill so poor that you can’t distinguish between the pocket change skeptics have received in comparison to the $ billions given to CAGW peddlers. That is what I claimed originally.
Your second link fails but am confidant that it is of no loss for me.
Your third link shows how out of touch you are with the running of major companies and politics. Do you believe that major companies support a one policy political party or give a damn about some irrelevant issue which ranks low in the priorities of most people? Oh I forgot you rely on the Guardian as your beacon of truth and reality.
tony…just putting things together…Tony and Australia. Did you ever comment on Jennifer Marohasey’s site? Seem to recall the name Tony from years ago.
I recall some good exchanges between skeptics and alarmists.
TonyM, Gordon Robertson
I find that rudeness is a usual characteristic of climate deniers. You refuse to admit the existence of AGW but cannot falsify it.All you can do is make rude remarks about me and one of my sources. You object to me calling you deniers but are quite happy to call me an alarmist. Hypocrites!
I note that you do not criticise the Independant or Reuters links, so their reports of companies and lobbyists paying scientists to write misleading papers must be correct.
Em, the AGW nonsense was falsified from Day 1! Like many fads, it caught on, became a source of funding, and turned into a record-setting hoax.
It’s fun to watch the movement now starting to implode. You’re just now finding out that you’ve been duped, and you’re mad at the messengers.
All very predictable.
EM: +1
entropic…”All you can do is make rude remarks about me and one of my sources”.
You still don’t get it. You post on Roy’s site and post a link to damned lies about him by a couple of climate Barbies.
If you had any sense of right and wrong you’d call yourself an ***hole.
Entropic Man:
Reversing the onus of proof is the typical cop out of many warmistae including yourself. Go read up on the scientific method. Can you prove you are not a witch if I say you are other than gender and even that has its moments nowadays. Prove to me there are no red swans if I claim there are. Religion rarely has dissenters; they don’t last long!
If you feel you have been harshly done by ask yourself how you tackled the issues I raised. I certainly won’t apologize if you have ignored questions I have asked that are pertinent or your continual irrelevant conflation or statements I have made that falsify CAGW or references I have given which also falsify CAGW.
Yet you keep going around in circles instead of addressing directly those issues.
Appell is a clot. He has even given you a tick. He gave you one before on some calculation of yours which was out by a factor of 300 from memory. He too functions in a different reality when confronted by certain facts. He fosters junk science and junk scientists. Even when one rubs his nose in stinking crap he never acknowledges his mistakes.
So go read my comments to you in the last month and tell me I am wrong in what I have said as I get a bit sick and tired of having my time wasted in the need to repeat ad nauseam. Appell is one such cluck. You are headed in the same direction. I don’t mind if you ask a genuine questions I will try and answer as best I can.
I doubt even if I had openly challenged some issues with skeptics whether a) you would believe it and b) whether it might shine some light on your idee fixe,
But in case you are curious I have had a tiff with both Jo Nova and Monkton on what was misrepresentation of T. Of course Monkton immediately labelled me as a warmist. Seems I can’t win with labels; I’m both a denier and a warmist.
You will also find on JONOVA’s site my support for BOM along the lines that it would be following world best practice even if it may be wrong. I no longer can support it given their ongoing changes with T measurements to within one second and at times limiting the T min.
I have both helped and argued with Postma. Helped him when he first came out with his work as he had reversed the lapse rate and came to absurd conclusions. I did it through JoNova’s site as I had no other way of contacting him. He then corrected it but had to turn it into a paper that could not roast a turkey by heating on one side or whatever rather than his original conclusions.
I have to agree with Norman in that Postma is the most foul mouthed person I have come across, not with me but in general. I had only visited his site once before the green plates in the sky, had my argument with the self congratulatory cabal there and left. In fairness, Postma was not involved in any personal abuse with me.
It is not hard for you to find any of these exchanges; you may find the world has far more variation than you will allow.
TonyM
Perhaps we should find another site. I have been trying to make my case by putting up OLR spectrum, ocean heat content and other date and the site has refused to accept them.
Entropic man, use tinyurl.com.
Get a new link if it fails once, it means you got a bad char sequence.
entropic…”I have been trying to make my case by putting up OLR spectrum, ocean heat content and other date and the site has refused to accept them”.
Nothing to do with site. It’s WordPress. You have not learned how to deal with the posting issues. Don’t blame Roy for issues he cannot control.
Dont blame Roy for issues he cannot control.
You are an endless repository of fiction. EM didn’t blame Roy.
Gordon Robertson
I don’t know what the problem is. Dr Spencer allows free debate, so it is probably not censorship. That leaves a problem with WordPress or a problem at my end.
Does WordPress adjust automatically to the preferences of its site owner, as Google does? I can discuss radiation physics at RobertSribbler, which also uses WordPress, but not here.
I think you are blocked several hours if you have too many failures. I posted the a rejected message the next day and it worked.
overall sea surface temp now +.17c down is the trend.
South America is attacked by two cool fronts – one from the north, the other from the south.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00957/4c88dp4w8xwq.png
ren…”South America is attacked by two cool fronts one from the north, the other from the south”.
Ah!! The classic pincer attack.
In the lst 15 years Phil has been right on Groundhog Day five times and wrong ten times.
That is better success rate than Salvatore has achieved.
+1
So, Phil is mostly right and people are getting the wrong message.
Perhaps if winter bad, he got to get food before he starves waiting for better weather.
Or whatever you imagine he saying, just invert message, that makes Phil doing much better than weather guys.
Roy Spencer, if you find out who impersonated me and other regulars upthread, please ban them.
I know one of the impersonators.
But, he’s much too funny to ban. ..
Is that impersonator or impersonated?
There is only one way you would know who the impersonator and that you think he is funny in a hilarious way. You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to work that out.
I can feel another 8 month ( or more for a second offence) ban coming on and a subsequent reapperance as g?e?r?a?n.
Thanks for confessing, miker. I suspected you, but based on your past wiliness, did not expect you to own up.
G* is still here. After his admission I wonder for how much longer?
miker, I remain extremely flattered by your obsession with me. I believe you are nearly as fanatical as the con-man.
I hope all this fame and fandom doesn’t go to my head. ..
Fellow rotators
davie
Skeptic Gone Wild
Norman
Ball4
barry
Binindon
Brad
snape
Kristian
Nate
Svante
gammacrux
I think we may finally have got to the root of g*e*r*a*n’s lunacy. Normally I would be astounded by the following statement but we know what this genius is capable of.
“The forces acting on the Moon keep it going in the same direction along the orbital path. It is just the same as if it were moving in a straight line. ”
from
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comments
We all know that g * has his own unique interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics but now he has decided to give Newton’s laws a shake up.
miker, here’s the correct link:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284767
(I don’t get to choose my fanatical followers.)
Thanks g*,
You are proud of that effort? Wow.
You must be an engineer as this reminds me of the joke –
http://sethf.com/freespeech/memoirs/humor/guillotine.php
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “miker, I remain extremely flattered by your obsession with me. I believe you are nearly as fanatical as the con-man.”
It would not be flattery. He may be just as amazed as I am that someone as stupid and illogical as you are but yet proud to be stupid. Most people, who are ignorant of facts and reason, usually are not that proud and flaunt it for all to see.
Weird Al has a song that reflects your personality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMhwddNQSWQ
con-man, if you’re not yelping like a rabid chihuahua, you’re linking to juvenile junk.
If you like to impersonate others so much, why don’t you try impersonating someone with above average intelligence?
g*e*r*a*n
Again showing how stupid you are. This seems a very easy task for you. Yup. You think I like to impersonate people so much? Weird thought process there. I just chose a name at random “Pete” to show how you could post as J Halp-less and g*e*r*a*n. It is not even impersonation at that point. It is not a used moniker. Pete Ross may be but just “Pete” who else is using that that I am impersonating? You are clearly stupid and lack even basic thought process. You think using another name is impersonating someone. So you seem to know grammar and spelling well but you don’t have the ability to understand words.
I know you are stupid, that is obvious to anyone who takes the time to read your posts. The amazing thing is that you seem proud of how stupid you are and want the rest of the world to see all the stupid glory you can muster. Very strange, not normal.
con-man, you oscillate between linking to juvenile junk and yelping like a rabid chihuahua.
It’s fun to watch.
miker congratulates his idol: “You are proud of that effort?”
Thanks miker, but I try to remain humble in spite of all the adoration from fans.
(Did you send payment for your T-shirt yet?)
g*e*r*a*n
I guess that puts me one up on you. You never change, you are just a stupid unthinking troll.
Nothing you say is supported. You make up most what you post. And you like to criticize others?
Norm, you need to get away from impersonating a con-man. Try impersonating someone with above average knowledge of physics, written communication skills, and personal integrity.
g*e*r*a*n
So states the poster who has no valid knowledge of physics (just make up stuff never with a lick of support from established science and devoid of any experiments)l. So says he one who has zero personal integrity, the one who intentionally twists other poster’s words and then makes fun of his own created illusions. That is complete lack of any integrity. So says the one with no communication skills. Writing is not the only point of communication. It is an attempt to understand what someone else is attempting to say. Typos and keyboard errors are not signs of poor communication skills. Having no ability to understand or attempt to understand another person is poor communication skills. You seem to be describing the very person you are.
I think you want to be much more like me. Someone who very much understands physics. Someone who tries to understand what others are posting. Someone who is honest and will link to his declarations with supported science. A person who is free of pseudoscience and made up science. Yes g*e*r*a*n I think that is why you like me. You hate what you are, a stupid troll, and would like to be intelligent and able to read actual physics. I would like to help you out. The world does not need another stupid troll.
I already understand this post is far to long for you to read and the word choice is beyond your reading level. That is another thing why you wish so much to be just like me. I can read and process longer posts and am not confused by one that is more than 10 words long.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285074
I do a pretty good job with my Norman character, if I do say so myself. He really makes The Team look bad through association with him.
Which regular did they impersonate?
I’ll let you figure it out.
So much for being a straight shooter.
No need to feel left out, barry. Order some T-shirts now, and it’s like I’m right there with you.
(Special deal for Warmists–get two for the price of three!)
I think you are a prime suspect.
sorry barry, I’m a straight-shooter. I don’t use subterfuge, obfuscation, denial, and tricks. You must be thinking of some Purveyor of Pseudoscience.
Weren’t you banned, and then reappeared under a different moniker?
Yup, the consequences of being a straight-shooter.
Thanks for remembering, and being a loyal fan.
(Have you placed your order for T-shirts yet?)
barry…”Roy Spencer, if you find out who impersonated me and other regulars upthread, please ban them”.
I mentioned in previous comments that John Cook from skepticalscience had impersonated physicist Lubos Motl. Did not seem to bother you then.
And Lubos Motl was kicked out of Harvard, and physics, for being an assh0le.
So what?
I think I get your point, David…since all the people impersonated (with the exception of Dr Roy) were assh0les…so what?
At least, I assume thats what you are saying,
J Halp-less
Where you the one who did the impersonations?
OK I will admit it: Ive been impersonating people for years. I post as both Norman, and Pete (occasionally). Plus J Halp-less, and g*e*r*a*n of course. Plus David Appell. Naturally, my true identity is…Anthony Watts.
jhap…”OK I will admit it: Ive been impersonating people for years”.
You need to escalate. Over at skepticalscience they don’t mess around when it comes to impersonators. They did it to physicist Lubos Motl.
They like to impersonate Nazi officers too, dont they?
They did it to physicist Lubos Motl.
They publicly posted as Lub Motl? That’s identity theft.
Could you supply the links exactly to where they did that on the SkS blog? I would like to see evidence that they fooled the public in such an awful way.
Did we ever learn what that experiment was about, where they were inventing skeptic comments and writing some under Motls name?
You can google the answer. They were stress-testing argumentation in a private forum, and took on characters (skeptics) as they debated points. It was never public (until someone hacked the forum).
I was aware it was never public, but honestly have never known what the experiment was. Thanks for the answer, but not sure I understand what stress-testing argumentation means.
DA…”And Lubos Motl was kicked out of Harvard, and physics, for being an assh0le. So what?”
So what? He’s far more intelligent than you or your fellow alarmists will ever be.
Can’t find any reference to him being kicked out of Harvard. Another David Appell lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubo%C5%A1_Motl
https://motls.blogspot.ca/
He’s no smarter than lots of physicists. Unfortunately Motl’s emotional quotient is close to zero. He can’t play well with others.
Lubos story is well known, if you have been paying attention in the right places all these years. He was forced out for being a jerk.
davie, on the “jerk scale”, what is your rating?
DA…”Lubos story is well known, if you have been paying attention in the right places all these years”.
You mean among the dickhead where you hang out at realclimate and skepticalscience?
Some of your crowd got caught in the Climategate emails applauding the death of skeptic John Daly.
A real classy lot. One of your heroes, Michael Mann could not understand Dr. Judith Curry becoming a skeptic, so he made vulgar sexists comments about her.
One thing that stands out about alarmist scientists, they tend to be creeps.
“One thing that stands out about alarmist scientists, they tend to be creeps.”
I know, they’re Nazis. I heard they eat the children of skeptics. In fact Democrats do that as well, after luring them to Pizza joints…
Standard propaganda tool: demonize your enemies. Good job Gordon!
Good job Nate, this needs public attention.
Glad to see global temperatures drop a bit last month. Hopefully, this trend continues.
One month is not a trend.
da…”One month is not a trend”.
It is over 30 days.
Quite a downward trend since February 2016.
Not close to statistically significant.
Starting at Feb 2016 is desperate cherry picking.
A great big thank you to Dr. Spencer for hosting these threads. I come here for the entertainment value. I am always rewarded as my education continues.
Me too. I read the comments here regularly without any comment. I have officially added “meeting Dr. Roy Spencer” on my bucket list. He is a modern day hero for me. Keep it up Dr. Spencer! I’d love to meet you some day!
Update on Prof Ridd and legal fight with JCU.
I posted a reference to JoNova’s site earlier. WUWT has a similar story:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/01/james-cook-university-censures-a-climate-skeptic-help-him-fight-back/
Prof Ridd went for crowd funding to support his case in the Oz Federal Court vs JCU. Crowd funding exceeded the $95 target amount in under 49 hours and is now shut. It is quite inspirational to see this: the minnow takes on the giant in the quest for scientific integrity and fixing the broken peer review system.
In his own words the latest attack on him was subsequent to an interview on Sky News:
“The basic problem is that we can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science, even things like the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies – a lot of this is stuff is coming out, the science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated and this is a great shame because we really need to be able to trust our scientific institutions and the fact is I do not think we can any more.”
“I think that most of the scientists who are pushing out this stuff they genuinely believe that there are problems with the reef, I just don’t think they’re very objective about the science they do, I think they’re emotionally attached to their subject and you know you can’t blame them, the reef is a beautiful thing.”
On the basis of these comments I was accused of not acting in a ‘collegial’ manner.
“My statements on Sky News were based on my specific area of expertise, my findings, and wider concerns, held by many in the academic community, about quality assuranceprocessesin science. I recently outlined my concerns about quality control in environmental policy science in a peer reviewed journal article.”
“At no point in my Sky News interview did I name the university where I work or any of mycolleagues. Nor did I make any statements which I believe to be untrue.”
https://www.gofundme.com/peter-ridd-legal-action-fund
funding error; no pro bono here and should read:
Crowd funding exceeded the Au$95 K target amount in under 49 hours and is now shut.
The temperature in Quebec, Canada dropped to -42 C.
http://www.tinypic.pl/to5d5mfw81cq
Sorry.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/to5d5mfw81cq.png
ren…”The temperature in Quebec, Canada dropped to -42 C”
Most of the Canadian provinces go really far north. The area marked at your link is above the bottom end of Hudson Bay. Look up Churchill, Manitoba, that is a typical temperature at certain times of the winter.
Churchill is still quite a bit south. Watson Lake in the Yukon Territories is -40C but the North Pole is only -26C.
As of Saturday night after midnight it is a balmy -33C in Churchill. Here in Vancouver, around midnight, it’s +8C. Who said the oceans don’t heat the atmosphere?
Mind you, Hudson Bay is like an ocean but it lacks the warming currents from across the Pacific.
Gordon Robertson look at the forecast of the polar vortex. Do you know what the thickness of ice in Hudson Bay is?
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/p5rcpb5g7s1g.png
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/0g7ozsd1rb6f.png
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/udspooiccr1c.png
It seems quite serious.
ren…”It seems quite serious”.
How high is 100 hPa?
Found it, 37,518 feet (11,435 meters).
Pretty cold up there, what’s the significance?
The stratospheric polar vortex limits the range of the arctic air.
Look at about 5 kilometers.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-85.30,75.93,393
Gordon Robertson, the state of the polar vortex has a direct effect on the temperature and pressure over the polar circle.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00957/q9510t0cej10.gif
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00957/mkct9sb204pq.gif
ren…”The stratospheric polar vortex limits the range of the arctic air. Look at about 5 kilometers”.
That’s pretty neat, what makes it turn like that? I knew about the transpolar drift in the water and the Beaufort gyre, did not realize the atmosphere was so hairy.
Must be the CO2, eh? ☺ ☺ ☺
ren…”Gordon Robertson, the state of the polar vortex has a direct effect on the temperature and pressure over the polar circle”.
I heard that during the winter when there is no solar input, or very little, that colder air from higher altitudes descends on the Arctic. Is that right?
The stratosphere in winter descends very low above the polar circle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2017.png
GR, the altitude for 100 Pa depends on latitude and season. Your high precision number is worthless as a general value.
ren, your last graph is for the Sough Pole, i.e., the Antarctic. The very cold temps (shown as white) are for June, July and August, as in, the middle of SH winter…
E. Swanson, I wanted to show it better, here you have NH.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2017.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2018.png
Temperature around Hudson Bay.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/13k1anqr1tlk.png
overall sea surface temperatures now lee then +.150c deviation
overall sea surface temperatures are the name of the game
No, ocean heat content is the whole game. Its where over 90% of the trapped heat goes, and its been increasing for decades. Another record high in 2017.
This is a good point David. If entire heat content of ocean has been steadily increasing or accelerating proportionate to increases in atmospheric co2, this is would be telling. Methinks, though, that judgment about the ocean heat content as a whole would be tenuous at best.
Have you looked at the data?
Have you looked for a job?
Walmart is paying $11/hr, starting!
(You can thank Trump.)
We have little ocean heat content data you idiot.
We have tons of sea level data to corroborate it.
DA…”Its where over 90% of the trapped heat goes”
Maybe one day you’ll understand what heat is and that it can’t be trapped as radiation.
Your theory was an attempt to get egg off his face when Trenberth was caught admitting in the Climategate emails that the warming has stopped and that no one knew why.
When confronted with that here’s his top ten replies:
1)Russia has been fiddling with the climate.
2)climate deniers caused it
3)it really is warming, we just can’t detect it.
4)ENSO is hiding it
5)it’s the PDO
6)it’s Michael Mann’s fault
7)it’s those darned guys at UAH
8)the Climategate emails are not peer reviewed
9)me and NOAA will see to it the heat reappears
10)it’s in the oceans.
The esteemed Professor Karoly added a dimension to the hiatus described in IPPC report.
‘No no the warming has not stopped. If it was not for CO2 the T would have dropped. ‘
This fella is a professor, supposedly an expert (on what). If the natural variation has caused T to decrease why is it not natural variation which causes an increase? In fact why not all of the increase, hiatus or decrease?
Such questions are not allowed to be asked.
If the natural variation has caused T to decrease why is it not natural variation which causes an increase?
Because physics.
Because the current natural factors imply a slow cooling — solar intensity, Milankovitch factors (very slight), not warming.
davie, since you want to discuss physics, explain to us how the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K.
And your, as usual, heat content math doesn’t work. You need to show how about 960 W/m^2 can ever heat anything beyond the S/B temperature (360K).
You can’t.
Hilarious.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Your theory was an attempt to get egg off his face when Trenberth was caught admitting in the Climategate emails that the warming has stopped and that no one knew why.”
Another blatant and stupid lie.
Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t…. It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_E._Trenberth#Short_term_climate_variability
DA…”The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant.”
No amount of back-peddling will ever undo what he said. It’s quite clear what he said, the warming has stopped. The longer version makes no difference.
No amount of cherry-picking and sticking you head in the sand will convince a rational person.
barry states: “No amount of cherry-picking and sticking you head in the sand will convince a rational person.”
That’s true, barry. But, as you know, the Perpetrators of Pseudoscience are not rational people.
Appell the troll jumps in leading with his now severely deformed chin trying to hide behind physics he does not understand.
If it is physics, and you have claimed amongst your many claims that this field is applied physics, then why is it that you or this field cannot falsify the Gerlich et al physics paper which says basically that CO2/GHG cannot cause the effects claimed. You have been asked this before but as usual in troll fashion duck and weave giving a glib, scatter brain answer.
Their paper was published over nine years ago. Some have tried to falsify it including Halpern (Eli Wabbett of green plates in the sky fame)et al only to be castrated. At that level only you are already on par with Wabbett except he has far more intelligence than you.
“Coolest tropics since June, 2012”
Times are tough for climate denialists when even your cherry picking still shows warming.
wild…”Times are tough for climate denialists when even your cherry picking still shows warming”.
Are you calling the negative trend since early 2016 cherry-picking?
As the oceanic surface temperatures cool so will the the temperatures for the entire globe.
The down trend is in place.
“Dont you realize that, the warming that has now ended, that took place last century was one of the weakess warming periods the earth has undergone ,lets take a time period ,of the last 20,000 years.”
– Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/
You have to love when AGW proponents call the skeptics flat-earthers. They do realize that at one time in history the flat-earth theory was the accepted view of the world, right? That 97% of the “scientists” agreed the world was indeed flat. Good thing there were skeptics back then…
False. Pythagoras and the Greeks know the Earth was spherical.
Yes, they were the skeptics of their time. Thanks for the compliment.
Bo
Being sceptical of something doesn’t necessarily make you smart. It might just mean you’re an idiot:
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/ywnnaj/people-from-around-the-globe-met-for-the-first-flat-earth-conference
Being wrong about something may actually make you an idiot. Sceptical not so much, just means you need more proof…especially when discussing nonlinear systems.
snape…”Being sceptical of something doesnt necessarily make you smart. It might just mean youre an idiot:”
Flat-earthers are ignorant, not skeptics. You have to be intelligent to sense something is wrong with a hypothesis.
Come to think of it, alarmists don’t sense anything wrong with AGW, even though it contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, the Ideal Gas Equation, Dalton’s Law, the notion of perpetual motion, and just plain common sense.
GR, NO the CO2 Greenhouse Effect doesn’t violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as I’ve demonstrated. Your unwillingness to accept factual data borders on a fundi’s faith in Bronze Age myths…
ES believes: “the CO2 Greenhouse Effect doesnt violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics”
The infamous GHE violates BOTH 1LoT and 2LoT.
1LoT, because energy can NOT be created from nothing. And 2LoT, because the colder atmosphere can NOT warm the warmer surface.
Gordon Robertson says:
Come to think of it, alarmists dont sense anything wrong with AGW, even though it contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, the Ideal Gas Equation, Daltons Law, the notion of perpetual motion, and just plain common sense.
Let’s see…. Who’s more likely to be wrong — every scientist in the world and all the national academies of the world, or….
…Gordon.
g*e*r*a*n_a_moe, That old propagandist mantra “A Lie repeated often enough becomes the truth” may work in the political arena, but in the world of science, experimental evidence is the source of truth. I presented experimental results showing that a warmed body can exhibit an increase in temperature due to the addition of a colder body to the system, evidence which you apparently can’t understand or choose to ignore. Which is it?
e. swanson…”GR, NO the CO2 Greenhouse Effect doesnt violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as Ive demonstrated”.
Whatever you say, norman.
Quick experiment for you. Turn on your stove again and wait till it reaches maximum heat. Hold your hand 6″ above the ring and feel the heat. Now raise it to 12″. Note the rapid drop off due to the inverse square law. You can barely feel the heat at 12″.
You’re trying to tell me your cookie sheet at 6″, which has a fraction of the heat of the stove ring, can back-radiate energy to raise the temperature of the 1500 watt stove ring?
With that cookie sheet balanced on the tin cans, you could likely touch it and not burn yourself. Try that with the tin sheet on the stove ring.
You don’t understand heat, what it is, and how it is transferred. Most of the heat you are feeling at 6″ with your hand is heated air rising, not radiation.
DA…”Lets see. Whos more likely to be wrong every scientist in the world and all the national academies of the world, or.
Gordon.”
The old appeal to authority, one thing all you alarmists have in common.
ES states: “but in the world of science, experimental evidence is the source of truth.”
Sorry ES, pompous rhetoric is NOT science.
Your bogus “experiment” only indicates you haven’t a clue what you’re doing. In an actual science experiment, it is important to start with a statement of what the experiment will attempt to show.
What is your statement, “This experiment will show that cold warms hot”?
Hilarious.
GR, yes, I understand that convection was a source of energy for the heating of the cookie sheet during the first demo. As you should have noticed before you posted nonsense, the cookie sheet temperature showed 172 C during the first demo without a fan and dropped to 133 C with the fan running in the second demo. The can is about 4 inches above the plate. No, I wouldn’t want to touch the cookie sheet, indeed, I used welding gloves to remove it.
In the third demo, the plate temperature dropped from about 603 C to 588 C, not a big change. Of course, there’s quite a bit of energy carried away from both by the air flowing from the fan and the cookie sheet represents a much larger radiating area than the plate. It’s not a situation of IR energy transfers from each with equal areas and muted convection.
I’m still waiting for you to post your e-mail (or whatever), so I can send you the links to my papers.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285085
bo…”They do realize that at one time in history the flat-earth theory was the accepted view of the world, right? That 97% of the scientists agreed the world was indeed flat”.
They had to. Otherwise they’d be tortured till they repented and burned at the stake after repenting. A lot like alarmists would like to have it today.
They do realize that at one time in history the flat-earth theory was the accepted view of the world, right? That 97% of the “scientists” agreed the world was indeed flat.
There was no scientific method or scientists when everyone thought the world was flat (which is why you put “scientists” in quotes).
The birthplace of science might be the ancient Greeks, who demonstrated that the world was round.
Climate clowns should study the “flat earth” cult.
It is huge, and seemingly growing. The youtube videos are very professionally done. It would be interesting to find out who is paying for all the pseudoscience.
It’s a great parallel to the AGW nonsense. It fools many.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDKc6X8TXNE
Funny, these guys look like so-called climate skeptics to me.
Yup, it fools many.
“with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
It’s not very hard to realize, and the Greeks made a very good measurement.
This year will be the turn point.
“2016 will not be s warm as 2015, and 2017 will not be as warm as 2016 etc”
– Salvatore del Prete, 12/3/15
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203097
Dr. Spencer
Why am I unable to put in links to the NOAA website?
Welcome to WordPress censorship, with Roy doesn’t care to fix.
Try using period’s in that agency’s acronym.
You must also fool with “ab.sorb.ed”
absorbed
davie gets his facts confused, AGAIN!
Entropic man
Try a smiley face between the d and c.
https://www.ncd😊c.noaa.gov/data-access/model-data/model-datasets/sea-surface-temperatures-sst-and-winds
Or use tinyurl.com
entropic…”Why am I unable to put in links to the NOAA website?”
Even WordPress has shunned them.
LOL
: -)
Overall SEA surface temperatures now less then +.13c above norms in contrast to +.35 c above norms during the summer.
Salvatore
Air temperature is definitely a reaction to SST’s, but If you only look at Tropical Tidbits, you will be very short-sighted. Yes, the trend over the last few months is down (and will be reflected in the TLT anomaly) but look at the long term trend:
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/english/long_term_sst_global/global_rngmn_e.png
I don’t believe it, a claimed global sea-surface temperature dated back to 1888, let alone HADSST to 1850, to fractions of a degree C is ridiculous.
BEST since 1850 with 95% confidence interval:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Annual_time_series_ocean1.png
svante…”BEST since 1850 with 95% confidence interval:”
Is that after the fudging or before? Dr. Judith Curry was a co-author and she distanced herself from BEST after the prinicpal author, Mueller, began fudging it.
Her name is on the methods paper:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf
My incredulity is based on both false precision and the “global” claim:
http://www.transpacificproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Steamship-and-Telegraph-Routes-1888.jpg
(Steamship and telegraph routes 1888).
Also as Prof Humlum notes its the tropical oceans 10N to 10S that are most significant for the global surface air temperature trends.
Google Law of Large numbers, and remember that each anomaly has a margin of error.
The law of large numbers, as I understand it, applies to when one is taking multiple measurements over time of the same thing — say the sea-surface temperature within one 100km grid.
Each thermometer provides 30 (or 60 – max/min) measurements a month, 365 (or 730) measurements a year, and there are thousands of these daily measurements all around the globe.
A 30-year trend for a single location benefits from the information contained in 10950 measurements, and the global trend has three orders of magnitude more information.
These still come with a margin of error.
barry, are you referring to the Argo float system?
Land surface temps.
barry…”Each thermometer provides 30 (or 60 max/min) measurements a month, 365 (or 730) measurements a year, and there are thousands of these daily measurements all around the globe”.
Typical statistical bs. It’s not the number of thermometers since there is scant coverage globally. Taking temps every 1200 kms is not good coverage.
The problem is the discrepancy between an averaged hi-lo. If the high is +30C and the low is +10C, the average is +20C. What does that tell you when it comes to an average over 24 hours. Nothing.
When you average it over a month and a year, the error could be major. That’s especially true when NOAA slashes stations showing cooling and including only those showing warming.
The yahoos at NOAA think they can serve the public better by discarding real temperatures and using what they think temperatures SHOULD be.
Cheaters!!
Thats especially true when NOAA slashes stations showing cooling and including only those showing warming.
Liar.
Let’s quote verbatim your favourite link on which you base this lie.
Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month. Scientists use that data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly expanding number of buoys and ships – 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, after all – to determine the global temperature record.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Can you see anywhere in that quote that NOAA deliberately deleted (“slashed”) weather station data? Please quote the relevant sentence.
Can you see anywhere in that statement that NOAA added historical data?
Yep.
Here’s your reference. Quoted in full. Link supplied.
You can’t quote the source to verify that weather station data was “slashed.” Because it wasn’t.
But you will continue to repeat the lie.
Why?
A little more detail.
A single mercury thermometer reading is accurate to the nearest 1C.
The average of ten readings is accurate to the nearest 0.1C
The average of one hundred readings is accurate to the nearest 0.01C.
This is why the averages of multiple readings are preferred.
Hi Entropic man,
if you were serious when you wrote the above then I suggest you to read about the difference between accuracy, precision and resolution.
Here is an good example:
https://www.tutelman.com/golf/measure/precision.php
I know that some climatologists believe to increase the 1C resolution of their measurements just averaging and confusing the accuracy with the resolution as you wrote, but that doesn’t mean they are right just because they are climatologists.
BTW some climatologist believe also that 2D spatial homogenization is useful to fill unknown temperature of land squares with significant values interpolating the few real measurements they did along their pertinent area.
That’s an another measuring sillines, because it is exactly the same as consider a full 10 megapixels camera photo having the same resolution of a 2.5 megapixels one using a neighboring points interpolation.
If you want to see the difference just download from the Internet a 10 megapixels photo and resize it with a photo editor such as Photoshop. First resize the image by reducing it by 2, then resize it magnifying it again by 2 (Photoshop allow you the choice of the algorithm to apply for compute the interpolated pixels, but resizing by a factor of only 2 doesn’t change a thing because there is only one interpolated pixel between two known pixels and it stands in the middle). At this point reload the original photo and comparing the two images you can see the difference zooming to appreciate the single pixels one by one.
Of course, those climatologists who support homogenization could argue that the temperatures of the interpolated squares are correlated to the neighboring measured squares while the pixels of the photo aren’t. But arguing that, they contradict the prescription of placing the thermometers just few hundreds meters from any obstacle to avoid their influence in the measurements because those squares are 5 by 5 km sized.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo
Accuracy is a calibration issue and not relevant here.
Resolution is the precision of a single reading. For a mercury thermometer that is 1C.
The precision of a sample mean improves with sample size (n) according to the formula
Precision = resolution * 1/✓sample size
I notice I missed a step before, so
For n = 10 precision is 1*1/✓10 = 0.32C
For n = 100 precision is 1*1/✓100 = 0.1C
For n = 1000 precision is 1*1/✓1000 = 0.01C
NASA and NOAA calculate averages based on 8000 measurements per day.
For a monthly global average precision is 1*1/✓245000 = 0.002C
For an annual global average precision is 1*1/✓2,920,000 = 0.0006C
Hi Entropic man,
I repeat myself, read that link about accuracy, precision and resolution.
You need at least a resolution of one tenth of degree to argue about tenths of degree; you need at least a resolution of a cent of degree to argue about cents of degree and so on, not accuracy or precision.
Accuracy or precision without resolution are useless except for playing statistical probabilistic games.
If a thermometer has the resolution of 1C you can have a precision of better than 1C if and only if you already know that the reference measured temperature (for which you are computing the averaged measurement) is stable at a fixed precise value, so that the averaging filters away the measurement random noise.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Salvatore
Where are you getting the data for recent sea surface temperatures?
ocean tid bits site
And where do they get their data?
NOAA
Here is some info about CDAS (used in Tropical Tidbits ocean charts):
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFMIN13D..07M
Whoops. That didn’t work. Maybe this will:
https://esgf.llnl.gov/media/2016-F2F/7-12-2016/compute_and_analytics/F2F-2016-CDAS.pdf
This is from the failed link (above). Sort of interesting:
“Faced with unprecedented growth in the Big Data domain of climate science, NASA has developed the Climate Data Analytic Services (CDAS) framework. This framework enables scientists to execute trusted and tested analysis operations in a high performance environment close to the massive data stores at NASA.”
My mistake, thanks Snape.
A strong drop in the velocity of the polar vortex in the upper stratosphere with very low solar wind activity.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JFM_NH_2018.png
Snowstorm in the east of the US.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/hxx55hy7bbir.png
Another wave of arctic air attacks in the north-central US states.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
A large area of high pressure will soon cause a significant drop in temperature throughout Europe.
SST Anomaly Time Series.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
What temperature will it be today in Minneapolis?
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/r8ewrggyiek0.png
Minus 165.14 C.
Just -14 C.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/5keqdrguwr7m.png
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/w8m7eh8fv80y.png
barry says:
February 4, 2018 at 4:03 AM
Minus 165.14 C.
Typo?
Just returned a day ago to Milwaukee from a long trip to what looks like a normal winter. It’s snowing and I will have to run the snow blower in a little bit. Did I say normal winter? Well normal compared to the last decade or two. The cold snap in early January was really quite mild got down to -10F. Fifty years ago cold snaps of -20 could be expected.
Typo?
Sarcasm.
ren…”What temperature will it be today in Minneapolis?”
If you’re referring to the Superbowl game, it’s indoors. Only we nutjobs in Canada hold our finals outside in freezing weather.
Siberian frost in Canada.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/55k3fj5j2iu2.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
I have a particularly naive idea that the discharge of waste water from environmental pollution into the sea will flow from ocean currents to the north and south poles, resulting in less sea ice due to the complexity of the sewage.Solar reflection decreases, absorbs energy, and then heats the temperature.?
Yes, it’s a particularly naive idea.
Waste water could be anything, human sewage is edible by life, and that it’s food for life can have what’s considered “unfavorable” consequences. Warmed water could be considered waste water, and similarly can have unfavorable consequence related to favorable conditions for some living things and not other living things.
And black smoker found in deep ocean are extremely hot water and hasve very toxic chemicals in it, and black smoker support life in the deep and dark oceans. Some think these volcanic vents caused life to existent on earth.
Anyhow waste water is basically any water humans don’t want- such as used bath water. And also be steam which was created and which we don’t want to use any more.
And btw US takes about 600 billion tonne of water and uses it for various purpose, means meak the US will have 600 billion tons of waste water per year. In addition water not taken from wells or rivers, but has stuff added to it- you pee in a river- can now can called waste water.
In short instead of waste water, you could say all river water.
And if concerned about arctic, one might look at rivers flowing into arctic. Or anything not flowing into arctic will get quite diluted before it can get to arctic. Though one could focus on the Gulf Stream which a huge “oceanic river”. And Gulf Stream first flows thru the UK [and Iceland and etc]. So with all the environmentalists in England, this waste water has yet to be complained about.
And with climate change fading as a concern, perhaps studies focused on this, might find something to bitch about.
What makes you think climate change is fading as a concern???
DA…”What makes you think climate change is fading as a concern???”
Nothing of significance happening that has not happened before.
I think there is relationship between higher electrical costs and concern for climate change.
I don’t think climate change was much of concern in US, nor have electrical prices ever become a crazy high price- except California was and is on the crazy side.
But US has Trump as the US president.
Germany on the other hand has crazy about climate change for quite awhile and their electrical prices are expensive and predicted to become hideously more expensive.
Germany in 2017 was average of 30.48 Euro cents per Kw hour.
Which in US dollars is 37.79 US cents per Kw hour
And average residential US in 2017 is 13.01 cents per Kw hour.
And California: 18.77 cents. Plus, other notables:
Alaska 21.90
Hawaii 30.58
Or:
“Currently German power costs about 30 euro-cents per kilowatt-hour, and so are among the highest worldwide. The price is projected to soar another 50% rise to 45 cents by 2020. That would make German power 4 times more expensive than US power, and more than double that of France. This poses a real threat to German economic competitiveness.”
http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/28/german-electricity-price-projected-to-quadruple-by-2020-to-over-40-cents-per-kilowatt-hour/#sthash.1P5YqOGB.dpbs
It’s predictable as America becomes great again, other countries may wonder why they aren’t so great.
I forgot to include a link:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
A large snowstorm in the east of the US is developing.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/zt7tqlln24ro.png
Even this night the wave of arctic air can reach the south-eastern US.
“They networked, shared research, showed off NASA parody T-shirts, and talked shit about Neil deGrasse Tyson.”
In America, arctic air moves over the Great Lakes. Frost in Europe. Strong winter in the Northern Hemisphere.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/y2gxlywhnpg3.png
This year, the glaciers have enough ice. Especially in the Alps.
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
Snowfall in southern France and the Alps.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/b494wzqjy5im.png
Please compare circulation in the troposphere at the 500 hPa pressure level and in the lower stratosphere at 100 hPa.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/chtwuie1p6mg.png
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/tiszp3rn0wyq.png
Temperature in Canada drops to minus 45 degrees C.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/v9cid3mc29mx.png
RSS have also updated their lower trop temp global anomaly for January. Here’s the anomalies since Jan 2016.
2016 01 – 0.8465
2016 02 – 1.1689
2016 03 – 1.0419
2016 04 – 0.9448
2016 05 – 0.6864
2016 06 – 0.6281
2016 07 – 0.6457
2016 08 – 0.6372
2016 09 – 0.7632
2016 10 – 0.6071
2016 11 – 0.5815
2016 12 – 0.4034
2017 01 – 0.5872
2017 02 – 0.6711
2017 03 – 0.5723
2017 04 – 0.5508
2017 05 – 0.6330
2017 06 – 0.4910
2017 07 – 0.5998
2017 08 – 0.7186
2017 09 – 0.8477
2017 10 – 0.8067
2017 11 – 0.5508
2017 12 – 0.5899
2018 01 – 0.5460
Range of arctic air range in North America.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/w5r6mfgnvfdj.png
Gordon Robertson
We both agree (as I think the majority of posters do).
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that Heat cannot flow from a colder object to a hotter one without work being done.
Natural flow of Heat is from Hot to cold. Yes, true.
Now for you. You are of the belief that since heat cannot flow from cold to hot, it means cold cannot influence hot at all.
The only thing the 2nd Law stipulates is DIRECTION of Heat, not amount. Can you find any thing in Clausius work that gives an amount to his version of the 2nd Law?
You have added amount to your understanding of the 2nd Law even though only the Direction is stated and not the amount of heat.
For Heat Flow (Watts) or Flux (Watts/m^2) the equation clearly shows that the cold surroundings have a DIRECT effect upon the rate of heat flow. The warmer the surroundings, the less heat can flow from a surface. I do not know how you can understand the equation any differently.
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac
The temperature of the cold surroundings directly determines the amount of heat that can flow from the hotter surface.
Let me know how you can see this in a different way and think you understand the content.
The problem is that the warm gas rises up and expands because the volume of the ball increases.
To rise higher, the warm gas must also overcome the force of gravity.
The air does not heat up evenly, the warmer air rises higher even at the same latitude.
Norman you would have to prove that this has an effect on the temperature gradient in dry air.
ren
Thanks but my post is not about the GHE at this time. I am just seeking some answers on Gordon’s understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Later I might add other ideas and will consider what you are requesting. I must wait for the initial understanding before one can move to the next.
Norm, you continue to be confused by that equation. A “hot” object emits based on its temperature. The “cold” object has NO radiative effect on that emission.
“Cold” does not warm “Hot”. (Read that out loud 10 times each day until you understand it.)
Glad to help.
‘Cold’ does not warm ‘Hot’
Nobody pretends that. I think you are intentionally confusing all the people here.
Try to read and understand what is written in
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
and in
https://tinyurl.com/y948rhtp
Glad to help in turn!
Pang, if you believe my science in incorrect, please indicate where I am wrong.
Just weakly implying something means you are intentionally trying to confuse people here.
The cold object has NO radiative effect on that emission.
Read the two sources carefully, and you will see that the equations there contradict you.
So either you agree or you put up an alternative set of equations, and we can compare them.
Pang, I actually went to your first link. It was hilarious. They have the units all messed up. They are confusing “Q dot” with “heat flux”!
No wonder you climate clowns are so funny. You find some link and believe it proves some aspect of pseudoscience.
It’s fun to watch.
Again I propose you not simply to pretend anybody confusing anything, but to bring here an alternative set of equations.
If you don’t come out with it, I will understand that you are not able to. That’s all.
Any other answer will be discarded.
* Pang, you tried to imply there was something wrong with the science I presented. You provided two links.
* I asked for an example of where you believed I was wrong.
* You said the links contained equations that contradicted me.
* I said the equations were wrong, and indicted why.
* Then, you implied you were going to get mad and go away.
Hilarious.
(Hint: Find some equations that apply to the real world, not just pseudoscience.)
As I can see, you refuse to bring the equations (or better: a link to a valuable text published by somebody else).
As I can see, you have failed to admit your equations are wrong.
g*e*r*a*n
You are incorrect in your criticism of the MIT link on heat transfer.
If you look at the page they are not using Capital Q with a dot over it but a small q with a dot over it. The MIT sight is correct and you are wrong.
Here is the proof. I think you might want to change your position on that point.
https://tinyurl.com/ydh4ubnl
From MIT link:
https://tinyurl.com/y7s9566q
Yes Norm, I was just testing to see if Pang could figure it out. I got my answer.
They started off with “E”, which they called “energy”, but they indicated it had units of W/m^2.
Later, they switched to the q-dot.
I don’t know if you went through the entire presentation, but it was really botched. They started out with “infinite gray surfaces”. Then switched to “black”. Then switched back to “gray”, and seemingly a finite surface!
All just to end up with the useless equation that gets so many people confused.
Amazingly hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
The derived equation is a valid form of radiative heat transfer with grey surfaces (need to include the emissivity of the surfaces).
If you start at the beginning of the Chapter (a few pages back) they define E as watts/m^2. If you take the Stefan-Boltzmann constant it has units of Watts/m^2 in the constant when the temperature units cancel.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node134.html
They start with the infinite planes to develop the equation. I think it is very well done, a good logical presentation.
When they switch to the black body for surface 2 they are just stating Kirchhoff’s Law. They are not using that for the final equation.
The final equation that they derive (19.3) is usable in real world heat transfer applications.
Still not sure what your complaint is about.
Hi Norman,
I admit that I didn’t read the link, but since I seen this many other times I just highlight you that if “They start with the infinite planes to develop the equation” then if the planes surfaces are infinite one shouldn’t never use fluxes (which units is W/m^2) in the equations because this imply that the planes have infinite power source.
Have a great day.
Massimo
That’s irrelevant to deriving the equations, Massimo. Infinite size removes the need for having to deal with any edge effects. This kind of abstraction is basic to thermodynamics and heat transfer, as are black bodies, white bodies and other constructs that are theorized to simplify calculations in order to derive basic principles.
La Pangolina what will you take as the second surface?
The question makes no sense here. We are discussing about the net residual effect of two radiations.
Pang, ren is asking you how you plan to use the radiative heat transfer equation.
You just don’t know enough to understand.
g*e*r*a*n says:
February 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM
I’m still waiting for your equations, so we can compare them with those presented in
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
which you consider ‘hilarious’, ‘pseudoscience’.
I’m patient.
I’m glad you are patient, Pang. You will need patience, because I don’t have any pseudoscience equations.
pango…”Im still waiting for your equations, so we can compare them with those presented in
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
Have you noticed these examples have all been done with surfaces in thermal equilibrium? Or between surfaces in thermal equilibrium?
Have you noticed how idealized the surfaces are?
Nothing whatsoever to do with heat transfer in the atmosphere.
g*e*r*a*n
I have already concluded you are too stupid to think rationally or use even simple logical thought. That is why I did not address this point to you but Gordon Robertson. I do not think he is an idiot like you are and I wanted to see what his reasoning was.
You offer nothing but stupidity. If I wanted to learn incorrect physics I could go to preschool and ask the kids. I am sure some might be smarter than you at least they could probably learn something. You are far too stupid to have any learning ability at all.
Why don’t you repeat 100 times each day, I will try not to be a stupid troll! I will try to learn something today!
You are an idiot beyond belief. I am giving you what you crave. You think I am upset by your stupid posts. Not true. I know you love it when you get called an idiot. Not sure why but you do seem to enjoy it.
I can only hope you quit jumping into my posts to other people. But if you do I will feed you what you crave. I can at least help you there. You can’t learn but you can be made happy when someone posts “you are an idiot”.
Con-man, we both know you can ramble much longer.
Now try again.
Norman
I think Gordon, g* and the others are competing for attention. The stupidest comments seem to generate the greatest response.
Snape
I would completely agree with you. They say some really stupid things. I don’t know about old Gordon Robertson. I think g*e*r*a*n gets enjoyments from being called a stupid troll. I have not figured out why yet. He tries to get to you by calling you a 12 year-old. Too bad most 12 year-olds have more learning capacity than him.
He again tries to elicit a response by making the claim that I do not understand the radiative heat transfer equation. Only he lacks the understanding. I think he really knows full well what it claims. He just says moronic things in posts to get the reaction. Since he likes it I give it to him. He thinks I am angry and upset, not at all. His stupidity really does not bother me at all. After the Moon rotation on its axis thread I determined either he is too stupid to learn or else he just wants attention so he latches on to every post he can and says some brain dead comment to get a reaction. You can see him go through a cycle to try and get some type of response. He is a very messed up person. You are good to ignore him. I was not posting to him at all but Gordon, he jumped in to get a response. If he wants it I can give it to him, doesn’t make much difference to me. Ignoring him does not work, he can’t stand that and will jump in regardless. Just feed him. If he posts to you just reply “Stupid Troll” then he is happy.
Norm, I don’t know which I like better–directionless rambling (like your last comment), or where you try to peddle your pseudoscience.
I will try to write some funnier ones for you, which combine the two. My Norman creation does bring the big laughs, I must say…
I’m enjoying it!
☺
G*
I try, but It’s hard to ignore such idiocy.
An air temperature of + 70 F and -70 F are both colder than the human body. You think the difference will have no affect on the person’s temperature?
Unbelievable.
snake, your youthful attempts to understand 2LoT are always hilarious.
And, I like the “Unbelievable”. Added humor. Nice touch.
Smart move, g*. The correct answer will lead to a “gotcha”, as Flynn likes to say.
snake, you didn’t even understand my comment. I was mentioning to Norm, AGAIN, that his equation will only get him in trouble, because he does not understand it.
Then, you jumped in with the 70F/-70F nonsense.
Your comment revealed how little you understand, but yet you believe you know all about topics you’ve never studied.
Hilarious.
g*
If I saw you pour pancake mix strait from the bag into a frying pan, I would tell you to add water first.
Did I need a culinary degree to spot the stupidity?
Your “science” ideas are not quite that dumb, but they might be in the same ball park. It doesn’t take a scientist to notice.
You’re problem, snake, is you can’t identify one error in any of the science I have described here.
Error #143: The moon doesn’t spin
As I indicated you can’t identify even one flaw in my science. You just imagine.
But, I can explain the Moon/axis issue, so even a 12-year-old can understand.
Use your vivid imagination and see a train on a circular track. Maybe you even had such a toy train. The train can NOT rotate on its axis, because it is held by its wheels on the tracks. But, in one orbit around the track, it APPEARS to be rotating. But, it is not rotating on its axis, it is just following the circular track, or orbit.
You probably can’t imagine such a simple example, because it would show you how wrong you’ve been.
It’s fun to watch.
OMG!!!
g*
You torture us!
The tracks are a FORCING……one rotation per orbit. No more, no less.
Don’t believe me? Try rotating the train 180 degrees per orbit. Can’t do it! Try 90 degrees, 45 degrees, 310 degrees, 720 degrees, 270 degrees. Still can’t do it.
The track FORCES a 360 degree rotation. There is no other possibility!
Poke a slice of cucumber with a toothpick. Freedom! You can rotate the sphere as much or little as you like per orbit. Have mercy on us and try that simple experiment!
The tracks FORCE the train to complete an orbit. They PREVENT the train from rotating on its axis. Rotation of the train on its axis whilst completing the orbit would necessarily involve the train coming off the tracks.
Halp
It’s a super simple experiment.
Yes snape, your use of the word “forcing” is exactly correct. That’s why the train is such a good analogy to orbital motion. The Moon has “forcing” that keeps it in orbit.
Orbital forcing is completely different than “rotating on an axis”. You just are having a hard time separating the two motions.
G*
Cucumber slice on a toothpick. Do it!
Snape, there is a reason the moon isnt able to spin with the freedom of your cucumber slice on a toothpick. Do you know what that reason is (Bart gave a good description of it, one time)?
J
You and G* keep pointing to what you think “not-spinning while rotating” looks like. A train, a horse around a track, the moon, a ball on a string, etc. You will never figure out the illusion by just staring at it over and over.
Find something you can actually rotate while stationary. Make a mark along the edge somewhere so you can see how far it turns. Try a quarter spin per rotation. Then a half spin. Then a 3/4 spin. Try 2 rotations per orbit. Maybe 3 or 4.
Once you get the idea of spinning while orbiting, try ONE SPIN/ONE ORBIT. While you do this, notice where the mark points.
Snape
You might like this video. He clearly shows that the moon has to rotate on its axis, this one is instructive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKTQx8IySBk
This one also shows the Moon in rotation on its axis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaskACEMwgg
I guess the belief is that tidal locking means gravity is acting like a rod connected to the Moon. In the case of a horse on a merry-go-round the horse still rotates around the center (changes orientation) but it does not rotate on its axis. That is because the axis of rotation is also rotating. So when the axis of rotation rotates (is connected directly to the rotating body) the horse will not rotate on its axis since the axis is also rotating.
Norman
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying the cucumber slice is not actually rotating about an axis if the axis itself (toothpick) is also spinning? Perhaps you’re right, in not sure.
In any case, that misses the point. We only use the toothpick to control the cucumber slice. If we could make the cucumber spin on it’s own, axis steady, that would be better. Use your imagination and assume/pretend the toothpick does not move.
A ball swung around on a string is forced to rotate about its axis while also orbiting around a center point. [The ball and the balls axis is moving around (orbiting) a center point.]
I think we agree on this, right?
Maybe we could think of the toothpick as part of the cucumber slice and the axis of rotation as an imaginary line within the toothpick?
In the first video, the guy doesn’t understand orbital motion. Because his “moon” is showing different sides to the “earth”, as he moves it in a circle, is due to him holding the moon in the same position. That is not how orbital motion works.
In the second video, all they are doing is showing what you already see. The moon APPEARS to be rotating on it axis. Just putting another moon in the center of the orbit is a “con”.
g* says
“the guy doesnt understand orbital motion. Because his moon is showing different sides to the earth
Idiot. The moon circles the earth – an orbit. Just like satellites do. This is true regardless of which way they face or whether or not they also spin.
Unbelievable
“the horse will not rotate on its axis”
And that is EXACTLY the motion of the Moon.
It does NOT rotate on its axis.
g*e*r*a*n
You give declarations, what is your evidence of how orbital motion works? Just stating the person does not understand orbital motion and you do, does not answer anything.
g*e*r*a*n
The horse does not rotate on its axis only because the axis of rotation is not fixed, it is rotating around the center. The horse still rotates but since the axis is also rotating it will not rotate on its axis. But in the case of the Moon, the axis of rotation is not rotating, it is fixed it is not connected to the orbital center, gravity does not hold on to an axis and force it to rotate. You can’t see it, but that does not make you right or correct. I think the videos do an excellent job of showing what is going on.
Norman
I think the horse, as well as the horse’s axis are being forced to orbit around the merry-go-rounds center point. How is this different, in principle, to the moon’s orbit/rotation?
Norm, here we go again. In one comment, you claim you know physics. Then, in another comment, you are asking me how something works!
I’ve already explained this, but it’s the easiest way to understand. Consider a 10-mile long, straight railroad track. The train travels straight along the track. It is NOT rotating on its axis.
Now, bend the track into a circle. The train now travels in an orbit, but is still NOT rotating on its axis.
Like snape, miker, and many of the others, you can not accept truth. You revel in pseudoscience.
Snape, Norman – Don’t bother. You’re just giving them more air time than they deserve.
https://tinyurl.com/jb4bhoh
Bart
I was stupidly encouraging/hoping g* and halp would try toothpick experiment. No luck.
Bart shows up, with his “zero” knowledge of physics. So, that’s Norm, miker, snake, and now Bart. Current count is 4.
Hey Bart, what’s 4 multiplied by zero?
snape expounds: “A train, a horse around a track, the moon, a ball on a string, etc. You will never figure out the illusion by just staring at it over and over.”
Hilarious.
The answer is right in front of his nose, and he can’t see it. He believes someone else is seeing an “illusion”, not him.
I just had a feeling this was going to be a GREAT year in climate comedy.
G
Shut up and do the experiment.
g*e*r*a*n
You know I have already given you a very logical easy to perform test to show you that the car or train indeed is rotating on its axis as it goes around a circle. You put a compass in the train or car. The compass needle will always point North, this is the orientation of a fixed axis. As you drive your car in a circle what does the letters of the compass do in reference to the North pointing needle? They rotate around the fixed axis.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285277
Heres another hint, Snape:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-285100
Please get back to me with your answer. Thanks.
J
Yes, it’s interesting how the moon came to be to tidally locked.
Hi to all,
IMHO it’s just a question of reference system or better a philosophical issue.
If the system is the Earth with it’s Moon (that is an orbital system), then g*e*r*a*n is perfectly correct: the Moon doesn’t rotate around it’s axis because an orbiting system is an non-Euclidean geometry system.
If the system is the universe with the North fixed by a very far star as Norman suggested in his compass example, then g*e*r*a*n is perfectly wrong because in this case the system is euclidean. But I believe that g*e*r*a*n knows this (I don’t want to teach the cat how to climb up to the roof).
Have all a great day.
Massimo
No Norm, the compass is more evidence you’re wrong.
The compass needle has a constant force on it, so it points North as the train moves in orbit. As the train orbits CCW, the compass needle essentially moves CW, always pointing north.
Thanks Massimo, for trying to work out an arrangement where Norm could be right. But, we do not get to pick systems. We do not get to choose our own “reality”.
The Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”, as it “orbits” the Earth.
Just compare Earth to the Moon. The Earth both orbits AND rotates on its axis. If it were to stop orbiting, it would still be rotating, and vise versa. The Moon only has ONE motion–orbiting.
That’s why, from the center of Earth’s orbit, you would see all sides of the Earth, as it rotated on its axis. But, from the center of Moon’s orbit, you only see ONE side, since it is NOT rotating on its axis.
snake, you don’t know how to do experiments because you do not understand physics. Your “cucumber experiment” shows that you are wrong, but you just can’t see it.
The toy train is the perfect model of Moon’s motion. But, you don’t want to consider it. You only want to consider things that you can twist/distort/spin into your belief system.
And, that makes you “hilarious”.
Hi g*e*r*a*n,
yes, I agree with you, I was just highlighting that in an euclidean geometry system the Moon seems rotate around it’s axis even if it doesn’t of course. That because if you stop it’s translational movement (probably a wrong definition, I should write orbital movement) it doesn’t rotate at all.
The proof stands in the way we measure the Earth-Moon distance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
If it was also rotating those measurements would fail.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Good to see another free thinker commenting.
G*, Halp and now Gordon,
Rather than a thought experiments with cars, race horse etc why not perform this incredibly easy 10 second experiment. It is also incredibly safe so you can try this at home.
Go to your kitchen pantry and take a cylindrical can with a label on it. Hold it firmly in your hand at arms length. Rotate your arm 90 degrees. Note where the label is now pointing.
What do you have to do to make the label on the can point back in your direction?
So come on non rotators. Just do the trivial experiment and report back what you had to do. As they say put up or shut up.
Yes, that experiment also helps make our point. Thanks, MikeR.
Yes Halp and g* you are indeed corrrect. I meant to say to hold thr can loosely so that it is not rotating with respect to the room . Then after rotating the arm 90 degrees you need to hold it firmly and rotate it back towards you, corresponding to rotation with respect to the room. Sorry for the confusion. It is very late here.
miker, just as J indicated, your experiment proves the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. Your experiment is just another way of using a string and an orange.
Will you now deny your own experiment?
Snape
I think you are getting what I am saying. If you spin the toothpick the cucumber slice is on as you move it around a center, the cucumber slice will still rotate around the center of orbit but not around the axis. The axis is rotating so the slice will rotate around the orbit center but not around its axis. You do not need to rotate the slice as you move it around to keep its same face to the center. If your axis is not rotating (as in the case with the Moon orbiting) you must rotate the cucumber slice to keep its same face toward the orbit center.
My opinion is that is where the confusion takes place. One has to defined the axis of rotation. With the Moon they use the “fixed” stars (they move but the apparent motions is so small they seem fixed relative to our motions against them) to determine the axis. The Moon’s axis of rotation would be similar to what the Earth’s is. Some fixed point in space that the axis points to. On Earth it is close to the North Star.
Norman
It is nice to have a debate with a non-nitwit. After a little pondering, I see you are correct that the cucumber slice does not rotate around a toothpick that is also turning.
HOWEVER, (these are just my own musings, so I could be wrong….very unlikely, of course), the cucumber is still rotating around an axis, same as the moon.
Axis of rotation (AOR) has nothing to do with the stars or any kind of external frame of reference. It’s a fixed line WITHIN an object that all the other parts of the object move around.
Astronomers might use stars to DETERMINE where the earth’s or moon’s AOR is, but it still exists independently within each body.
The cucumber slice rotates around a fixed line within the toothpick, regardless of whether the toothpick is moving or stationary.
Oops. I already see my mistake. I suppose the AOR has to be extended to a fixed reference point.
Norman, relative to a fixed point in space, the Earth could be said to rotate on its axis 366.25 times for each time it completes one orbit of the sun. Why do you think it is that we actually have 365.25 days in a year and not 366.25?
No Norm, the Moon’s axis of rotation is not Earth. You continue to confuse “orbiting” with “rotating on its axis”.
See how close-minded you are?
J Halp-less
I believe that is the reason for the Leap Year, to correct for that.
Oh dear.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
g*e*r*a*n
I do not think you are reading my posts correctly. I do not know where you came up the idea I think the Moon’s axis of rotation is the Earth, clearly I have stated this is the orbital axis.
Read what I actually write rather than coming up with your own ideas.
I’m merely pointing out the fantastic effort you are putting out to run from the truth.
You have to ask yourself “Why?”.
Once youve had a read-through, ask yourself the question Ive already asked, plus (paying attention to the section of the link entitled, Sidereal days compared to solar days on other planets), notice that this formula, for planets with prograde rotation:
number of sidereal days per orbital period = 1 + number of solar days per orbital period
Involves that additional 1 day I was talking about. So, for Earth, 366.25 as opposed to 365.25. Always 1 extra supposed rotation than there actually is…why could that be?
P.S: No, its nothing to do with leap years.
While Norman is working all that out, I will cut straight to the conclusion: all those who think the moon rotates on its axis (lets call them rotators), due to their frame of reference being a fixed point in space (or, inertial space, another way to put it): you should all think that the Earth rotates 366.25 times for one orbit around the sun. Same frame of reference.
Or, more simply: rotators think there are 366.25 days in a year!
Halp,
Yes there are 366.25 sidereal days of 23 hours 56 minutes in a year. This is why different constellations are visible at different times of the year i.e. Orion is always prominent in the northern winter and Sagittarius is prominent in the northern summer. The stars rise 4 minutes earlier each day and over 365.25 solar days they appear in the identical position on the same day each year.
Of course the solar year is the standard usage for every day life. We would not like to have the sun rise at 9 pm and set at 9 am, which would would be the case at some time of the year, if instead the sidereal day and year was used.
So for an exact calculation of the angular frequency of the earth (and angular momentum) you would use 2 xpi/(23.933 x24 x 60 x 60) radians per second not the more approximate 2x pi/(24 x….).
The approximate and the more exact result is given here
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/JasonAtkins.shtml.
Glad you get it.
Snape @ February 6, 2018 at 3:01 PM
“Axis of rotation (AOR) has nothing to do with the stars or any kind of external frame of reference. Its a fixed line WITHIN an object that all the other parts of the object move around.”
No, that is not correct. Rotation is always relative to something. If you stand and spin around, you are rotating with respect to the Earth. But, the Earth is rotating about its axis with respect to the stars, so even if you stand still, you are rotating with respect to the stars. When you spin around, the axis around which you are spinning relative to the stars is not the axis you are spinning about relative to the Earth.
We speak of rotation with respect to the stars because it is the best approximation we have to an idealized inertial coordinate frame. We are particularly interested in inertial coordinate frames because that is where Newton’s Laws hold, and using those Laws, we can describe the motion mathematically in relatively simple terms.
And, that is why we say the Moon is, indeed, spinning. Because it is spinning with respect to the stars, and we can mathematically characterize its motion in inertial space due to that relative rotation using Euler’s equations.
Beyond that, there is Mach’s Principle, which implies that the frame of reference established by the stars actually may be closer to the truth than an idealized inertial frame of reference. Mach’s Principle holds that without any outside reference established by the arrangement of matter in the universe, there are no means by which to measure motion of any kind, whether accelerated or not. It is a neat formalism that extends Einstein’s concept of relative motion beyond mere velocity.
A better example of rotation of on object on its axis while “in orbit” would be the discus throw or the hammer throw.
If you ever watched these sports you will notice that the discus and the hammer, at the moment of release, always spin. I have never seen one leave the hand with zero rotation.
For the discus the amount of spin is important aerodynamicaly so the discus thrower wants to impart maximum spin by rotating his body as fast as possible before release.
The spin isn’t due to wrist action (like a Frisbee) as this would lead to broken wrists and lack of control of the direction of the thrown discus or hammer.
Bart, MikeR
Thanks for your instructive comments, but I’m still not convinced I’m wrong.
Bart: “No, that is not correct. Rotation is always relative to something.”
Yes, but when an object rotates around it’s axis, the axis is the principle “something” the rotation is relative to. Every part of the object is moving around a fixed line.
The moon is seen to rotate relative to the stars, but it does not rotate AROUND the stars.
I think an external frame of reference would simply determine where the fixed axis runs. By “fixed”, I mean it would always point in one external, stationary direction perpendicular
to the angle of rotation.
For example, one side of the axis of the rotating cucumber slice (orbiting around a central point on a flat table) might always face north. So wherever the slice moves, it would always be spinning around a steady, externally referenced line.
Just pondering.
Halp
I am glad you agree with us rotators that the earth rotates 366.25 times in a year. Yes we are making progress.
It rotates 365.25 times a year. The +1 is the result of that apparent rotation better known as *orbital motion*.
Bart believes: “And, that is why we say the Moon is, indeed, spinning.”
Sorry Bart, the Moon is, indeed, NOT rotating on its axis. The “spinning” you imagine is due to orbital motion.
But I enjoyed your mention of Euler’s equations and Mach’s Principle. It always adds to the comedy when clowns try to throw in concepts over their heads.
Is a toy train rotating on its axis as it moves along a straight track? Is it rotating on its axis as it moves along a circular track?
Hilarious.
testing
No Halp,
I thought we were on the same page. It rotates on its axis 366.25 times in one solar year. Read any of the references on Google that talks about the rotation with respect to the inertial frame of the rest of the universe. With respect to the sun it of course it rotates 365.25 times,
This is why the reference I linked to calculates the exact angular velocity of the earth using the 23 hour 56 minutes. This is the relevant figure to exactly calculate the earths’s angular momentum, the speed of an object on the earth’s surface at the equator, the centrifugal force and Coriolis force.
I know it is confusing but think it through.
Ha ha, the link I provided was for Normans benefit, but thanks for continually and unnecessarily repeating what can already be understood through reading it. Still waiting to hear from him.
MikeR, I know it is confusing for you, but, I repeat:
The Earth rotates 365.25 times a year. The +1 is the result of that apparent rotation better known as *orbital motion*. Thats why it is +1 for all the planets with prograde rotation, regardless of length of orbit.
Snape @ February 6, 2018 at 7:24 PM
“Every part of the object is moving around a fixed line.”
For an infinitesimal instant of time. That axis becomes fixed in the body, and in space, only when the dynamics have reached a minimum energy state.
“By fixed, I mean it would always point in one external, stationary direction perpendicular
to the angle of rotation.”
Generally speaking, an axis of rotation isn’t fixed. For an isolated rigid body (which is itself an idealization) under torque-free motion, angular momentum is conserved, and thereby fixed in inertial space. However, the instantaneous axis of rotation is related via linear mapping to the momentum vector by the instantaneous inertia tensor, which varies for general mass distributions (i.e., when the body is not rotationally symmetric) as the body rotates.
In ideal cases, energy is also conserved. Under these conditions, the evolution of the axis of rotation can be visualized using the “Poinsot Construction”, and you can google this and see videos of how it plays out.
In the lowest energy state, the axis of rotation aligns to the angular momentum about the major axis of inertia, and in this case, the axis of rotation becomes fixed. The axis of rotation can also remain fixed, for a time, about the minor axis of inertia, but this is invariably unstable for physically realizable quasi-rigid bodies as it is a high energy state, and the spin will eventually devolve to the major axis as energy dissipates. In all other energy states, the axis of rotation wanders extensively, though in a predictable fashion.
Note that we are always talking here of rotation with respect to inertial space. All of these dynamics are imputed from Newton’s Laws of Motion, and Newton’s laws hold only in inertial frames of reference.
The rotation of the Moon about its major axis, and the tidal locking such that the minor axis of inertia always points along the Earth-Moon line, can all be derived mathematically in this way. None of this state of affairs just happened. It is all the result of well-established physical laws that acted over eons of time, and have been known, tested, and verified over and over again for centuries.
Bart
I can only understand a small part of that. The “infinitesimal instant of time” part, in particular, completely lost me.
Anyway, here is how picture it. I suspect you will need to correct me:
From the stars point of view, the moon would appear to rotate. If the moon were transparent, and you could somehow see an imaginary axis inside, the axis would not turn, even as the moon orbits the earth. Every point on the axis would continually face one direction of space (perpendicular to the axis). The moon would all the while rotate around it.
Bart
Darn it , I blew my cover.
That was actually me, as you may have guessed. “Artemis” had a little fun insulting g* downthread, but then I forgot to switch back to Snape.
Halp -“It rotates 365.25 times a year.”
Not according to the astronomical community.
I guess, as you appear to share g*’s views on everything, you would think these pseudo-scientists, like NASA, are incapable of understanding orbital dynamics.
If you are correct then the moon landings were a hoax. I guess this is an opportune moment to ask you if you believe this is the case.
Bart, what an excellent example of “rambling”. You must be taking lessons.
And you even tried to dazzle us with “Poinsot Construction”! That’s hilarious.
If you really knew anything about dynamics, you could figure the Moon/axis issue with basic vector rotation. But, you can’t even understand the toy train explanation.
It’s fun to watch.
miker, it seems I have to explain everything to you.
This Moon/axis issue started when the con-man announced that he had “taken astronomy”. Of course, he was trying to con us again, that he had some vast knowledge of astronomy. It reminded me of the issue. So I linked to the NASA video where they spread the pseudoscience.
So yes, this particular hoax came out of NASA. And because you bow down to authority, you swallow whatever NASA spews.
HInt: NASA is a bloated corrupt bureaucracy. Private companies are developing systems to explore space. Just today, SpaceX had a successful launch of their largest rocket yet. Blue Origin hopes to attempt a manned flight this year. NASA is figuring out the probability that 2018 will be the hottest year ever.
So, continue avoiding reality and continue with your cutesy “Moon visits didn’t happen” nonsense. It makes for great climate comedy.
I need to make another correction.
see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-285347
and the following comment by Halp.
There now appears to be now five geniuses that currently appear to believe in g*’s proposition.
I thought three was improbable but five in this one universe!
Let me out of here! Where do I find the nearest black hole to teleport to some universe, where hopefully sanity prevails?
J Halp-less
After understanding what the concepts were I have to agree with MikeR . The Earth spins on its axis (completes one 360 rotation) in 23 hours and 56 minutes. The solar day is longer because the Earth has moved in its orbit and it takes that amount of time for the same spot on the Earth to orientate with the Sun.
Here is a video that shows MikeR knows what he is talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=DgRf950sGCA
Now I am wondering how this relates to Moon spinning on its axis?
Norman,
The point of the sidereal day versus the solar day is to demonstrate that the rotation needs to be related to an inertial frame of reference (such as the stars, galaxies that make up the universe) rather than against a reference such as the imaginary radial line joining the sun to the earth, which itself is rotating ,and is therefore not an inertial frame of reference.
This is also why an exact calculation of the angular velocity of the earth and used for angular momentum calculations uses the sidereal day and not the solar day.
The same argument holds for the Moon. Against the non -inertial rotating frame of reference the moon does not appear to rotate, but against an inertial frame such as the stars the moon definitely rotates ( as seen all the relevant You Tube videos). It is also explained clearly here –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_day .
G* , I am gratified that you think highly of Elon Musks space program. This rates amongst his other impressive achievements in renewable storage energy and electric cars. Welcome aboard the renewable energy express.
However a word of caution. If you apply to become chief scientist for SpaceX I would delete any social media where you have made bizarre claims regarding the Moons orbital dynamics.
In particular it has been suggested that the Moon maybe a stepping stone for exploration of Mars and other planets due to its low escape velocity and therefore reduced energy requirements .
If you ignore the rotational speed of the Moon , rather than using this as a boost to achieve escape velocity then you might find your space vehicle heading in the wrong direction and then consuming more fuel than necessary.
It could be a real disaster in the making so dont ask me for a reference for the job.
Snape @ February 6, 2018 at 10:32 PM
“The infinitesimal instant of time part, in particular, completely lost me.”
What it means is, the axis of rotation generally changes continuously for a body not in the minimum energy state. If you took a picture of it, and then another a short time afterward, you would see, if you had enough resolution, that the axis had shifted.As the time between your snapshots became closer and closer, it would change less and less, and approach a limit, which would be the instantaneous axis of rotation at that time.
Yes, from the point of view of the stars, the Moon is rotating. And, the point of view of the stars is what is needed to work out the equations of motion using Newton’s Laws.
Dissipation of energy for the Moon’s rotation comes about due to small but persistent deformation under the influence of the Earth’s gravity, especially when the Moon was in a soft, molten state. Like when you bend a coat hanger back and forth, and feel it grow hot due to internal friction – the energy loss is expressed as heat, which radiates away.
Kinetic and potential energy are minimized when the Moon is spinning about its major axis, with the minor axis of inertia aligned to the gradient of Earth’s gravity field. The end minimum energy state is what we have, with the Moon tidally locked, rotating at one revolution per orbit, spinning about the major axis of inertia, with the minor axis aligned to the Earth-Moon direction.
Bart
Thanks, that helps.
mikeR @ February 6, 2018 at 9:56 PM
“I thought three was improbable but five in this one universe!”
Get used to it. It’s only going to get worse when the AGW panic comes a cropper. We are going to have an explosion of pseudoscience, rejecting every scientific advancement of the past several hundred years, and their battle cry will be, “Yeah, well, you sure got that Global Warming thing right, dintja?”
I am angry about it. The AGW warriors borrowed against the full faith and credit of science in general, and went on a speculative spree. CliSci is a cargo cult, sporting the trappings of real science but missing the fundamental essence: the necessity of rigorous verification before pronouncing a verdict.
MikeR and Norman, the reason why the astronomical community use sidereal time is explained in the link. It is useful for keeping track of the positions of stars in the night sky.
Norman asks how it relates to the moon rotation issue. Well, Norman, to claim that the moon rotates on its axis is to conflate the motion of orbiting with the separate motion of rotation of a body on its axis (which can only ever be seen as axial rotation through reference to inertial space). Through the exact same line of thinking/way of looking at it, the Earth rotates 366.25 times on completing one orbit, since the action of completing the orbit is effectively counted as an extra rotation on the Earths axis when looked at this way.
Most people are happy to think of a day as being the full 24 hours (not 23 hours 56 minutes) and that a day is the amount of time taken by the Earth to rotate on its axis. Most people are happy to think of a year as being 365.25 days, and a year as being the amount of time taken for the Earth to complete one orbit of the sun. These same people ought to be happy to think of the moon as not rotating, since that is a continuation of that logic/reference frame.
But, rotators are welcome to be consistent, and see a day as being 23 hours 56 minutes, and a year as being 366.25 of those days…
miker warns: “However a word of caution. If you apply to become chief scientist for SpaceX I would delete any social media where you have made bizarre claims regarding the Moons orbital dynamics.”
Wrong again, miker. In an innovative engineering endeavor such as this, correct thinking is exactly what SpaceX seeks. All the sheep would just end up in clerical tasks, if they even got hired.
And, I’m not a fan of Musk. He’s got tons of money, but strange ideas. It’s the “rock-star syndrome”–too much money, too quickly. Without help, he will likely self-destruct at some point.
The Foucault pendulum measures rotation.
Will it show no rotation the moon?
Will it show no rotation onboard g*e*r*a*ns toy train?
My goodness, how did SpaceX get their rocket off the ground without the expertise of g*? It must have been a miracle.
Maybe when SpaceX get their extra heavy duty Falcon working, they can send g*, Halp and all the other unrecognised geniuses on an interstellar journey to some distant location.
They will have plenty of time to explain their theories regarding thermodynamics and orbital mechanics to a captive audience. I am sure the smart mobile phone sanitisers, account executives,hairdressers, tired TV producers, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, public relations executives and management consultants will be captivated by the experience.
Here’s a visual aid for the moon argument:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Barry, yes that is a good one. Unfortunately g*, Halp and the others, either have serious visual defects or have blinkers on.
Consequently I am sure that it will be ignored like all the YouTube videos that show similar material and links to scientific explanation of tidal locking.
‘Most people are happy to think of a year as being 365.25 days, and a year as being the amount of time taken for the Earth to complete one orbit of the sun.’ ‘These same people ought to be happy to think of the moon as not rotating, since that is a continuation of that logic/reference frame.”
I think ‘most people’ would that say that keeping an object in motion requires a force, but Newton says otherwise.
I think ‘most people’ wont understand the need for a reference frame. But science requires it.
This is good illustration of Halp and G*s attitude toward, and incomprehension of, science. They think science should be based on notions that ‘most people’ including themselves, are happy with.
If science ideas don’t agree with common knowledge or their preconceived notions, then the science must be wrong.
Youre right, Nate…perhaps I should have said *all* people, instead of *most*. Thanks for the correction.
good job missing the point, halp
Norman as a temperature difference, you need to take the temperature difference between the surface and the tropopause.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2017.png
ren
This is more valuable to use actual measured values. IR emission in the atmosphere is like an IR fog. There is not a surface to use, IR is coming from all parts of the atmosphere.
This simplifies it.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5a7900fddf64c.png
The polar vortex has moved over Canada.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00957/0eka27wpizev.png
These diatribes are tiring. “You have nothing”, “Tell me where I’m wrong”, “You are an idiot”, “Liar”, “Link Please”, blah blah blah blah blah.
Too many egos here.
Well, instead of underlining trivial evidence: what about bringing some arguments on desk, so anybody can deduce out of them what kind of ego you belong to.
I did bring an argument. These diatribes are tiring.
I come here to possibly learn something. The argument for or against the posts from Dr. Spencer get lost in the never ending insults to Dr. Spencer and between anonymous and non anonymous posters on this blog.
I speak for myself without animus towards most but against the free flow of insults. There is no merit in them.
And I belong to my own ego.
I did bring an argument.
No you didn’t of course. I meant some meaningful contribution to the scientific discussion.
What would you like to do, Brad? Any idea?
I have inspected a lot of Roy Spencer’s threads before starting to write, and my proposition would be to ban exactly three commenters for the incoming 6 months.
I guess the amount of insults would quickly go down to the usual minimum (e.g. that of WUWT, where the three commenters I’m speaking about would be banned by Watts within a few days).
Norman, Snape, and MikeR, I presume?
No, what am I thinking!? Snape is nowhere near as regularly insulting as David Appell. Make that Norman, Appell, and MikeR.
Mr. or Mrs. La Pangolina, I would recommend some Rules of the Raod, so to speak. However, I doubt Dr. Spencer has the time to police this site to such degree. It appears he believes in the freedom of speech more than others. I respect him for that. He has banned individuals before that became overly combative. (His name shall not be mentioned.)
The anonymity of the internet lends itself to the base of individuals as the invectives and insults can fly without consequence from Dr. Spencer, mostly.
In the end, what sort of “punishment” can be placed on insulting individuals in a blog on the internet? Not much. Just more verbal insults from others while the insulting party leans back in his or her chair and gleefully smiles at the screen.
I for one don’t believe a mole fraction of CO2 that man has placed in the atmosphere is catastrophically heating the earth. I don’t get the physics that a cold object can warm a warmer object. I did not study physics. I’m just a common man trying learn and Dr. Spencer’s site has helped me and I appreciate him.
And I am not Bart.
“Road”
Brad, please accept my apology, about confusing your with someone else. My blunder, sorry!
Brad
Since you do not like the insults I will refrain from using them. They are not necessary but g*e*r*a*n seems to like them.
Here is a sample:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285196
g*e*r*a*n likes to be insulted. He enjoys it so that so why not give the person what they want?
Since it does bother you and it reduces your pleasure in reading at this site I can just remove all insults and stick to the established science.
Halp,
Sorry my tolerance of fools is limited so I would be quite happy to be banned, as long as the bans applied sensibly.
My suggestion is for the “hilarious” one who frequents this site to be banned as well. He certainly creates an awful of antagonism,which appears to be very deliberate, with his catch phrases.
I think also the commentator who appears to claim to be a paragon of virtue but has used the following material in his or her comments should also be considered.
These comments in the past month or so have included –
“Troglodyte”, “yelping” , “tedious liar”,”Elie”,”shameless disgrace”, “My moms dead. You killed her.””infect GHE threads and lie”, “sociopathic bore”, “As long as the police dont find those bodies, you will be fine”, “since all the people impersonated (with the exception of Dr Roy) were assh0lesso what?”.
Well Halp, what do you think?
I think Ive never claimed to be a paragon of virtue, and I also think I dont mind if Im banned either.
What seems to happen here is, a (very) few honest people tell the others how it is. Then a group of dishonest people (either just dishonest with themselves, or dishonest with everyone around them) repeatedly distort these arguments, and repeat the same misunderstandings/misinterpretations over and over. They never learn, take on board new information, or ever change their position in the slightest. This then means that the honest people are forced to simply repeat themselves. This then goes on and on, in a perpetual cycle. This cycle has not once been broken in the short time I have been commenting, and I cant imagine it changing in the future, but I do appreciate very much the time and effort the honest people put in, despite this. Im not sure I have the patience, however, to be in this for the long haul, as it were…but we shall see. But in any case thats why Im not particularly bothered about a ban.
I would say though that I dont think Dr Roy has the time or inclination to get involved in peoples petty squabbles, which is understandable, so I think the appeals for bans people seem to be making are a bit silly.
Norm gets is wrong, AGAIN: “g*e*r*a*n likes to be insulted.”
Norm, nobody likes to be insulted. It’s just that you have no other tools to get at me. You hate it when I show up you pseudoscience. But, instead of trying to improve, you choose to try to “get even”. In the last few months, you have ranted and raved, in comment after comment, sounding like a rabid chihuahua.
All because you don’t have the facts and logic to win a debate.
Excuse me if I find your antics HILARIOUS.
g*e*r*a*n
Sorry but you are wrong. I support all my claims with established science. I link you often to empirical data that supports what I state.
You do not support any of your claims. That is quite a difference.
Okay it you don’t like insults than you quit yourself. No more pet names for other posters. Eliminate the Conman. Eliminate it all and support your claims. That would be a great start.
You do not win anything in science if you support nothing.
YOU: “All because you dont have the facts and logic to win a debate.”
I have all the facts and logic to win every and all debates with you. You do not debate in good faith.
I have asked you several times to support you statements and you never do.
If you do not like insults than you must end them yourself. And if you want to debate science then do so with supporting evidence.
J Halp-less
You have correctly stated what you and g*e*r*a*n do on this blog.
YOU: “What seems to happen here is, a (very) few honest people tell the others how it is. Then a group of dishonest people (either just dishonest with themselves, or dishonest with everyone around them) repeatedly distort these arguments, and repeat the same misunderstandings/misinterpretations over and over.”
Yes as an honest investigator who really likes science I tell things as they are in established science and provide links for all my claims, supported very well by established science. People like you or g*e*r*a*n continue to repeat your misunderstandings over and over and never will support even one of the claims you make.
Yes you seem to know exactly what you are doing.
Extremely predictable, Norman; hence why I was sure to point out that the honest commenters were in the minority. There are about 15 or so relatively interchangeable avatars (yourself included) that just repeat the exact same misunderstandings/misinterpretations of the honest commenters arguments month after month. They still ask the exact same rhetorical questions, and bring up the same false analogies, month after month. It does not appear to be in good faith.
Norm, you do NOT support all your claims. You just ramble endlessly, hoping to win a debate by pounding on your keyboard. You will use every trick you can conjure up to avoid the truth.
You don’t know physics. You have no formal education or any practical experience. That’s why you get so confused by some of the links you find.
A perfect example of your avoidance of truth is the Moon/axis issue. You did a quick Internet search and found that institutions believed the Moon is rotating on its axis, so you went with it. You will not consider the facts and logic. You have closed your mind.
If you don’t want to be called “con-man”, quit trying to con us.
g*e*r*a*n
Let’s break this down.
YOU: “Norm, you do NOT support all your claims”
Okay, ball is in your court. Which scientific claim have I made that I have not supported?
YOU: “You dont know physics.”
Incorrect. I know physics quite well. I can read and learn most concepts in physics. You can make such a claim, but again you will not support such a claim. I had a year of College general physics and I also took a class at UNO Engineering Statics.
YOU (I think this is your biggest failed declaration): “A perfect example of your avoidance of truth is the Moon/axis issue. You did a quick Internet search and found that institutions believed the Moon is rotating on its axis, so you went with it. You will not consider the facts and logic. You have closed your mind.
No, not the case at all. I have linked you to numerous videos showing why the Moon rotates on its axis. I have linked you to the established definition of “axis of rotation”.
I have addressed all you points on the subject and debunked everyone. I even linked you to a person who did your table top experiment with cork and strings and showed you, that if you watch the video, he rotates the cork on its axis in order to keep its same face pointing toward the center. That is logic and facts. It would be you that have the aversion toward facts and logic and seem to have a most closed mind.
Okay that kind of demonstrates that you are not correct in any point so far you have made about me.
J Halp-less
YOU: “There are about 15 or so relatively interchangeable avatars (yourself included) that just repeat the exact same misunderstandings/misinterpretations of the honest commenters arguments month after month.”
Okay I am game, which honest arguments have you given that I have misinterpreted or misunderstood?
If you can’t specify, then your point is baseless. I need some solid material to prove your case is flawed and misleading.
I’m correct in every point, especially about your pounding endlessly on your keyboard.
G*,
You have 96 comments in this thread currently compared to 32 by Norman and you carry on about Norman pounding on the keyboard!
You also generated over 400 more comments and 3,000 more words than Norman in the comments to last months Sydney Heat… blog entry, according to the figures of Svante see-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284987 .
N: If you cant specify, then your point is baseless
J: Yes, thats a good example of the sort of thing you guys regularly attempt. If on the off-chance you are genuinely searching for an example, try: any response from you to any argument I have made relating to the GHE.
“word count”, miker, “word count”.
pango…”I guess the amount of insults would quickly go down to the usual minimum (e.g. that of WUWT, where the three commenters Im speaking about would be banned by Watts within a few days)”.
Watts does not have to endure the ridiculous claims put forward by alarmists on this blog. I don’t insult people who reply to me civilly with or without a scientific argument, I insult pompous asses who set themselves up as authority figures without at least proving they have a clue what they are on about.
When I reply to an argument using a sound scientific rebuttal and I am dismissed as a liar, stupid, or a conspiracy theorist, I tend to reply with insults. It’s an expression of being fed up with the reduction of science to personal opinion that contradicts science.
If science was cut and dried, as many here presume, that would be another matter. It’s not and it does not always make sense. Being spoon fed crap at a university does not make one an expert. Universities are prone to paradigms, many of them seriously questionable.
More recently, some scientists have been replacing gravity with a stupid notion of space-time. They have even tied the theory of black holes to the absurd theory. Space-time involves a man made ordering of space via coordinate systems invented by humans and a totally false forth dimension of time, invented by humans. None of it exists other than in mathematical equations and the human mind.
I’m sorry, when someone offers that crap up as a reality all I can say to him is, “You’re an idiot”. I am equally sorry that I’d have to call Hawking an idiot, both for his theories on the Big Bang and climate. Someone has to tell the emperor he is naked.
Bart claims: “I come here to possibly learn something.”
Bart, I tried to teach you that the Moon does not rotate on its axis. But, you had such a closed mind, you resorted to insulting me.
If you sincerely want to learn, consider the facts and logic presented.
You replied to the wrong guy. And, sorry no. The Moon absolutely does rotate relative to inertial space nominally about its major axis of inertia. I won’t further dignify the question.
Thanks for correcting me, Bart. And apologies to Brad.
But, I did get it right that you cannot understand the Moon/axis issue. The Moon does not rotate on its axis. What you fail to understand is that there are TWO independent, distinct, different motions. One motion is “orbiting” (which is what you correctly see as “rotating relative to inertial space”. The second motion is “rotating on its axis”, which the Moon is not doing.
See here, for simple explanation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285247
bart…”The Moon absolutely does rotate relative to inertial space nominally about its major axis of inertia. I wont further dignify the question”.
Bart…you need to be seriously careful with inertial systems and human perspective, especially when it comes to illusions offered by the human mind. If the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth’s gravitational field, it is not rotating on an axis. Any inertial axis is imaginary and rotation around it is an illusion.
With the Earth-Moon system, you might as well have a solid spoke through the Earth and the Moon. The spoke would keep the Moon’s same face to us all of the time, proving it cannot turn on its own axis.
If the Moon has even the slightest rotational angular momentum, sooner or later we’d see the dark side of the Moon. The notion that it’s angular momentum is synchronized with its orbit around the Earth is too far out to contemplate.
Gordon Robertson
What basis have you for your claim? What science is it based upon. Sounds more like an opinion. Do you have anything to back it up?
YOU: “If the Moon has even the slightest rotational angular momentum, sooner or later wed see the dark side of the Moon. The notion that its angular momentum is synchronized with its orbit around the Earth is too far out to contemplate.”
You can actually see more of the Moon because it rotates at a set rate but it does not orbit in a perfect circle. So at times the orbital velocity is faster or slower than the rotational velocity allowing a little bit of the “far side” to show.
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-much-of-the-moon-can-we-see-from-earth-lunar-libration
Gordon Robertson @ February 6, 2018 at 9:43 PM
“The notion that its angular momentum is synchronized with its orbit around the Earth is too far out to contemplate.”
It is synchronized and it isn’t luck. It is a well-known and understood outcome of energy dissipation and interaction of the mass distribution with the gravitational gradient.
Hundreds of communications satellites in orbit right now use the principal to align their antennas to face the Earth using passive actuation, which has the twin benefit of being cheap to implement, and being assured to work as dictated by the inexorable forces of nature.
See “gravity gradient stabilization” and “libration damping” to learn about how the gradient of the field sets up the potential for synchronization, and how energy is bled off to settle into the minimum energy, synchronized configuration.
B: It is synchronized and it isnt luck. It is a well-known and understood outcome of energy dissipation and interaction of the mass distribution with the gravitational gradient.
J: Yes, tidal locking, as Gordon acknowledged.
brad…”And I belong to my own ego”
Who is the I and who is the ego? Think about it, it get’s interesting.
What makes me laugh is this endless need to bring all warming in relation to solely El Nino, as does repeatedly commenter Richard M.
If you look at Roy Spencer’s bar chart
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/december/12_2017_tlt_update_bar.png
you easily can see that since march 2012, not one of the anomalies has been negative. Seventy months in sequence.
And all this warming should be due to El Nino? Why has there been no La Nina all the time?
Sorry, this is simply as ridiculous as to pretend warming would be due to CO2 increase.
What would be more interesting is this: how is the relation between ocean heat content, sea surface temperature, ENSO signals and lower tropospheric temperatures over a few decades?
Why now is the La Nina?
Why now is the La Nina?
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.2.5.2018.gif
ren
under tropospheric La Nina signals I understand negative temperature anomalies. From that we actually are still far away.
Time-longitude section of SST anomalies (5oN-5oS).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/ssttlon5_c.gif
You are wrong because La Nina has a strong influence on the circulation and temperature drop first in North America, then in Europe.
Show me a valuable source, ren!
I mean: not a simple picture out of which you can deduce anywhat and its inverse as well.
The problem with you is that like Salvatore del Prete you mostly talk about short term weather aspects, and not about their synthesis into climate.
The synthesis will be in March, if the winter ends.
I don’t speak about the incoming march, ren. I speak about the five last years, and the absence of any negative anomaly in the UAH6.0 record during that time.
Do you understand me now?
Anomaly is the magnetic activity of the Sun in this solar cycle.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
Here you also have the signal of La Nina.
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TMT_v40/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TMT_Tropics_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.short.png
That is why in February snow will fall in England, France, Spain and Italy.
The Great Lakes freeze.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/opp8xvajsvwu.png
https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/ncast/lice-00.gif
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/nearly-frozen-lake-superior-ma/23439393
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/19/4-of-the-5-great-lakes-about-to-freeze-over/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/business/deep-freeze-on-great-lakes-halts-cargo-shipments.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140228160624.htm
Need more?
Need more?
https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/compare_years/
And… where are 2014, 1984, 1979 ???
ren, are your weather reports meant to signal something about climate? Or are they just weather reports, sort of a hobby thing?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/06/climate/flood-toxic-chemicals.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
…
“Flooding nationwide is likely to worsen because of climate change, an exhaustive scientific report by the federal government warned last year. Heavy rainfall is increasing in intensity and frequency.
At the same time, rising sea levels combined with more frequent and extensive flooding from coastal storms like hurricanes may increase the risk to chemical facilities near waterways.”
.
“President Barack Obama signed an executive order in 2015 requiring planners of federally funded buildings, roads and other infrastructure to account for the impact of possible flooding from rising sea levels or more extreme precipitation. President Trump rescinded those rules last year.”
There’s no doubt about it – that guy’s a genius.
Well, I wouldn’t make that assumption. Obviously smarter than the other guy worrying about monsters under the bed, though.
profp…”President Barack Obama signed an executive order in 2015….”
Obama was one of the worst US presidents ever. Since his hand-picked successor, Hillary Clinton, was beaten at the polls, embarrassing the media who predicted a Clinton landslide, both the Democrats and the media have held up the business of the US for over a year with cheap innuendo about Russian interference in the US election.
The forecast of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere (on February 11) indicates that the arctic air will remain in North America, as is the high pressure over northern Europe.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00958/ho9pns9tl90i.png
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00958/s5c3827wivoi.png
The current range of arctic air in North America.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/c8aed627xz8t.png
Snow falls in Luxemburg.
https://www.insecam.org/en/view/237507/
Sorry, in Luxembourg.
It is always interesting for me to watch work done by those people who know how to extract various things by regression out of time series.
In 2011 Grant Foster alias Tamino and Stefan Rahmstorf did a first trial of extracting ENSO and volcano influences out of a surface temperature time series.
In 2014 Benjamin Santer and others did the same job, but in a more interesting context: the lower troposphere temperature evaluation RSS3.3 LT, quite similar to Roy Spencer’s UAH6.0.
They computed a residual global trend estimate of 0.085 C per decade (out of the original 0.125, i.e. nearly 70 %).
*
A few weeks ago, Grant Foster published about having done the same job again, but this time with a lot of temperature data (surface and lower troposphere), and including the extraction of solar cycle influences:
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/compare.jpg?w=768&h=510
It is best to compare the graph above with this below, showing a few of the series unchanged (Tamino took it from the RealCimate site, but anybody could download the data and construct a similar graph using e.g. Excel to be convinced it is correct):
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/cmp_surf_sat.png?w=768&h=532
(Care: the baseline chosen here was 1979-1988. But as all we know: changing its baseline doesn’t change a series nor its trend.)
Unfortunately, Tamino did not publish, for these seven temperature series, the residual trends one could then have compared with the originals.
*
Another quite interesting experiment concerning the relation between ENSO (El Nino & la Nina) and the global temperature in the lower troposphere is this:
https://i0.wp.com/postmyimage.com/img2/581_image.png
Courtesy Olof R.
It is the graphic comparison of the time series obtained from the full 2.5 degree grid of UAH6.0 with the time series obtained by taking no more than 18 (yes eighteen) evenly distributed cells among the grid.
Here we see that though ENSO signals are computed on the base of a very small sea surface area (5S-5N, 170W-120W), together with the pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin, the phenomenon observed in the troposphere must be of much more global nature.
La Pangolia
You write, “the phenomenon observed in the troposphere must be of much more global nature.”
One of the 18 cells appears to be in the nino region. That makes up 5.5% of the data set. If that area had a large anomaly for many months on end (the rest of the world being average), don’t you think the accumulated energy could account for the el nino bumps we see in the TLT?
Snape
Shouldn’t you think the other way round?
I.e.: How is it possible that
– the average of 9,504 cells gives for 1998 nearly the same value as that of 18?
– doubling the distribution up to 36 cells gives, as mentioned by Olof R, again nearly the same result?
La pangolina
Are you otherwise known as Bindidon?
It’s very interesting that only 18 cells can be such a good sample for the whole planet, but I don’t understand what you see is the connection to ENSO.
The warm air from an el nino event gets transported all over the world and troposphere by wind. It seems like this would influence the 18 cells just as much as the 9,504 cells.
No I’m not Bindidon, but I know him.
*
The warm air from an el nino event gets transported all over the world and troposphere by wind.
*
Any proof for that? Did you ever record any convection or advection streams over the planet, supporting your claim?
binny…”No Im not Bindidon, but I know him”.
You also write like him, whine like him, and reason like him. I’ll just presume you are lying.
“It is always interesting for me to watch work done by those people who know how to extract various things by regression out of time series.”
You won’t find them where you are looking. Regressions are only as good as the model assumptions built into them.
A typical ‘Bart’ zero value remark.
Looks at a first glance intelligent, knowledgeable, but… so terribly noncommittal.
Perhaps you crave certainty where there is none, which makes you easy prey for those who claim to know the answers.
pango…”It is always interesting for me to watch work done by those people who know how to extract various things by regression out of time series”.
Why do you pollute this scientific blog with the trash conjured by the likes of Rahmstorf and Tamino? Any idiot can crunch numbers and fudge data to produce the opposite of what is going on.
As usual: Robertson writes insults against scientists instead of science.
If there is one person polluting this scientific site with permanent trash, than it is you: Gordon Robertson.
If you were publishing your trash at Anthony Watt’s WUWT more than once, you would catch a hefty stroke from people like Willis Eschenbach, ristvan or Javier (three intelligent skeptics) and the next time Anthony Watts sees your dumb nonsense, he bans you forever, Robertson!
Only cowards publish insults on a site lacking moderation, Robertson!
So, by your own logic, you are a coward.
halp…”So, by your own logic, you are a coward”.
We knew that already. He used to be Bindidon and left us with wailing and gnashing of teeth since he could not cope with people who actually know science. Now he is back as pangolina but still whining.
Lake Superior will soon freeze.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00958/gtp0eq6scwfo.png
During fall 2017, NOAA gave a long range temperature forecast for the next winter:
– harsh in Northern America and Russia, especially Siberia;
– mild in Western Europe.
It seems that they are pretty good in forecasting.
Last night we experienced in this winter 2017/18 the very first night somewhat below 0 C (-5 C, horribly cold huh).
*
And freezed Niagara Falls, together with far below -50 C at night a few weeks ago in Eastern Siberia (near Ojmjakon) confirm this.
It is so cold at all these places during harsh winters that the absolute temperatures measured by UAH in the LT keep above those measured at surface by the GHCN stations.
Time series of weekly SST anomalies for the 4 Nio regions.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/ssta_c.gif
It’s not unusual here in Alaska to have temperatures go from -20f to 50 above in 24 hours time. So obviously having trouble believing 1 degree warming over 100 years, is that big of a deal. And that’s assuming it’s not natural. We’re still in an overlying ice age and seriously doubt anything man does will offset it kicking our asses relatively soon geologically speaking. In fact, the brain trust that thinks a trace trace gas (aco2) is going to be our downfall, should seriously start figuring out a way to spread dust onto the ice sheets to prevent the next ice age. I’m not following the debate that closely anymore having realized how preposterous the claim a trace gas is warming the planet is especially when last I checked Antarctica was at record ice, Greenland recovering 30% and Arctic sea ice extent up 40% over 5 years? I could be off on those. Speaking of the brain trust, why are they here on Dr Roy’s blog making irrelevant points unless they have a doubt themselves? They’re coming because they know how contaminated the others data sets are. Uah is like their baby blanket.
when last I checked Antarctica was at record ice, Greenland recovering 30% and Arctic sea ice extent up 40% over 5 years? I could be off on those.
These are perhaps the extremest cherry-picks out there, and yes, they are way off.
Greenland ice sheet has not recovered by 30%. Last year was the first year in the instrumental record of the Greenland ice sheet that the ice sheet may have had a positive net balance by the end of the melt season/year (still waiting for figures), and it was not remotely 30%.
Antarctic sea ice reached a record maximum extent in 2014. In 2017 Antarctic sea ice reached a record minimum extent. 2017 was also the lowest annual extent. Has it been 3 years since you last checked?
Arctic sea ice achieved its lowest minimum in the 39-year instrumental record in 2012. Some coincidence that you used this as the start point for your calculation! The sea ice has declined by 50% over the full record.
Global sea ice has been at or near record lows for much of the past 2 years.
https://tinyurl.com/y9rxj3uv
Pangolina has posted latest figures for the Greenland ice sheet. Seems the sheet didn’t ‘recover’ last year.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/mass/Grace_curve_La_EN_20170100.png
darwin…”why are they here on Dr Roys blog making irrelevant points unless they have a doubt themselves?”
That’s the whole point. Looking deeper, none of the alarmist blogs, realclimate, skepticalscience, desmogblog, etc., will allow dissenting POVs.
Yet these trolls feel justified in trash-talking Roy and UAH.
I don’t know where you are getting your ice data, but lately, the Arctic sea-ice is running below the -2 sigma range for 1981-2010.
https://imgur.com/aAm418U
On the other end of the Earth, the Antarctic sea-ice was up in 2013, but this year, it’s running below the -2 sigma range.
Darwin Wyatt says:
February 6, 2018 at 10:29 AM
… especially when last I checked Antarctica was at record ice, Greenland recovering 30% and Arctic sea ice extent up 40% over 5 years?
*
Where and when did you ‘check’ that all, Darwin Wyatt?
I downloaded today the Sidads data
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/
for Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent, and here are the departures from the monthly means of 1981-2010.
For the period 1979-2018:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1517947045193.jpg
For the period 2013-2018 (your last five years):
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1517947102400.jpg
Some trends? Here they are, in Mkm2 / decade.
1. Arctic
– 1979-2018: -0.55 +- 0.02
– 2013-2018: -2.20 +- 0.39
2. Antarctic
– 1979-2018: +0.14 +- 0.02
– 2013-2018: -5.17 +- 0.48
I lack time to download and evaluate data for Greenland’s ice sheet, but I would wonder if it would tell us anything different from the stuff above.
No need for any evaluation of Greenland ice sheet data.
Here it is, in a nice format:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/mass/Grace_curve_La_EN_20170100.png
*
Greenland recovering 30% ???
Theyre coming because they know how contaminated the others data sets are.
Are these Danish scientist producing contaminated data, Darwin Wyatt ??? Are you sure?
la pango…or is that Norman the Impersonator as well?
“I lack time to download and evaluate data for Greenlands ice sheet, but I would wonder if it would tell us anything different from the stuff above”.
You are likely using data from the Mann-Steig study of Antarctica in which they concluded Antarctica had warmed since 1950. Turns out they had interpolated warming on the extreme north of the Peninsula to the entire continent. One of the stations they cited had been under four feet of snow.
That’s the same Mann who seriously embarrassed himself, the IPCC, and Al Gore, with his MBB98 study (Hockey Schtick) claim that the 1990s showed unprecedented warming over the previous 1000 years. His statistical analysis turned out to be a joke and when his proxy data showed warming in the 1960s while real temps were rising, no problem for Mann et al. They simply clipped off the offending data and spliced in real data (hide the decline).
Like the Antarctic site that was under 4 feet of snow, Mann et al used one tree for a proxy to cover an entire century. The National Academy of Science told him he could not use the pine bristlecone that he used for the 20th century.
There are a lot of comedians on the alarmist side of the fence. Trenberth lamented, away from prying ears, that the warming has stopped. When found out via Climategate, he quickly back-peddled and said, “Oh, the heat is hiding in the oceans”.
La P: “I lack time to download and evaluate data for Greenlands ice sheet, but I would wonder if it would tell us anything different from the stuff above.”
Gordon Robertson: “You are likely using data from the Mann-Steig study of Antarctica..”
Uh…. Antarctica is on the other side of the world from Greenland. That’s a pretty awesome geography fail.
And how’s the reading comprehension – the data are from Danish institutes. Steig works in America.
Fiction writing could be a lucrative avenue for you, Gordon.
Were the Danish scientist producing contaminated data in the first half of the 20th century when it was largely ice free? We’re in an ice age and my windows are still frozen shut. Cons up dip sticks. ACO2 obviously the least of our problems. Next fake crisis please
What data has largely ice-free conditions across the Arctic in the early 20th Cenutry? None that I’ve heard of.
Where are you getting this information?
barry…”What data has largely ice-free conditions across the Arctic in the early 20th Cenutry?”.
barry doesn’t like evidence. Watch him turn this into a red herring argument.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
“None that Ive heard of. Where are you getting this information?”
No surprise. Barry had not heard that the IPCC claimed in 2013 that no warming had occurred during the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012. Called it a warming hiatus.
Barry had not heard that NOAA had slashed over 75% of its surface data, replacing it with data synthesized from the less than 25% remaining data via interpolation and homogenization in a climate model.
Barry had not heard the satellite telemetry covers right to the surface using several adjacent overlapping channels.
Barry had not heard that heat cannot be transferred both ways between objects of different temperatures, even though the 2nd law has been in place for the better part of two centuries.
He sure is a Wriggler.
Just as I thought. No “ice free” Arctic and no data.
red herring argument
Nope, right on point – largely ice free arctic was the claim.
As for red herrings, you’re the king. We’re talking about Arctic ice and you say….
The IPCC claimed in 2013 that no warming had occurred during the 15 year period from 1998 2012…
…NOAA had slashed over 75% of its surface data….
…satellite telemetry covers right to the surface using several adjacent overlapping channels…
….heat cannot be transferred both ways
The irony is hilarious. Not to mention you got pretty much all of that wrong.
And why have you ignored the substance of all the replies to you?
barry, for someone that pretends to know so much, you sure ask a lot of questions. You almost sound like davie.
G*r*n
I evesdrop on this blog for quite a long time, but no longer can restrain from reporting you are a fool.
Well Dimwitty, it takes one to know one.
Dimwittys are not known for being smart, but we easily see the people who are more foolish.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285439
Yes, it appears the con-man and the 12-year-old both like switching identities.
It kinda fits. ..
You reveal yourselfs to be fools. Commenter Snape pretends he was me and you are gullible and believe!
Darn it again. That was supposed to be Artemis.
Kids, these days. ..
Agreed. Commenter Snape says confusing things about me. Pay him no mind.
I don’t think Wyatt has the goods, and he probably welcomes your irrelevant distraction so he can slink away from the rebuttals.
1. Why do you, Darwin Wyatt, mention this bloody ACO2?
2. We are in all but an ice age (it should have resumed 11,000 years ago but didn’t at all yet).
3. What do your frozen windows have to do in this dispute?
4. Everybody interested person knows that the Arctic was often ice-free between 1880 and 1940.
Some meaningful argument ahead?
“4. Everybody interested person knows that the Arctic was often ice-free between 1880 and 1940.”
I’m very much an interested person, and that is sheer baloney.
“Ice-free?” Come on.
Boooh. I didn’t mean the entire Arctic of course, but small parts of it. It was a bait for coolistas, don’t mind.
Ah, sorry for stepping on the bait.
massimo…”f the system is the universe with the North fixed by a very far star as Norman suggested in his compass example, then g*e*r*a*n is perfectly wrong because in this case the system is euclidean”.
I have to disagree, Massimo. Rotation on an axis suggests angular momentum. Observing the Earth-Moon system from a different perspective does not give the Moon a rotational angular momentum. It is not turning under its own steam, it is turning only because it is tidally-locked to the Earth as it revolves about the Earth.
An argument being posited here is that any movement about an inferred central point is rotation. It’s not. In physics, the meaning of rotation clearly implies angular momentum. Momentum implies a constant velocity with no applied tangential force.
A car on a track has an applied tangential force and it is held to the track by friction. With a planet orbiting the Sun, there is no applied force other than gravitational force holding it in orbit. Without that force the planet would fly off tangentially. That is not the case with a car moving around a track.
ps. let’s not forget the driver and the steering mechanism. It is the driver’s skill with manipulating the steering wheel and the tire resistance that keeps the car from flying off the track at high speed. That’s far different than a planet gravitationally locked to the Sun or an object rotation about an axle while constrained by another member.
Hi Gordon,
Yes, maybe I was not clear, but if you read my reply to g*e*r*a*n above, I already explained that I was in agreement with him (and you).
I was just highlighting that in an euclidean geometry system the Moon seems (seems) rotate around its axis even if it doesnt of course.
In fact, if the Earth gravity is removed from the system (the centripetal force) the centrifugal force “fired” the Moon tangential to the orbital path without any angular momentum on its own axis.
Above I also explained that the proof that the Moon is not rotating on its axis stands in the way we currently measure the Earth-Moon distance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
Because if the Moon was also rotating those measurements would fail.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“Because if the Moon was also rotating those measurements would fail.”
No. If the moon did not rotate, we would see the so-called “dark side” and those measurements would fail. You have it completely backwards.
Hi SkepticGoneWild,
No, you missed my point.
If it was just a question of seeing the “dark side”, it could that the moon very slowly was still rotating (the perception of view of the Moon face from the Earth surface can’t allow us to evaluate a little rotation, if not in hundreds of years), while a laser aimed to a mirror requires that the angle between the laser beam and the mirror surface is perfectly aligned to get it back and compute the distance by it’s delay.
Have a great day.
Massimo
No Massimo,
The mirrors on the moon are retro-reflectors that are insensitive to the orientation of the surface of the moon and also allow laser measurements from different regions of the earth, see –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector
I also think Massimo should look at the following illustration (thank you Barry) and decide which version is correct –
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
If Massimo you are still uncertain then maybe the material in the following comment and the two subsequent comments may be useful, see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-280049.
SGW still doesn’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
And, NEVER will!
Hilarious.
Hi SkepticGoneWild,
I missed that point.
I didn’t read that they used retro-reflectors.
Anyways it seems to me that you confuse the apparent rotation of the Moon with its orbiting path.
An orbiting object around a bigger mass object don’t rotate around its axis.
Long time ago when radio remote controls were not still available for model aircrafts and a rope was used to keep the model flying on a circular path. Freeing the rope, the model never rotated on its axis leaving its circular “orbit”, it just flew straight tangent to its previous circular path, and the one who held the rope were always facing the same part of the model.
But, of course in case one saw that system from a vertical perspective, then you apparently seen the plane rotating on its axis.
Have a great day.
Massimo
OMG
there are still some people playing with those tethered aircraft models!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19LumXm4z4s
and there is a world championship too!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAB0uPxQo2E
I remember that I was 7 or 8 years old when I went to the models air -field nearby my small town with a schoolmate and his grandfather which was a pioneer in that hobby.
What I remember well it was that the friend’s grandfather did it only that time because he got dizziness and nausea from that first experience, so turned to naval modeling for a while until the RC technology became affordable
Anyways, my compliments to those three australian “guys” of the first video who rotate those way without any apparent equilibrium issue.
: – )
massimo…”Yes, maybe I was not clear, but if you read my reply to g*e*r*a*n above, I already explained that I was in agreement with him (and you)”.
Massimo…sorry for taking you out of context. I was not being disrespectful, I know it comes down to perspective.
Glad you agree in general.
Something similar happens as we stand on a tangential plane on Earth observing the Sun. The Sun appears to cross the sky after sunrise and then sets in west. Of course, the appearance of a sunrise is actually the eastern horizon dipping below the Sun.
I agree with your centripetal force but we were taught in engineering that no force exists in a tangential direction, only momentum. I don’t recall how we worked it out but we had two vectors, one normal (centripetal) pointing from moon to Earth and one tangential. The orbit becomes the resultant of the two.
If you cut the normal force the moon would fly off tangentially, as you claim.
In such a freebody diagram, as it stands with the moon tidally locked, there would be no vectors for angular momentum.
Came across this:
http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/gravity.htm
At bottom of page they offer an explanation.
Hi Gordon,
don’t worry, we are here for friendly discuss and sometime we misunderstand each other (this refers especially to me, because I’ve the damned language barrier to overcome).
Anyways, I think that sometimes we should take these arguments easier. Lowering the tone of the discussions (this consideration is not about you).
Have a great day.
Massimo
Snape
The thread above was getting too long (not sure about how you do it, I have to go to the top to click the reply and then I have to scroll through several posts to get to the one I want to respond to).
YOU: “Axis of rotation (AOR) has nothing to do with the stars or any kind of external frame of reference. Its a fixed line WITHIN an object that all the other parts of the object move around.
Astronomers might use stars to DETERMINE where the earths or moons AOR is, but it still exists independently within each body.
The cucumber slice rotates around a fixed line within the toothpick, regardless of whether the toothpick is moving or stationary.”
What I was trying to do was show the difference between rotating around something (like a center axis) and rotating around an object’s axis.
If you stand on a merry-go-round and face the center (like the Moon does with respect to Earth) and someone spins you. You rotate around the center of the merry-go-round but you do not rotate around your own axis of rotation. You do not have to move to rotate. That is what I am trying to describe when I say your axis of rotation is rotating as well as you are so you do not actually rotate around this axis.
If you are off the merry-go-round but still move around it facing the center (like an orbit around the center) then you must pivot your body around to keep facing the center as you orbit around this center, now you will be rotating around your axis.
I could be wrong about this. It does not have much to do with climate science. It is an interesting side topic, I would like to see it resolved. It is not as complex as climate science so at least it should be solvable with current knowledge.
Norman
I think the motion would be the same for a person riding on the merrygoround, facing the center, as with a person right behind him on the ground who is having to walk sideways but also facing the center. One gets exercise, the other doesn’t.
I picture the axis of rotation as a line running up through each person. If you taped a pointer on the side of the line (parallel to the ground) that pointed due north, it would continue to point due north even as the merrygoround spins. The person’s body would then rotate around this fixed axis.
In other words, even though the line of axis is being moved in a circular orbit, it would not rotate with respect to the surroundings….only the body would rotate.
Snape
The way I read your post is that the pointer would indicate the merry-go-round is spinning but not the person on it, they are spinning with the surface but not rotating independently. The fixed axis the person on the merry-go-round is the center of the device. When you walk around it you have two rotations. Your body must rotate on its own axis to maintain move around it (or else you would go off in a straight line if you don’t rotate) and you also rotate around the center axis. When on the device you only rotate around the center, your body is not rotating around itself, you are not moving on your own, your feet do not move as you ride.
Anyway it is interesting. Again I like debating with you much more than some others.
Norman
My post was probably confusing. I’m in agreement with you. As the person orbits around the center of the merrygoround, they rotate but their axis of rotation does not rotate. It remains directionally fixed. That’s what I was trying to show with the pointer.
Our disagreement is that I don’t think it matters if you are riding in an orbit or on the ground walking sideways (facing the center). The basic motion is the same either way.
Anyway, I’m getting tired of thinking about this off – topic subject. It’s entirely the “no spinners” fault.
Snape
It is really off topic. Maybe some of the Flat-Earthers will invade this blog to teach us their science and claim we all have closed minds. We can link them to the video feed from the Space-X launch and the orbit of the Red Tesla with many cameras but they will claim Photoshop conspiracy.
You cannot change a person’s belief with evidence. Sometimes I feel like I am talking to Flat-Earth people, you can link them directly to actual tests, empirical data, and solid science but they will reject it all or claim I do not understand it. When I ask what I do not understand, silence, no answers. It was declared I did not understand the material and the declaration of this makes it a factual reality. Evidence is lacking on the other side. Declarations are all they seem to want to offer.
I was hoping to get into more into valid scientific debate about the AGW effects and if computer models are a valid form of scientific research and how good are they really.
When people can’t grasp even simple heat transfer concepts that are not only well established scientifically but actually used in real world applications and everything works fine. The equations you find on the MIT site work in real world applications of heat transfer. That is why they teach the material. Yet there are those who argue against it.
One big claim. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states a colder object cannot lead to a higher equilibrium temperature of a powered object. No where does the 2nd Law make this claim. It only gives a direction for heat transfer, not amount or rate of heat flow between objects.
I have linked to a test of powered lab equipment that is warmer when the cold air around it is warmer. Clearly showing, without slightest doubt, that cold will alter the temperature of powered hot. Does not matter, real evidence goes against the engrained belief and so it will not affect the nature of that belief system. Really sad, but not much can be done about it.
con-man, here you are conning yourself, AGAIN.
You can’t even understand the simple concept that a toy train is not rotating on its axis as it orbits on a circular track.
You can’t understand “cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
And, the funniest part, you believe you are right, and everyone else is wrong!
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
I have supplied empirical evidence to clearly show you that cold can warm hot. You reject reality and then make an unfounded and unsupported declaration that “You cant understand cold can NOT warm hot.”
Cold can change the equilibrium temperature of powered hot items. What is so hard for you to understand about that. It is reality. I can’t help it if empirical data does not change your mind.
I guess in the world of pseudoscience that you like, reality is what you believe it to be. In real science evidence is needed to support claims. I have provided massive amounts of evidence. You, on the other hand, have provided none.
And, the funniest part, you believe you are right, and everyone else is wrong!
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
I guess if you have nothing of value or support for anything just repeat. Maybe it is better the second time. You seem to think so, I doubt most people would think this is a valid way to discuss anything.
I guess when you can’t understand simple concepts like a toy train is not rotating on its axis, then you just have to avoid discussing things.
(More please.)
anger 5:07pm et. al., if as anger incessantly writes the moon does not rotate on its axis how does anger explain the lunar day? About two weeks of daylight then about two weeks of night at say the Apollo 12 landing site.
(above word count less than ~45 should not painfully exceed anger comprehension limit)
Try hard to focus on this next couple very long paragraphs below anger, they easily could be above anger’s reported comprehension skills (if so, consult with Halp-less):
Hook up a flat car on anger’s toy train running on the circular track, put a baseball on the flat car, lay a flashlight on the floor illuminating the baseball all the way around the track with the room lights out. How do “simple concepts like a toy train is not rotating on its axis” explain the day/night rotation cycle of the train sides and the baseball? After all the Earth rotates on its axis for a day/night cycle. Were the ancients right that the flashlight is really orbiting around the fixed train as the toy train engineer would observe?
Enquiring minds want to know so they can read up on anger’s science standing in the supermarket checkout lines.
Poor Cabbage Head. He still cannot tell the difference between “rotating on its axis” and “orbiting”.
Likely, in his personal life, he just spins all day, believing that he is going places.
Hilarious.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285534
^^ From the look of things, they will never understand. Oh well, their loss!
Thanks for the link, J. I would have missed it, otherwise.
Yeah, they have not concept of orbital movements. At barry’s link, the one on the left is NOT rotating on its axis. The one on the right is rotating CW, in sync with the orbit.
But, don’t let them know.
☺
Poor anger who cannot tell the difference between lunar day and night as the moon rotates on its axis.
In less than 20 words. I predict anger will still not comprehend, fun to watch anger’s entertainment though. Science and experiments are too mundane for anger, no sport.
G: Yeah, they have not concept of orbital movements. At barrys link, the one on the left is NOT rotating on its axis. The one on the right is rotating CW, in sync with the orbit.
J: Agreed. There is a chance they could have understood that, back when there were diagrams with the cars, etc. They wont get it from barrys link, definitely not!
ball4…”if as anger incessantly writes the moon does not rotate on its axis how does anger explain the lunar day? About two weeks of daylight then about two weeks of night at say the Apollo 12 landing site”.
No one said the Moon is not moving relative to the Sun, it’s just not rotating on an axis. If it’s orbiting the Sun and also orbiting the Earth, it’s bound to collect solar light at various angles.
The non-rotators profess the Moon is not rotating at all and thus can’t explain the lunar day/night cycle proving moon is rotating on an axis. The moon’s rotation on its NS axis being tidally locked to earth.
Unless Gordon like poor anger can’t tell day from night at the Apollo 12 site (which was chosen since always faces earth for better radio reception). Or Gordon and anger go with the ancients believing it is the sun orbiting around the non-rotating moon at the center of the universe.
(Cabbage Head never gets anything right.)
There are TWO motions being discussed, CH. One is “orbiting”. The other is “rotating on its axis”.
The Moon is “orbiting” around Earth. So, the Sun “sees” both sides of the Moon, causing “day” and “night” on the Moon.
But, the Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”. That’s why the Earth only “sees” one side.
(I doubt that will help CH. Logic and facts repulse him.)
Snape says:
“I think the motion would be the same for a person riding on the
merrygoround, facing the center, as with a person right behind him on the ground who is having to walk sideways but also facing the center. One gets exercise, the other doesnt.”
Exactly. Even though the guy’s feet are firmly planted on the merry-go-round, he is rotating about his own axis with respect to the north arrow pointing through the axis of his rotation.
Hilarious!
If the guy’s feet are “firmly planted”, he can NOT be “rotating on his axis”!
The comedy continues.
g*e*r*a*n
In this case I do agree with you. The person is rotating but not on his axis. He is rotating around the center of the merry-go-round.
Norm,
It`s a relative motion. I’ve already demonstrated this motion with several hands on experiments. Poor turnip boy doesn’t get that the rotation and orbit happen simultaneously.
Place a compass on top of the head of the person on the merry-go-round. The person is rotating on his own axis about the north arrow.
Here is another example similar to the merry-go-round. Get your bicycle. Suspend it so the back wheel can freely turn. The center of the bicycle’s crank arm axle will be the center of orbit. The axle for the pedal will be the object orbiting about the crank axis. The pedal axle is firmly attached to the crank arm, just like the person on the merry-go-round. The pedal itself will represent the fixed frame of reference. Grasp the pedal with your hand and turn the crank, keeping the pedal always horizontal. What you will observe is the crank peg rotating on its own axis about the pedal. The crank axle is performing two simultaneous motions. One, it is orbiting the axis of the crank arm. And two, it is rotatiing on its own axis about the pedal. This is not some fantasy turnip boy thought experiment, which is all he has.
If the guy on the merrygoround walks toward the center, when he reaches the center, what happens, G*? Is he now rotating?
If so, you say he wasnt rotating when away from the center? Then when he reaches the center he is rotating? As he walks to the center, is there a sudden transition from not rotating to rotating? Where does that transition happen? What causes him to start rotating?
Nate, now you’ve gone and done it. Poor turnip boy’s head will explode trying to reconcile this, and we’ll have turnip everywhere.
Crickets.
More crickets. Where is J Brain-less and turnip boy?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285616
i.e., as usual, Halp has no sensible answer.
You already had the answer before you asked the question. Theres nothing sensible about that, but you did it anyway.
Halp thinks a guy on a rotating platform and ” if the guys feet are firmly planted, he can NOT be rotating on his axis!”
is not nonsense. Very strange.
A reminder for Halp, that my question
‘when he reaches the center, what happens, G*? Is he now rotating?’
is asking about a guy at the center of the rotating platform.
The ‘feet planted’ answer is no answer.
N: If the guy on the merrygoround walks toward the center, when he reaches the center, what happens, G*? Is he now rotating?
J: No.
No? Guess youve forgotten your childhood and being on merrygorounds that are spinning. You see when you are on them you, standing at the center-you spin too.
Guy stands next to rotating platform, on the ground, feet firmly planted. Not rotating. Rotates himself around on his feet, he is rotating on his axis. Guy stands on edge of rotating platform, feet firmly planted. Not rotating. Platform is rotating. Guy isnt. Rotates himself around on his feet, he is rotating on his axis. Guy stands in center of rotating platform, feet firmly planted. Not rotating. Platform is rotating. Guy isnt. Rotates himself around on his feet, he is rotating on his axis.
Nate, are we all rotating on our axes just because we are standing on the rotating platform of Earth?
“Feet firmly planted. Not rotating. Platform is rotating. Guy isnt. ”
Ok, are you serious? If so, we have bigger problems.
Ever seen a record player? Does the record rotate, or just the turntable? How does it play if not rotating?
P.S: Yes, its a globe (or oblate spheroid), dont get excited.
“..don’t get excited.”
The audience is not excited, only amused as Halp-less omits a few location facts and changes some facts to a new proposition for some reason, you know the facts that only apply to his new proposition, so here’s the original proposition, original facts back in place:
Guy is fixed next to rotating platform, on the moon, feet firmly planted aligned with moon NS axis as is the platform spin axis. Rotating once on his axis as the moon rotates in a lunar day. Rotates himself around on his axis once per lunar day in same direction as moon, now he is rotating on his axis twice per lunar day. So forth.
Any more strawman you want to try Halp-less? Feel free; fun to watch you helplessly struggle with dynamics along with anger.
“..are we all rotating on our axes just because we are standing on the rotating platform of Earth?”
Depends on the exact strawman Halp-less wants to construct, location, time, spin axis alignment so forth. Maybe a toy train in a romper room will suffice to explain it, maybe not.
Halp-less need not apply as an astronomer operating or explaining a planetarium.
I was responding to a specific question, Ball4. If, as you claim, anyone had omited a few location facts and changed some facts to a new proposition for some reason, you need to take that up with the person asking the question. I know you arent good at following discussions, though, so its OK. Ill let you off. Needless to say, you are still on 24-hour rotation. Get back to you in 24 hours.
N: Ever seen a record player? Does the record rotate, or just the turntable? How does it play if not rotating?
J: Both rotate, relative to the needle, just as the rotating platform and person both rotate from the POV of someone on the ground; even with the person on the rotating platform having *feet firmly planted*. But, the record does not rotate *on its axis*.
Just as the person on the rotating platform can still rotate on his axis (i.e rotate independently of the rotating platform) if he wished; or if someone or something exerted a force on him; the record can also rotate on its axis. Especially with the aid of a slip mat and a DJ.
Yes clearly both guy and platform are rotating relative to ground.
Well thats pretty different from:
“Guy stands in center of rotating platform, feet firmly planted. Not rotating. Platform is rotating. Guy isnt.”
So then my original question remains unanswered.
Furthermore, if standing at the center he is rotating, if he sticks out his hands, are his hands not rotating?
N: Well thats pretty different from…
J: Nate, theres no difference.
Both guy and platform are rotating relative to the ground
is the same as
Guy stands in center of rotating platform, feet firmly planted. Not rotating on *his* axis. Platform is rotating. Guy isnt (rotating on *his* axis).
Each thing, platform and person, has its *own* separate axis, upon which rotation can occur, or not.
How much clearer can I make it? Lol. If you dont understand, at this point, you never will.
And then, that would be your fault, not mine. I did my best to try to explain it to you. I answered your questions. Why dont you try answering your own questions yourself now, in your own head, and see how far you get?
“Each thing, platform and person, has its *own* separate axis, upon which rotation can occur, or not.”
As usual, the way you define things is quite different from the way everyone else does.
Define ‘rotation about your own axis’, pls.
So many contradictions appear.
If the rotating platform was not visible to us, so we just see the guy from waste up, is he rotating about his axis?
Same as above, but platform not rotating, guy rotating himself, how do we tell difference?
If guy is glued to rotating platform, is he rotating about his axis?
If a steel post is welded to the center of rotating platform, is it rotating about its axis?
I am asking no more of your questions. You have enough to work it out. Take it as you will.
*answering*, lol. Though you avoided answering what I asked, so I will of course also not be asking you any more questions.
I see. So bizarre answers that make no sense are still answers, according to Halp. I should be satisfied.
And you are granting me the opportunity to try to interpret what your BS could possibly mean, as you depart the scene.
What a mensch!
Try out your definition of rotation on friends and family, see if they get it.
Your complete inability to think for yourself is your own problem, Nate. You have everything you need to answer those questions for yourself.
I can think for myself, and I say: self, Halp is a very very confused puppy.
Halp,
This is y0ur go-to option, when the questions get rough, you get out of Dodge. Clearly you are afraid the answers may reveal flaws in your thinking.
Oh, Bate, you are a one.
N: The thread above was getting too long (not sure about how you do it, I have to go to the top to click the reply and then I have to scroll through several posts to get to the one I want to respond to).
J: Yes, Snape, how is it that you and some others (always Team players) have this ability to post in a sub-thread wherever the hell you choose?
norman…”For Heat Flow (Watts) or Flux (Watts/m^2) the equation clearly shows that the cold surroundings have a DIRECT effect upon the rate of heat flow. The warmer the surroundings, the less heat can flow from a surface. I do not know how you can understand the equation any differently.
q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ac
The temperature of the cold surroundings directly determines the amount of heat that can flow from the hotter surface”.
***********
The 2nd law was developed in a different manner than the the Stefan-Boltzmann equation you supplied here. Furthermore, the 2nd law applies to heat while S-B applies to EM. You have confused them both above by referring to heat in terms of radiative heat flow. EM flow is not heat flow.
The 2nd law was derived based on studies of a heat engine. A gasoline engine in a car has 4 strokes. The intake stroke draws a gasoline mix into a cylinder, the compression stroke compresses the mix, the spark plug fires and the power stroke drives the piston, turning the crankshaft. Then the exhaust stroke aided by a flywheel’s momentum drives heat as gases out of the cylinder.
Look at this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heaeng.html
If you follow the arrows around the heat engine cycle, it becomes apparent the heat flow cannot be reversed. With a gas engine, you supply heat through compression then a spark. Work is done as the gas mix explodes then heat is removed as exhaust. You cannot reverse the process.
It may not be obvious, but the same applies to heat transfer via radiation.
The S-B equation is about another process altogether. A body is heated due to EM being absorbed by electrons in the body. They respond by jumping to a higher energy level and that translates to a higher kinetic energy level, which is heat.
Those same electrons can then jump back to a lower energy level while emitting EM, and that translates to a lower kinetic energy and cooling.
NO HEAT ENTERS OR LEAVES THE BODY BY RADIATION. It disappears in a conversion to another form of energy called electromagnetic energy. The 2nd law applies within the body but not outside the body as radiation. If you have two bodies of different temperatures with radiative transfer, heat reduces in one and increases in the other. No heat is exchanged, only EM.
With regard to amounts, those are not a concern of the 2nd law. In the S-B equation they are because the amount of radiation corresponds to the degree of cooling WITHIN the body. Or, if the surroundings are warmer, the degree of heating. Either way, the heat transfer is in one direction.
Boltzmann tried to figure out the 2nd law using statistical means. Apparently he failed. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think part of the reason is his use of entropy as an interpretation of the 2nd law. He tried to calculate the entropy of atoms in a statistical model by applying probabilities to the degrees of freedom of atoms in a hypothetical cell.
I am not knocking his work, his relationship of EM to heat is obviously correct. However, scientists down the road have read meaning into Boltzmann and Planck which is not there. You can see from the equation above that it refers only to energy transfer in one direction, yet many have inferred that must apply in both directions.
If you read Bohr carefully, you can see why heat transfer via EM is in one direction only. It has to do with the way electrons are affected by EM. They interact in such a way that heat can only be transferred hot to cold as in conduction and convection.
If you look carefully at the links you have supplied to MIT, many of the examples involve bodies in thermal equilibrium.
WordPress again, should be:
q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ac
Gordon Robertson
I will not respond to your posts as long as you make up physics. I won’t insult but I will not discuss physics with you.
YOU: “The S-B equation is about another process altogether. A body is heated due to EM being absorbed by electrons in the body. They respond by jumping to a higher energy level and that translates to a higher kinetic energy level, which is heat.
Those same electrons can then jump back to a lower energy level while emitting EM, and that translates to a lower kinetic energy and cooling.”
This is the process of UV, visible and Near IR only NOT MID IR that the Earth’s surface emits. You have been linked to several science pages explaining this to you. Since you choose intentionally not to learn real science, then there is no point in wasting any time with you. Nothing of value can be learned from you and no science debate is remotely possible since you debate with false and made up physics.
If you choose to learn real physics I can then engage in discussions of science with you. Until then.
Norm, another perfect example of you not understanding, so you believe the other person is wrong.
Gordon is referring to the fact that it is the electrons that allow EM to be absorbed and emitted. For long wave IR, it requires molecules, but still the energy is quantized.
You just don’t have the background to understand. If wiki doesn’t explain it in detail, it is way over your head.
More, please.
g*e*r*a*n
Actually I have more than enough background with IR. I have taken a course in instrumentation where one of the instruments we used was an IR spectrometer. You use this with other instruments to determine an unknown compound.
I already quite well understand that electrons changing orbitals results in emit or absorb of EMR. It is at energy levels a magnitude above Mid-IR. Solid objects have to be above 525 C before they emit enough visible light to be seen with the eye.
I have stated in many posts to Gordon Robertson that changes in electron energy levels emit in the UV, visible and Near IR range. I also know energy is quantized. But in a solid surface with high emissivity there are enough molecular configurations that it can emit nearly all wavelengths of IR as well as absorb them. I am not at all sure what you complaint is about or how you declare that I do not have the background to understand basic EMR science.
Again you make declarations with no support. You will probably do this as long as Gordon believes electron jumps are the process that generates Mid-IR.
Norm flaunts his “qualifications”: I have taken a course in instrumentation where one of the instruments we used was an IR spectrometer.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
I guess for some reason that my use of an IR Spectrometer to help figure out what an unknown solvent was composed of was funny to you.
I suppose you have your unknown reasons to find my statement “hilarious”. Easily amused since it is not particularity funny let alone be hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Maybe you find it hilarious because you have never taken a college level course. When you take a Chemistry semester of instrumentation, not only do you learn how to operate the equipment but they spend considerable time on theory. It is something you will not be able to understand. You would have to do something you have not yet done, but I think you are old and retired, you would have to attend a University (have you ever even been to one to visit?) and take some Chemistry classes. Take an instrumentation course and you can see how hilarious the material is when they talk about how you can determine molecular groups by the IR signatures. I bet you would get a belly laugh from the class. You might be the only one laughing though. I think most would be paying a lot of attention so they can get a good grade.
con-man, I could teach a high school dropout how to use a spectrometer, in about 30 minutes, if they were attentive.
But, for that same dropout to BUILD a spectrometerlifetime.
That’s why you are hilarious.
g*r…”When you take a Chemistry semester of instrumentation, not only do you learn how to operate the equipment but they spend considerable time on theory. It is something you will not be able to understand”.
I design, build, and repair those kinds of instruments. I suppose I won’t be able to understand either.
Gordon, when you are quoting someone else, don’t put my ID at the front.
It just makes it look like you don’t know what you’re doing.
Gordon Robertson
You may understand the electronic components of IR spectrometers but in no way would that make you an expert on what they are doing. You can repair components of it, that does not qualify you to grasp the theory that governs their operation. By your posts you demonstrate very little understanding in what the machines are actually doing. Maybe take the time to read the theory of operation.
https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/VirtTxtJml/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.htm
Reading this may get you some basics.
g*e*r*a*n
And I could even teach you how to run a pH meter. You could run tests but that does not mean you would know what is going on. You could teach a person to run a spectrometer (which I have done on many occasions) in a short time, but to be able to interpret the data takes some theory and understanding of IR theory and what is going on on the molecular level. Sorry by your post you show you have not taken a college level science course. Maybe you took some trade school classes for some specific job but you show no signs of higher education. Not in your logical processing, your super short attention span also is a strong indicator you never listened to a Professor speak on a subject for 45 minutes. You also have to read textbooks that are far longer than the longest posts on this blog.
Your lack of logical thought, your inability to support any of your declarations with evidence (something you must do in any science class I have taken). When you write a paper in a science class it must have references to established science sources. You are unable to provide even basic references. No you never took a higher level science class. Time to end your pretending and bluffing.
g*r…”Gordon, when you are quoting someone else, dont put my ID at the front.
It just makes it look like you dont know what youre doing”.
Thanks for pointing it out, it was an obvious typo.
Sorry about that.
norman…”You may understand the electronic components of IR spectrometers but in no way would that make you an expert on what they are doing”.
Exactly how do you think electronics works? Do you think you go into a circuit and check all the voltages and currents through transistors, hoping to find one that is defective?
You cannot troubleshoot a circuit effectively unless you know exactly what it is supposed to do. Normally, you’d inject a signal into the input and try to trace it through the circuit. Won’t do you much good if you inject an audio signal into an amp looking for an IR input.
You find easy ways to deal with it. The testing on fibre optic cable uses a standing wave generator called a TDR, but if you are setting up the cable to terminate it, you can use an ordinary incandescent lamp at one end as a light source then look through the other end with a 100x magnifier to see if you get a full moon in a dark background.
A partial moon means you have a twist in the cable or another imperfection. No moon usually means a break, the glass is very fragile. So much for respecting high frequency EM.
Mind you, amps designed for high frequency will pass audio signals to an extent but you could not test the input photo semiconductor using a lamp flashing at an audio frequency. IR detectors are just looking for stimulation by frequencies in the IR spectrum. Other than that, once the detector puts out a voltage it’s pretty well just another amp.
BTW, they are not looking for heat in a handheld, they are only looking for frequency. The detector is calibrated at the factory to put out a certain voltage for a certain frequency. Also, handhelds are usually designed to operate detecting temperatures at room temperature or above. If you detect IR from a piece of ice, it’s not because it is receiving heat from the ice, it’s because it is pre-calibrated to detect the frequency of IR from ice.
You make it sound like rocket science. There is nothing special about an IR detector, it’s front end is just sensitive to very high frequencies.
With microwave units. the front end and conductors looks more like plumbing than electronics. The conductors are like pipes and the amplifiers like small cavities. In our introductory course, the prof advised us not to be over-awed by the system, to think of it as Campbell soup cans soldered together.
When you work with high frequency, high energy stuff you have to be very respectful, however. It will burn holes in you if focused and burn holes in retinas if you are uninformed and look at a higher energy beam, like in a laser.
I have worked with high frequency stuff all my life, IR is nothing special. I have worked with higher frequencies like the light in fibre optics units as well.
g*r…”For long wave IR, it requires molecules, but still the energy is quantized”.
I have tried to explain to alarmist like Norman that molecules are nothing more than atoms bonded together by electrons. Absorp-tion and emission by molecules is still via electrons.
You can see it in the CO2 molecule configuration:
O ==== C ==== O
The ===== are double electron bonds. The Os can vibrate like this:
O == C =======O to O ======== C == O
the bonds vibrate assymetrically
or O ======= C =========O to O == C == O
the bond vibrate symetrically
Or the Os can bend away from the centre line slightly.
That’s how CO2 heats/cools and absorbs and emits EM, through electron transitions and the resultant translational and rotational vibrations.
Gordon Roberston
First I am not an alarmist. I have much skepticism about AGW and how intense it will be. So you are wrong there. I have a scientific background and a degree in Chemistry. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is what I am addressing. Noting at all with CAGW or other points.
You lump everyone in the same basket. Sad.
You clearly show how IR is generated by CO2 then you get it wrong when you claim electron transitions. No electron transitions (changing in electronic energy levels) take place in this type of emission. You are making it up based upon your limited knowledge of atomic physics. You know some but not enough to correctly understand what is going on. You need to really study more and post less on the topic.
norman…”You clearly show how IR is generated by CO2 then you get it wrong when you claim electron transitions. No electron transitions (changing in electronic energy levels) take place in this type of emission”.
Then explain how the EM gets generated. I have given you the information that electrons are electric charges that carry a magnetic field when they move. I have also explained that molecules are made of atoms bonded together by electrons. I have shown how atoms vibrate by changing bond lengths and bond angles.
There are only two particles in an atom with charge, the electron and the proton. All molecules are combinations of those particles, where else would the Em be generated?
What’s your explanation for where an electromagnetic field comes from?
norman…”First I am not an alarmist. I have much skepticism about AGW and how intense it will be. So you are wrong there”.
That’s encouraging to hear. As John Christy of UAH has claimed of climate science, skepticism is a hallmark of science.
I think if anyone is skeptical of a scientific concept they should question it, no matter what the authority. Ultimately, however, I think they should question till they are satisfied they are right or wrong.
You have been quoting from engineering texts on thermodynamics. My experience with engineering profs is not to question them unless you feel you have a good grounding in the basis of your argument. I am sure if you approached the prof who wrote one of your books, he’d sit there and listen to your argument, then defuse it with a simple comment like, “have you not noticed all these systems are in thermal equilibrium”?
I recall a problem in one of the books you linked to and I found it really interesting. They combined a problem with radiation, convection, and conduction. At no time in the problem, however, did they consider a two way heat transfer, it was all from the hot body to the cooler body.
In a recent link you provided they did talk about emissivity and two way transfer but I think they were misleading by calling it heat flow, or whatever they called it. I did notice that all the surfaces had the same temperature. I have no argument that emission/absorp-tion and two way heat transfer could occur between bodies in equilibrium. I think it’s a highly theoretical analysis, however, and does no apply in the atmosphere.
Gordon Robertson
I think you have me confused with David Appell. I have not argued for a two way heat transfer. I define heat as the energy that is moved from a hot object to a colder one (the amount which is in joules). I define heat flow as the amount of energy that is moving from a hot object to a cold one (which is in watts). If you add an area to the surface then you get a flux (watts/m^2).
I am not saying that heat flow (which is clearly defined in textbooks as the NET transfer of energy) is a two way process. A NET can not flow in both ways. Energy flows in both ways. That is why the colder item can directly change the rate of HEAT FLOW. If you have two different temperature cold surroundings but the identical hot item temperature, the HEAT FLOW is altered. The amount of NET energy (amount emitted minus amount absorbed) leaving a hot surface is changed. The HEAT FLOW is different. With a colder surroundings the Watts from the hot surface increases. The established explanation of why colder surroundings change the HEAT FLOW is because the warmer the cold surroundings get, the more energy it will emit toward the hot object, the hot object absorbs this energy based upon its emissivity (which equals the absorbitivity). The warmer the surroundings, the more energy is absorbed by the hotter object. The HEAT FLOW is the NET between what is emitted and what is absorbed. The more that is absorbed with the same emitted amount, the lower is the HEAT FLOW.
This is exactly what the textbooks describe. They state nothing else or give other possibilities.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only gives a direction for heat flow, NOT and amount. Nothing in the 2nd Law supports a claim that a hot object cannot absorb energy from a colder one. Zero. You will never find support for this concept in established science. You can only find this statement in fringe blog sites or with you and a few other posters. Prove that the 2nd Law supports your view. Find evidence for it. You have not done so to date!
norman…”I think you have me confused with David Appell. I have not argued for a two way heat transfer. I define heat as the energy that is moved from a hot object to a colder one (the amount which is in joules)”.
It does not matter what you or I define it as, heat was defined long ago as the kinetic energy of atoms in motion.
BTW…no one could confuse anyone with DA.
You claim heat is measured in joules (or calories, or BTU) which is correct. However, you also correctly identify the radiation of EM from a surface as W/m^2.
I keep going on about this and even text books on the subject get it wrong. That’s not just my opinion, it’s about reality. Electromagnetic energy and thermal energy are very different types of energy.
Ask yourself what the generic word energy means. No one knows, no one can explain it other than in vague terms.
All anyone can say about energy is the following:
1)it is a phenomenon
2)it is associated with matter as in E = mc^2
3)it can take several different forms
4)the total energy must be conserved.
Other than that, we have no idea what energy is in a general sense. It’s ‘something’, that’s all we can say.
Some people have defined energy of different kinds based on the context. Gravitational energy is defined based on the interaction of two adjacent masses. Electrical energy is based on the current derived from a potential difference. Mechanical energy is associated with macro level atomic structures such as beams and pistons and associated with work.
Thermal energy is associated with atoms in motion and electromagnetic energy is a wave front comprised of an electrical field perpendicular to a magnetic field, which has specific frequencies and derived from matter.
You have to be mighty careful when you use the word energy in a general manner. It means nothing unless the context is implied. When EM is emitted by matter, the context is often implied to be heat, but that is totally wrong. EM is not heat, it is a product of the conversion of heat to another form of energy.
You cannot treat EM as heat as if it is heat flowing through space. Heat flowing through space is convection, a flow of real matter as a gas or a liquid. Without mass, there can be no heat flow. Therefore referring to EM is heat makes no sense.
Some people are implying, ‘heat, EM, it’s all energy, who cares’? They had better care because those energies operate in entirely different manners and different laws apply to them. It is nonsense to sum EM flows and claim they satisfy the 2nd law since the 2nd law clearly negates the transfer of heat via EM from a cold body to a warm body.
AGW and the GHE are based on such a misconception. Both are based on the notion that heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. I can’t help but think that misconception comes from lumping all energy into the same basket as a generic ‘energy’.
The other side of the AGW claim is even more ludicrous. It is claimed that GHGs can trap heat. How? How to molecules trap molecules? How do molecules slow down the RATE of emission of EM from the surface? Only a temperature difference can affect that.
norman…”I have stated in many posts to Gordon Robertson that changes in electron energy levels emit in the UV, visible and Near IR range”.
I have also tried to get it across to you that the electron is the only particle capable of causing the emission of EM. The emission and absorp-tion of EM from an atom is described as E = hf, and both E and f refer to the electron and electron temperature and energy levels.
An electron carries a negative electrical charge. Any time an electron moves it creates a moving electrical field with an associated magnetic field. That’s where the electromagnetic in EM comes from.
Vibration is due to the electron interacting with the protons in the nucleus but the electron is the only one with a charge that can move freely. I would imagine that a proton in free space can produce energy fields (solar wind interacting with Earth’s magnetic field) but not in an atom where its centre of mass is relatively confined.
When atoms vibrate in a lattice, it is EM emissions from the electrons that get generated, not from the proton. The electron is moving consistently at high speeds.
Gordon Robertson
Basically you are just totally wrong that is all that can be said about your posts on EM and electrons.
No Gordon. A accelerating charge is what emits EM.
This link might give you an idea.
http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page4.html
In the example given you can generate EMR with a charged comb. The comb will generate EMR if the charge is positive or negative. You just have to accelerate the charge and you will produce EMR.
An atom in a molecule can develop a charge. The electrons don’t shift orbitals to create the charge. It is created by an imbalance of charge distribution. For a molecule is must have a charge imbalance to cause EMR emission when the atoms in the molecule change positions. The whole charged atom moving (accelerating) is what is producing MID-IR.
That is why N2 and O2 are very weak emitters. They have no polar component. But both will emit in the visible EMR but it takes hundreds of degrees C to get them to enough energy to knock electrons up and down orbitals.
Your physics of EMR emission is very poor. You need to study at greater depth. I have already asked you to study the science more before you try and debate. At this current stage you have absolutely do not know enough about the subject to make meaningful conversation.
Here is the visible spectrum of N2 and O2. This emission is due to electrons jumping up and down electronic energy levels.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/images1/aurspec20_try.jpg
The correct science is readily available for you to read. Read up on IR emissions, what produces it.
norman…”Basically you are just totally wrong that is all that can be said about your posts on EM and electrons”.
You had better tell that to Neils Bohr, Edwin Schrodinger, and all the scientists who developed quantum theory. Modern quantum theorists will be shocked to learn they have it all wrong.
Modern quantum theorists will be shocked to learn Gordon has it all wrong since Gordon doesn’t quote their exact words even though Gordon links to Bohr’s actual paper. Many times Gordon prefers commenting in his own shockingly wrong words much different than the words written by Bohr et. al.
norman…” A accelerating charge is what emits EM”.
And what carries charge, Norman? What else in an atom or molecule is capable of acceleration in a solid? The protons are the only other charged particle and in a solid they are confined to the lattice which can vibrate slightly. However, the electron is the only charged particle capable of acceleration in a solid.
The article to which you link is a primitive description of an electric charge. We learned all that in the first days of electronics courses. It’s the good, old static electricity example. You rub a certain material with fur, as Aladdin did his lamp, and you get sparks of static.
Static electricity is useless in the electronics and electrical fields. It destroys semiconductors, ignites the dust in grain elevators to cause massive explosions, and poses a safety hazard to humans. Static charges can produce voltages upward of 40,000 volts.
Those are free electrons, not the electrons associated with atoms, so bringing that in as an example shows you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re only interest is in being right and winning arguments but you just lost another one and you will go on losing them till you get your facts straight.
ball4…”Modern quantum theorists will be shocked to learn Gordon has it all wrong…”
And equally shocked that ball4 cannot explain why he is wrong about Gordon’s claims. Quantum mechanics stems from the Bohr model and Schrodinger took it further, applying Newton wave equation theory to electrons, treating them as tiny oscillators.
It might interest you to know that Bohr and Schrodinger had a parting of the ways circa 1930. Schrodinger, steeped in Newtonian theory, along with Einstein, could not accept the aerie faerie quantum world later described by Bohr since he felt physics was about observing real phenomena.
Bohr took it way beyond that, proposing another dimension in which particles could act at a distance, for example. Hence, today we have idiots building computers called quantum computers based on the sci-fi of Bohr. Even NASA is sucked into it.
I predict quantum computing will fade into the sunset as NASA et al finally get it that mathematically produced theories don’t always translate to the real world.
Gordon Robertson
I have lost no argument. It is not possible to debate physics with you as you are unable or willing to learn real physics. You rely solely on your own made up version of physics and refuse to accept anything science currently states (even though it works).
YOUR attempt at some point: “Those are free electrons, not the electrons associated with atoms, so bringing that in as an example shows you have no idea what youre talking about. Youre only interest is in being right and winning arguments but you just lost another one and you will go on losing them till you get your facts straight.”
Total demonstration your do not understand anything about EMR emission except for what creates visible light. You are stuck on that as being the cause of all EMR. Really sad, pointless to debate with someone who is so wrong about physics. You need to forget all the totally wrong concept you have developed and start over from scratch. Since you will never do this, why keep going. You don’t have a clue about science or physics. You rely on conspiracy theory and politics to try to pretend you know what you are talking about. I read your posts and cringe. There is no point in debating anything with you. In your fantasy world you are right no matter how ridiculous your notions and nothing will change your views. Real science, you reject. Not sure what you are attempting to do. It is nothing of value. Making up physics and then telling me I don’t know what I am talking about generally a waste of time. Others have tried all have failed. You live in a pseudoscience bubble that is not pop-able. Dream on old man, dreams are fun. Changing your deluded thinking is a wasted effort. Believe what you will. It won’t matter what you post. Your ideas are no good, nothing of value and do not work in the real world.
Wow, the yelping chihuahua is back!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Maybe as Gordon Robertson’s good friend you will teach him the basics of how Mid-IR is generated. I can have discussions with him if he gets the basics correct.
Will you let him know electronic transitions do not produce Mid-IR.
The energy needed to raise electrons to higher energy levels is considerable and requires temperatures of hundreds of C degrees to accomplish.
Maybe you can tell Gordon that a heating element does not glow in the visible light spectrum until it gets over 525 C
https://www.quora.com/At-what-temperature-do-all-objects-start-emitting-visible-light
Electrons are charge carriers but they do not transition energy levels with Mid range IR. The whole atom has a charge and the charge that causes the IR is that of the whole atom moving all the electrons with it as one. The electrons are not moving as individuals up electronic energy levels. They remain in their ground states. The atom itself has a slight charge as it oscillates within the molecule. This lesser charge and lower energy needed to move the atom back and forth within the molecule are what produce the much lower energy Mid-IR.
norman…”It is not possible to debate physics with you as you are unable or willing to learn real physics”.
It’s your arrogance that gets in the way. For some reason you are convinced you are right and you want to debate with someone who has been immersed in atomic theory for decades, with the basic premise that you are right and he is wrong.
You can’t even talk basic physics, all you do is find books on the Net, misinterpret the meaning, then present your findings as real science.
ALL…repeat…ALL EM comes from matter. It is emitted by electrons in matter. There is nowhere else EM could emanate. All light in the universe comes from matter, in our case on Earth, from a boiling cauldron of matter we call the Sun. All stars are boiling cauldrons of matter and they all emit EM.
Even in communications, the EM generated by an antenna comes from electrons rapidly changing direction in the antenna.
norman…”The whole atom has a charge and the charge that causes the IR is that of the whole atom moving all the electrons with it as one”.
You are confusing neutral atoms with ions. A neutral atom has an equal number of electrons and protons, an ion has more or less electrons that protons. The only way an atom can have a charge is by losing or gaining an electron.
Once again, the electrons control the charge. In a neutral atom the -ve electron charges offset the equal and opposite +ve proton charges and their is no net charge.
That applies equally to molecules.
The con-man tries another con: “Maybe as Gordon Robertsons good friend you will teach him the basics of how Mid-IR is generated.”
Con-man, I have seen Gordon be very patient with you. He has tried to teach you. You just don’t have the background to understand. You read something on some link, and don’t realize you have mis-interpreted it. You do not appear to have any interest in learning. You believe you know it all.
Want an example: You keep linking to your stupid example of test equipment getting warmer if the room temperature gets warmer. Somehow, in your confused interpretation of thermodynamics, you believe that is an example of “cold” warming “hot”.
I doubt if you will ever understand thermo. But even with no formal education, you should be able to understand the toy train is NOT “rotating on its axis” on a circular track. That continues to confuse you. You just cannot process facts and logic.
Sorry, I wish I could help you.
Gordon Robertson
I am not convinced I am right. I know I am right on this issue. I do have much more knowledge of you or g*e*r*a*n on this topic.
You would do much better to read up on it with an open mind and try to accept established physics instead of turning on your useless conspiracy mentality.
Here you demonstrate complete ignorance of the topic and try to convince me of garbage science:
YOU: “You are confusing neutral atoms with ions. A neutral atom has an equal number of electrons and protons, an ion has more or less electrons that protons. The only way an atom can have a charge is by losing or gaining an electron.”
NO Gordon I am not confusing anything. You lack the science necessary to understand what I am posting.
A charge imbalance exists without the removal or addition of an electron in an atom in a molecule. It is a dipole. One atom pulls a little more on the electrons than the other atom and creates a slight charge imbalance. No electrons are removed or added to create this charge imbalance. Study some Chemistry and get back to me. I know what I am talking about and you do not! It is very clear. Quit making up science and learn the real stuff!
g*e*r*a*n
It seems to be an issue with you on the definition of words.
How do you define warming?
Here is how it is officially defined:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/warming
From this list this one would apply to what we are talking about:
“v. warmed, warming, warms
v.tr.
1. To raise slightly in temperature; make warm: warmed the rolls a bit more; warm up the house”
Do you agree that 36 C is a higher temperature than 34 C? It is not a trick question.
Do you agree that 26 C is warmer than 20 C?
I am wondering maybe you lack logical thought process and just make declarations based upon your own ideas. I don’t know.
If you use logic.
The warmer cold surroundings warmed the powered lab equipment (the powered lab equipment is not receiving more energy from its source throughout the testing) based upon the definition of warming. The temperature of the lab equipment was raised with the introduction of the warmer cold air.
Explain, in detail, why this is not logical and correct. I know you won’t do it but it is fun to see if you will.
Honestly, I did NOT make this up.
This is an exact copy/paste from the con-man:
“The temperature of the lab equipment was raised with the introduction of the warmer cold air.”
Hilarious.
GR wrote “NO HEAT ENTERS OR LEAVES THE BODY BY RADIATION.”
He apparently still doesn’t understand that “heat” is the energy content of some mass of material, be it solid, liquid or gas. Remember the definition from Physics 101 (and Wikipedia):
“A BTU is defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. It is part of the United States customary units. Its counterpart in the metric system is the calorie, which is defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius. Heat is now known to be equivalent to energy, for which the SI unit is the joule; one BTU is about 1055 joules.”
The word “Heat” was originally used centuries ago to refer to thermal energy, as would be measured by a thermometer. EM radiation is also energy. When EM energy is absorbed by some material, it becomes thermal energy, raising the temperature of the body. When EM is radiated away from a body, thermal energy is lost in the process as the body cools.
swannie, you keep repeating the wiki stuff over and over, hoping it will change 2LoT.
Sorry, you can NOT change 2LoT.
But, it’s fun to watch.
swannie…”GR wrote NO HEAT ENTERS OR LEAVES THE BODY BY RADIATION.
He apparently still doesnt understand that heat is the energy content of some mass of material, be it solid, liquid or gas. Remember the definition from Physics 101 (and Wikipedia):”
*************
Not the energy content alone, it is specifically the kinetic energy of atoms in motion. KE is a generic form of energy in motion which applies to all forms of energy. KE as applied to the motion of atoms is heat.
Since heat is the KE of atoms in motion, it cannot be radiated. It must first be converted to EM, which is a different form of energy. When the heat is converted, it disappears. Conservation of energy is maintained since the energy changed forms.
With regard to the atoms, they stop vibrating as hard. Less vibration = lowered kinetic energy.
Note that EM is an electric field with a magnetic field. An electron, as a charge, carries an electric field, and when it moves it produces a magnetic field.
Get it, EM = electric field + magnetic field? You get the same effect when electrons run through a conductor, that’s how transformers, inductors, and electric motors work. Also, communications systems. Electrons running through an antenna at high frequency produce an EM field.
GR, You’ve left out the other side of the equation, so to speak. EM absorbed by a body is converted to KE, i.e., thermal energy or “heat”, which appears as an increase in temperature of the body. It works for microwaves in an oven, IR from an infrared heater warming your room and sunlight landing on the Earth’s surface. It also works for upwelling IR from the surface which is absorbed by the gases in the atmosphere.
What’s your point again?
Nice attempt at deception, swannie.
You mentioned 3 “heat sources”–microwave oven, infrared heater, and the Sun, then you state: “It also works for upwelling IR from the surface which is absorbed by the gases in the atmosphere.”
Your deception is that atmospheric gases are NOT a “heat source”. So, the atmosphere can NOT raise the temperature of the planet.
But, you probably succeeded in deceiving some 12-year-olds.
And, that’s fun to watch.
e. swanson…” It works for microwaves in an oven, IR from an infrared heater warming your room and sunlight landing on the Earths surface”.
Let’s look at microwave heating. EM from the microwave unit is absorbed by water or any other organic product that contains water. It does not affect most other materials placed in the microwave. You can place a cup of water in a microwave with a piece of plastic on the microwave’s rotating surface.
Eventually the water will boil, or cheese will melt, and that should be plenty of heat to melt the plastic. It doesn’t, why??? If it was heat being radiated the plastic would melt.
Place the container used to hold the water in the microwave by itself and it won’t even get hot. Put water in it and the water boils, heating the container by direct conduction.
An IR heater in a room warms the room in the vicinity by directly warming the air. Heat is transferred directly from the heating element to nitrogen and oxygen molecules and they pass they heat along by convection.
Unless you stand very close to an IR heater the radiation won’t warm you at all. The loss in radiation over a few feet due to the inverse square law is huge.
I have already told you how to test that. Turn on an electric stove element and allow it to come to maximum level. Hold your hand near the element and you will feel a mix of heated air molecules and radiation.
Raise your hand to 12″, and the heat is hardly noticeable. Back it off to 5 feet and there is no heat noticeable at all. If you have something cooking, steam from the cooking can travel around and heat the room, but not radiation.
Now apply that to the Earth’s surface at 240 W/m^2, or what ever it is. As Wood claimed circa 1909, the effect of surface radiation is ineffective more than a few feet above the surface.
GR, you are such a goof. All that blather just to agree that microwave energy will heat water. It will also heat other materials which aren’t “microwave safe”, as I found out by destroying some plastic plates. And, having periodically burned some large piles of trash, I can guarantee you that the IR heating from them is quite evident some distance away. Also, living as I do in snow country, I can attest to the fact that snow, which has a high albedo, will melt when the air temperature is below freezing, due to the downwelling IR from the atmosphere.
For a scientist, one counter example is all that it takes to crush a hypothesis. Here’s two…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB3oQeTG-Mc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrRbL22ENLI
swannie, what a great contribution to climate comedy.
Please continue to supply us with evidence that you have no clue about radiative heat transfer.
I especially enjoyed your comment that you could feel the heat from burning piles of trash.
Hilarious.
barry…re John Cook of skepticalscience impersonating Lubos Motl. You have likely found them already hence your restriction to links on SkS.
Want me to track down the Nazi pictures as well?
“Could you supply the links exactly to where they did that on the SkS blog? I would like to see evidence that they fooled the public in such an awful way”.
Even if I post direct evidence, you will return with some cockamamey justification. The following is close enough evidence for me, and likely many others.
https://motls.blogspot.ca/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html?m=1#more
He admit it here: “John Cook: Sorry about the Lubos thing. Was posting some Lubos comments for the UWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook”.
Lame excuse.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/john-cook-proprietor-of-sks-repeat-coauthor-of-dr-stephan-lewandowsky-caught-red-handed-impersonating-lubos-motl-for-purposes-of-a-university-of-australia-research-project/
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/john-cook-missing-the-point-again/
Thank you for quoting me properly:
“Could you supply the links exactly to where they did that on the SkS blog? I would like to see evidence that they fooled the public in such an awful way.”
Now let’s quote Lubos.
“…he was discussing things with his fellow climate warriors at the Skeptical Science Forums, a website affiliated with his SkepticalScience.COM. The website was “closed” and only accessible to the community of Cook’s friends, not publicly available at that moment, but its content became available to search engines later”
The content became “available to search engines later” because someone hacked the site.
Translation: we get up to all sorts of shady business behind closed doors, but now we have been caught, lets focus attention on the fact we were hacked. Shame on those hackers!
halp…”Translation: we get up to all sorts of shady business behind closed doors, but now we have been caught, lets focus attention on the fact we were hacked. Shame on those hackers!”
Just like Climategate.
Ha ha, yes, exactly like that!
Look at you, desperately trying to find something wrong. So much for the rigour of science. You don’t know what they were doing, but – hey – it must have been nefarious.
What was the shady business?
Well I asked you to explain what *stress-testing argumentation* could mean, earlier. And no, I dont need definitions of either *stress-testing* or *argumentation*. What I am asking, is, why is it necessary? Rational arguments have premises, reasoning, and a conclusion. If the premises and reasoning are valid, the conclusions follow. So, what *stress-testing* could be required? Other than that, I would question the logic of having members of their team impersonate skeptics, when they dont even seem to understand skeptics arguments half the time. Were they actually practicing ways they could twist skeptics words? That sort of thing?
I don’t know the specifics either. It’s not unusual to do internal red team/blue team exercises. From Lubos’ post it seems they were running an experiment where some argued as skeptics.
As an aside, I’ve sometimes advocated in the climate debate for people to deliberately argue for the ‘other side in the manner suggested by de Bono. Primarily to see if people even understand what their opponents are saying. Someone took it up once, but couldn’t avoid caricaturing their opponent’s views, so I gave up.
B: Its not unusual to do internal red team/blue team exercises
J: Its not unusual for who to do internal red team/blue team exercises?
Business, military, cyber security firms.
http://www.madrigal.com.au/red-team-review-is-tender-ready/
OK. So are SkS a business, military, or cyber security firm?
Do they have to be? I’m not sure where you’re going with this.
I’ve done the same on debate teams in school. I’ve done similar in the corporate sector with role-playing for training. I’ve done something like it for training barristers. It happens informally in the one of the companies I work for when sales reps meet marketing and propose customer objection/skepticism, and happened when I first trained for that company – practising with people taking on an adversarial role.
It’s not unusual, and there’s nothing shady about it.
B: Do they have to be?
J: Well, it seems they do have to be, for conducting internal red team/blue team exercises to be usual.
Ive done the same on debate teams in school. Ive done similar in the corporate sector with role-playing for training. Ive done something like it for training barristers. It happens informally in the one of the companies I work for when sales reps meet marketing and propose customer objection/skepticism, and happened when I first trained for that company practising with people taking on an adversarial role.
You’re desperately trying to find something wrong. You don’t know what they were doing, as you freely admit, but that doesn’t stop you trying to shovel shit. The dirt is sticking to you, mate.
OK Barry, if we must. Are SkS a school debate team, in the corporate sector, or are they barristers? Are they any form of company similar to one you may have worked for?
Hahahaha. Someone upthread said Cooke “impersonated” a Nazi. No doubt that will be something blown way out of proportion by so-called ‘skeptics, too.
I think the really funny thing about SkS is their reaction to everything. Its always somebody elses fault. Its always like, so what? We photoshopped Cook and others into Nazi uniforms! And YOU disgusting weirdo skeptics are going to make a big deal about it! How dare YOU!
Photoshop. Taking the piss out of each other perhaps? Big deal.
We love it when the other side get hacked but get so arch when it happens to one of “our” guys, eh?
barry…”Photoshop. Taking the piss out of each other perhaps? Big deal”.
When you dress up in a Nazi uniform it is far more than a joke. You have to give considerable thought to the matter and it suggests an admiration for Nazis and a rejection of what they stood for.
Yet you go on defending this as a joke. That’s what Gavin Schmidt suggested following the Climategate revelation that his partner at realclimate, Michael Mann, had fudged data on the MBB98 hockey stick graph by clipping off proxy data that showed cooling and spliced in real data. Schmidt suggested it was just a joke used by ‘the boys’.
Well it’s more than that, far more. There is an egregious attempt to forge data in order to show warming and you are supporting it.
Your support of Cook at SkS is just as bad. This guy works as a cartoonist because he is a drop out from a physics curriculum. He was passing himself off for a while as a solar physicist. He dressed up as a Nazi and he impersonated physicist Lubos Motl, yet all of that is just fine with you.
It gives me an idea of your true character.
barry… “Photoshop. Taking the piss out of each other perhaps? Big deal.”
When you dress up in a Nazi uniform it is far more than a joke.
It was photoshopped, and it’s bloody obvious. Idiot.
Very likely someone was taking the piss of Cooke’s status. Did you read the caption?
Yes, thats the other one: we were hacked! We got caught, so never mind showing even the remotest humility, embarrassment, or human decency – lets attack! Attack is always the best form of defence, eh, Wriggler?
So the criticisms were gross exaggerations and you just want to trash talk Cooke and SkS.
And you think they’re small minded?
This was petty to begin with and went downhill from there. Grist for the ‘skeptic’ mill.
I see you agree with them that attack is the best form of defence.
Did you feel attacked, diddums? No, that was an observation.
No, I didnt feel attacked. I just made the observation that you seem to agree with SkS that attack is the best form of defence. Er…diddums to you, sir.
J Halp-less Robertson et alii
I live in Germany and do not appreciate at all your vocabulary.
I propose you immediately stop to use the word Nazi here.
Roy Spencer is quite a bit more ‘tolerant’ than Anthony Watts, but that is no reason to cowardly misuse it.
Try to use that word at WUWT if you are courageous enough to do!
You’ll then experience how quickly you get banned there.
Im not misusing the term. What I described actually happened. Lol.
Its funny how keen you are on trying to get people banned, though. A nice irony there!
That perfectly shows how you are inside.
I don’t try to get anybody banned, never and never.
I just try to avoid some people using some thoroughly disgusting words right here.
Because I know that these people all are too much a coward to do that elsewhere – where they really get banned, not by me but by the sites’ owners.
Understood? No?
Go to WUWT, Half-less, and have fun there… Not many will miss you here.
No, not understood, sorry. Try again.
Binny…”I live in Germany and do not appreciate at all your vocabulary. I propose you immediately stop to use the word Nazi here”.
I though pangolina came too soon after your withdrawal. Sorry, Barry, I thought it was you.
I did not see you objecting when John Cook at skepticalscience dressed up in a Nazi uniform. Are you offended with the word only when it it used by skeptics?
Well apparently we were misusing the word, in a cowardly fashion! Im not sure what other word would be appropriate to describe a Nazi uniform, other than *Nazi*. Perhaps *Naughty German Far-Right Party Uniform* would have been more politically correct? Its hard to know how *not* to offend somebody, when they are only pretending to be offended in the first place, in order to suggest peple who are effective in arguing against their lies and distortions be banned.
John Cook at skepticalscience dressed up in a Nazi uniform
It was photoshopped – quite obviously, too.
You’re nuts, Gordon.
Nazis serve as important example.
Probably safe to say most people don’t want to follow their
example. And probably safe to say most people don’t know how not to follow their example.
A lot could said and has been said about the Nazis, I could start off with saying Nazis were normal people and significant aspect of them is their belief in pseudoscience broadly know as racism. Nazis is what happen when a society is driven by pseudoscience or an ideology pretending to be science.
Marxism is another example of pseudoscience and there is not much difference between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union- normal people driven by stupid ideas. Both called themselves socialist, both totalitarian, both having concentration camps, both murdering millions of the people which they governed.
Anyways one could say that normal people are not good and normal people need beliefs to help them be less evil. Or there is not a science which make normal people, not be evil.
If they was, we would be applying this science.
It seems the belief that all humans are flawed, is useful.
One could say all humans [even animals] are wondrous creatures- and could apply all kinds of adjectives concerning their glorious talents and abilities, but never-the-less they are flawed. Though one might say the flaws are part of their perfection. Without inherent flaw one might get overly confident- or be completely stupid to the unknowns- and our existence is filled with unknowns.
Nazis were normal people following a cargo cult which is enforced with the power of the State.
Another aspect about Nazis was they were fighting a war to end all war- which was rather common goal of WW1 [and WWII].
They wanted to take over the world, with silly idea/excuse that this would end war.
One could say the US actually did this, but US was not quite so full on stupid [but due to Americans simply having no wish to do this] but still the idea of unifying the world, under one government remains a common burning desire- with some people- and such people probably don’t associate themselves as being like the Nazis. [or Soviets, or Iranian government, and etc]
gbaikie states: “Nazis is what happen when a society is driven by pseudoscience or an ideology pretending to be science.”
Profound.
Will the snowstorm surprise the residents of the northeast US?
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/t8bieilbyaqf.png
I doubt it. It snows in Winter up there.
You’re right, after all, winter is in full swing.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00958/arlsf9ofy73l.png
It can be the biggest snowstorm this winter in New York and Boston.
Hey Gordon,
Here’s the quote from NOAA where you say they ‘admit to slashing temp records.’
Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month. Scientists use that data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly expanding number of buoys and ships 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, after all to determine the global temperature record.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Could you please quote the exact sentence where they say they slashed, deleted, or purposefully removed weather station data?
Thanks.
Ha ha ha ha haaa…
I can imagine the intelligent answer long a time before it gets published.
barry, if you don’t believe that cutting 6000 to 1500 is “slashing, deleting, or purposefully removing”, then how many more do they have to cut?
Never heard of GHCN V4 daily?
Over 100,000 stations (over 6,000 of them active in 2017).
Dang, I wish Bin was still here. He might know how many of those 100,000 stations had been “adjusted”.
All were adjusted of course! All of them I tell you.
Especially this one shows:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518037034450.jpg
Unadjusted station data does by definition not exist. Because otherwise, dumb skepticism couldn’t survive.
There you go.
pango…”Over 100,000 stations (over 6,000 of them active in 2017)”.
Ever heard of NOAA? I posted a link above in which they admit slashing the 6000 to under 1500.
Do you have problems with comprehension, or is it the religion affecting your brain?
Ever heard of NOAA? I posted a link above in which they admit slashing the 6000 to under 1500.
Liar. Nowhere in your link does it say that weather station data was deliberately deleted.
barry…”However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions”.
Why are you so easily sucked in? How does the ‘digitization of historical books and logs’ physically increase the number of stations?
And what is it about this NOAA statement that is confusing you: “The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today…”?
It can mean only one thing, NOAA are going back in the historical record and amending old stations and claiming that as new data.
Are you really that stupid, and your laughing hyena friend pangolina, if the two of you are not in fact the same poster?
NOAA admits to slashing the global data from surface stations from 6000 to less than 2500 yet you allowed yourself to be sucked into believing their outright lies that the number of physical stations has increased?
Gordon, please quote the exact sentence where they “freely admit” (your words) that they deliberately slashed, deleted or removed data.
No mumbo jumbo – quote the sentence where they actually say that.
Why are you so easily sucked in? How does the digitization of historical books and logs physically increase the number of stations?
Can you not even read?
“the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs…
You’re hopeless.
It can mean only one thing, NOAA are going back in the historical record and amending old stations and claiming that as new data.
And yet you’ve been provided information that explains exactly what happened. Did you brain fog up each time?
Researchers requested old data records and added them to the record. This was aside from the 1500 stations that regularly send their data in the format that can be read by the collation software.
The old data they procured – “the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions” – was a one-time event. They added that historical data to the 1500 they had repeatedly sending them data each month. They never had a monthly update from these weather stations – many were defunct. So they didn’t “slash’ anything from their regular stream, just accepted a one-time data dump and added it.
To someone ignorant of what happened it looks like they had 6000 regularly reporting weather stations and dumped the majority. But they didn’t. The methods paper describing the ADDITION of weather station data is here:
https://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp
This is what you get completely wrong. They ADDED data, they didn’t delete it.
In your mind, they had 6000 weather stations reporting monthly, and dumped most of them.but they never had 6000 regularly reporting stations. The extra historical data was actively sought and ADDED to the data set in a big project through the mid 90s.
This has been explained to you dozens of times.
The methods paper link has been provided dozens of times.
You’ve never read it. You’ve never understood the explanation. You’ve ignored it. Every time. And repeated the same false story over and over.
That is why you are a liar.
The forecast of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere indicates a big confusion in the weather. The polar vortex will be completely divided into two whirls. One will be circling over Canada, the other over Siberia. Europe will probably be under the influence of high pressure.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/02/11/1500Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=16.50,80.79,452
Interesting. And both systems are CCW.
Darwin Wyatt says:
February 6, 2018 at 10:29 AM
…
Im not following the debate that closely anymore having realized how preposterous the claim a trace gas is warming the planet is especially when last I checked Antarctica was at record ice, Greenland recovering 30% and Arctic sea ice extent up 40% over 5 years?
…
Darwin Wyatt says:
February 6, 2018 at 5:42 PM
…
Were the Danish scientist producing contaminated data in the first half of the 20th century when it was largely ice free?
…
*
For unsound skeptics, data ‘looks’ always contaminated (even that of satellite sea level readings, when they happen to show higher trends than those of tige gauges, yes: incredible but true).
A good skeptic would prove the contamination instead, by using whichever scientific method.
Here is a pretty example of highly contaminated, manipulated, adjusted data for Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent, originating from the University of Illinois, for the 1870 2007 period:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518043890949.jpg
OMG what a horrible drop on the right side! Thats sure fake data isnt it.
Unluckily, the record stops in 2007. But we can compare its end with that of Colorados between 1979 and 2017:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/151804399357.jpg
And here we see that the Illinois data seems to be OK (or that both are contaminated isnt it).
*
Arctic sea ice extent up 40% over 5 years?
…when it was largely ice free…
LOL Wyatt :-))
An addendum for those interested in historic documents:
http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/arctic_ice_october_2010
pango…”For unsound skeptics, data looks always contaminated (even that of satellite sea level readings, when they happen to show higher trends than those of tige gauges, yes: incredible but true).
A good skeptic would prove the contamination instead, by using whichever scientific method”.
The good skeptic challenged it based on decades of experience with electronic instrumentation. There is no instrumentation that can be mounted on a satellite that can measure ocean levels to within millimetres.
Tidal gauges measure water near shore where its level can be estimated as an average. There are no gauges in mid-ocean where waves can reach 100 feet in height.
Sometimes you need to get away from your dogma, empty your mind, and try to see the reality.
You, Robertson, are all you want but a good skeptic.
I repeat: ‘A good skeptic would prove the contamination instead, by using whichever scientific method’.
You do no more than superficial guessing based on infinitesimal electronic engineer’s experience.
Be courageous, Robertson, and publish your daily trash at WUWT!
There you will be trained by REAL skeptics. Those having that experience in climate matters you totally lack.
“There’s a lot of year-to-year variability in both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, but overall, until last year, the trends in the Antarctic for every single month were toward more sea ice,” said Claire Parkinson, a senior sea ice researcher at Goddard. “Last year was stunningly different, with prominent sea ice decreases in the Antarctic. To think that now the Antarctic sea ice extent is actually reaching a record minimum, that’s definitely of interest.”
Meier said it is too early to tell if this year marks a shift in the behavior of Antarctic sea ice.
Wouldn’t bring to much of your german arrogance to the table just yet it was a super warm year last year and things seem to be cooling off quite quickly
Regards
Harry
harry…”said Claire Parkinson, a senior sea ice researcher at Goddard”
You cannot trust anything coming out of GISS. They are blatant, uber-alarmists.
Gordon Robertson
You are using the same type of logic Flat-Earthers use to reject photo evidence of a spherical Earth.
Maybe you should reconsider your physics. It is possible that GISS is making up data, it is more likely your physics is wrong so rather than accept you might be wrong all scientists involved in Climate Research are dishonest because their data does not fit in with your physics.
pango…”Never heard of GHCN V4 daily?
Over 100,000 stations (over 6,000 of them active in 2017).”
I was not referring to how many are available to NOAA, I am talking about how many they use.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
NOAA disagrees with your 6000 active stations, admitting they have slashed the 6000 to under 2500. They synthesize over 75% of the 6000 using statistical interpolation and homogenization in a climate model.
Well I would like to avoid name calling here.
But: how is it possible
– to be so dumb, so thoroughly unexperienced, so far away from science and reality
but nevertheless
– to feel the need to fill this scientific site with such a waste?
Why does pangolino show up all of a sudden? Is this Barry?
Pretty childish.
Changing identity appears to be a new fad among the Perpetrators of Pseudoscience. Both the con-man and young snake have been caught. The “consensus” is that Pang is Bin.
g*e*r*a*n
I just picked a name at random to post under to prove a point. You are obsessed with this notion that I am doing this on a regular basis. I explained the point and the reason. Must you show this lack of understanding what is going on? I was thinking you and J Halp-less were the same person (you post very similar material). To show how it could be done I posted as a “Pete” and have not done so since that time but you seemingly act as if it is a constant process. Get a grip man, are you paranoid?
Plus why can’t someone choose to post under a different name as long as they are not impersonating another poster? Why is that a big deal to you? You should be more interested in finding out why you have problems understanding the Moon’s rotation and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I think you might improve your thought process if you did not get caught up in the trivial (like typos or other minor errors).
con-man, you are a con-man, and you got caught.
Now, you’re trying to con your way out.
It’s hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
What am I trying to com my way out of? I already explained what I did, why I did it. That is not even close to the definition of a con. You need to work on your vocabulary if you want to debate in honest fashion. How do you define “con” that would make your post valid? What am I trying to get out of?
The con-man continues his con. He doesn’t understand that very few criminals ever own up to their crime. It is always someone else’s fault, not theirs.
The con-man got caught, and now attempts to con his way out. It wasn’t his “fault”. It doesn’t fit the “definition” of a con. He didn’t do anything that “bad”.
It’s all predictable, but nevertheless, fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
Posting under a different name is not dishonest or a con. Using someone else’s posting name and putting derogatory remarks in them is a dishonest practice. They are very different. I generally go by my first name but I could posts under anything else like Ball4 and Trick. What does it matter and why is that a con. You have not done a very good job of explaining why you think this is a con. You state it, but have no justification for your point.
HERE IS THE ORIGINAL LINE OF THOUGHT:
ME: “g*e*r*a*n
It seems your really are also J Halp-less. A delusion to make people think you are correct in your unscientific unfounded declarations. You made up J Halp-less to make it seem as if your pseudoscience had some validity because someone eles (you) parroted the very same nonsense.
Here is some evidence: J Halp-less: Thanks, g*. Norman, your entirely predictable yelping is noted, and dismissed accordingly.
Sounds identical to a post by g*e*r*a*n
I also think you gave us a clue by initially adding a bunch of random * in your earlier posts.
So g*e*r*a*n and J Halp-less are probably the same person posting under two different online personas. Do I win a prize for figuring this out?”
I was not calling this dishonest or a con just wondering if you were using another identity to make your points seem more valid.
Then I posted this: “Pete says:
January 31, 2018 at 11:17 PM
g*e*r*a*ns
Tactics are like. Boy that Norman is one really smart person as he was able to figure out g*e*r*a*n and J Halp-less are the same poster using different names.
How do you get two people posting on a blog with the same notion that the Moon does not spin on its axis (when it is well established physics that it does and we have dozens of videos showing this fact).”
There is no poster “Pete” that complained of the improper use of their moniker. There is a person who posts as Pete Ross but none I know of that use “Pete”.
Your point is invalid and no one is complaining of misuse of their online identity. You are only trying to provoke something. You are not debating in good faith.
You don’t like to be insulted but you provoke posters. Your reasoning makes no sense. If you hate insults why go out of your way to provoke someone? Intentionally provoking someone by calling them a con man (dishonest) over an issue that is not an issue makes me wonder if about your dislike of insults. If you want me to insult you just let me know. I can give you your candy bar. I just don’t like others to be offended by giving you what you crave.
It’s all predictable, but nevertheless, fun to watch.
Talking about impersonations, funny how Mike Flynn came back just as we were talking about him. Very easy to copy since he was so repetitive?
Thats a candid admission, Svante, but you accidentally put in a question mark at the end.
g*e*r*a*n, Gordon Robertson, J Halp-less
Here is what you sound like to rational scientists who visit and contribute on this blog. You all seem to employ the very same logic and rational thinking as this group does.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1324.0
You may not accept the Earth is flat but your arguments are very similar in type.
Here is one that Gordon Robertson posts nearly every third post. He believes NOAA is dishonest and giving rigged data.
Here is the Flat Earth reaction to Space travel: “People have been into space. How have they not discovered that the earth is flat?
The most commonly accepted explanation of this is that the space agencies of the world are involved in a conspiracy faking space travel and exploration. This likely began during the Cold War’s ‘Space Race’, in which the U.S.S.R and USA were obsessed with beating each other into space to the point that each faked their accomplishments in an attempt to keep pace with the others supposed achievements. However, since the end of the Cold War, the conspiracy is most likely motivated by greed rather than political gains. Thus opening up a tremendous amounts of funds to embezzle as it only takes a fraction of the total budget to fake space travel.”
Sounds very similar to Gordon’s approach to NOAA temperature data and now Gordon thinks UAH data is tainted because it comes from NOAA satellite data. It is easy to believe anything when your mind is deluded.
Any belief becomes real when they refuse to accept established science and valid evidence.
Even when shown that cold surroundings will cause powered objects to reach higher temperature they still make the very false statement “Cold cannot warm hot” all based upon their flawed and messed up version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
I have asked them to provide supporting evidence where the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that a cold object or environment will not be able to increase the temperature of powered objects if the cold surroundings are warmer than another system of cold surroundings. They never supply any proof of their claims but keep making them. No evidence, no science. All declarations from their made up opinions. NO BASIS IN FACT!
con-man, that toy train is still moving along that circular track. It’s NOT rotating on its axis. The Moon is still moving along its orbit. It is NOT rotating on its axis.
Amazing how the two motions are so similar, huh?
g*e*r*a*n
So you declare without any evidence or support. Your pseudoscience at its finest. You can make any claim you want and declare it, I notice you repeat things a few times for effect. It does not make the pseudoscience any more real. The Moon rotates on its axis. End of story.
As I asked you before, does your car rotate a quarter turn on its axis when you turn at an intersection? You never answered this question. I think the pseudoscientist in you likes to avoid things they can’t answer but pretend they know an answer, they just won’t reveal it. Just a game you play, that is all.
You STILL don’t understand the difference between “rotating on its axis” and “orbiting”. A car driving about a city block will turn at each intersection. It is replicating “orbiting”. It is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
You cannot understand things like this, just as barry cannot understand why he cannot use an imaginary concept to violate 2LoT. You “Perps” are all the same–no physics background, and brain dead.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
Maybe you need to clarify by how you define “rotate on axis”. Maybe no one understands your difference because you never define your terms.
I think we both agree that orbiting means the entire body moving around a central point, it would not determine rotation of the body on its own axis.
In may world of rotation, a car turning would be rotating on its axis. You have a different idea of what that is.
If you are driving North and you make a right turn at an intersection your car now faces East. It has rotated one quarter turn and now faces another direction. You claim this motion is not a rotation on its axis. You have to do a much better job of defining your terms. Rather than just telling people they are wrong supply some more data when there is different opinions on terminology.
Now the con-man tries yet another con. I clearly defined “rotating on its axis” when this started. I used the visual aid of an orange, to explain the concept. Now, he says I “need to clarify”!
It will NEVER be clear to the poor con-man. He will NEVER accept truth. He wants to live in his corruption and perversion. The more, the better.
He has even pasted the 2LoT, but left out the last sentence, hoping no one would notice. He will always be a con-man. But, he only cons himself.
It’s fun to watch.
To keep the hilarity going, I’ll give the con-man one more link, so he can con his way out of it also.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
This is a great year in climate comedy.
g*
Look at the link. With the sphere still spinning, imagine moving it in a circle (orbit) same direction and rotation rate as sphere spins.
You will be deceived into thinking it no longer spins……because same side will always face center.
Two distinct motions. The spinning doesn’t magically stop just because someone moves the globe in a circle.
A: Look at the link. With the sphere still spinning, imagine moving it in a circle (orbit) same direction and rotation rate as sphere spins.
You will be deceived into thinking it no longer spins
J: Artemis, look at this link:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
which one of these (left or right) would you say gives the illusion that it is no longer spinning?
Helpless
The illusion is created when the viewer is at the center of the orbit…..our view of the moon. Both front and back of the non spinning orb (figure on right of screen) will eventually be visible during an orbit. This will create an illusion that it IS spinning even though it’s not.
Only one side of the spinning sphere (left side of screen) would ever be visible to the central viewer, creating the illusion that it’s NOT spinning.
These are visual illusions, halp. Just like magic tricks.
No snake, you still don’t get it.
If an object is truly rotating on its axis, and then goes in orbit. You will see ALL sides of the object from inside the orbit.
That’s why this is so funny. You clowns cannot understand the simple toy train on a circular track.
But, maybe when you grow up. ..
g*
Look at the halp’s link. Which moon do YOU think is spinning?
BTW: You need to put on your reading glasses. This is Artemis, not snape.
Artemis, the illusion is that the right-hand side moon does not spin. In fact, the right-hand side moon is completing one retrograde rotation on its axis, per completion of one orbit. The left-hand side moon, is of course, NOT rotating on its axis. It is simply orbiting. To imagine a moon completing one prograde rotation on its axis, per completion of one orbit, you could visualise something like the left-hand moon, *but it would appear to rotate at exactly twice the rate it currently appears to* in that link.
Halp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
Then this is your logic: Grab the globe with both hands so it no longer spins. Move it in a circle….one side always facing north. You think the globe has rotated?
Artemis, if you could stop the left-hand side moon in its tracks, stopping it from carrying on completing its orbital motion; it would not be rotating on the spot. If you could stop the right-hand side moon from orbiting, it would be rotating CW, on the spot.
Lol!!!!
Look at this link again. The globe is spinning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
“With the sphere still spinning, imagine moving it in a circle (orbit) same direction and rotation rate as the sphere spins.”
You think if you stop moving the globe in a circle it will suddenly stop spinning???
How come you can’t see how nutty that is?
Perhaps your confusion arises because you believe bodies *must* spin? And then you build everything from that error onwards…in any case, its funny to see your reaction.
halp says:
“If you could stop the right-hand side moon from orbiting, it would be rotating CW, on the spot.”
Go find a globe, halp. Set it on a table and move it around a center spot. As you do, make sure one side always faces north. Then suddenly stop the orbit.
Do you think the globe will magically start rotating????
Unbelievable.
Halp
And maybe you could answer the question I posed here, instead of evading:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/?replytocom=285665#respond
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
And, just for completion…if you could stop the moon in its orbital motion, the one that is completing one prograde rotation per orbit (not shown, but described earlier)…that would be rotating CCW, on the spot, at the same rate as the moon on the right would (just in the opposite direction).
A: Go find a globe, halp. Set it on a table and move it around a center spot. As you do, make sure one side always faces north. Then suddenly stop the orbit.
Do you think the globe will magically start rotating????
J: No. Lol. Because obviously the globe doesnt rotate of its own accord, as you seem to think. So when you stop moving it around a table, both orbiting AND rotating motions stop. I predicted here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285589
That nobody would get it, from Barrys link, but I had no idea anyone would be *this* confused! You really are a delight.
Pay attention, halp.
You’re the one who thinks the orb will magically rotate on its own accord, not me:
“If you could stop the right-hand side moon from orbiting, it would be rotating CW, on the spot.”
The figure on the right is making an orbit. One side is always facing north. Based on that information, you concluded it must be rotating on its axis, and if the orbit stopped, we would magically see it rotate.
I demonstrated the exact same motion using a globe on a table….orbiting around a center spot, always facing north. Now, however, faced with experimental evidence, you wisely conclude/admit its NOT rotating.
Snape, maybe you could start posting your comments like everybody else, instead of having them just go anywhere you want in the thread?
S: Youre the one who thinks the orb will magically rotate on its own accord, not me:
J: Wonderful. Snape, I was just explaining that IF you could stop the orbital motion of the moon on the right, and ONLY the orbital motion, then it would still be rotating (CW). You have to be able to separate orbital motion, from axial rotation, in your head, to visualise this. Otherwise you might start writing crazy things about how a globe is already rotating on its axis, and that you have to stop rotating it to move it, etc.
Halp
Here is your argument:
Place a coin on a table. Move it around a center point as if orbiting, with one side always facing north. You conclude it is NOT rotating on its axis.
Make a CARTOON ANIMATION of a coin on a table. Move it around a center point as if orbiting, with one side always facing north. You now conclude it IS rotating on its axis.
Hmmmm….?
Ah, Snape, youve decided to post in sequence again.
In answer to your question: No.
Halp
Here was my question:
[With the sphere still spinning, imagine moving it in a circle (orbit) same direction and rotation rate as the sphere spins.
You think if you stop moving the globe in a circle it will suddenly stop spinning???]
Your answer, thank goodness, is NO.
But strangely, when the same situation is demonstrated as a CARTOON, where no one can prove you wrong, your answer is YES.
Hmmm?
Snape, my response of no was to your question: Hmmm? following your misrepresentation of my argument. This was to indicate that what you had written, and attributed to me, was not my argument.
Of course; both coin, and cartoon representation of coin, ARE rotating on their axis. For example, if you moved the coin in a CCW orbit around a centre point, say for example with heads up on the coin and the face always pointing North, throughout the entire orbit, that would be one full CW rotation of the coin on its axis whilst completing one full orbit around the centre point. Simulation and experiment the same.
And, hopefully to finally clarify: if you put the same coin onto a toy train, on the same table, and let the train take the coin around a circular track in a CCW direction (completing a CCW orbit), you cannot manipulate the rotation of the coin about its axis in any way. The coin does not rotate on its axis as it completes the orbit.
Halp
“And, hopefully to finally clarify”
Yes, I finally understand the basis of your delusion! I don’t have time to explain, but I will later tonight.
Norman says:
“g*e*r*a*n […] Maybe no one understands your difference because you never define your terms.”
Let’s define it as the angle shown by the Foucault pendulum.
Would it show no rotation on the moon?
Would the pendulum swing be aligned to g*e*r*a*n’s toy train track?
Wow, svante is REALLY grasping at straws!
You can’t distinguish between “orbiting” and “rotating on it axis” with a Foucault pendulum. Both are MOVEMENTS!
Hilarious.
(And the Moon is only doing one of the two movements–“orbiting”. It does NOT “rotate on its axis.)
snake, your own test proves you wrong. Imagine your parent or guardian moving the spinning globe in a large circle, around you. Do you see all sides of the spinning globe?
That’s because if is “rotating on its axis”.
You do not see all sides of the Moon, because it is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Now, time for bedtime.
g*
I know you like to call Snape, “snake”, but if you’ll notice, that’s not me.
Anyway, the experiment you just suggested is exactly what I was trying to get you to do with the toothpick.
Have your care provider rotate the globe at a rate of one revolution every 10 seconds. At the same time, have him/her walk around you (same direction that globe spins) one time in 10 seconds.
If you have your glasses on, you will only ever see one side of the globe.
“The coin does not rotate on its axis as it completes the orbit.”
“You do not see all sides of the Moon, because it is NOT “rotating on its axis”.”
And yet the coin and moon both experience sunrise and sunset i.e. day and night once each orbit demonstrating they are rotating on an axis. You two have yet to explain this phenomenon.
Even if the moon were tidally locked to the sun it would experience galaxy rise and galaxy set, earth rise and earth set, still demonstrating rotating on an axis.
The question that goes unanswered here – is the universe rotating? Now that should be the question generating comments not the quickly debunked by inspection non-rotating on its axis moon.
snake, if the globe is “rotating on its axis”, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to also “orbit” without you seeing all sides from inside the orbit. It doesn’t matter if the two motions are synchronized, or not. It is IMPOSSIBLE.
You probably can’t visualize it, but imagine putting the globe on the toy train. The base of the globe is attached to the train. Now “orbit” the train around the track, while spinning the globe. The rotation on its axis is visible from inside the track.
If the base of the globe is attached, so that it’s reference frame is the orbit, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to adjust the “rotating on its axis” rate to where it is not visible from inside the track. The only way would be if the globe is NOT rotating on its axis.
g*
I see now that the experiment with your care giver, as well as the the globe on the train, are both examples that reinforce the optical illusion.
I will try to get back to you later tonight with something I recently noticed.
“If the base of the globe is attached, so that it’s reference frame is the orbit, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to adjust the “rotating on its axis” rate to where it is not visible from inside the track. The only way would be if the globe is NOT rotating on its axis.”
Ah yes, anger conjurs the Romulan cloaking device into action again writing “it” (the globe) is not visible from inside the track.
anger, there is no Romulan cloaking device in real life, actually the globe IS visible from inside the track and seen performing one rotation on the globe’s axis per orbit otherwise the globe would not always present same face to inside the track viewers. By simple inspection.
Cabbage Head, you just get sillier and sillier.
It’s fun to watch.
anger, consider building a device to support your globe on the train such that it keeps one face of your globe always pointing in the same direction as when the train started. So that the globe does NOT rotate one time on its axis per train orbit & now the globe rotates 0 times on its axis per train orbit.
Now the track insiders see all faces of your globe. And in this case the globe is rotating 0 times on its axis i.e. non-rotational. The audience murmurs agreement that it would like you to explain how this could be.
See CH, that’s why you can’t understand. You haven’t been paying attention in class.
The motion you describe has the globe “rotating on its axis”. If the train is orbiting” CCW, for the globe to stay in the original orientation, it would have to be “rotating on its axis” CW.
Try to pay attention. And no drinking allowed in the classroom.
“The motion you describe has the globe “rotating on its axis”.”
No anger, the motion I described with the device stops the globe from rotating once per orbit, thus has the globe NOT rotating on its axis, 0 rotation per orbit. Or is anger having difficulty with 0? This means NO rotation on the globe’s axis per orbit. None, zip, nada rotation on an axis, capiche?
The motion anger describes has the globe rotating once on the globe’s axis per orbit always presenting the same face to the track insiders just like a “tidally locked” moon. The audience murmurs impatiently with anger’s struggling with dynamics.
No drinking allowed in the classroom.
Observing that anger maintains an indefensible position with no possible counter offered, the audience smiles satisfactorily and exits the theatre. Murmuring anger’s entertainment was once again worth the price of admission, fun to watch.
As Ball4 was led back to his room, the cheers from his imagined audience still ringing in his head, Bob the orderly returned to the train set Ball had been playing with, and switched it off. The little train stopped its CCW motion around the track; but something was still moving. Puzzled, Bob saw that a little device (a powered rotating platform) had been set up on the train which was turning a tiny ball CW. Bob disconnected the battery so that it stopped rotating, and shook his head sadly.
☺
Halp-less demonstrates to the returned audience being totally confused as anger.
The unamused audience is briefly astonished at the lack of reading compression in these two, murmurs disgustingly and re-exits the theater complaining of stagehand Bob’s building of a strawman.
The audience immediately saw through the strawman obviously changing the proposition as Bob manages to start the globe rotating hoping for adulation since the non-rotational original globe always points in the same direction as the train stops as anger’s globe was when the train started since the original globe has 0 rotation on its axis: “consider building a device to support your globe on the train such that it keeps one face of your globe always pointing in the same direction as when the train started.” Meaning pointing same direction as it started ALL the time even when the train stops.
The audience leaves but hopes for a sequel (or prequel) from these two on IMDB as entertaining as the first show. No doubt the two total science fiction producers anger and Halp-less will be able to supply even more entertainment (now in pre-production), fun to watch with no mundane science.
compression? Ha, spell czech at work changing something close to comprehension. But the audience knows the drill having their own similar experiences.
Oh, well you could always stick a compass on the train.
A moral compass always pointing the same direction forward would also be of use.
Cabbage Head, there is no evidence you would know a “moral compass” from a “molar compress”.
But at least you still have your drunken daubs.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“You cant distinguish between orbiting and rotating on it axis with a Foucault pendulum.”
https://tinyurl.com/ycfteghg:
“The effect on a Foucault pendulum due to the earth’s orbital motion is not just small, it’s zero. You can’t analyze the orbital motion the same way as the rotation of the earth about its axis. The earth free falls around the sun.”
Svante, you arent at Luke-rotator yet. Find a Luke, and ask a few questions. You will be fine.
You look at the moon, one night it is full and bright and two weeks later it is new, not lit.
So obviously a light source called the sun is doing this.
So either the sun is rotating around the moon, or the moon rotates.
So you are either with the flat earth at the center of the universe group or you are not.
If you don’t get that, it’s no wonder you have problems with the second law.
The moon orbits.
And the universe obits around the moon.
Got it.
N: g*e*r*a*n, Gordon Robertson, J Halp-less
Here is what you sound like to rational scientists who visit and contribute on this blog. You all seem to employ the very same logic and rational thinking as this group does.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1324.0
You may not accept the Earth is flat but your arguments are very similar in type.
N: (earlier) Since you do not like the insults I will refrain from using them. They are not necessary but g*e*r*a*n seems to like them.
J: Lol
If I were you, and if you are courageous enough to put your superficial meaning in question, I would review ALL Roy Spencer threads (beginning with january 2017 the latest), and look at who started to call other people an idiot.
I did that last week, Halp-less.
Me too. It was Norman. Tee hee.
No! It was Robertson.
Im sure youre right. After all, you were there.
Binny…”and look at who started to call other people an idiot”.
I did not call people an idiot, I called YOU an idiot. And I think you’re an even bigger idiot now for withdrawing from the blog as Bindidon, complete with sob story, then returning as Pagolina. Only a blithering idiot would do something like that.
I have used the idiot word on others, but rarely. In fact, I am a lightweight with insults and I normally try to justify my insult with a scientific explanations. Of course, others have offered insults and that seems equally effective. When called upon, however, some have offered good rebuttals.
Moreover, I invite you to read some information about Moon’s spin around its axis, e.g. Nikola Tesla’s
https://teslauniverse.com/sites/default/files/article_files/19190400-01.pdf
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#Rotation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
before you feel right in guessing that all people thinking different than you do all believe in nonsense a la
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1324.0
Keep lolling, Halp-less! It’s healthy.
Thanks, I will. And yes, it is healthy.
Tesla quote from paper cited above:
“Some of the arguments advanced by the correspondents and not a few comical. None, however are valid.”
I thought we all should enjoy this, and each other.
Error corrected.
Some of the arguments advanced by the correspondents are ingenuous and not a few comical. None, however are valid.
I thought we all should enjoy this, and each other.
Apologies for the error.
Pangolina Jolie:
Two hints to help explain my continued amusement:
1) Where I write, for example, N:, and then text follows: that is a quote. Those words do not belong to me. The J: then indicates where my words begin. For example, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285594
The only words in that comment which were mine, follow the J. The rest were words written by N. N, is Norman.
2) Your Tesla document is great. I hope the others read it. Thank you.
But… that was understood!
Sure it was!
Contrary meanings must be respected. But only one of them holds.
Yes, only the meaning where its understood that Norman thinks like this:
LaP: before you feel right in guessing that all people thinking different than you do all believe in nonsense a la
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1324.0
J: and not myself, holds.
binny…”Moreover, I invite you to read some information about Moons spin around its axis, e.g. Nikola Teslas…”
Once again, binny reaches for an authority figure. Tesla may have been a great in electrical theory but his explanation here of the Moon’s rotation on an axis is amateurish. He concedes at one point that the axis to which he refers passes through the Earth.
Then he asks the question, what would happen if the Earth was removed from the system? He concludes the Moon would continue orbiting the Sun, which is sheer speculation.
If the Earth was suddenly removed, with it’s gravitational field, the Moon would go hurtling of in a tangential direction to its Earth orbit. The fate of the Moon would depend exactly where the Moon was located when the gravitational field was turned off.
If, for example, it was moving away from the Sun, and the gravitational force to the Earth was cut, it would be moving perpendicular to the Sun orbit. How, prey tell, with such a now linear momentum could it maintain an orbit? I seriously doubt that the Sun would have enough gravitational force to hold it at all.
Basic engineering tells us the angular momentum holding the Moon in orbit is not sufficient to keep the Moon orbiting the Sun. It is the Earth’s angular momentum that keeps them both in orbit around the Sun, and if that changed when the Earth captured the Moon, even a small amount, the Earth could have lost orbit around the Sun.
Of course, the Moon would be affected by the gravitational pull of the Sun and would try to remain in some kind of orbit. However, with it’s momentum, it could go in any of several directions, depending on where the gravitational force from the Earth was turned off.
I am reading into this article that Tesla made a mistake, and when interviewed, he tried back-pedaling to save face. He as much as admits that, claiming the theory he offered is not exactly true.
Claiming the Moon’s axis of rotation is through the Earth is a load of malarkey. There is fiction based on theoretical math, the illusions of the human mind, and what is really going on. People have had a heyday with theoretical inertial frames and made seriously stupid claims that can never be proved.
Tesla admitted in the article that no rotational energy exists in the Moon around an axis through the Moon. Ergo, there is no rotation around the Moon’s axis. Any other argument is akin to the kind of mental illusions that have lead to time as a reality, space-time, black holes and the Big Bang. And evolution.
But you can’t connect the earth to the moon even with an infinitely strong pole because the earth is still rotating.
sofa
Have a carrot.
king
binny…from your wiki link.
“For the moon to make a complete rotation on its axis takes approximately 27.3 days. It takes the moon about this same time to orbit the earth; this is why we always see the same side of the moon (see tidal locking)”.
One reason I called you an idiot initially was your insistence on citing such drivel without thinking it through. Not just that, however, it was your dogged insistence articles were correct when they were flagrantly wrong. One must be extremely careful with wiki articles because they could be written by me or you.
The author admits the Moon is tidally locked, hence it presents the same face to the Earth. That’s the same thing as having a long pole (radial spoke, as in a wheel) passing through the Earth and through the face of the Moon facing us. The pole prevents the Moon from rotating.
Then the author claims the Moon is rotating on it’s axis every 27.3 days. Tesla pointed out that folly, pointing out there is no rotational energy in the Moon.
If I say Vikings colonized Greenland during the MWP, will I need a link to support it?
Darwin, with the climate clowns here, any evidence you provide, counter to AGW, will be dismissed, ridiculed, and trashed!
You just have to enjoy the show. It’s fun to watch.
Darwin Wyatt
I would say no to this information. If you make the claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states a cold surroundings cannot raise the equilibrium temperature of a powered object (energy constantly added at a fixed rate) if the cold surroundings are warmer than previous cold surroundings I would require strong evidence since empirical data suggests this is a false and made up claim and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has never made such a claim.
Here is evidence to show the claim is false. Unless some good counter examples are provided the claim is pseudoscience, made up by someone for whatever reason but has not relation to fact and reality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/table/Tab2/
The table shows that in 26 C air the powered equipment reaches higher temperatures than when in 20 C air. Both air masses are much colder than the temperature of the powered lab equipment. The test shows that warmer cold air will increase the temperature of hotter items. It is a direct contradiction of the claim.
norman…”The table shows that in 26 C air the powered equipment reaches higher temperatures than when in 20 C air”.
We have already been through this, it’s about heat dissipation, not energy from cooler air warming an object dissipating heat.
Back to Stefan-Boltzmann: Q = ebA(T^4 – To^4)
If Q is the rate of energy loss (heat dissipation) it depends on the difference between the temperature of the body, T, and the temperature of the surroundings To. Obviously if the surrounding air is cooler, the body will dissipate heat more quickly and be cooler.
That is basic to electronic equipment and it’s why computers have fans in them. I told you about my computer processor chip running very hot on a hot summer’s day because I had the side of the case off, eliminating the effect of the internal fan. The processor has it’s own fan but it was not enough.
The chip core temp was in the 80C range, which concerned me. I took a fan with a 12″ blade and placed it near the open computer case side, directed at the processor. Within a minute of turning on the fan, the processor core temp had dropped to around 50C. An hour later it was even cooler.
The powered equipment does not reach a higher temperature in warmer air when that temp is lower than the equipment temp. The equipment will have an ambient temperature related to the current running through it and that will be max when the air surrounding it is at the same temperature. As you cool the temp of the surrounding air the equipment will cool, not warm.
Darwin Wyatt says:
February 7, 2018 at 9:00 PM
If I say Vikings colonized Greenland during the MWP, will I need a link to support it?
*
No you won’t. It is a fact. They have been there at that time.
But wether that was du to warming is highly debated. See for example a paper I was very surprised about:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806.full
because I thought that only the western part of Northern America was not warmer during MWP:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-010-0016-2
Thanks for the link to the article in SCIENCE. Figure 3 shows something really interesting, that is, two large events, one at around 1250 and another around 1450 C.E. The discussion didn’t mention the fact that there were two exceptionally large volcanic events at those dates, Samalas in ~1257 C.E. and Kuwae in 1452-53. As I recall, the Norse Western Settlement vanished about 1250 and the Eastern Settlement may have ended around 1450. Any earlier event similar to the more recent Year Without Summer in 1816 C.E. would surely have stressed the Norse to extreme, as their pastoral lifestyle was derived from that in Norway, which enjoys a much less harsh environment due to the warming from the North Atlantic circulation. This explanation is much different than that from folks who blame the Little Ice Age for their disappearance.
You are right.
I also did not understand why they did not mention the Samalas event on Lombok, as an article referred to it in 2013 already:
Source of the great A.D. 1257 mystery eruption unveiled, Samalas volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Indonesia
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/42/16742.full
*
If 15,000 of the 50,000 Londonians died of hunger in 1258, so nobody will wonder about Greenland stopping soon after that to be a Norse dream.
Here is by the way a list of the main volcano eruptions with a VEI of at least 6 having preceeded LIA:
Samalas 1257, VEI 7/8
Quilotoa 1280, 6
Kuwae 1452, 6
Bardarbunga 1477, 6
Billy Mitchell 1580, 6
Huaynaputina 1600, 6
And all these eruptions following Samalas 1257 certainly didn’t have much better consequences.
Current temperature in North America.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00958/76ht3fft69v2.png
Extreme temperature on the Hudson Bay.
Feels like temperature -51.5 degrees C.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/ztcbitch4jel.png
Keep cool, ren: https://www.wetteronline.de/wetter/verhojansk
This is the forecast of circulation in the lower stratosphere.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00958/balro9o2xv05.png
Ned Nikolov:
On Earth and any other planet, the average atmospheric pressure at the surface (P, Pa) is determined by the mass of gas above a unit area (Ma/Ap) and gravitational acceleration (g,, m s-2), i.e. P = (Ma/Ap)*g, where Ma is total atmospheric mass (kg) and Ap is planets surface area (m^2). This definition implies: (a) the average surface atmospheric pressure is INDEPENDENT of temperature and air density; (b) the thermodynamic processes at the surface are ISOBARIC in nature meaning that they occur under nearly constant pressure for a given elevation.
It follows from the above that a differential heating of a planetary surface by the Sun will cause variation in air density due to a differential expansion of the atmosphere. This is clearly observed in the different heights of the tropopause between equatorial and polar regions. At the Equator, the troposphere extends to about 17 km altitude, while at the Poles its depth is only 8-9 km. Yet, the pressure measured at equivalent altitudes is nearly the same between Equator and the Poles. Therefore, on a planetary scale, air density is a DEPENDENT variable governed by pressure & temperature. In the real atmosphere, gas volume (thus density) is controlled by pressure and solar heating.
Please take a look at this paper, which demonstrates, how to properly predict average planetary temperatures using two truly INDEPENDENT drivers solar radiation and surface atmospheric pressure:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
https://i0.wp.com/files.tinypic.pl/i/00958/rdno1ukmwigx.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2017.png
ren…”On Earth and any other planet, the average atmospheric pressure at the surface (P, Pa) is determined by the mass of gas above a unit area (Ma/Ap) and gravitational acceleration (g,, m s-2), i.e. P = (Ma/Ap)*g, where Ma is total atmospheric mass (kg) and Ap is planets surface area (m^2). This definition implies: (a) the average surface atmospheric pressure is INDEPENDENT of temperature and air density;”
*************
Doesn’t make sense, ren. Temperature is directly proportional to pressure in a constant volume/constant mass system as in the Ideal Gas Equation: PV = nRT. The more dense a gas, the more the molecules collide, and the hotter the gas.
Isobaric implies isothermal in a constant volume system. I have no argument with the fact that heated air at the surface rises, causing changes in temperature, as it rises, however, cooler air rushes in to replace the heated air when it rises and I would think that would average temps in the long run.
Look at Mount Everest. It is subjected to monsoons and thermal, yet the pressure/temperature gradient as one approaches the peak is in place. At the peak, oxygen is 1/3rd what it is at sea level and rising thermals cannot do that. The temperature is also at least a third of what it is at sea level.
That’s a constant, you cannot walk to the peak of Everest in a tee shirt and shorts…ever. During the day, solar radiation can warm you but at night you freeze to death, even in summer, if you are not adequately dressed in serious survival gear.
In many ways Venus is the hell planet. Results of spacecraft investigation of the surface and
Surface temperature 735K: lead, tin, and zinc melt at surface, with hot spots with temperatures in
excess of 975 K
Atmospheric pressure 96 Bar (1300 PSI); similar to pressure at a depth of a kilometer under the
ocean
The surface is cloud covered; little or no solar energy
Poisonous atmosphere of primarily carbon dioxide, with nitrogen and clouds of sulfuric acid
droplets.
However, viewed in a different way, the problem with Venus is merely that the ground level is too far
below the one atmosphere level. At cloud-top level, Venus is the paradise planet. As shown in figure 2, at
an altitude slightly above fifty km above the surface, the atmospheric pressure is equal to the Earth surface
atmospheric pressure of I Bar. At this level, the environment of Venus is benign.
above the clouds, there is abundant solar energy
temperature is in the habitable “liquid water” range of 0-5OC
atmosphere contains the primary volatiles required for life (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen,
Nitrogen, and Sulfur)
Gravity is 90% of the gravity at the surface of Earth.
atmosphere of Venus are summarized by Bougher, Hunten, and Phillips [ 19971:
While the atmosphere contains droplets of sulfuric acid, technology to avoid acid corrosion are well
known, and have been used by chemists for centuries.
In short, the atmosphere of Venus is most earthlike environment in the solar system. Although
humans cannot breathe the atmosphere, pressure vessels are not required to maintain one atmosphere of
habitat pressure, and pressure suits are not required for humans outside the habitat.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030022668.pdf
Think of the Moon’s rotation from the point of view of an astronaut living on its surface. The rotation period depends on your frame of reference.
Observe the stars. They move from East to West across the sky,returning to their original positions after 27.3 days.
Observe the Sun. It moves across the sky from East to West, from one sunrise to the next takes 29.5 days.
Observe the Earth. It remains fixed in the same place in the sky.
From a lunar viewpoint:-
The Moon’s sidereal day is one rotation relative to the stars every 27.3 Earth days.
The Moon’s synodic day is one rotation relative to the Sun every 29.5 days.
Relative to the Earth, the moon does not rotate at all.
Incidentally, one Earth day is 23 hours 56 minutes relative to the stars and 24 hours relative to the Sun. The above figures assume that one Earth day is 24 hours.
Em states: “Relative to the Earth, the moon does not rotate at all.”
And, relative to its axis, it does not rotate.
It only orbits Earth.
(I think maybe there’s a flicker of hope for Em.)
“And, relative to its axis, it does not rotate.”
Just WHAT is that supposed to mean? Excuse the laughter from the audience generated on each anger comment, they are easily amused.
Cabbage Head, you probably can’t understand, until you sober up. If that ever happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
Sooo…now anger 7:17pm agrees moon does rotate around a fixed axis per his own link: “Rotation around a fixed axis” which states: For the example of the Earth rotating around its axis..
Just like the moon rotating around its axis, the sun rises and sets on both, they just have different length of day, lunar and terrestrial. Got it. The audience murmurs agreement.
Ball4
Earlier, you had the good idea, “anger, consider building a device to support your globe on the train such that it keeps one face of your globe always pointing in the same direction as when the train started.”
I think laying a compass flat on the train would serve the same purpose (Norman may have already thought of this).
The train and compass will both be forced to rotate as the train makes its circuit around the track, but the compass needle will not, it will always face north.
Like I indicated, poor CH just can’t understand.
The train and the compass itself wont be able to rotate on their axes, since the train is on the tracks and the compass is just lying on top of it. The compass needle, free to move, and drawn by magnetism to the north, is able to rotate on its axis in order to maintain a north-facing position.
A compass needle does not rotate, halp. It always faces north.
Because its able to rotate on its axis, yes.
Snape, do you need further instruction on how a compass operates, or are you done embarrassing yourself on this permanent internet record?
Halp
When you rotate a compass, the needle is free not to participate. That’s how it works.
Agreed. Lol.
I wish I was a headlight, on a northbound train
Got to watch out for the spinners though.
G*e*r*a*n
If the Moon did not rotate around its axis, an observer on the Moon’s surface would see no movement of the stars across the sky.
The lunar day would last one Earth year from sunrise to sunrise.
The Earth would appear to move across the lunar sky on a monthly cycle as the Moon moves in Earth’s sky.
Em, you are confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on its axis”. The Moon does NOT “rotate on its axis”. It “orbits” around the Earth. An observer, on the Moon, sees the apparent “movement” of the stars because of the orbital motion.
The easiest way to understand is the simple toy train. Running along a straight track, the train is not “rotating on its axis”. If the track is bent into a large circle, the train is still not rotating on its axis, but just moving in a circle (orbiting).
Even simple concepts are hard to grasp if you’re not used to thinking for yourself.
g*
See my comment above. The compass needle is what “orbiting, but not rotating on an axis” looks like.
By comparison, we see that the compass, and the train car it rests on, are not just making an orbit, they are rotating at the same time.
snake, maybe some day you will study orbital dynamics. And then you might learn that the forces that produce orbiting do NOT also produce “rotating on its axis”.
They are TWO different motions.
Every single astronomer on the planet agrees that the moon rotates on its axis.
Considering the train and compass needle.
Put the train on the circular track so that the needle points North and the train faces North. When the train moves forward it goes anticlockwise around the track. Put a camera in the centre of the circuit to watch the train.
Move the train forward by one quarter of a circuit. The needle still points North. The train now faces West having rotated 90 degrees anticlockwise.
Move the train another quarter circuit. The needle still points North, but the train has rotated another 90 degrees and now faces South.
Move the train another quarter circuit. The needle still points North. The train has rotated another 90 degrees and now faces East.
Move the train another quarter circuit. The needle still points North. The train has rotated another 90 degrees and also faces North.
The needle has made one circuit of the track, but has not rotated on its axis. The train has made one anticlockwise circuit and rotated on its vertical axis once anticlockwise.
From the centre of the circuit the camera always saw the left side of the train.
The Moon does the same. In one month it makes one anticlockwise circuit around the Earth and rotates once anticlockwise around its axis. We always see the same face of the Moon for the same reason that the camera always saw the same side of the train.
Em continues to confuse himself: “The needle has made one circuit of the track, but has not rotated on its axis.”
Em, the axis of the needle is rotating relative to the needle. You will continue to confuse yourself, because you cannot see reality.
It’s fun to watch.
G*e*r*a*n
Astronomers have a name for the Moon’s behaviour. It is called tidal locking.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
I quote “A tidally locked body in synchronous rotation takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.”
As J pointed out, “tidal locking” has been mentioned numerous times. It is verification that the Moon can not be “rotating on its axis”.
(Try to keep up, Em.)
Every reference to tidal locking states that the object tidally locked is rotating.
Contrary to your assertion.
Perhaps you can provide an actual physics text that specifically corroborates your notion that tidal locking nixes rotation.
You won’t find one.
EM, once you understand the difference in reference frames, you will get why *tidally-locked object does not rotate* is just a change of R.F away from *tidally-locked object rotates*. Then, you can move beyond such distractions as R.Fs.
EM, perhaps if you read back through one of the 58000 previous conversations on here about tidal locking, you would get a clue?
Sorry to keep interrupting G*. I will let you have your fun.
Great, no more interrupting from Halp-less (I somehow do not believe this will hold but one can hope) as anger is fun to watch get tidal locking wrong all alone without Halp-less’ interrupting with straw men but the entertainment does reduce without Halp-less production of climate science sophistry.
B: Great, no more interrupting from Halp-less
J: Said Ball4, interrupting. Yes I have stuff to do today, but I just had time to leave another comment for you, and this one. Have a great one!
J, you’re not interrupting.
They provide plenty of fun for all.
G: Even simple concepts are hard to grasp if youre not used to thinking for yourself.
J: Like how a compass works. This is rapidly moving from funny, to sad (but still funny)
The Moon/axis issue was something I came across about 10 years ago. I didn’t realize what a clear demonstration it would provide of the ongoing perversion of science. Not one of the climate clowns has been able to understand the simple toy train. No wonder they can’t understand atmospheric physics!
It’s both amazing and amusing to watch.
“The Moon/axis issue was something I came across about 10 years ago.”
10 years of misunderstanding rotational dynamics! It’s both amazing and amusing to watch anger not be able to learn the actual moon rotation science in all that time; now it will be equally amazing and fun to watch anger not understand atmospheric physics and especially the 2LOT in comments for the next 10 years and beyond!
More please. The audience eagerly awaits the entertainment.
Kids these days. ..
This is all silly and has been covered at nauseum in ALL its forms. Only obstinacy stops a resolution.
G*: “Em, the axis of the needle is rotating relative to the needle. You will continue to confuse yourself, because you cannot see reality.”
That is the point that you don’t get!! The compass needle has not moved but the axis has done a rotation and an orbit! The needle has done an orbit but no rotation.
The two are independent totally, absolutely independent motions which depend only on the forces in play! The effect observed is based on the frame of reference of the observer.
So, G* you are right! That is from your frame of reference, a moving, rotating reference frame covering 360 deg in a full orbit. I won’t try be precise in defining orbit which can have a car, train etc going in a square, circular, elliptical movement and so on. So anything moving around a circumference without crossing its path.
The problem is G* that you jump from one frame of reference into another without realizing it hence you correctly identified that the needle has not moved but its pin or axis had rotated. That is the frame of reference of an observer outside the orbit.
Your frame of reference has mostly been from inside the orbit meaning it is a rotating frame. From THAT frame the needle has indeed rotated but the pin or axis has NOT rotated.
Choose one and stick to it OR make the appropriate transforms and declare it. Otherwise you keep going around in circular fashion.
From a rotating reference frame (i.e. the observer is inside the orbit like us) the moon does not rotate in one orbit. From an external reference frame the moon clearly rotates once in one orbit.
tonyM
I think you have done a really good job of explaining what is going on.
When determining if something is rotating in space, scientists use the best fixed frame available. Distant stars. They move but the relative rate of motion from Earth is so small they are basically a fixed reference.
The Moon rotates once upon its own axis, with reference to the external fixed stars, in completing an orbit around Earth.
Thanks for your input on this issue, I think it has taken up such a number of posts on a climate blog, that it is near ridiculous. I am wondering if Roy Spencer will see this and declare “enough!”
Pretty sure Dr. Spencer is part of the amused audience watching anger’s toy train romper room. So much fun to watch anger and Halp-less’ science fiction entertainment; the audience hopes sequels are never ending & help to keep experiment based science discussions alive and meaningful.
norman…”The Moon rotates once upon its own axis, with reference to the external fixed stars, in completing an orbit around Earth”.
If the Earth was the centre of a spoked wheel, with a spoke rigidly connected to the Moon, and all the other spokes missing, would you describe that as the Moon rotating on its axis?
Certainly, as viewed wrt a fixed reference frame it does turn but that’s the effect of it rotating around the Earth as an axis. The Moon lacks the angular momentum to turn about it’s own axis.
Gordon writes: “Certainly, as viewed wrt a fixed reference frame (the moon) does turn..”
then: “The Moon lacks the angular momentum to turn about it’s (sic) own axis.”
So according to Gordon something that “does turn” inexplicably “lacks angular momentum”.
tonyM, I’ll be glad to put you on the “rotator” list, if that’s what you prefer.
The “frame of reference” is a mind trick. It is meant to confuse. That’s what all the distractions are about–confusion. What’s the definition? What’s the “frame of reference”? You don’t understand “tidal locking”. How do you explain night and day?
As I’ve indicated, this Moon/axis issue is a great parallel to the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE nonsense. They get the science wrong, and then they attempt to cover it with layers and layers of distractions.
If you are sincerely confused on the Moon/axis issue, just go back to the simple toy train. The train is definitely NOT rotating on its axis, as it orbits the center of the circular track. It’s not that hard to understand, if one can think logically.
G*
The only one confused seems to be yourself.
You have not grasped that frames of reference determine the outcome. AN external inertial frame will always see the train, horse, boat, car do one rotation per orbit.
Your rotating frame observed from inside the circumference will always see a rotation with a perfectly constant pointing object like a compass needle.
Your same frame observer will always see a rotation as still on a one rotation per orbit. An orbit does not generate a rotation. A force does that.
I illustrated this with drawing a circle with a constantly north facing pen. Stop grasping for explanation by what causes a rotation or not as it is not material; the only question is what does the observer see.
Further it has stuff all to do with confusion in CAGW.
tonyM, your “constantly north facing pen” is being HELD in that position! That is NOT orbital movement.
Hilarious.
If you’re serious about ending your confusion, try this. Hold TWO pens so that they can not rotate in your hand, for example one held “east” and one facing “west”. Now, do an orbit on a piece of paper. Notice the circles left by the pens.
If you were able to follow the simple directions, you will have two circles, intersecting each other. You have violated orbital movement.
G*
It would not matter if a monster machine held the pen; it is irrelevant. A circle is drawn meaning the pen has followed that line and done an orbit. That is the orbit as defined. It has always pointed say N.
The observer from outside that circle sees the pen orbit once but no rotation. The observer from inside the circle sees a rotating pen doing one orbit. Both observers are correct in their reference frames.
Simple.
Two pens do exactly the same. It has nothing to do with crossing orbits. Which bible requires that orbits of two different objects cannot cross. I see it happen every day on the road or people in the street. Satellites would cross their orbits. No problems whatsoever as long as they are not at the same point at the same time!
tonyM, do the rail tracks, on the circular layout, intersect?
G*
I have given you the correct interpretation to your dilemma.
If you can’t grasp it by now then too bad! I remember wasting much time on a goose once.
Sorry tonyM, but you have only demonstrated your confusion, AGAIN. I was hoping you may have improved.
You have now been registered with the other “rotators”. Should you ever “see the light”, let me know and I will take your name off the list.
Happy rotating!
tony m…”The compass needle has not moved but the axis has done a rotation and an orbit! The needle has done an orbit but no rotation”.
You are confused about your frames of reference. Rotation of the Moon about its axis must be referred to the Moon itself. Once you view the Moon in orbit about the Earth, your reference frame must be the Earth/Moon interface. You also need the Sun in the reference frame.
WRT the Sun, as the Moon orbits the Earth, the Moon presents different faces to the Sun, but only one face to the Earth. WRT the Sun, it is rotating but not on it’s own axis. The apparent rotation from the Sun is due entirely to the Moon’s orbit around the Earth and has nothing to do with a local frame of reference in which the Moon is rotating on its own axis.
That is not a definition of rotation, it’s a product of the Moon’s orbit.
entropic…” Observe the stars. They move from East to West across the sky,returning to their original positions after 27.3 days.
Observe the Sun. It moves across the sky from East to West, from one sunrise to the next takes 29.5 days”.
************
Both your points are due to the Moon’s orbit around the Earth, not to the Moon rotating on an axis.
There is an angular momentum configuration for the moon where the sun and stars don’t cross its sky. This is a non-rotating moon. If the star-field appears to move, then the moon is rotating.
The axis point for any rotation is within the object, the reference frame, al la Newton, is the fixed stars. One has to reinvent physics to claim that the moon doesn’t rotate.
barry…It [Nazi pic of John Cook] was photoshopped.
Let people decide for themselves.
Copy/paste URL then remove 3 dashes from pop-ular-techn-ology
http://www.pop-ular-techn-ology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
Even if it was, what kind of demented idiots do they have at SkS? In the Climategate emails, top IPCC officials were applauding the death of skeptic John Daly. Here’s we have demented boffins making light of a very dark part of our history.
Speaks to character, and here you are defending it.
In the article there is a mention of Roger Pielke, Sr. He had this to say about SkS regarding Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/12/pielke-sr-on-skeptical-sciences-attacks-on-spencer-and-christy/
Here we have another article revealing interference in peer review by David Appell’s hero Kevin Trenberth:
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/hatchet-job-on-john-christy-and-roy-spencer-by-kevin-trenberth-john-abraham-and-peter-gleick/
Yep, that’s the photo, obviously photoshopped.
Taking the piss out of John Cooke by photoshopping his head into a photo of a Nazi. In a private forum. Spare us the manufactured outrage over a high school prank.
Funny that Gordon is so concerned about the Nazi uniform, yet he readily adopts the tactics of Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels.
Find fake negative traits in an individual and assign them to a whole group. Manufacture outrage at a whole group of people.
Yes, all those deniers are the same.
In France, today, heavy snowfall will be shifting towards Paris.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/7sksb7hgsgtx.png
I’m hor-rif-ied.
Really.
“Heavy” (about 10 cm . so funny ! ) snowfall in North of France on a 9th of february ?
What a surprise !
As they put it in France:
“Quand on fera danser les couillons, Ren ne sera pas l’orchestre.”
Hilarious !
The current range of Arctic air in North America.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/whyug5yy5ibn.png
g*e*r*a*n
You could actually do this test with your toy train to show that you are deceived by the optical illusion and can’t see past it with the Moon and its obvious and real rotation on its axis.
You get snape’s globe on your train. have a magnetic bar run though it to make a compass out of your globe. The North bar of your magnetic will always point North. Your globe is able to spin freely on its axis.
Start your train going around in a circle. If you stand in the middle of the track you will have a globe that does not rotate at all. It always points North prevented from rotating by the magnet you put inside. As the train circles the track you will see all sides of the globe. When your globe is prevented from rotating with the train around the track you will one side and then as it goes to the opposite side your globe will show the backside, that is what you will see. Do the test before responding. Show a little science to go with your make believe physics.
con-man, you just proved me right, AGAIN!
The train is orbiting CCW, and the force on the magnet causes the globe to rotate CW.
Your globe is “rotating on its axis”. The Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Thanks for the assistance.
g*
In Boy Scouts we learn this simple concept: When you turn a compass, the needle stays fixed on north and does not rotate with the rest of the device. Most 12 year olds get it. You, halp and the others apparently still don’t.
Yes snake, the needle is “rotating on its axis”.
I know you’re having trouble understanding. You might want to look up “spindle”, and “how a compass works”.
Learning is good.
Imagine if g* and the gang were lost in the woods, wandering in circles: “what good is a compass, the stupid needle keeps rotating.”
I know you’re having trouble understanding. You might want to look up “spindle”, and “how a compass works”.
One of the lost “no spinners” says,
“Hey, g*, maybe the compass needle always point north and WE are the ones who are rotating?”
G*: “”No stupid, we’ve been walking in a straight line. Look up “spindle”.””
snake, your imagination is working. That’s always good in comedy. When you grow up, maybe you can get a job. Just don’t be surprised if there is a long waiting line.
g*e*r*a*n
Artemis Dimwitty (Snape) is correct and you are wrong.
The compass needle pointing North does not rotate on its axis. The axis rotates the needle does not. People have tried to explain that you have to have a fixed reference to determine rotation, which in this case is the magnetic North pole, but you reject all attempts at enlightenment.
Your arguments would be similar in context to a young child in a car thinking the outside world was moving and the car is standing still. From basic observation the things that seem to move are telephone poles and trees. You seem to be stationary. If you don’t apply logic and reason anything is possible.
Here is some basics for you that should help. If not you then perhaps J Halp-less.
In this case you will have a tire and an axle. Different situations for each to help you understand your flawed reasoning. Good luck!
In one case the axle and tire are connected. Neither rotate with respect to a fixed reference point.
Now you spin the axle and the tire also rotates. You have both of the objects rotate (axle and tire). The tire does not rotate around the axle because the axle is also rotating with respect to a fixed reference point.
In another case you have the axle and tire decoupled. They can spin freely of each other. Now you rotate the axle and not the tire. The axle is rotating with respect to the fixed reference point, the tire is not. (This is the one you get wrong in your understanding of the compass. The needle may initially rotate to find North but once it is aligned it does not rotate, the spindle and axis rotate around the fixed needle. I know you can’t understand this or see it but trust us all, that is what is happening. You can see it with a tire and axle maybe).
So you can see you can have your axis rotate and not the tire.
Now you can stop the axle rotation (with respect to a fixed reference point) and rotate the tire. Now the tire is rotating around the axle.
You can complicate it a bit and have both axle and tire rotate independent of each other. The tire could still rotate around the axle but the axle is also rotating.
In the case of the Moon the axis of rotation is fixed. It does not rotate because of gravity. Gravity does no hold on to the Moon’s axis and rotate it as the Moon goes around.
The Moon’s axis of rotation is not rotating with reference to a fixed point (distant star). The Moon is rotating around this axis one time per orbit around the Earth. Since the axle can’t rotate in the case of the Moon, only the Moon can rotate to keep the same face oriented to the Earth. If it did not rotate at all or at a faster rate, you would see all sides of the Moon.
I hope that helps (highly doubtful). Will you supply valid reasoning and logic to explain your view or will you just declare your view is the right one with on support or evidence?
Con-man, that has got to be your longest ramble yet!
And, it’s hilariously non-sensical.
Hint: First understand the simple toy train on a circular track is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
(I knew this was going to be a great year in climate comedy.)
Norman: You are at one end of the spectrum. The non-rotators are at the other. TonyM and Bart, for instance, are trying to sit on the fence. They are luke-rotators. Above, you tried to pretend that you understood the luke-rotator position. You complimented TonyMs arguments, for instance. The thing is…your posts demonstrate that you dont even get that! You, Snape, Ball4, all the others…your responses demonstrate (prove, are a permanent record of) the fact that you are *incapable* of seeing anything from any other *reference frame* than the one you are programmed to accept. Your responses *prove*, and are a permanent record of the *fact*, that your mind is COMPLETELY CLOSED.
Not true, halp. Norman says,
“Your arguments would be similar in context to a young child in a car thinking the outside world was moving and the car is standing still. From basic observation the things that seem to move are telephone poles and trees. You seem to be stationary.”
I agree, and so would Ball4. I might add that from a tiny passenger’s viewpoint, the toy train orbits but does not rotate. The kitchen and house, the North Pole, the entire planet is doing the rotating.
Is this the view you are referring to?
J says: “They are luke-rotators.”
“Luke-rotators”! Hilarious.
Good job, J.
Halp-less of the closed mind persuasion: in the very same ref. frame you claim the rotating sphere on the romper room circular track train is not rotating, think through reducing the track diameter (anger never did specify the diameter). Reducing. Reducing….reducing…
At some small diameter the sphere all of a sudden starts rotating? No, the sphere was rotating all along. Only the closed minds of anger and Halp-less cannot inspect the situation for the physical truth of a rotating sphere such as the moon tidally locked to the earth but not the sun or stars. Quite good entertainment. Halp-less audience is very amused.
Ball4…Ive been doing a great deal of thinking, recently, about the very same proposition that you just brought up. Its really been weighing on my mind. Ive been mulling it over and over for days, funnily enough. Pondering, procrastinating, and deliberating. Even ruminating. Ive even lost sleep about it. But in the end, I concluded…you may actually *be*…a ball.
The Perpetrators of Pseudoscience are hard at work today.
Cabbage Head claims the diameter of the toy train track was never specified.
Hilarious.
The diameter of the Moon orbit is close to 500,000 miles!
(They are so desperate. What a year this is going to be.)
Snape (and Norman) distort:
Not true, halp. Norman says,
Your arguments would be similar in context to a young child in a car thinking the outside world was moving and the car is standing still. From basic observation the things that seem to move are telephone poles and trees. You seem to be stationary.
I agree, and so would Ball4. I might add that from a tiny passengers viewpoint, the toy train orbits but does not rotate…
J: Most passengers, on a real train moving in a straight line, are aware that the scenery moving past the window indicates that the train is moving, and not the scenery. If they were on a circular track, without knowing beforehand, the repetition of the scenery would soon indicate to most passengers, that they are on a circular track. Also, to most passengers, the fact that the train hadnt come off the tracks at any point, would indicate to them that the train had not rotated on its axis, whilst completing a circuit. Just as they could be sure that hadnt happened, with the train continuing along a straight track. You, on the other hand, might be one of the other type of passengers. Who knows, maybe if you were shown a video of the train completing that circuit, filmed from a great height, you might even be able to convince yourself that the train was rotating on its axis the whole time?
Feel free to focus on something other than the point being made in the above, or to just misunderstand it completely.
“the fact that the train hadn’t come off the tracks at any point, would indicate to them that the train had not rotated on its axis, whilst completing a circuit.”
I feel free to point out that under those circumstances the passengers would observe the lake to the north on their iPhone google maps at one point on the circuit and the town to the south on another part of the circuit and smartly & correctly conclude the train had rotated once on its axis while completing an orbital circuit on the tracks when they see the lake again.
Halp-less just misunderstands these circumstances completely simply by inspection of the experiment. Halp-less should focus on the point being made for correct science in comments. However, if not, the entertainment Halp-less provides greatly amuses the audience with its sophistry obviously never having passed a course in astronomy.
“Ball4…I’ve been doing a great deal of thinking, recently”
Halp-less should be doing a great deal of proper experimenting with nature and observing nature like Dr. Spencer, M. Faraday and Dr. Planck instead of just dreaming about science.
Ball4, Im glad you felt free to focus on something other than the point being made in the comment above, and to just misunderstand it completely.
I will put you, like Barry (the Wriggler), on what I will refer to as a 24-hour rotation. After 24 hours I will let you know your progress in understanding.
Fine Halp-less, you are free to do so. You may also feel free in that time to discover that train yardmasters did not believe you either. Find out why they went ahead and went to the expense of building roundhouses being way ahead of Halp-less (and anger) knowing that a train on tracks does need to rotate on its axis on the complete circuit orbit when they don’t run in reverse or leave the tracks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundhouse
And when you finish this task, look for a good course on astronomy and/or astrophysics to study up and pass the exams for an understanding of orbital mechanics.
Ball4, your 24-hour update:
You have rotated 180 degrees from the point. Still a very long way to go for you.
Fix or glue a peg on the toy train on a circular track. Now grasp the peg between your fingers and cause the train to orbit the track without rotating your hand. What happens? The peg rotates between your fingers even though its solidly fixed to the train. The peg is performing two motions simultaneosly. It is orbiting the track AND rotating about its own axis beyween your fingers which represents the fixed reference frame.
Hilarious to watch turnip boy make a fool of himself.
Pierce a green grape with a round toothpick. Mark a red dot on the grape. Place a coin on the table to represent the center of orbit. Grasp the toothpick between your fingers and make an slow orbit about the coin while keeping the red mark on the grape facing the center of orbit. What happens? You have to spin the toothpick between your fingers to keep the red mark facing the center. HELLO! The grape is rotating on it’s own axis WHILE making the orbit. This is something even a fifth grader would understand.
Grapes Gone WIld, you need to study orbital dynamics.
Or, stick with your comedy.
Either is fine with me.
The peg is glued in place, yet it rotates?
Poor SGW has “gone wild”!
Hilarious.
Glue the entire track to the table. Glue the the train to your left hand, and a microphone to your right. Knock over the table and start spinning round and round in a circle shrieking into the microphone, *I am Nostradamus!*. Collapse, panting for breath, into a chair.
In conclusion: circles.
You cancel their pseudoscience, while making it fun.
Well done, J.
I’m still laughing at “I am Nostradamus”.
We’re going to enjoy this year!
Please change your moniker to “Hapless”, or “Hopeless”. Orbital dynamics with rotating reference frames can be cofusing to those of limited intelligence.
You have no answer. Just bizarre behavior.
SGW, you forgot: Help-less (and the joke is on J Halpern so knock yourself out)
To G: I have learned from someone hilarious: there are times to take something seriously.
And then…
Grapes Gone Wild warns us that things can be “cofusing”.
Grapes should know. ..
Usually a blog has one village idiot. But now we have turnip boy and his buddy Hapless. These guys make Dumb and Dumber look like geniuses.
I went looking for a comeback, but I had glued my compass needle down so it couldnt rotate on its axis. Consequently everywhere I went seemed like it was north. No comeback could be found.
J. you need some emergency grapes.
Dear Turnip Boy,
The peg rotates between your fingers, Einstein. Wow! Only half a brain cell left, huh?
That’s why house windows with crank arms have a handle that can rotate. The handle has an axle so the handle can rotate, otherwise the handle, if glued in place, would rotate uncomfortably between your fingers, Einstein. OMG this is stuff a first grader would get.
The ocean temperature is falling in the southern hemisphere. La Nina visible.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.2.8.2018.gif
I wonder if the Warmists will be able to re-define “temperatures”.
(Hilarious.)
Laughing at your own attempts at humour – how sad!
I’m not sad, sucker.
Are you sad?
No need to, but other perspectives on temp trajectory can be offered. Here’s global by some people’s favoured website.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Listen, perps: basically…there are three states where confusion arises:
-1 = One retrograde rotation per completion of an orbit (e.g: Barrys link, moon on the right)
0 = No rotation per completion of an orbit (e.g Barrys link, moon on the left).
+1 = One prograde rotation per completion of an orbit.
Luke-rotators would like to claim that these three states are a matter of perspective. From the orbiting reference frame (their terminology) they are able to understand that those states are as shown. From a fixed (inertial) reference frame, they would claim those numbers should be seen as -2, -1, then 0.
But…0=0
(Or, 0,1,2 if you prefer)
The sum of perspectives is not a good equation.
Eg:
Viewer behind train: distance increases at 1 kilometer a minute.
Viewer before train: distance decreases at 1 kilometer a minute.
+ 1 per minute
– 1 per minute
Therefore train is motionless
Well, I wasnt talking about summing perspectives. More, that logically, when choosing from the three, the one with no axial rotation must be zero. So if follows that the other perspectives belong either side…and all changing reference frames does is shift that sequence along. It doesnt change the fact that zero = zero, i.e no axial rotation is no axial rotation.
I guess, ultimately, its about fully separating the motion of *orbiting* from the motion of *rotating an an axis*. An object does not complete a rotation on its axis simply by virtue of completing an orbit. So, completing an orbit (without axial rotation) must be zero.
Well, I wasnt talking about summing perspectives. More, that logically, when choosing from the three, the one with no axial rotation must be zero. So if follows that the other perspectives belong either side… and all changing reference frames does is shift that sequence along. It doesnt change the fact that zero = zero, i.e no axial rotation is no axial rotation.
Don’t follow the logic here.
So if follows that the other perspectives belong either side… and all changing reference frames does is shift that sequence along.
But shifting the sequence doesn’t mean that each perspective (or the sum of perspectives)= 0.
It’s still three different perspectives, and they don’t converge on 0.
No, its not three different perspectives. Its two different perspectives of three separate combinations of orbiting/rotating.
Barry, Ive not seen any evidence from you that you have even got to the luke-rotator stage. Once I do, perhaps this conversation will be worth continuing (but knowing you, probably not).
Say whatever you must.
Change this sentence:
J: So if follows that the other perspectives belong either side
to read, so it follows that the other combinations belong either side
If that helps. My mistake.
3 different states then. Still no convergence to zero.
I had assumed there was a train of logic to your original post. It may be that you named 3 perspectives and simply nominated one as correct (argument by assertion).
I wasnt looking for *convergence to zero* and you have missed the point completely. But, by all means, continue to assume you are correct.
Tsk:
“It may be that you named 3 perspectives…”
Change ‘perspectives’ to ‘states’ or ‘combinations’.
2 different perspectives, of 3 different combinations.
“I wasn’t looking for *convergence to zero* and you have missed the point completely.”
Clearly I have. Was there a point beyond asserting one of the combinations is correct? Was there some train of logic in your original post?
2 different perspectives, of 3 different combinations
2 perpecs = internal and external to orbit?
Or:
-1, 0, and 1.
Seen instead as:
0, 1, and 2.
Two different perspectives…(well, you know the rest)
2 perspecs are: *orbiting reference frame* and *inertial space reference frame*, I guess you could call them.
Through the magic of cut and paste, Helpless attempts to sound intelligent.
Of course not, it was just gibberish. With a few grains of truth thrown in.
Yawn.
Dont be rude to barry.
In the gif I linked upthread, I track each moon with my eye. The one on the left is pinning, pretty clearly. If we made moon the centre and the Earth orbited the moon, all else kept the same, the moon would be rotating on a fixed point. The one on the right doesn’t spin at all. Relative to my eye, it orbits, but the angle of rotation is constant. Shift the moon to the centre in that configuration, and the earth would orbit it, while the moon has no spin.
I conclude that no-rotators have a perspective that is limited purely to the Earth POV. There is no other perspective for them.
Here’s that image again:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
barry, did you not ever get a toy train set for Christmas?
I got Scaletrix car sets.
My Dad put a gold coin on a table in front of him and said if I could rotate it so the Queen’s head faced me on the other side of the table, instead of him, I could keep it. But the catch was that I wasn’t allowed to touch it.
So I asked him to sticky-tape the coin flat on my Sclaetrix car with the Queens’ head facing him, and drove it half-way around the track till it lay before me. Lo, the queens head now pointed to me and I peeled it off and bought an ice cream. I shared it with my Dad.
(This is, of course, apocryphal. I would never have shared the ice cream with my Dad)
You *could* conclude that rotators have a perspective that is limited purely to inertial space POV. And that there is no other perspective for them. And, you could go further, that many commenters are on record (and still making comments even now) that show that they do not even *understand* any other POV. And, even further still, that they get quite upset about their own ignorance, and start taking it out on others (not that its met with anything besides good-natured chuckles, of course).
Then, you could go beyond that, to a greater level of understanding still. But, thats for another day.
If the Moon spins on its axis, then I could stick a camera on one of the poles to capture the stars, and see if the moon is rotating relative to the universe.
28 days later, I could play back the video and see that indeed the universe has spun once relative to my fixed camera seated right on the lunar pole.
A camera on the lunar pole of a moon moving as it does on the right hand side of the gif I linked would show no rotation relative to the stars.
barry, don’t confuse “orbiting” with “rotating on its axis”.
You don’t want to appear stupid.
Glad to help.
Can’t tell which one is Dumber? It’s a tie. Both are dumber.
Its not too late, SGW…you could always try to pretend you are in the luke-rotator camp, at least. Im sure some will try to pretend thats where they have always been (whilst they continue to demonstrate that isnt true)
Thus, a camera pointed upwards at the stars on one of the Moon’s purported poles would indeed record the universe ‘spinning’ relative to the moon. Sure seems to me that the moon is rotating relative to the stars.
That would be what some would describe as *with reference to inertial space*.
If the reference frame is Earth-centric, then the Earth doesn’t rotate either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial
Well, you cant say I didnt try to help. It seems whatever I say to you, you assume is something you need to fight against…which results in some odd comments. Passes the time, I suppose.
Why would we not determine the moon’s rotation (or not) with respect to inertial space?
I wasnt aware I had said *we* cant. *We* can do whatever we like.
Found plenty of references for inertial space – seems to be the standard frame of reference.
Had more difficulty locating definitions of “orbiting reference frame.” Is this a highly specialised perspective?
You cant have looked very hard.
I found references ok, but none that defined “orbital reference frame” as a general standard.
If your view on the non-rotation of the moon is based on an “orbital reference frame”, why is this perspective superior or preferred to inertial space?
Try thinking about what the reference frame in question is doing. I said orbiting. You (or others) might think of that as rotating.
Thats not in answer to your question, by the way. Thats to help you start to learn the basics. Once again, Ive tried.
The reference frames provide different perspectives.
My solution to that was to go for the absolute simplest reference frame I could think of. A Lunar-centric one. Because rotation is defined as the (changing) orientation of a solid body around an axis point contained within it.
I get where non-rotationists are coming from. (By analogy) they view the Earth/moon system as the pedal on a bike. If the pedal doesn’t rotate on its mechanical axis, it’s position is fixed relative to the chain ring. If the orientation of the pedal is kept constant to the floor, the axis point with the crank arm has to spin relative to the pedal (ie, the pedal is rotating if its orientation doesn’t change relative to the floor).
However, there is a flaw in that view, which is based on rotation and solid bodies. Can you figure it out?
barry, dont confuse “orbiting” with “rotating on its axis.”
As the definition of rotation is concerned with orientation of an object around an axis passing through it, it seems natural to do this from a Lunar-centric view rather than an earth-bound POV. In this way I am in no danger of confusing orbit with rotation.
Thus, a camera pointed upwards at the stars on one of the Moons purported poles would indeed record the universe spinning relative to the moon. Sure seems to me that the moon is rotating relative to the stars.
barry, quit trying your court-room tricks. I don’t go with that crap.
A toy train is running around a circular track. It is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
I know you don’t want to face reality. Sorry.
I know you don’t want to deal with the substance of what I wrote. It’s not lawyer-ese, it’s very straightforward.
Rotation is defined by the orientation of an object around an axis within it. The most straightforward way to think about this is to put your observer on the moon to see if there is rotation.
A less straightforward way (the lawyer way) is to put your observer on the Earth, far away from the axis of the moon. I object to these unnecessary convolutions, your honour.
No barry, the straightforward way is to understand “rotating on its axis”.
You do not even understand that.
A spherical object, rotating on its axis, is something you can actually see. It’s not that hard to understand.
It’s amazing to me why you can’t understand.
The science of ‘things you can see’. Interesting. The Milky Way is not rotating, then, because we can’t see it happening.
And there’s no way the Earth is rotating, because I am looking out my window and it’s just not happening.
(hint for the terminally stupid)
/ sarc (hint for the terminally stupid)
toy train set.
reality.
no such thing as a “black body”
reality.
you do not get to re-define 2LoT
reality.
barry cannot understand.
reality.
As I said, you won’t deal with what I wrote. Repeating mantras (and especially about unrelated topics) is not remotely convincing.
If you can’t reply to the points I made, you’ll have the last word. If you start to deal with what I wrote, then we’ll be having an actual conversation and I’ll reply.
But barry thats just it, only lawyers care about *convincing*. Some people just want to understand truth, and they seek to do so. I dont believe you are one of them. You pretend to be. Thats it fit at least 24 hours.
But barry that’s just it, only lawyers care about *convincing*.
What a stupid statement.
Some people just want to understand truth
They want to see well-argued solutions that convince through reason.
Argument by assertion and repeating mantras is not the way to arrive at truth.
barry…”If the Moon spins on its axis, then I could stick a camera on one of the poles to capture the stars, and see if the moon is rotating relative to the universe”.
You are forgetting that the Moon is essentially attached to the Earth by a rotating gravitational field. The Earth rotates once every 24 hours within the orbit. That rotating field has the Moon tidally locked so the same face of the Moon faces the Earth.
As the Moon orbits the Earth, a camera on it’s NP will show relative motion to the background stars whether or not the Moon rotates on it’s axis.
Gordon Robertson
It would show motion but not rotation.
If you wanted to determine if the Moon was rotating on its axis and not just orbiting you would take a time lapse of the stars. If they rotate around an axis in 28 days you have a Moon that rotates on its axis. Does not matter what g*e*r*a*n, you, or J Halp-less believe. Science is evidence based. Beliefs tend to be incorrect and in need of adjustments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld6W-65lqD0
If nothing else you can enjoy the Mozart music.
Gordon Robertson
Look at this video. You might enjoy it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa6Z_f06Je8
You are forgetting that the Moon is essentially attached to the Earth
I haven’t forgotten that at all. The image I linked upthread is from the wiki page on tidal locking.
How do we know the earth rotates? We see the stars cross the sky, or the sun cross the sky. The rotation relative to inertial space (or inertial solar system) is apparent.
By the same frame, the moon rotates. Then sun crosses its sky, so do the stars. It’s spinning relative to the universe.
We can’t see the spin from earth, because the rate of rotation is synced with the rate of orbit. This is a common feature of many moons in the solar system, which, if we watched any of them from Earth, would all appear to rotate.
Thus, the view that the Moon does not rotate is strictly based on a Geocentric view. Similar to ancient views that the Earth was flat. That’s how it looked before someone started thinking outside the Earth-bound frame of reference.
Gordon Robertson
The video I linked to is why I oppose your made up science as well as g*e*r*a*n and J Halp-less. When you can make up anything you like and not support it this is what you get. Any idea can be made in realtiy by denying evidence which does not support the ideas and not taking in all data and trying to find the truth of all the data.
You seem to be close to this dangerous thought mentality.
norman…”If you wanted to determine if the Moon was rotating on its axis and not just orbiting you would take a time lapse of the stars. If they rotate around an axis in 28 days you have a Moon that rotates on its axis”.
That would not happen with the Moon as it is. All you’d get is the same sky sector to which the camera points but it would change slightly as the Moon orbits the Earth. You would not get the same illusion of 180 degree motion of the heavens exhibited from the Earth as an observer scans the heavens at night, in winter. If you could see the stars during the day, you’d get a full 360 degree illusion.
With regard to your advice to me, g*r, and halp, it would be better applied to you and your fellow alarmists.
norman…”When you can make up anything you like and not support it…”
Excuse me??? I go into great detail trying to educate you and I supply sources. It is you who misinterprets the science then claim your misinterpretation is correct and I am wrong.
I posted a link to a book by Bohr in which he explained fully how electrons emit and absorb EM then you go off on a rant about EM being generated by charged atoms.
barry…”By the same frame, the moon rotates. Then sun crosses its sky, so do the stars. Its spinning relative to the universe”.
There is no frame, it’s an illusion. Inertial frames are illusions of the human mind just as time and space-time are illusions.
The Sun DOES NOT cross it’s [the moon’s] sky nor do the stars. They are relatively fixed. With the Earth, the illusion of the Sun crossing the sky is due to our messed up brains, which cannot tell the difference between the brain standing on a rotating tangential plain and its motion relative to the Sun.
We humans insist on turning these systems into realities we create. We humans can argue that up is down and we can be right wrt to our reference frames, which we created. In the real universe there is no such thing as up or down, nor is there such a thing as reference frames or space-time.
What we call sunrise is a rotation of the eastern horizon below the Sun. Our brains mistake that as the Sun rising. Our brains tend to mistake a lot of things, like AGW for real science.
In the real universe, the Moon is not rotating, It’s a hunk of rock fixed in an orbit around the Earth. It’s our brains that insist on seeing it from different frames of reference.
The Moon is not rotating like the Earth. It is orbiting the Earth, and to someone at a distance at a fixed point it appears to be rotating on an axis because the same face facing the Earth appears to rotate about a Moon axis during one orbit. That’s an illusion.
In one orbit of the Earth, the face facing the Earth does appear to complete a 360 degree rotation. However, you have to take your mind off the Moon and look at the entire system, then ask yourself if the Moon is rotating about it’s own axis or rotating wrt an axis through the Earth.
By definition in astrophysics, that is not classified as a rotation. In general physics you can make an argument that certain bodies rotate around their centres of gravity. With a binary star system, you can argue that both stars are rotating around a barycentre. Some claim that for the Earth-Moon system with the barycentre inside the Earth. None of those pertain to the Moon rotating wrt itself.
The Moon APPEARS to be rotating wrt to an axis through the Earth but it’s not. We call that an orbit. You can argue semantics and claim it’s the same thing but I think g*r specified the Moon does not rotate on its axis.
If you have an x-y coordinate system and you tilt it CCW by 45 degrees, you can claim that is a rotation wrt to the standard frame. However, the rotation is wrt to 0,0 not a point on the rotating vector.
With the photos you posted, you need to look closely at the one on the left to convince yourself the Moon is not rotating. It may seem that way but it’s not. The one on the right has been set up so the Moon model is rotating.
The only way the latter could happen is if the Moon had a rotation angular velocity that equaled it’s orbital period exactly. The odds of that happening are stupendously against.
So the stars are illusory?
Astrophysics has a different definition of rotation than a solid object changing orientation through an axis running through it?
Rotation
2.
Astronomy.
the movement or path of the earth or a heavenly body turning on its axis.
one complete turn of such a body.
I’d ask for a reference from you, but I don’t believe you’dprovide one.
Assertions without references.
Appeal to g*e*r*a*n as an authority.
Can you try something a little more convincing?
It’s no illusion that the Moon exists, the stars exist, and not illusory that a camera pointing upwards at the stars from a lunar pole would record the stars spinning relative to the moon.
That’s what wee see with the Moon on the left in the gif. Our point of view is downwards from above the Mon. We would be what the camera is looking at, and the moon is spinning.
In the system on the right, the moon is not spinning relative to our eyes. A camera placed at a pole looking starward would not capture the universe spinning. It would be fixed, because the moon is not rotating with respect to inertial space.
My conclusion remains unchallenged. Non-rotating Moon people have a particularly Earth-bound view, as if that is the only frame of reference. The rest being “illusory.”
The Moon APPEARS to be rotating wrt to an axis through the Earth but its not. We call that an orbit. You can argue semantics…
The antidote to semantic is to provide clear definitions.
rotation
noun
1.
the act of rotating; a turning around as on an axis.
2.
Astronomy.
the movement or path of the earth or a heavenly body turning on its axis.
one complete turn of such a body.
Turning on its axis. Seems pretty clear to me.
How to tell if the moon has an axis around which it turns? Stick a camera on the moon at one point of the axis and see if the universe spins.
It does. The moon rotates.
It also happens to rotate in sync with its orbit.
So do many of the other moons in the solar system with respect to the planets they orbit.
And if we look at those moons from the surface of the Earth, they are rotating. Anyone standing on a different planet looking at our moon would see it rotate.
Again, the notion that the moon doesn’t rotate is a peculiarly geocentric view.
Gordon Robertson
This is more made up junk: “Excuse me??? I go into great detail trying to educate you and I supply sources. It is you who misinterprets the science then claim your misinterpretation is correct and I am wrong.
I posted a link to a book by Bohr in which he explained fully how electrons emit and absorb EM then you go off on a rant about EM being generated by charged atoms.”
No you do not educate. You cobble some words together and ideas that you can’t grasp and post a blended mix of nonsense. I post to real and valid physics material that you do not understand or will not accept.
I have told you so many times it is no longer funny. Yes electron transitions exist. I have never denied this. I have clearly stated many times, such transitions produce UV, visible and Near IR. I have linked you to spectrum of N2 and O2 emitting visible light.
Either you do not understand the visible and Mid-IR are much different energy levels or you don’t care.
Your posts on this issue are not valuable but harmful to nonscientific readers. You distort reality with garbage. I correct it an you continue to post your garbage. Over an over without the slightest bit of shame or reflection on how terrible you science is. It seems you are very proud of your ignorance and want to flaunt it for all to see.
I suppose the next step to show you how you are behaving is for me to tell me what you post about electrical engineering is wrong and you don’t understand it and then post some ludicrous made up junk that is bogus and wrong and when you attempt to correct me I will just state you don’t understand the physics. I will have to start doing this so you understand what you are doing to the good science out there.
Your thought process fits in perfect with Flat Earth people. They think they know what they are talking about, state their garbage with authority and reject any attempts at reason or logical thought process.
Gr is as confused about reference frames as he is about EM radiation. If one selects a reference frame with one axis along the Earth-Moon vector and another lying in the Moon’s orbital plane, the third being orthogonal to the other two, you would be correct to say that the moon does not rotate. But, that reference frame is not an inertial reference frame, i.e., that reference frame moves relative to the more nearly stationary reference frame based on the Earth-Sun vector and the Earth’s orbital plane. Even that reference frame isn’t an inertial reference frame, as that one rotates once a year relative to the larger galactic system using the Sun as the center and the background of near stars as a reference. In the Sun fixed reference frame, the Moon rotates about it’s axis..
Gordon complains: “I posted a link to a book by Bohr in which he explained fully how electrons emit..”
Gordon means his link to Bohr’s writing where Gordon misquotes Bohr here. Bohr actually and properly explained fully how atomic structures emit from Bohr’s math based on experimental evidence.
Gordon makes this error quite often (always?) and shows no ability to actually learn from the actual experiments and writing of Bohr et. al. by quoting them directly.
E. Swanson
I liked your post. Unfortunately it is of a more advanced nature and will go over the heads of the target audience.
You are dealing with people that can’t understand that if you spin a compass manually with your hands and the needle does not move, with this clear and obvious rotation of the compass, they strongly believe the needle is rotating around the compass spindle.
When you have people with this terrible reasoning ability and little logical thought process then your post will not even register.
Norman pretends to be a Luke-rotator again…
“If one selects a reference frame with one axis along the Earth-Moon vector and another lying in the Moons orbital plane, the third being orthogonal to the other two, you would be correct to say that the moon does not rotate.”
Where is the origin? To what is the frame fixed i.e. where is the observer standing?
J Halp-less
I know your hero loved your Luke-rotators terminology but I would like to inform you it is not that clever nor is it particularly funny.
Ball4, An observer would need to “stand” on the vector between the center of the Earth and the center of the Moon. Since that vector rotates as the Moon orbits, the Moon’s rotation would not be apparent, though the stars would change position.
Here’s another thought. Place a gyro within a cage which can rotate and which is aligned with the Earth’s axis. If the gyro is rotating perpendicular to the axis of the cage, that orientation will be maintained as the Earth rotates, such that the gyro’s axis moves in the opposite direction from the Earth’s rotation. While the Earth rotates once every 24 hours, the gyro will rotate faster, requiring only 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.09 seconds to return to the starting orientation. That’s because the gyro’s axis remains fixed in inertial space (mol). A similar setup on the Moon would also show the Moon’s rotation.
Furthermore, one could use a 2-axis gimbal and 3 gyros oriented in an orthogonal x-y-z axis. With that setup, one could align one axis toward the Sun initially at the Equinox and then witness both the daily rotation and the seasonal change in solar elevation.
“Ball4, An observer would need to “stand” on the vector between the center of the Earth and the center of the Moon. Since that vector rotates as the Moon orbits, the Moon’s rotation would not be apparent, though the stars would change position.”
I can do that on my backyard deck and observe the moon rotates on NS axis since the moon’s same unique ~hemisphere is in my view from moon rise to moon set. An issue would arise if the hemisphere were not unique but that is not the case.
There is no inertial frame of reference for which the moon is not observed to rotate. Even if you stand on the moon and try to convince someone the universe is spinning while the moon remains unspinning at the universe center, that someone can rightfully point out the retrograde motion of the planets is then inexplicable.
barry, Norm, B4, E.Swannie, and the rest of the “rotators”, all your “straw men” and “red herrings” are hilarious.
But, that little toy train just keeps destroying your arguments.
It’s fun to watch.
But, that little toy train just keeps destroying your arguments.
Wishful thinking at its finest.
That the train rotates as it journeys around the track is clear when you look up and understand the definition of rotation.
The crucial point is that rotation is relative to an axis that runs through the object in question, not some other axis.
The train clearly changes its orientation relative to its own axis through the journey around the track. The fact that the change of orientation is caused by the shape of the track is entirely irrelevant. Just as it is irrelevant to the fact of spin that the rotation of a top is forced by a child’s hand.
Sorry barry, but the center of a mass remains the center of mass.
The toy train is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
But, your continued fascination with avoiding truth is most enlightening.
It should be to you, also. ..
ball4…”Gordon means his link to Bohrs writing where Gordon misquotes Bohr here”.
Bally likes to talk a good show but the reader will notice he supplies no evidence he has read Bohr or understands what Bohr said. Ergo, we are left with ball’s word for it, as usual.
barry…”The crucial point is that rotation is relative to an axis that runs through the object in question, not some other axis”.
yes…so is the train rotating around its axis? To do so would require angular momentum around that axis but that cannot happen because the train is constrained to it’s tracks. Besides, what forces are their on the train to cause such a rotation?
You are confusing orbital motion with rotation, yet a train on circular tracks is not even orbital motion. Orbital motion requires an interaction between a body and an axis like the gravitational force attaching the Moon to the Earth as the axis. It also requires a precise angular momentum to keep the Moon from spiraling into the Earth or shooting off into space.
A train on a track has no axis and no relationship to any axis. It’s nothing more than curvilinear motion, which is the same as rectilinear motion. If a train is running down a straight track (rectilinear) and it comes to a bend, moving too quickly, it could roll over. A train turning in a circle is no different.
If there is an axis it’s an axis running through the train parallel to the tracks. When the train hits a bend, there is a moment around that axis that could cause the train to roll over. It’s the same with vehicles on a highway hitting a curve.
ball4…”Even if you stand on the moon and try to convince someone the universe is spinning while the moon remains unspinning at the universe center”
No one is arguing that the Moon is not turning relative to some point in space, it’s in orbit, it has to turn, even with one face glued to the Earth by tidal forces. The debate is over whether it is rotating on its axis.
In the above case, there are two parameters at play, gravitational force and angular momentum. They work together to form an orbit, the orbit being the resultant between the two parameters. You can work the orbital path out using vectors.
We define rotation about an external axis as revolving about that axis, or orbiting. We refer to turning around a body’s own axis as rotation, or spinning.
Of course, In English we use the same word to cover different meanings at times. If I am standing still, then I begin to turn CCW in a full circle while remaining on the same spot, I’d call that turning, not rotating. However, if I was standing on a small disk driven by a motor, I’d call that rotation…and see-sickness to boot.
In physics, a distinction is made between rotating on an axis and revolving around an axis. You are describing revolving about an axis, in which the body turns due to the constraints of the orbital path, not it’s own angular momentum about an axis.
swannie…”But, that reference frame is not an inertial reference frame, i.e., that reference frame moves relative to the more nearly stationary reference frame based on the Earth-Sun vector and the Earths orbital plane”.
Tell you what, we’ll get together sometime and you can physically point out one of them inertial reference frames to me. While we’re at it, you can point out physically, where time is, or maybe we can get a telescope and you can show me a black hole or some space-time.
You can get into all that crap about relativity theory but I’ll stick to my tangential plane on the Earth’s surface and view reality directly. Inertial frames are psycho-babble that have essentially no application. One of the only real applications of relativity is explaining the retrograde motion of Mercury as seen sometimes from Earth. The planet seems to be moving backwards.
I get relative motion but when you use it via complete jargon to get out of the fact that the Moon is standing still relative to its axis, you are caught in an aerie-fairy world. That’s why you have so much trouble understanding EM and why you claim, against the 2nd law, that your cookie sheet is heating a sheet of tin on a stove element.
swannie…and ps. In your gyro example, you put the gyro inside a cage, then claimed the gyro rotates with the Earth at a different period than the Earth itself. Either that or your explanation needs an upgrade.
How about the cage? Does it rotate at a different time as well? If not, how does a gyro inside a cage manage to rotate over a different period than the cage itself?
Please don’t tell me you have gotten sucked into space-time theory.
Gordon,
so is the train rotating around its axis? To do so would require angular momentum around that axis
Momentum is not a requirement to determine rotation. Moon non-rotationists are forever reinventing the definition of rotation.
I can turn a coin flat on a table with my finger. The coin has virtually no momentum. Yet it has clearly rotated.
Now do the same, but also move the coin in a circle as you rotate it. No momentum, but the coin has now ‘orbited’ some middle point, and also rotated because my finger made it do so.
but that cannot happen because the train is constrained to its tracks
Rotation happens because the train is locked to a circular track.
Besides, what forces are their on the train to cause such a rotation?
The force comes from the pressure of the wheels on the edge of the track. The inertia of the train wants to keep it moving in one direction, but the locking to the track prevents this, making it turn.
In aeronautics, this turn would be called “yaw”, which is a rotational movement. Same thing happens when you go around a corner in your car. You rotate the steering wheel, and the car rotates on its own axis as it turns the corner.
“the reader will notice (Ball4) supplies no evidence (Ball4) has read Bohr or understands what Bohr said.”
Gordon has memory problems as usual.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284290
And turning is something you do with a lathe Gordon, the moon is rotating on its axis. The rotational KE and momentum are both conserved. The ref. frame picked must conserve both so it doesn’t matter which ref. frame is chosen to describe the moon rotating on its axis.
Sorry barry, but the center of a mass remains the center of mass.
Indeed so.
The centre of mass for the solar system is by far the best reference point to explain the movement of bodies in the solar system and the on-planet dynamics related to these movements.
Wheres defining the movement of the bodies in the solar system from the point of view of the Earth/Moon centre of mass is a poor reference point. A Geocentric view would have it that the sun revolves around the Earth (or the Earth/Moon centre of mass). Clearly, this is not happening. Copernicus and others sorted that out centuries ago.
The Geocentric model – which you have been applying to this topic – violates various laws of physics. The coriolis forces, and the precession of a pendulum cannot happen if the Earth is an inertial reference frame. For small-scale physics these forces are negligible, but when it comes to objects as large as planets and moons, it doesn’t work.
But using the centre of mass of the solar system as the mid-point of an inertial reference frame DOES explain coriolis forces and pendulum precession, as well as the movement of planets and their satellites in the solar system.
So, from the most powerfully explanatory reference point we have for the motion of bodies within the solar system – its centre of mass – the moon definitely rotates.
Gordon,
As the Moon orbits the Earth, a camera on its NP will show relative motion to the background stars whether or not the Moon rotates on its axis.
Wrong.
A camera on the moon is not rotating relative to the fixed stars will show no relative spin (by definition) to the fixed stars. The orbit around the earth will not change that.
Any translational movement relative to the fixed stars would also be so insignificant as to be unobserved, owing to the great distance from the moon to the stars.
In effect, if the Moon did not rotate relative to the stars, the video aimed perpendicular from the Lunar North Pole fast time-lapsed over a month would show no perceptible change in the heavens.
Which is why it is customary to use the stars (or the sun) as the frame of reference for the motion of bodies within the solar system. We want an inertial frame of reference (or the best approximation) in order to explain events that satisfy the laws of physics without having to invent fictitious forces. A Geocentric frame of reference has the sun orbiting the Earth. Surely no one is going to start arguing for a Geocentric version of the cosmos. No? Then don’t apply it to the orbital/rotational characteristics of the moon.
barry…”So the stars are illusory?”
Here’s a ROT for you: believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see.
What do you call stars when you close your eyes and visualize one and what is the difference between the one you see with your eyes shut and the ones you see with them open. Are they both real?
How do you really see in the first place? Light enters your eyes from a star, gets inverted and converted to electrochemical energy. Then something interprets what is seen and get this…projects the image back out so you can see the star where it is. It’s not enough to gather light in your eyes, it has to be interpreted and given perspective by the brain.
What you see out there is not the light from the object but an image projected by the brain, which is still in the brain.
Interpreting what is seen is a fine art, even to someone sighted since birth. Most of you alarmists, from what I gather, have never learned to LOOK. You take crap into your minds and use the crap as a filter to see the world.
Do you know that people who have been blind since birth and are suddenly given sight get completely screwed up on first seeing the real world? It freaks them right out. We take for granted what we developed over the years since birth with seeing, presuming all it takes for a blind person who regains sight is to open his/her eyes and carry on.
Do you think your retinas are mirrors, with a scanner behind them and a complex system to interpret the scanned data so it can compare it to a set of images of the data in your memory? There not, the light striking your retinas has to be processed and given meaning. If the meaning is wrong, what you are seeing is wrong.
Hopefully you understand that sunrise is an illusion as is the APPARENT motion of the Sun across the sky. If you can accept that, then look again at your rotating moon on it’s axis against the background of stars. What’s it doing? It’s moving but is it rotating on its axis?
Do yourself a favour and don’t try to keep up. When you are stuck in the part of the brain that creates illusions it’s not possible to see beyond it.
The trick is to empty all the garbage in your mind and say, “I don’t know”. If you are sincere, the mind will empty for a moment and you MIGHT be able to grasp different dimensions of mind called intelligence and insight, that you had all along but were too self-centred and stupid to see.
When you gain that awareness you can look at the universe and distinguish what is real from the illusions imposed on it by the human mind, like time, space-time, inertial frames, black holes, etc.
If you take that same approach to the GHE and AGW, it becomes abundantly clear there is no theory, just a load of illusions and malarkey passing for a theory.
As Joe Postma claimed, we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do. You alarmists call it a greenhouse but it in no way resembles a real greenhouse. It cannot trap heat and it cannot transfer heat back to the surface.
barry…”A camera on the moon is not rotating relative to the fixed stars will show no relative spin (by definition) to the fixed stars. The orbit around the earth will not change that”.
Where did you get the notion that motion won’t be apparent since the stars are too far away? What does that have to do with anything?
If you had a radial line from the Earth through the Moon, and you pointed the camera in that direction at the NP facing away from the Earth, the camera would sweep an entire 360 degrees of the heavens as the Moon revolved around the Earth.
That’s because the camera is pointing in the same direction as the dark side, which we never see. It is always pointing away from us, scanning the heavens, so to speak.
Naturally, as on Earth, when the Sun was shining on the Moon, the camera would not see the stars.
And what’s with this ‘wrong’ bs. Are you getting that from the authority-in-his-own-mind David Appell? Have you now become an authority-in-your-own-mind?
Gordon,
For a non-orbiting moon, just sitting and rotating @ 1 rev/27 days,
what would the star camera at NP see?
Of course it will see the stars circling once in 27 days.
Compare to actual moon, the camera will see the stars circling once in 27 days.
Just looking at the camera output we would conclude the actual moon must be rotating.
The star camera will not detect the moon orbiting, as Barry notes, the stars are too far away and their shift (called parallax) will be tiny.
Gordon,
Your first post was about perception. The points are ok, but they’re nothing new and not particularly relevant. It was a long-winded way of telling me “you’re blinded by your own ideas, barry.” Maybe so, but you’ve got to demonstrate it. My mind is open to reasonable argument.
We are having a discussion about whether the moon rotates or not. Your second post didn’t get much closer to the point. Eg,
barry… “A camera on the moon is not rotating relative to the fixed stars will show no relative spin (by definition) to the fixed stars. The orbit around the earth will not change that.
Gordon: Where did you get the notion that motion wont be apparent since the stars are too far away? What does that have to do with anything?
You’ve quoted the wrong paragraph for a start. Here’s the correct one:
“Any translational movement relative to the fixed stars would also be so insignificant as to be unobserved, owing to the great distance from the moon to the stars.”
I emphasised ‘translational’ in the original, too.
All this means is that while there is actual motion relative to the fixed stars in a translational movement (not rotational), the lateral motion is so small compared to the vast distance of the ‘fixed stars’ (Newton) that it would not be perceived by a camera on the moon. The same would occur for a camera on the side of spaceship traveling in a straight line relative to the fixed stars, even if we traveled to Pluto. We would see no noticeable difference in the star field.
We’d only see a change in the star field if the vessel pitched, yawed or rolled – in other words – if it rotated.
For lunar rotation, the distance doesn’t matter. A camera on the NP of a moon that is not rotating relative to the star field will (by definition) show no rotational movement whatsoever. Not by a thousandth of a pixel.
(Lunar NP is the same as Earth NP – at one end of the axis)
If you had a radial line from the Earth through the Moon, and you pointed the camera in that direction at the NP facing away from the Earth, the camera would sweep an entire 360 degrees of the heavens as the Moon revolved around the Earth.
Apart from getting the position of the lunar NP wrong (by 90 degrees), that’s correct. The camera would track the orbit of the moon.
Thats because the camera is pointing in the same direction as the dark side, which we never see. It is always pointing away from us, scanning the heavens, so to speak.
Yep, fine so far.
Naturally, as on Earth, when the Sun was shining on the Moon, the camera would not see the stars.
True, for a normal camera, but utterly irrelevant to the notion of whether the moon rotates or not.
Nothing you say here deals with what I wrote. All you’ve talked about is the moon’s orbit, and the fact that the star field is not visible in the light of day. You’ve shifted the camera to Earth and made orthogonal points.
Here’s the original post.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-286184
The point is mainly about frame of reference. Do you see anything wrong with my argument? (Will you address it at all?)
g*e*r*a*n
Somewhere, way above you responded to a very logical and rational post I made to you. You did not answer even one question I posed to you (no big deal you never do anyway).
Here is your response: “Honestly, I did NOT make this up.
This is an exact copy/paste from the con-man:
The temperature of the lab equipment was raised with the introduction of the warmer cold air.
Hilarious.”
You say it is hilarious but offer nothing. Why is that? Is it because you are not knowledgeable to answer (this is the most likely case with a very high probability of being correct)
Here again is the test:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/
g*e*r*a*n
Since you posses a very limited reading ability and attention span I am breaking up the post a little.
This is what is claimed in the article:
“There was a direct relationship between room temperature and equipment temperature stability. When room temperature increased or decreased, equipment temperature reacted in a corresponding manner.”
It is pretty much a fact that the warmer room temperature, which is still much colder than the powered lab equipment, increased the temperature of the lab equipment. I will let you think on it.
Please refrain from a non answer like “hilarious”. This does not make you look like a rational intelligent adult. This behavior is more like a drunken fool pounding on a keyboard.
Show your scientific rational adult side and explain how the experiment does not show cold air warming powered objects. The only condition that changed was the air temperature of the surroundings. With warmer cold air (26 C vs 20 C) the lab equipment temperature went up. Are you denying reality? This is a real experiment and you can do it yourself in your own home.
con-man, you just want to pound on your keyboard, endlessly. If you have some responsible question, phrase it in 50 words or less.
I don’t waste time with rambling, incomprehensible, dangling, obtrusive nonsense.
g*e*r*a*n
Okay, try this:
The warmer cold surroundings increase the temperature of the hotter lab equipment. How do you refute the experimental evidence?
(19 words, less than 20.)
Con-man, you do not understand heat transfer and thermodynamics.
“Warmer cold surroundings”?
“Increase the temperature of the hotter lab equipment”?
You don’t even know how to phrase an intelligible question.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
You possess very limited reading ability. I am not sure how to phrase things so your limited abilities can understand them. It is fairly straight forward English that you seem unable to process or follow.
YOU: Warmer cold surroundings? Easy to understand it you can think. The surrounding air in one case is 20 C. In the next case it is 26 C. Is 26 C warmer than 20 C? Yes it is, not really hard to understand for an average person.
So to help your very limited abilities I will add some more information.
Warmer (26 C air vs 20 C air) cold surroundings?
Also: Increase the temperature of the hotter lab equipment?
This is very easy to understand if you had a bit more thinking ability. I am sorry I always give you more credit than you deserve. Sometimes I get this idea I am posting a response to someone with average thinking ability. Thank you for letting me know you do not have such talent.
Temperature of some lab item was 34 C with 20 C air. After 26 C air was established the temperature of the equipment went up to 36 C. The lab equipment is “hotter” than the surrounding air (34 C is hotter than 20 C and likewise 36 C is hotter than 26 C). Really not hard to understand at all but thanks for letting me know your extreme learning disability. I hopefully can take that into consideration next time I post to you (although I don’t know why I will).
Eventually your taunts and false bravado will lose their ability to elicit a response. Not sure when this will happen but it is close.
Con-man you won’t stop responding, ever! You would keep pounding on that keyboard if you were the last person on Earth. I’ve even seen you arguing with yourself!
Not, THAT’s really fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
From the experimental results:
There was a direct relationship between room temperature and equipment temperature stability. When room temperature increased or decreased, equipment temperature reacted in a corresponding manner.
What logic or rational thought process do you have to refute the results of actual experiments?
g*e*r*a*n
Again (many times I have asked).
What part of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that temperature of the cold surroundings will not change the temperature of hotter objects?
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics gives direction for heat and heat flow, that is all it claims. It does not state that different cold environments will not change temperatures of hotter objects. You have stated this many times but you have supported it zero times.
No difference in your attempt to make people think you know orbital mechanics (which you don’t and it appears you never will).
You make a claim that a compass needle aligned to the magnetic north pole is rotating on its axis while a compass is rotated. Your proof of this absolutely false and misleading declaration is to tell someone to look up how compasses work. That is how you explain your points? That is not an acceptable method of proving a point. It is shallow and lame. Do better. Prove this ludicrous notion with some valid explanation.
Con-man, when you increase the thermal energy to a system, the temperature goes up. Why to you believe that translates to “cold” warms “hot”?
You just don’t have a clue about heat transfer and thermo.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
Your explanation is not very complete and your insults do not bolster your case. I have considerable understanding of heat transfer and thermo. Much more than you, much less than Tim Folkerts or gammacrux. I am somewhere in the middle of the blog posters.
Yes you have increased the overall energy of the entire system. But you have increased the energy of the cold part of the system. More thermal energy has NOT been added to the hot items. They have the saem constant power source. The thermal energy to increase the temperature of the powered lab equipment comes from the cold air.
I ahve actually explained in detail how the cold warms the hot. It takes more than 25 words and you call that rambling. How am I supposed to inform you when you can’t read longer posts?
g*e*r*a*n
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/table/Tab2/
Please click on the link and look at the data.
The increase in thermal energy to the system is from colder air only.
The energy contained in the warmer cold air is affecting the temperature of the powered items. This energy is increasing the temperature of the powered items.
Your last post did not address this reality at all. Please make a better attempt. The thermal energy of the cold air is all that has been changed yet the temperature of the hotter items increased (warmed…was warmed by the colder air).
The con-man explains his concept of thermo: “The thermal energy to increase the temperature of the powered lab equipment comes from the cold air.”
What a great year in climate comedy!
g*e*r*a*n
I hope you realize your last post does not address any issue, explain your position or explain the data I linked to.
Quoting my words then adding the remark “What a great year in climate comedy!” Doesn’t really do much. It does not show you have any understanding of physics or heat transfer. It in no way refutes what I had stated (which is based upon the linked data). You may believe it makes you look smart or knowledgeable but it answers nothing.
So will you make a valid attempt to explain the data? Why does the temperature of the powered lab equipment go up? What is causing the temperature rise? Where is the energy coming from to increase the temperature? It is questions of this nature you completely avoid.
Can you do better or is that all you have? “What a great year in climate comedy!” Will you answers some questions?
Norm, I don’t believe you could pose a responsible question. But, you’re welcome to try. They say laughing is good for one’s health.
g*e*r*a*n
The most reasonable question to you that you will completely want to answer. Can you tell me to look up how a compass works?
Interesting.
Warmist fools cant actually explain what the amazing GHE is supposed to do, or how its supposed to work, without involving magic.
Hence the nonsense about completely pointless and irrelevant toy train analogies!
Still no testable GHE hypothesis. Warmist fools make village idiots look like worthy MENSA candidates by comparison.
Deny, divert, confuse – compass needles, glue, toothpicks, grapes, pegs – anything to avoid the glaring fact that you cannot even explain in English what the GHE is supposed to do, much less how it would achieve it!
Press on. Keep mining the rich vein of comedic silliness commonly referred to as climate science.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn offers: “Still no testable GHE hypothesis. Warmist fools make village idiots look like worthy MENSA candidates by comparison.”
Love it!
Mike,
If you want to associate with these clowns who cannot grasp simple orbital mechanics, be my guest. As a GHE skeptic, they are a downright embarrassment to the cause.
Grapes, that’s what all you phonies say.
Skeptic,
I dont believe that I need your permission to post here, so I am at a loss to understand why you are apparently offering me the chance to be your guest.
I am equally mystified as to the connection between orbital mechanics (whatever you think it may be), and the non-existent GHE.
The fact that Sir Isaac Newton practised alchemy didnt prevent him from writing his Principia . . ., so endeavouring to denigrate someone by association is just silly.
Warmist fools may be eminently qualified and highly respected by their peers, or even by real scientists. This does not mean that climatology is of any more use than alchemy, and probably less. Alchemical studies led to useful advances in other scientific fields, unlike climatology, which is of no perceptible use, and has led to nothing at all.
I am occasionally characterised as a GHE skeptic. As the GHE is a nonexistent fantasy, non-believer might be more appropriate. Call me what you wish. It still wont produce a GHE, much less a testable GHE hypothesis. Magic would be required, and I dont accept the existence of magic any more than the apparent magical belief of Warmist fools that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer causes the temperature of the thermometer to increase (presumably by magical means – normal physics appears to preclude such a miraculous phenomenon).
References to causes and embarrassment are usually the product of foolish Warmists unable to address their inability to actually state what the magical GHE is supposed to do, in any cogent manner.
Maybe you could define the GHE in orbital mechanical terms, but until then I assume you are just trying to deny, divert and confuse. Anything to avoid trying to define the GHE, eh?
Cheers.
You are dummer than I thought.
I assumed you could comprehend the silent “b”.
Why is it that the 2 clowns that frequent Postma’s blog are so stupid with regards to orbital dynamics? And Flynn just ignores his buddy’s stupidity.
skeptic…”If you want to associate with these clowns who cannot grasp simple orbital mechanics, be my guest”.
In first year engineering we did problem sets on orbital mechanics till it felt like we were in orbit. By the time we finished with it we had no further delusions about it or the meanings therein.
When we wrote Xmas or finals we were in a big auditorium with about 500 other students from different disciplines. Each discipline had an expert there to answer questions we had. Can you imagine me sticking up my hand for help and having a prof come over and ask how he can help? Then have me ask him the difference between a planet rotating on it’s axis and orbital motion?
I know the response I’d get. If he was having a good day he’d raise his eyebrows, smile, and say, “nice try”. Don’t ask me how I know, I asked a dumb question like that on an astronomy final and got exactly that response. My only excuse is that I was severely hung over.
In the real world, on real engineering exams, they won’t listen to bs about relative motion on different inertial frames. You know your stuff or you don’t. That stuff is for theoretical physicists having a problem with reality. as we experience it in everyday life.
You can drag out any debate by going off to a different world and arguing from that perspective. That’s what Rahmstorf tried when Lindzen was kicking his butt in a debate on climate science. Rahmstorf tried to bring relativity theory into the debate.
“You can drag out any debate by going off to a different world and arguing from that perspective.”
Right. Gordon repeatedly demonstrates this practice in debates evidenced by misquoting the original authors.
ball4…”Gordon repeatedly demonstrates this practice in debates evidenced by misquoting the original authors”.
I remember you corroborating what I claimed Clausius said about heat being the kinetic energy of atoms in motion. How is it you can read that part and get it right then mess up all the rest of it?
“How is it you can read that part and get it right then mess up all the rest of it?”
Because at times Gordon does write comments in accord with Clausius def. of heat in 1st memoir p.18. Gordon however repeatedly uses his own incorrect words when compared to the words of Bohr supplied in Gordon’s own link, S-B, Planck, Maxwell and text authors such as Dr. Bohren et. al.
This causes Gordon’s readers to make an effort to find out which Gordon words are written in accord with the named sources. Many readers will not make the effort and rely on Gordon’s well established reputation for misquoting others.
i sure hope the engineers involved in designing the gps system, and launching satellites, etc understand reference frames.
I hope they understand what difference rotation makes.
They use inertial frames so can get spacecraft aimed properly to pass Pluto at a reasonably specified distance and autonomous vehicles in the correct lane.
Nate worries: “i sure hope the engineers involved in designing the gps system, and launching satellites, etc understand reference frames.”
Sleep well, Nate.
Been there, done that.
g*e*r*a*n
Did you tell the engineers to look up how a compass works?
nate…”i sure hope the engineers involved in designing the gps system, and launching satellites…”
You don’t need relativity theory for any of that. The sats have their own time base and the surface stations have a separate time base. The sats also generate signals to the surface with time data in them and the surface stations sync to the time data. All that’s required is a correction between clocks which can be done when the transmitted signal is received.
I debated a guy once who claimed GPS sats used time dilation. Absolutely hilarious. There are no electronic/communications instruments that can deal with such a weird concept.
All they understand is synchronization bits on a signal. The signal sends all the data required, altitude, speed, etc, Piece of cake. Time dilation is a misunderstanding of the reality. It’s not time changing it’s the acceleration/velocity changing due to real forces.
I don’t think Einstein did not understand that, I think lesser scientists read far too much into what he was saying.
The communication beams lock onto each other and servo systems do the rest.
BTW…it’s all based on the old Loran-C system of triangulation. If you have different signals from different directions you can use them to triangulate position. There was certainly no reference frames with Loran_C. However, the aircraft or ship would be moving relative to the Loran station, it’s all a matter of speed, not relativity.
ball4…”They use inertial frames so can get spacecraft aimed properly to pass Pluto at a reasonably specified distance and autonomous vehicles in the correct lane”.
We used to do problems sets about that in engineering, first year. You could work it out with a slide rule. No special relativity required. In fact, we did not learn any relativity theory other than one or two problems to apply the equations.
All you need to do is get the spacecraft in the ballpark, then use thrusters to slow it or accelerate it. They know in advance where Pluto will be at such and such a time, all they have to do is calculate the time to get there accurately to meet up with it.
Even if you had a rover on the surface running about, the EM from them is radiated in a sphere. To communicate with it from a spacecraft, the signals from the craft to the rover are a sphere as well. Nothing ti hit directly. If you had several rovers and you wanted to get the right one, the signals to and fro would be coded to that specific rover.
No relativity required.
norman…”Did you tell the engineers to look up how a compass works?”
Have you figured out which direction it would point when you are standing on the North Pole?
Gordon,
According to this from an Astronomy dept, relativity must be used to make GPS system work:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
G*,
reference frames-
“Been there, done that.”
I see no evidence from your comments, G*, that you understand reference frames or why they matter.
Nate, you don’t “see” any evidence, because you can’t “see”. You can’t process facts and logic. You couldn’t “see” the correct solution to the blue/green plate problem. You can’t “see” that the toy train is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Sorry, I can’t help the blind.
Mike Flynn,
There is no magic involved in a molecule which is a strong absorber of LWIR absorbing and reradiating, in all directions including down, some of the LWIR from the Earth’s surface that would have otherwise been radiated to space, thereby raising the average temperature of the troposphere. The appropriate word is physics.
Slipstick,
Unfortunately, you are just repeating gobbledygook. You cannot actually state what the GHE is supposed to explain, can you? Or provide a testable GHE hypothesis?
You couldnt even manage to insert the acronym GHE into your sciency sounding nonsense, could you? Not without sounding really, really silly.
Youd wind up having to say that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer, somehow makes the thermometer hotter! And thats not physics – thats magic!
Or you could try stating the obverse – that removing CO2 would cause the temperature of the thermometer to drop! Even more magical!
Foolish Warmist nonsense. Maybe after the US Govt stops funding Warmist fools, you might volunteer to go without, so the deluded self styled climatologists can carry on playing their expensive computer games.
I wish you well.
Cheers.
slip…”There is no magic involved in a molecule which is a strong absorber of LWIR absorbing and reradiating, in all directions including down…”
That’s right, as long as you get it that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. The down-dwelling radiation is simply not absorbed. Even if it was absorbed, there is simply not enough of it to make up for the losses in EM radiated from the surface.
Gordon Robertson
Your unsupported and completely unscientific statement: ” The down-dwelling radiation is simply not absorbed. Even if it was absorbed, there is simply not enough of it to make up for the losses in EM radiated from the surface.”
Made up nonsense declared as if it were some well established fact.
You would make a great “Flat-Earther” Make up ideas and then declare them and they are complete fact.
Like the Sun is a spotlight that only illuminates a portion of the flat Earth as it moves in a circle above the plain. It is only a few miles above the surface.
Your posts are very similar. You declare unscientific ideas and pretend they are established fact.
This another version of the intelligent photon theory. How does the surface (or the IR active molecule) know that the photon is moving down?
eli…”How does the surface (or the IR active molecule) know that the photon is moving down?”
Where do you come up with such inane thoughts? In your rebuttal to the G&T paper, when they invoked the 2nd law, you claimed they were insinuating one of the radiators was not radiating.
Same thing here Eli. You are confused about the difference between EM and thermal energy. The 2nd law applies to heat, not EM. That’s why you did not get what G&T were claiming, even though they claimed the same thing.
There may be EM from the surface intercepted by GHGS and down-dwelling EM from the GHGs back to the surface. However, the end law states clearly that heat cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface, implying the down-dwelling EM cannot be absorbed by the surface.
Besides, the notion of the surface radiating EM and cooling, then having GHGs absorb some of that energy, and radiate back, so as to raise the surface temp above what it is heated by solar energy, is called perpetual motion.
If you read Bohr on that he explains it in detail. The electrons in a body absorbing EM can only absorb it if the EM has a specific energy and frequency. The EM from a cooler body lacks both of those qualities.
If the electrons can absorb it they jump to a higher energy level and the aggregation of atoms heat. If the electrons fall to a lower level they emit EM with an intensity in eV equal to the energy difference between jumps. The frequency is dependent on the temperature.
“If you read Bohr on that he explains it in detail. The electrons in a body absorbing EM can only absorb it if the EM has a specific energy and frequency.”
Those are not Bohr’s words, these are Gordon’s incorrect words. Gordon has the Bohr paper link, use Bohr’s words Gordon if you want to comment correctly on the science.
Gordon, an individual atom (or molecule) does not have a temperature. As Gibbs showed an ensemble of atoms/molecules does. If two state in the ensemble have energy Ei and Ej then the ratio of the populations in each state across the ensemble are ni/nj = exp((Ej-Ei)/kT)
All that Bohr’s idea changed is that Ei and Ej are not any value, but values allowed by the quantum theory
As to G&T, Science of Doom summed it up:
Gerlich & Tscheuschner have written an amazing paper which had the appearance of physics yet failed to address any real climate science.
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/gerlich-tscheuschner/
Gordon Robertson,
I will not engage in a debate centered on your misunderstanding of the LoT and its misapplication to a quantum process, so let’s pretend you are correct. In this case, the problem with your thesis is that there are always innumerable instances on this planet where the local atmosphere is warmer than the surface or a single atmospheric CO2 or CH4 molecule, which, having just absorbed an IR photon from the surface, is now doing a new rotational-vibrational boogaloo and is warmer than a neighboring H2O molecule, a molecule which will be more than happy to receive an IR photon from its more energetic companion and return that energy to the surface in precipitation. Even in your alternate universe, where physics can be customized to suit your beliefs, there are countless paths for a portion of the IR energy radiated from the surface to be returned to the surface, and the higher the GHG concentration, the larger the portion.
Slip, you do not get to take a weather example of something like a “warm front”, and then claiming that the atmosphere is heating the surface.
Unless, you are ensconced in pseudoscience. ..
slip…”there are always innumerable instances on this planet where the local atmosphere is warmer than the surface…”
Where? All surfaces absorb solar energy and convert it to a lower energy IR. Are you claiming that lower energy IR can be recycled from surface to atmosphere and back so as to increase the energy that created it in the first place?
Gordon Robertson,
Also, regarding, “Even if it was absorbed, there is simply not enough of it to make up for the losses in EM radiated from the surface.”
You seem to fail to grasp that the loss rate is reduced by the presence of the so-called GHG’s and the equilibrium temperature rises until the loss rate again balances the input rate. If you continue to increase the concentration of GHG’s, the equilibrium temperature continues to rise.
Slip, you seem to fail to grasp that “continuing to increase the concentration of GHGs, the equilibrium temperature continues to rise”, is pseudoscience.
Poor Slipstick
He needed to look up how a compass works then he would understand.
Norman,
Compass?
Slipstick
Maybe you missed this. g*e*r*a*n thought it was such important advice he not only suggested it once but restated it for added emphasis.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285780
slip…”You seem to fail to grasp that the loss rate is reduced by the presence of the so-called GHGs ….”
Those CO2 GHGs make up 0.04% of the atmosphere. The IPCC admits most of that (96%) is made up of CO2 from natural sources, based on 390 ppmv. AGW seems to suggest all surface radiation can be absorbed by GHGs and returned in almost equal amounts. At least, that’s what the fiction in Kiehle-Trenberth suggests in their radiation budget.
I am guessing no more than a tiny fraction of all surface radiation is returned and that would be the radiation that has not been basically extinguished by the inverse-square law.
I think climate modelers made an egregious error when they decided to model only the radiation and pretty well ignore conduction and convection that would bring the 99% of the atmosphere that is nitrogen and oxygen. Then again, it was easier, wasn’t it. They had existing differential equation like Navier-Stokes that made it convenient to use only
radiation.
https://climateaudit.org/2005/12/22/gcms-and-the-navier-stokes-equations/
“In short, A GCM “control run”, is essentially one numerical run from a hugely complicated Navier-Stokes equation, the deep mathematical properties of which mathematicians say they know very little. Climatologists on the other hand appear to know the results to high degrees of certainty remarkable”.
Then the experiment got away from them. They began believing it.
This needs to be seen again, and again, and again, and .
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285667
The temperature in the tropics drops, so the temperature of the lower troposphere will drop.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/jan2018/JANUARY%202018.png
That’s not inevitable. I note your anomaly map is for the month of January – one month.
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2017 01 +0.33 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.20 +0.08
2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54
2017 10 +0.63 +0.66 +0.59 +0.47
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.26
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.12
Months in which the temp dropped from one month to the next in the tropics but went up for the globe.
2017 Jan-Feb
2017 Jul-Aug
2017 Sep-Oct
Tropics stayed the same from Nov-Dec 2017, but global temp went up.
So the tropics/global temp correlation is about 75% based on this limited data set (last 13 months).
from the same part of the thread….
“barry…”It was photoshopped quite obviously, too”.
If that is the case, what were the cretins thinking of who photoshopped it?
They don’t get it, they don’t get what the Nazis did to people, including ordinary Germans. In a way, they are glorifying the Nazi image. The Nazis of the early 30s were nothing more than bikers hired by Hitler as body guards. The Waffen SS were his prison guards in concentration camps where ordinary Germans were incarcerated for minor offenses, like talking against the Nazis.
In those days, had the Nazis been climate alarmists, all scientists and all people disagreeing with them would have been sent to concentrations camps and their chances of survival would have been slim to none. That was well before WWII began.
The same SkS cretins wrote about Roy Spencer and John Christy in a very derogatory manner. Roger Pielke Sr. went after them in an essay, slamming them for serious ad homs.
What kind of idiots do that? What harm has Roy or John ever done to anyone? If you don’t agree with a fellow scientist then treat him/her with respect and agree to disagree. Roy and John do not deserve the disrespect poured on them by SkS.
I can’t say the same for Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann, who have gone out of their way to be arrogant, even rude. When Dr. Judith Curry decided to become skeptical, Mann went after her with sexist comments.
And why are you defending them, Barry?
If that is the case, what were the cretins thinking of who photoshopped it?
You don’t see the humour in it?
Hogan’s Heroes, mate. We were making jokes about Nazis a few decades after the war. The pearl-clutching over this is the kind of bull super-PC liberals would pull.
barry…”Hogans Heroes, mate. We were making jokes about Nazis a few decades after the war. The pearl-clutching over this is the kind of bull super-PC liberals would pull”.
Allied POW’s from the air force were kept in special Stalags run by the Luftwaffe. It is to the credit of the Luftwaffe that they treated such POWs with a modicum of respect and rescued them on many an occasion from the Gestapo and SS. Other Allied forces in other camps were not as lucky, where the Gestapo and SS were directly involved.
It was funny in general with Hogan, Klink, and Schultz, with the blundering Gestapo inspector. There were times when Hogan dressed up in Nazi outfits to mingle with the local SS and Gestapo, and I found that repugnant.
Sheer fiction, none of them (Gestapo/SS) were that stupid. Only a handful of POWs escaped and made it back to the UK and most of them would never have dared step outside the confines of a Stalag.
It’s amusing how the Yanks portrayed the Stalags. The Great Escape was 99.99% done by RAF POWs, including Canadians. There were almost no Yanks there like the characters played by Steve McQueen, James Coburn, Charles Bronson, and James Garner. They were all in an adjacent camp and did not participate in the escape.
Ironically, the one Yank who was there, Johnny Dodge, who made several audacious escapes solo, earning the name ‘Dodger’, was not in the film. The Canadian who lead the tunnelers, Wally Fluddy, a real miner, was omitted and replaced by Charles Bronson’s character, who had claustrophobia.
I still watch HH. I even like Schultz and Klink, and the General who visits occasionally is funny as well. However, they steered well clear of what actually happened in Germany during WWII. HH is hardly based on any kind of fact, Nazi-related or otherwise.
When I see HH today, I wonder how German people feel upon seeing it? I have nothing against the average German, they had nothing to do with the atrocities. I just question continuing to rub WW II in their faces.
With SkS it’s another matter altogether. They are obviously nasty people who are out to counter anything skeptical and they do lie in that regard. They smeared Roy and John from UAH for no apparent reason other than that UAH has evidence that proves SkS wrong.
It’s from that perspective I object to Cook wearing a Nazi uniform and impersonating Lubos Motl. I regard their thinking as somewhat Nazi, the way they try to smear good scientists using sheer propaganda.
You’re clutching pearls. The photoshop was obviously a joke. You’re even more shrill than liberal uber-PC types. (See the pun there?)
People wear Hitler and SS outfits at Halloween. That works because of the history of the Nazis as authoritarians (and butchers). The pohotoshop was almost certainly referencing authoritarianism (Cooke is the “fuhrer” at SkS), a bit of high-school hyperbole poking fun at Cooke’s leadership status.
It’s as simple as that.
Skeptics, in their twisted way, describe this as “impersonating a Nazi,” which is obviously wrong. Your long-winded diatribe is just another iteration of turning a joke into something darker.
G,ran.
Thank you and more especially to gbaikie for writing it.
I often see such attitudes in today’s world, especially in the PC political realm. Leftists lead with the term racist or some such, attacking those who disagree with the religious mantra of the left. Realize, of course, it is a secular religion, based on ideas the left imagines as they go along. If you disagree they berate you, hound you from your job if they can, sue you into oblivion etc. How far from having you placed in prison is that attitude? It is certainly not one of democracy and equality under the law and the right to have a differing opinion. It is a totalitarian attitude, from which evolves the final solution of Communists and their twin the Nazis, wherein those who disagree are eliminated.
I see that often in the arguments about climate.
We should be careful to even avoid name calling, as one thing leads to another.
The UAH global temperature trend from January 2017 to January 2018 (inclusive) is 1.12C/decade.
That might indicate strong warming, however, it doesn’t take into account the uncertainty: +/- 8.76
Which meas that, at the 95% CI, the trend for this period is anywhere between:
-7.64 C/decade 9.88 C/decade
Way too much uncertainty to say whether there is warming, cooling or no trend for this period.
Anyone disagree with this conclusion?
Agree.
Worth mentioning that global sea ice extent is currently at record low in the satellite era.
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2018/02/piomas-february-2018.html#more
dim…”Worth mentioning that global sea ice extent is currently at record low in the satellite era”.
It’s a model. Back in the 1940s, the RCMP cutter St. Roch, sailed through the NW Passage both ways between Vancouver and Halifax. On the eastward journey, it took them two years but on the return journey they sailed straight through in 87 days.
Captain Larsen explained the conditions as very unpredictable ocean and wind currents that move the ice around drastically.
How does one determine to any degree of accuracy what is going on as far as ice extent is concerned at this time of year? There is no one up there measuring it directly.
Read right through your link, it explains the ice being pushed back against the shore.
Gordon
“The tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions. In addition, individuals may discredit information that does not support their views. The confirmation bias is related to the concept of cognitive dissonance
I report record low sea ice extent and you fiercely refuse to believe. If I had reported record high…..you would have eaten it up no questions ask.
Artemis; “I report record low sea ice extent and you fiercely refuse to believe.”
No. He pointed out that the record you reference is for the satellite era. There are reasons to believe that there have been periods when arctic ice when through low levels before the satellite era.
Inquirer
Read carefully. I made it clear the record was only for the satellite era. Dumb dumb is incredulous and wonders who could be up their with yardsticks taking measurements.
If the report had been record high extent, he would never have asked such a stupid question.
snape…”I report record low sea ice extent and you fiercely refuse to believe”.
It has nothing to do with belief. I explained using evidence from someone who had sailed the NW Passage how the ice moves around and gets compacted by winds and currents.
I can post you a link from NOAA that confirms how ocean currents can push ice out into the Atlantic. Your article claimed something similar.
Under such conditions, how can one claim there is marginally less ice mid-winter?
Gordon
For reasons you explained, they are only able to measure sea ice extent using satellites, which is why I stated the record is only confirmed for the satellite era, and why I called you dum dum for wondering who is up there taking measurements:
“Arctic Sea ice extent is virtually impossible to accurately measure from the Earth’s surface. The edges of the ice are ever changing and the sheer size of the ice mass (averaging two and half times the size of Canada) makes it difficult to measure directly on short time scales. To overcome the shortcomings of in situ observations, polar orbiting satellites began collecting data over the Arctic (as well as the Antarctic) in the 1970s. Scientists use radiometry data and visible imagery collected from the satellites to determine the sea ice extent. Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages, and more information can be found through the National Snow and Ice Data Center.”
snape…”If the report had been record high extent, he would never have asked such a stupid question”.
Of course, that would be closer to the truth given the past winter.
barry,
If you are agreeing with the IPCC that the prediction of future climate states is impossible, I wouldnt disagree.
Would this mean that you agree that nobody can say what the GHE is supposed to explain? It seems odd if the GHE is supposed to cause warming, cooling, or no change at all! Even odder, if its proponents are now claiming the GHE has no effect at all. Id certainly agree with that, of course.
As far as I know, things like the 95% CI are just figments of the imaginations of a pack of Warmist fools trying to sound as though they know what they are talking about. Complete self serving nonsense, of absolutely no utility at all.
Carry on.
Cheers,
mike…”As far as I know, things like the 95% CI are just figments of the imaginations of a pack of Warmist fools”
Many scientists have questioned how the IPCC arrived at their CL scale regarding opinions. I did not know an opinion was data other than in fraudulent polls aimed at influencing people.
barry…”The UAH global temperature trend from January 2017 to January 2018 (inclusive) is 1.12C/decade.
That might indicate strong warming, however, it doesnt take into account the uncertainty: +/- 8.76″
**************
I’d call it weather. There is no plausible reason why CO2 should suddenly cause that condition. I’d say we have a situation with ENSO and maybe other oscillations like the PDO.
Hello unrelated stuff. Bye unrelated stuff.
Do you agree with what I laid out or not?
I disagree entirely!
You have the wrong units – they should be C/100 yrs not C/decade
Furthermore, your analysis is NQR.
Simply, a linear fit to the data yields a correlation coefficient of about +0.63.
With such a large number of data, the P-Value is < 0.00001
i.e. the chances of such a rend occurring by chance are less than 1 in 100,000.
(this is a trivial task that any student can perform)
Consequently, there is a statistically significant trend in the data.
An easier test is simply to plot the graph and eye-ball it.
(but I doubt that some retired electrical engineers might have trouble (a) creating such a graph and (b) actually being able to see it due to failing eye-sight)
Sorry prof P…
barry has the right units (for the period jan 2017-jan 2018).
Yes, either prof got the time period wrong or is posting sarcastically.
Or got the period right and is simply wrong, but I doubt that based on his previous posts.
Barry – my apologies. I misread your post.
Your analysis seems ok to me.
So the moon rotating thing.
People are saying the spin is really the orbit.
So what would happen if we lost the orbit?
If God made Earth suddenly disappear, the Moon would head off at the angle of momentum achieved the last instant before the Earth vanished.
It would be seen to rotate as it left that part of the solar system.
Because it was already rotating.
barry…”If God made Earth suddenly disappear, the Moon would head off at the angle of momentum achieved the last instant before the Earth vanished.
It would be seen to rotate as it left that part of the solar system”.
***********
You are definitely not an engineer.
If you have a body orbiting another body with one face always facing the body it is orbiting, and it is allowed to fly off, it will do so tangentially to a line normal between both bodies, and still not rotating.
The Moon wants to go in a straight line and is forced into a curved line as a resultant of its momentum and gravitational force. If it’s not turning due to tidal locking it wont start turning after release. There is no force to cause that effect.
You have proved g*r’s point. What you regard as rotation is a result of the Moon being tidally locked to the Earth. It’s not turning on it’s axis and after release it would fly of in the same stationary manner.
BTW…you’re not a statistician either.
gordon, angular momentum means you cant just stop the moon rotating without applying a large torque.
Earths gravity is not applying torque to the moon, it is only supplying a force through the moons center towards the Earths center. When that force is turned off-there is no torque applied to the moon- so it keeps on turning as it was.
Nate believes Earth’s gravity has been “turned off”!
(What an hilarious year this is going to be.)
If its not turning due to tidal locking it wont start turning after release. There is no force to cause that effect.
The moon’s rotational inertia guarantees that it will continue to rotate upon release from its orbit.
The moon’s rotation IS tidally locked. But for some reason critics believe that tidal locking is the same as no rotation.
Here is a simple picture of a rotation from a geometry lesson.
https://o7planning.org/en/11157/cache/images/i/10282205.png
And another
https://www.tes.com/lessons/OdpsErKb2vApFw/copy-of-rotations
http://shapesponges.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/5/9/38592221/116436394.gif
All these (and hundreds more you can find on the net) are exact analogs from the moon. The centre point for them all is directly analogous to the position of the Earth. The object describes an arc around the fixed point (orbit). And the object’s orientation changes (spins) around the fixed point.
By pure geometry, we have hundreds if not tens of thousands of examples on the net that mimic the tidally locked moon in orbit and rotation. And they are all labeled – “rotation.”
You can find many more examples doing exactly the same thing here:
https://tinyurl.com/y86lppjf
The moon rotates – its a geometric certainty.
barry, you continue to confuse “orbiting” with “rotating on its axis”.
You continue to confuse an imaginary concept with reality.
It’s amazing the effort you must exert to remain so confused. ..
G* thinks just saying people are ‘confusing orbiting with rotating on an axis’ is somehow a convincing argument, if repeated enough times. It’s not.
Every image I posted in that comment and loads more exactly mimic the motion of the moon around the Earth, and every one of them is called a rotation. These are from geometry classes.
Click on them and see for yourself.
Your comment is just the same old repetition, G. That has no weight against what I am seeing all over the net when I google “rotation fixed point.”
Interesting note: the major moons of the planets are all tidally locked. If you had a powerful enough telescope you could see them all rotating from here.
barry: “Interesting note: the major moons of the planets are all tidally locked. If you had a powerful enough telescope you could see them all rotating from here.”
No barry, you would see those moons “orbiting”. You STILL do not understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
Imagine a train, moving along a straight track. Objects moving in a straight line…nobody has a problem accepting whether they are, or arent, rotating, right? The train isnt rotating on its axis, or else it would come off the tracks. Its just continuing forward. Then, the track veers off to the left. It keeps veering off until it somehow joins back up, in a complete circle. The train follows that path. At no point is it rotating on its axis. The track somehow goes off on a straight line again. It would look like the train is breaking off from the *orbit* it was just a part of. The train keeps moving in a straight line. Not rotating on its axis.
The point I am making is NOT that objects completing an orbit CANNOT rotate.
Nor is my point about whether or not an object NOT on tracks would rotate on its axis on coming out of an orbit.
“At no point is it rotating on its axis.”
Congrats, you have the lead role. Not for a sequel to the movie Dumb and Dumber, but to the new movie ‘Dumbest’. You and turnip boy were neck and neck for the role.
A train following a track and making a 360 degree orbit also rotates 360 degrees about its own axis per one orbit, otherwise it would come off the tracks.
Let’s define terms. “Orbit” means a curved path, usually elliptical, about some other body or point. “Rotation” will mean a body or object turning (or spinning) on its own axis.
An object that performs an orbit about some point can either rotate or not rotate. If the object does not rotate, an observer at the center of orbit will see all sides of the object during its orbit. Now if the object rotates, depending on its speed of rotation, said observer could see all sides of the object during the orbit. However, if the object makes one consistent 360 degree rotation per one orbit, only one side of the object will be visible to the observer.
In the case of a train on a circular track, the train is forced to make one 360 degree rotation per one orbit.
SGW, the train can NOT “rotate on its axis”. It can only “orbit”.
You absolutely have no spatial cognizance.
It’s amazing and hilarious.
Poor turnip boy refuses to perform simple observations like the toothpick/grape experiment because they prove him dead wrong, and he has no answers, just moronic declarative statements. Because in that experiment, one has to ROTATE the toothpick attached to the grape while making an orbit, to make one side always face the center of orbit. The rotation and orbit occur simultaneously. This simple observation trumps his stupidity. He apparently can only process one movement at a time, otherwise is turnip brain will explode.
SGW believes: “The rotation and orbit occur simultaneously.”
No, that is easily debunked. You just cannot see truth.
That’s YOUR problem not mine.
If one pierces a grape with a toothpick, and then rotates the toothpick between one’s fingers, the grape (and toothpick) are rotating on their own axis. And that is the motion one HAS to perform to make one side of the grape always face the center of orbit, while performing an orbit. No questions. No thought experiment. Just plain observation.
By rotating the toothpick, you are violating orbital motion.
You still can’t understand.
“By rotating the toothpick, you are violating orbital motion.
You still cant understand.”
What violation of orbital motion? An orbit is simply the path that an object makes about some other object, and in our case, it is the circular path about the center of the circular track. Orbital motion does not concern itself whether or not the object as it follows the orbital path is also rotating about its axis.
The grape on a toothpick is a simple demonstration of how an object can rotate about its own axis AND perform an orbit at the same time. You are making the illogical argument that it can’t happen when the demonstration shows it clearly does happen. By the clear definition of an orbit, the object (even though rotating) is performing circular revolution about the center point of the path.
Rotating the toothpick just makes the object spin about its own axis. That rotation can occur while making the object perform an orbit, or while not making an orbit. So spinning the toothpick does in no way violate the definition of an object orbiting.
There are TWO different motions. You just cannot separate the two. The toy train is always headed along the track, even if the track is curved. It is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
I never said there were not two different motions. You are the one who cannot understand that they can and DO occur simultaneously as with the toothpick grape experiment, or with the many examples I’ve given such as a window crank.
What you are not getting is the axis of rotation for the object follows the orbital path. And with the circular train tracks, the train car is forced to make one 360 degree rotation for every one orbit. Same thing with the grape toothpick where you have to slowly rotate the toothpick to make the red mark on the grape face the center of orbit at all times, WHILE following the orbital path. And when you spin the toothpick, it is rotating about it’s own axis.
Place a north arrow on the train car’s axis of rotation (not orbit) and you will observe the train car rotating about the north arrow as it performs an orbit.
You STILL don’t get it. There are TWO different motions. The toy train is ONLY making ONE of the motions–orbiting. It is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Put a north arrow on the train. That is your fixed frame of reference (the non-rotating reference frame). Now place an arrow on the train in the direction of its travel. Any time the train makes a turn, the directional arrow rotates about the north arrow.
There are SO many everyday examples. Like the bicycle crank arm. The pedal axle is completely and solidly bolted to the end of the crank arm. You can put a red mark on the the inside of the pedal axle that faces the center of the crank axle, and this will always point to the center of orbit, since it is solidly locked to the crank. (just like tidal locking) The pedal itself is free to rotate (or not) around the pedal axle. The pedal will represent our fixed frame of reference. Support the bike so the back wheel does not touch the ground. Grasp the pedal in your hand and turn the crank, but keep the pedal itself in a horizontal position with respect to the ground. What you will observe is the pedal axle (along with the mark) rotating about the pedal as it makes an orbit. So the pedal axle is doing TWO things simultaneously. Making an orbit around the crank axle, AND rotating on its own axis about the pedal.
All you ever do is make declarative statements with nothing to back them up. I provide real life example after example that I have performed and which are repeatable by anyone else, that prove my case.
You keep repeating the mantra that I don’t understand the difference between orbiting and rotating. Here is yet another example:
A person stands on the edge of a merry-go-round. This guy is talented and is spinning a basketball on the tip of his fingers. So The basketball is rotating on its own axis WHILE it also is making an orbit on the merry-go-round.
Some you will get it. Meanwhile, realize you continue to make a fool of yourself.
SGW: Your continued state of confusion is not my fault, or responsibility. Please remain calm.
J Clue-less,
You continue to make more unsupported declarative statements. Please explain in detail where my analysis is in error. And please try to explain away the observations with the toothpick/grape experiment where the rotation and orbit motions occur simultaneously. You are looking stupider by the minute.
Are you really this ignorant regarding rotating reference frames? As part of my engineering education I took a mechanical engineering course in dynamics, and this stuff is child’s play. Someone with a middle school education should be able to comprehend the simple concept of an object that rotates and orbits simultaneously since there are so many examples in everyday life.
You must be pulling my leg. No one can be this stupid.
“no one can be this stupid”
I take that back. I forgot about turnip boy.
SGW, if you really paid for a course in dynamics, and you believe a horse running an oval track in “rotating on its axis”, you need to ask for a full refund.
Get a toy horse. Pierce it with a nail so the nail is fixed solidly to the top of the horse. Now grasp the nail between your fingers and start at the most northerly point on the track. Make a 1/4 CCW orbit. You HAVE to rotate the nail (and horse) slowly between your fingers CCW to keep the horse pointed tangent to the circular track while performing the orbit. Otherwise the horse will be pointing west at the 1/4 orbit point, and would be running sideways right off the track. (you know what tangent means, right?) So the rotation and orbit are occurring simultaneously. (You know what simultaneous means, right?)
I know its hard, but try to keep up.
SGW, you’re just not understanding orbital movement.
Consider the toy train moving along a straight track. Is that train “rotating on its axis”?
Now, bend the same track into a circle. Is that train “rotating on its axis”?
Of course not. It is just following the track, as before.
Turnip boy cannot observe the moon rotate, so he concludes it does’t. Turnip boy sees the sun rise in the east and set in the west, and conclude the sun must be rotating around the earth.
Poor turnip boy does’t get frame of reference.
A train on a track rotates on it’s axis in reference to the non-rotating reference frame while it makes an orbit. (place a north arrow on the train that will always point north. Place another arrow tangent to tracks pointing in the CCW direction. The arrow for the train’s direction of travel rotates about the north arrow) You do understand north arrows and tangency? Right?
Consider a train engine on a circular track at the most northerly point (12:00 noon position) and facing west. Let the train make a quarter CCW orbit. Which way is the train facing at the at the quarter orbit point? South. It has rotated 90 degrees CCW on its axis while making the quarter orbit. Don’t get it? Do the same thing with the grape and toothpick. You HAVE to rotate the toothpick slowly CCW between your fingers WHILE making the 1/4 orbit in order to keep the red dot pointed to the center of orbit. (For once try to understand the difference between orbit and rotate)
I am NOT letting you get away without explaining logically any error with the above easily conducted experiment. So far all you do is hurl insults and make unsupported claims, looking REAL stupid for all to see.
SWG, you are throwing out so many slippery red herrings that you are have fallen on your butt.
Let’s go one step at a time.
The little toy train, traveling on a straight track, is NOT “rotating on its axis”. If we now bend the track into a circle, the train is still NOT “rotating on its axis”. It is “orbiting”.
Now that I’ve cleaned up your mess, see if you can walk without falling.
By definition, an “orbit” is simply a path, usually elliptical, about some other object.
In our case the orbit, or path, is a circular track, and the center of the orbit is simply the center of the circle. Got it?
Whether or not an object spins on its own axis does not come into play as far as the definition of an orbit. Got it???
Let’s use a single car on the train track (the engine). Let the car start at the 12:00 noon position and make a 1/4 orbit CCW. The car starts out facing west, and then at the 1/4 orbit point it is now facing south. It has rotated 90 degrees in the CCW direction WHILE making a 1/4 orbit, remembering that the orbit is simply the path it follows. So for one complete orbit, the train car makes one complete 360 degree rotation about its axis. And the axis of rotation (not orbit) follows the orbital path. Got it?
YOU are confusing the definition of an orbit.
SGW, I think you’re making progress. The car on the track makes one complete orbit. It did not “rotate on its axis”. From inside the orbit, you would see only one side of the car, just as with the Moon.
SGW: in your comments, you have made numerous analogies and thought experiments, etc, I understood them.
Youve got further to go.
Sorry if you are upset, but try not to take it out on others,
Sorry. I cannot cause you brain to function. My work is done.
SGW says: ” My work is done.”
Translation: His pseudoscience failed him, AGAIN.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
You know better than that. He just wanted you to tell him to look up how a compass works. You would not even do that for him so his work is done. He worked hard to get you to post that to him but he failed so his work is done.
If you were a real good guy you could of even told him to look up spindle for an added adventure.
I guess you might really be sick. You are not feeling well enough to do that for a fellow poster.
J Brain-less.
No, you did not understand anything. You have not countered any of my clear and repeatable hands-on experiments. It’s a waste of time to try and teach someone with an obvious learning disability.
Yet, I persist. Im nice like that.
SGW complains: “You have not countered any of my clear and repeatable hands-on experiments.”
SGW, it is apparent you do not know how to perform experiments. You rotate the grape on a toothpick, and then claim that proves the Moon is “rotating on its axis”.
It’s fun to watch.
skeptic…”A train following a track and making a 360 degree orbit also rotates 360 degrees about its own axis per one orbit, otherwise it would come off the tracks”.
An orbit requires at least two objects with something in common, like a gravitational force or a spoke. The train, as Halp said, is doing nothing more than rectilinear motion in a curve (curvilinear motion).
The train isn’t rotating on its axis, or else it would come off the tracks. Its just continuing forward. Then, the track veers off to the left. It keeps veering off until it somehow joins back up, in a complete circle. The train follows that path. At no point is it rotating on its axis.
Rotation is defined as a change in orientation of an object around an axis within the object. The train certainly changes its orientation around the axis within it as it goes around the track.
The error here is to think that because the track makes the train turn, that therefore the train is not rotating. But cause has absolutely no bearing on the observation of whether or not an object is rotating.
Barry, your 24 hour update is:
You are still unable to understand things from an alternate reference frame. You have such a long way to go (SGW is the same, of course). Some here understand those basics, at least. Maybe try talking to them first. Once you are up to speed on that, perhaps you can progress further.
I’ve spent quite a few posts above talking about reference frames.
The problem with using an orbital reference frame, or a Geocentric reference frame, is that you have to invent forces to explain things. An orbit reference frame puts the centre of the frame in the centre of the moon’s mass. From this frame we conclude that the universe is orbiting the moon.
From a Geocentric reference frame we conclude that the sun orbits the Earth.
A Geocentric reference frame has to invent fictitious physics to explain the coriolis force.
A Heliocentric reference frame provides explanation for the motion of all the bodies in the solar system to many decimal points without having to invent fictitious forces. A heliocentric reference frame gives us a perspective from which to explain the coriolis force without having to invent fictitious forces.
Same goes for the Newtownian reference frame of the fixed stars.
Why should we run with a reference frame that was shown to be flawed WRT explaining the solar system 6 centuries ago?
barry states: “I’ve spent quite a few posts above talking about reference frames.”
Yes barry, you have thrown out numerous red herrings. And, you have avoided the simple toy train, which clearly demonstrates that the Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
You have to ask yourself why you are so fond of confusion.
As you flounder, the toy train just keeps orbiting the circular track, NOT “rotating on its axis”.
B: Ive spent quite a few posts above talking about reference frames.
J: And now all you need to do is demonstrate that you can understand things from an alternate reference frame. Then, you can progress further. Dont worry, Ill keep an eye on your posts, and you can have another update in 24 hours from now.
Why did you just ignore that I mentioned 4 separate reference frames in the above post, and spoke of the perspectives they give, and then instruct me to understand reference frames?
I don’t know the term for this kind of behaviour but from where I’m sitting it looks nothing like honest discussion.
barry, how about 14 reference frames? 144? 800,000?
Any amount of confusion to avoid the simple truth of the simple toy train, huh?
It’s fun to watch.
you can have another update in 24 hours from now.
The arrogance added to the other mischief just makes it worse.
I think you don’t have an answer to my points. Particularly the last sentence.
barry, you don’t have any “points”. Red herrings are NOT “points”. You just continue to believe you can debate yourself around the truth.
Hilarious.
Well, Barry, its because you say things like:
B: The moon rotates its a geometric certainty.
J: Whereas someone who can understand things from alternate reference frames would say:
Luke-rotator: from such and such a reference frame, the moon does not rotate. From such and such a reference frame, the moon does rotate.
So, you still have some way to go, even to get that far (the correct answer lies beyond reference frames, by the way, in case you were thinking otherwise). But, I know from experience that it is pointless trying to talk to you, so I will let you speak to others. Thats why you are on *24-hour rotation*. Feel free to blather on, though. Maybe Foucaults Pendulum can be brought up again!
Clear and reproducible evidence that Halp is simply a troll.
Nate, a “troll” just jumps in, with nothing of substance.
Sound familiar?
Many definitions of trolls have i found. This one fits you, G*:
Faker Troll:” the main aim of the game is to, ironically, act really REALLY stupid, this trolls aim is to argue with members incoherantly, usually using text speak. This is a ploy, the troll only needs to spend 10 seconds writing the babble when the member wastes 10 minutes writing a much more wordy reply. The troll will reply with a stupid rebuff making the member post as many long replies as possible. Using the members weight against them and wasting their forum time… If they are good then their act will be believable and they probably won’t get banned unless the admin is strict on txt tlk. “
Nate, you might want to do a study of how much valid physics I’ve contributed, versus what you’ve contributed.
That would be fun to watch.
“how much valid physics” you have contributed?-easy to calculate–0.
Oh yeah, I forgot you don’t know physics.
Sorry.
Nate,
It’s no act. J Hapless and turnip boy are just plain stupid in regards to rotational dynamics.
SGW can’t understand a toy train on a circular track.
Hilarious.
So you had to reference a post elsewhere to avoid what I wrote about reference frames in direct reply to you just above.
And I did indeed mention a reference frame where the Moon doesn’t appear to rotate – the first in the list.
the correct answer lies beyond reference frames, by the way, in case you were thinking otherwise
So you said it’s important to understand reference frames, but now say that the answer is not to do with reference frames.
Putting all your comments together, looks like you want to ‘win’ at the expense of a coherent point of view.
barry, the “coherent point of view” is the little toy train. You keep throwing out red herrings, and if I refute them, you try to twist my words.
See, I’ve learned your debate tricks.
Now, please continue evading the little toy train.
It’s fun to watch.
Barry, the reason why I state unequivocally that the moon does not rotate on its axis, lies beyond reference frames. It has more to do with what is meant by *rotating on its axis* vs *orbiting* and this applies across all reference frames. Since it applies across all reference frames it is the one way to get to *the answer* on the moon issue. Nevertheless, I encourage understanding of reference frames first, otherwise they will always cloud the issue, and you will never see past them. You are not yet at the point of saying, e.g:
Luke-rotator: from such and such a reference frame, the moon does not rotate. From such and such a reference frame, the moon does rotate.
Those people may have good understanding seeing things from different reference frames, and are fairly open-minded, but are still yet to fully decouple *rotating on its axis* from *orbiting*. Hence the *luke* term. So, Im afraid, your 24-hour update is: no progress.
J: and are fairly open-minded
Well actually, no, not always. I should correct that. Depends on the commenter, of course.
Moons don’t follow tracks.
If you look at the forces on the wheels when the train is turning you will find that there is a torque on the train car. A torque causes an object to rotate.
When the track goes from curved to straight it is applying a torque the other way, to stop the rotation.
In space, on the moon, there is no such torque. Or it is a tiny torque caused by the tidal effect that only turns/slows the moon after millions of years.
That’s why you have to understand orbital motions, Nate. The train can only replicate the forces on the Moon. “Orbiting” does NOT produce “rotating on its axis”. There are TWO different motions being discussed.
Do you see tracks in space? Then it is not the same motion as a train.
If a new moon came headed for Earth and was not rotating on its way here, then was captured by Earths gravity, and began to orbit, it will not be tidally locked immediately. It will not show us the same side as it orbited.
A “new moon headed for Earth”.
Another red herring.
It’s fun to watch.
(Maybe if I paint the little toy train red, it would help them understand?)
As usual, a non answer. Guess you have no clue.
The current range of arctic air in North America.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/1hivufjw3hdz.png
There is a way of testing for rotation without an external frame of reference.
Use a Foucault Pendulum. You can see one in Paris, one in the Science Museum in London and nine others around the UK.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
On Earth a long heavy pendulum swings back and forth. Its plane of swing also appears to rotate clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and anticlockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. The pendulum swings in the same plane while the planet rotates under it.
Set up a Foucault Pendulum in the Northern Hemisphere of the Moon. If the “rotators” are correct, the plane of the pendulum will rotate because the Moon is rotating. If g*e*r*a*n is right the plane of the pendulum will not rotate.
I will just put this link here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285696
I think that was the last time (under this article) that the point you raised was discussed. There will of course be many, many more previous times.
Hint: when you understand why the Foucault Pendulum can not resolve the supposed *issue* either way, you will be at the luke-rotator stage.
Thank you. I missed that.
In fact the pendulum can distinguish between rotation and orbital motion. It responds to rotation, but not to orbital motion. Note that a Foucault Pendulum at the Earth’s North Pole would rotate once per day in response to Earth’s rotation, not once per year in response to Earth’s orbital motion.
If the Moon were not rotating a Foucault Pendulum at the North Pole would not rotate relative to the surface. This would not change as the Moon revolved in its orbit.
The Pendulum would make one 360 degree rotation for each rotation of the Moon. If the Moon rotated ten times per orbit the pendulum would rotate ten time.If the Moon rotated five times per orbit the Pendulum would rotate five times. Since the Moon rotates once per orbit the Pendulum would rotate once.
J Halp-less
And still a clueless poster who does not seem able to critically think or reason but if g*e*r*a*n tells him the Moon does not rotate on its axis, he blindly believes poster going by g*e*r*a*n (maybe that is because J Halp-less is an alter ego of the one going by g*e*r*a*n or it could be an offspring that loves their Dad so much they would believe anything that old Dad told them).
J Halp-less, have you ever had an original thought?
Yelp, yelp, arf, arf, bark, bark.
Norm, that’s all you’ve got.
Hilarious.
yawn, wake me up when you start to show some thinking ability.
Con-man there is no way you could avoid me. You’re obsessed.
Did you order a T-shirt yet?
g*e*r*a*n
No I have not ordered the T-shirt yet but I will try to make time to look up how a compass works.
Norman: your errors are there, on the internet, for posterity. And thats not my fault.
J Halp-less
The suspense is killing me! Do tell what these so called errors are.
I am glad it is not your fault. Thanks for not causing me errors. I might have negative feelings toward you if this was the case.
J Halp-less
Aren’t you, along with your hero, one of the brilliant people that think that when you rotate a compass around the needle rotates on its spindle? Hmm. I guess you are an excellent judge of thought errors.
So I guess I have been wrong all my life to assume the Sun is 93 million miles away from Earth. I saw on the Internet is only a few miles away. I guess I have too much of a closed mind to accept that the Sun is a spotlight that rotates around a flat earth a few miles above.
Yes you Flat Earth people are great judges of valid science. Keep us informed on what we got wrong. Even though you never say what we got wrong, it is just because of our closed and programmed minds that keep us from seeing the light.
Norman, your posts have consistently demonstrated a failure to comprehend an alternate reference frame.To now attempt to align yourself with those who claim to *see it both ways*, as it were, is simply dishonest. You can yelp as much as you like; please do.
P.S: If you get lost on the way home, it might be because you forgot to unglue your compass needle. That thing needs to be free to rotate on its axis!
J Halp-less
You are so right. How could I not see your truth. The Earth is a flat pancake with a wall of ice surrounding it. Not sure how you explain the 6 months of sunlight in the Arctic during summer and then the 6 months of darkness. I guess I just don’t have a screwed up enough mind to grasp your POV. I think maybe if I gobble lots of LSD and mushrooms I might be screwed up enough to see your reality. Since I am not planning on destroying my mind anytime soon you will have to find your superPal g*e*r*a*n. He understands you POV. He will also tell you to look up how a compass works and give you a free T-shirt. Aren’t you excited!?
Oh I *almost* forgot your *random* insertion of *asterisks* for no apparent *reason*.
Here is your video. Do you also go by stinkyCASH?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY0xhUOL3vM
With no understanding of science, and scant regard for truth, the com-man gets taken in by the “flat earth” nonsense.
It’s fun to watch.
J Halp-less
I am not sure I should post this video. Reality might harm your world view and mess you up more than you already are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFdBQ4cn_js
g*e*r*a*n
Just not the same old self. Did you get the flu?
Your post was not informative at all. You talk about Flat-Earth.
What happened to telling me to look up how a compass works.
Well I hope you feel better soon. Your non-informative posts just don’t have the same value.
Maybe get some sleep and you might consider meds.
When you feel better and back to your old knowledgeable self you will then be healthy enough to tell me to look up how a compass works. That would be great!
Norman, you have come unglued. Shame your compass needle hasnt.,,
Em, the Foucault Pendulum is a red herring. “Rotators’ bring it up because they have no way to scam the “little toy train’.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n, would the Foucault pendulum swing be aligned to toy train track or what?
svante, there is NO evidence you even know what a Foucault Pendulum is, except for some link you stumbled across. You don’t know how to use one, or you wouldn’t bring it up here.
You’re just grasping at straws, and it’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“there is NO evidence you even know what a Foucault Pendulum is, except for some link you stumbled across. You dont know how to use one, or you wouldnt bring it up here.”
I read about it when I was 12 (yes I really did).
“Youre just grasping at straws, and its fun to watch.”
So you have no idea, hilarious!
Read it again.
OK, still a determined rotator.
entropic…”The pendulum swings in the same plane while the planet rotates under it”.
What’s it attached to, a sky hook? Even then, the sky moves with the planet, otherwise at the equator you’d have a 1000 mph wind in your face.
Beware wiki explanations.
Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies, Ice and Snow Cover.
https://weather.gc.ca/data/saisons/images/2018021000_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000.png
Snow Water Equivalent.
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
Lake Superior Ice Cocentration
https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/compare_years/sicecon201804112.gif
Here are about 30 ‘Moon rotationists’ to be added to the list already present on this site (which I myself am a member of):
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-moon-rotate-on-its-own-axis-like-the-earth-does
*
Massimo Porzio wrote a comment on this thread
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285329
in which he supposed that Moon’s spin would stay in contradiction with the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment.
To that I can’t agree, as the Moon’s spins effect probably is way lower than the errors one has to cope with in the experiment.
*
What we would need here would be the reaction of a mathy astronomer who would be able to compute, for a complete lunar month, the position of a point visible on the Moon’s surface, as viewed by a fixed observation point on Earth, when it doesn’t spin.
La Pangolina, no mathy astronomer needed, all you need is your own eyes. By inspection the moon rotates ~keeping one hemisphere visible from moon rise to moon set as viewed from earth as does a toy train on a circular track. This just attests to the low level of science accomplishment by an amusing few on this blog not willing to do proper experiments.
I don’t need any mathy astronomer.
Some others do here.
Bin, did you ever have a toy train? Did it have a circular track? Was it “rotating on its axis” as it moved around the track?
He needs to look up how a compass works, then he will “get it” and be knowledgeable like g*e*r*a*n. He will know all about quantum physics, Thermodynamics, orbital mechanics. I am sure that we were able to put a man on the Moon because NASA engineers made sure they looked up how a compass works. After that it was all easy street.
Take g*e*r*a*n’s most important advice posters, and make sure you don’t waste any time looking up how a compass works.
The con-man, in full meltdown, almost gets things right.
But, will he still see clearly when he cools off?
We may need more “global warming”!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
No we will not need more global warming. We will just have to look up how a compass works. That should do it.
Con-man, you could start with that simple understanding.
Knowledge is a good thing.
g*e*r*a*n
Knowledge is nothing. Looking up how a compass works is what is really important. I am glad you suggested this to us lowly ones.
I’m here to help.
g*e*r*a*n
You certainly are. Don’t forget to inform other posters to look up how a compass works. Also make sure you inform them that when they are rotating the compass with their hands that it is the needle (pointing North) that is doing the rotating on the spindle. This might really help.
Yes, Norman. It really might.
I know by experience: it is not possible to convince unconvinceable persons of anywhat. They have to do that by themselves.
So this is just for information:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1518286885111.pdf
Taken out of
https://tinyurl.com/y9b9vfmm
on page 204.
Have some fun!
Bin, you conveniently miss the point of this exercise. NASA, the “great” repository of “science”, has multiple websites stating the Moon “rotates on its axis”. Major institutions of “higher learning” have similar sites.
The question is: Do you just swallow everything they feed you, or do you think for yourself?
1. Bin?
La Pangolina isn’t ‘Bin’ if you mean ‘Bindidon’.
2. ‘Major institutions of “higher learning” have similar sites.’
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1518306133406.jpg
Yes yes.
For the moon to be tidally locked w.r.t the Earth, it MUST rotate wrt the Earth.
This is obvious if you just think about it for a minute.
davie, the Moon does NOT rotate wrt its axis.
It’s obvious you can’t even understand the discussion.
Is your temperature close to 800,000K, yet?
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n. it’s “always at a slightly lower temperature, maybe one tenth of a degree”.
https://tinyurl.com/y9hnc4vn
Very good, svante. At least you’ve learned something.
One more nice little document
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/151828960097.pdf
taken out of
https://tinyurl.com/yawkfooq
Have even more fun!
Why go to the trouble of thinking for yourself?
Just go with the flow.
I wonder how many Germans, in the 1930s, just “flowed”.
La Pangolina
You will not reach the high level of g*e*r*a*n’s thought process until you look up how a compass works. If you would only do this simple thing all of g*e*r*a*n’s ideas will make perfect sense to you.
Not all, just how a compass works.
It’s one step at a time.
g*e*r*a*n
Good job sport! You put in how a compass works. Excellent. Hope you will keep adding that to everyone of your posts. Don’t forget or we might just forget to look up how a compass works.
Poor Norm. He’s one of my most maniacal fans.
He feels so unappreciated.
Maybe I should raise the price of my T-shirts again?
g*e*r*a*n
Maybe I should pay attention. Maybe you are changing from the importance of looking up how a compass works to the word T-shirt.
Maybe T-shirt holds the key. Remove the “r” (as this horrible letter is the same that starts rotation and we all know it should be an “o”)
Maybe that is the clue that g*e*r*a*n is spreading his T-shirt (with the dirty “r” letter removed).
There was a Super Bowl commercial covering this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=_b505lun45Y
g*e*r*a*n can freely spread his “bleep” everywhere. It just does not stink.
Con-man, to ease your obsession, you need to be wearing my T-shirt.
Order now, before the price goes up.
g*e*r*a*n
You mean your T-shirt with the “r” removed (could mean rotation).
This line is okay but you do much better when you tell posters to look up how a compass works. I don’t think anything else you post can rise to that level. Not even your T-shirt (with the dreaded “r” removed as it could stand for rotation).
con-man, if you wear the T-shirt 24/7. it will keep you from falling off your felt earth.
Full refund, if that happens.
Of course you wonder!
Courageous people like you never would ‘go with the flow’, even not within a brute force dictature!
Gordon Robertson
Above you made this claim: “The powered equipment does not reach a higher temperature in warmer air when that temp is lower than the equipment temp. The equipment will have an ambient temperature related to the current running through it and that will be max when the air surrounding it is at the same temperature. As you cool the temp of the surrounding air the equipment will cool, not warm.”
This is complete garbage and denies reality.
Yes indeed the powered equipment reaches a higher temperature based upon the temperature of the colder air.
In 20 C air some equipment is 34 C. In 26 C air the same equipment powered by the same level of energy, reaches a temperature of 36 C. Your argument is totally flawed and denies the reality of the data. You can’t change reality with false notions. Flat Earther you are!
Bark-bark, arf-arf, yelp-yelp, flat-earther, bark-bark, yelp-yelp.
(Continue usque ad nauseam.)
g*e*r*a*n
I guess it is good for you to express your lack of ability to come up with intelligent responses. I guess you think we should all stand and clap at your brilliance with that post. You explain nothing. You demonstrate little knowledge of physics, you certainly show no signs of being able to intelligently explain why you think your view of reality is the correct one. I am disappointed in your latest response. I would hate to insult you but that post deserves much insult as it shows a very limited ability to think. Anyway, your posts do not surprise. They are basically very redundant and lack substance. I think you are trying Mike Flynn’s mindless zombie posts of endless repetition. I have some sad news, Flynn is not changing anyone’s solid science to this date.
(Continue usque ad nauseam.)
g*e*r*a*n
Not your best. Hopefully your next post will shine with great wisdom and humor. Maybe I should go look up how a compass works. Then I might be on your superior level of knowledge.
Or, you could just order some T-shirts.
Please inquire about the pricing for the “physics impaired”.
g*e*r*a*n
You forgot to tell me to look up how a compass works. Are you slipping? To much rotating around for you today? Next time make sure you don’t forget. We all want to hear it again and again. That way we will not forget.
con-man, for you only, a special price.
Tonight only.
You can get one T-shirt for the price of five.
Don’t delay.
Order now.
g*e*r*a*n
I *guess* you just don’t *want* to tell me to *look* up how a compass works. So sad. All you talk about is T-shirts. Why talk T-shirts when you can *talk* look up how a compass *works*.
g*e*r*a*n
I added the asterisks in my post since it is what your groupie puts in. I was thinking if I added some of those in random fashion you might just tell me to look up how a compass works.
Norm, my favorite groupie, tonight only—One T-shirt for the price of 10.
Don’t miss this special bargain.
g*e*r*a*n
But you must remove the dreaded “r” (could mean rotation) from your T-shirt. You could sell a pile of them. They would not stink.
How many do you want?
g*e*r*a*n
I guess the number I want is the number of times the needle of a compass rotates on the spindle as you rotate the compass around on a table.
[whispers]: if the needle was not free to rotate on its axis, when you turned the compass with your hands, the needle could not rotate on its axis in order to keep pointing north.
J Halp-less
It might come as a shock to you but the axis of the compass is rotating when you rotate the compass not the needle. The needle does not change position or orientation. The axis rotates not the needle.
Because your mind is unable to logically understand reality this is for you. Don’t wait.
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/about-the-society/joining-the-society
It may come as a shock to you, Norman, that there is more than one way of looking at things.
Since you cant understand how the compass needle could be seen as rotating, try this instead:
Take a clock, with a hand for seconds, and place it lying face up on a table. You will notice that the second hand is rotating on its axis, clockwise (surprise, surprise), as it counts through a minute. If you were to rotate that clock CCW on its axis, at exactly the right speed, that second hand would always be pointing in the same direction. Yet, it was always rotating on its axis.
g*e*r*a*n
Let’s hear your hilarious Flat Earth pseudoscience again.
I think it goes like you have a compass and you manually rotate it around, the compass and spindle are not rotating but the needle (aligned and held in place by the Earth’s magnetic North Pole) is the item that is actually rotating. This bit is actually funny and I can laugh at it. In all your efforts you have finally come up with some hilarious outrageous funny pseudoscience. As Ball4 may request “Please give us more!”
This might be your funniest yet. Keep up playing with your toy trains, lots of fun for you. Do you have other toys you like to play with? Don’t rotate your Teddy Bear, he might get dizzy.
Con-man in full meltdown.
Hilarious.
More please.
g*e*r*a*n
Hilarious stuff.
That is really a laugh “Con-man in full meltdown.”
I am sad you did not tell us again that when you rotate a compass around it is actually the needle that is rotating, not the spindle, not the compass body. I need more of these laughs. Keep giving us more of your pseudoscience. It is really funny. More please.
I think we are supposed to look at how a compass works. Hilarious stuff, very deep. “look up how a compass works”. Wow! What fantastic advice. Maybe if the whole world would look up how a compass works we would have world peace. Maybe when North and South Korea get into their political talks down the road you should inform them that then should look up how a compass works. The two will unite after that brilliant advice. Maybe I should be like J Halp-less lying at your feet waiting for you awesome words of wisdom!
More please! You are jsut so funny!
Con-man, don’t miss the special rates on T-shirts. Order now!
When you’re washing dishes, your work superiors will think you are smart. I can’t guarantee any promotions, but who knows. …
g*e*r*a*n
I already know what you have printed on your T-Shirts. “Look up how a compass works”
I guess we should all be spreading this valuable advice from you. A T-Shirt may get the message out there to all the unscientific people.
What a revolution (or is that orbit) this would start. We would all be spinning on our spindle axis even if our needle keeps pointing North.
You’re already spinning, con-man.
How many T-shirts do you want?
g* is sadly content to just be a gadfly.
Appelly (rhymes with “jelly”) when you understand some basic physics, get back with us.
g*e*r*a*n
What I am really waiting for you to post is to tell me to look up how a compass works and if that is not enough I can even look up spindle for extra points.
No problem, con-man.
Go look up “how a compass works”. And, for extra points, learn what a “spindle” is.
The learning never ends.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Appelly (rhymes with jelly) when you understand some basic physics, get back with us.”
Another meaningless response that answers nothing.
You are a big waste of time. Worse, you revel in that role.
davie, there is no way to communicate with someone like you, that abhors truth.
(Any job interviews this week?)
g*e*r*a*n
That is much better. You are proving your value and powerful contributions.
I just have to copy and paste it so we can all admire your work.
It might have took some time but now we all know you have some value.
“Go look up how a compass works. And, for extra points, learn what a spindle is.”
Yes if you just stick to this I think people might actually start respecting your posts. Wouldn’t that be amazing.
I wonder how much praise Joseph Postma will give you when you go to his blog and post this. Wonderful!
Con-man, order a T-shirt.
Sleep in it.
It will protect you from falling off your flat earth.
Guaranteed.
g*e*r*a*n
Will it remind me to look up how a compass works, and if I am really motivated to look up spindle?
Will it teach me that when you rotate a compass on a table, the spindle is not the item rotating. The needle is the actual rotating item. I just have a mixed up POV. My totally closed mind thinks the compass is rotating around as I physically rotate it and the spindle with it, but actually the needle is really the item rotating as it always points to the magnetic North.
g*e*r*a*n
Pssst! Just between me and you be careful about making fun of the Flat Earth mentality. You have one adoring fan, J Halp-less and you might really hurt his feelings by telling him that Flat Earth is nonsense. Maybe you can keep these thoughts to yourself. You don’t want to upset your one and only fan. He currently believe everything you post and say.
I am sure he spends much time looking up how a compass works and also spindle. I am sure every time he looks this up he thinks fondly of you. Don’t mess up a good thing by voicing your opinion on the matter too strongly. Shhhhh! Don’t upset junior g*e*r*a*n. Who else will carry on when you get old and tired?
Norman, the moon obviously rotates. G* just gets off on messing with people here. Don’t give him the satisfaction.
David Appell
What you post is logically correct. My post was not to satisfy g*e*r*a*n. It was more to protect g*e*r*a*n’s shadow J Halp-less.
I am of the opinion (and with J Halp-less an opinion is as good as reality) that this poster is a Flat Earth Society member. That means all established science is false and distorted. Only the Flat Earthers have a monopoly on Truth (whatever they want to make up at the moment). We have at least two Flat Earth people posting on this blog. I would say J Halp-less and the very unscientific and science hater Gordon Robertson. Gordon has a strong aversion to science and the scientific method. He much prefers the Flat Earth mentality. Make up any physics that seems to answer some question and post it hundreds of times.
For instance. Gordon cannot accept the possibility of a GHE. Therefore he will make up physics that a hot object cannot absorb any energy from a colder one. He tries to convince people he knows what he is talking about by throwing out names like Clausius (founder of thermodynamcis). Now we know Clausius never made any claim that a hot object could not absorb IR EMR from a colder object. It does not matter to Flat Earth Gordon. He has a belief. He will not question that maybe his belief is wrong. He would rather believe all science is corrupt and twisted and lying to the people for some Political motivation. He can’t grasp that the Big Bang was not just randomly developed. It was developed in order to understand observed data (Red Shift of galaxies, a real and measured reality). He thinks it is some mathematical construct with absolutely no basis in reality.
I know you have spent much time trying to help this old man. Nothing seems to work. He is a true flat earth mentality. That is why I linked you to the Flat Earth video. You might be better able to understand these people if you see how they think.
Not scientific at all. They start with a belief and make up anything to fit the belief. Exactly opposite of science which gathers evidence and tries, using logic and rational thought to understand what is going on. Gordon is lost in delusion. He should join the Flat Earth Society. He would be most happy. NASA is the bad guys deceiving everyone. The reality is simple, just make up stuff, you get to be a god, you are not bound by evidence or reason. You believe and others accept what you claim. He would be happier there than on a science blog where proof is demanded and rigor is required.
[whispers]: particularly rabid.
Yes, poor Norm is obsessed with pounding on his keyboard. His head is filled with worms. They tell him if he pounds out worthless comments, it will make him appear smart.
Much to our delight, Norm believes his worms.
g*e*r*a*n
Maybe the worms would go away if you tell me to look up how a compass works. If there are still a few worms left you can tell me to look up spindle, that should get rid of the last worm.
You could pile up you T-shirts (with the “r” removed, it could mean rotation). Your shirt is like your word (that is if you remove the “r” from the word shirt…maybe J Halp-less will see the “r” in the shirt and Freak Out Man thinking you are endorsing the rotation of the Moon on its axis).
J Halp-less, do you live in Colorado? Rocky Mountain High? Your posts remind me of people I knew when I was younger, man.
norman…”In 20 C air some equipment is 34 C. In 26 C air the same equipment powered by the same level of energy, reaches a temperature of 36 C”.
Q = ebA(T^4 – To^4)
Bring the T’s closer together, the equipment warms due to a lower rate of heat dissipation.
Now let’s see you reasoning to support your argument.
BTW…there’s no reverse heat transfer in the equation, maybe you could add one.
Gordon Robertson
I think I have already discussed this point with you several times over time.
I have gone into much detail about it.
Why do you pretend this is the first time we talked about it?
norman…”I think I have already discussed this point with you several times over time”.
And I have presented the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as many times which shows clearly that temperature difference is the driving factor with radiation from a surface. Still, Norman calls S-B garbage, as he does Clausius et al. I am sure if I quoted Einstein he’d trash him as well.
Gordon Robertson
I think you are sinking to new levels of make believe.
Here you claim: “And I have presented the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as many times which shows clearly that temperature difference is the driving factor with radiation from a surface. Still, Norman calls S-B garbage, as he does Clausius et al. I am sure if I quoted Einstein hed trash him as well.”
So find one post where I stated that S-B was garbage or Clausius. You are just making stuff up from nowhere. Fantasy world. Hard to debate with someone who just keeps making stuff up. You know it is not true but you say it anyway. Find one post where I call Clausius garbage? I have told you Joseph Postma and Claes Johnson are loons that is about it. If you post and say I think their understanding of physics is garbage I will totally agree. The others are your own made up stuff. Not the least bearing on reality or truth.
norman…”This is complete garbage and denies reality”.
Here’s Norman preaching to an electrical engineer about heat dissipation in electrical equipment. Is it any wonder we’ve been inundated with the GHE and AGW?
Gordon Robertson says:
“It does not matter what you or I define it as, heat was defined long ago as the kinetic energy of atoms in motion.”
Gordon must deny reality in order to maintain his warped ideologies.
He needs to deny the greenhouse effect. That means he must deny that EM energy is heat.
This is absolutely bonkers, because we know from common everyday experience that radiation is heat. Just sit out in sunlight. Microwave something. Measure the ocean’s heat content. Go out and get a sunburn.
Gordon needs to insist that 19th century physics was the last word on reality. That is, of course, absurd, and extremely dishonest.
Gordon view of reality requires a great host of lies. Which he is more than happy to offer up.
David Appell
I think Gordon Robertson belongs to the Flat Earth Society. He is trying to recruit people that visit science blogs. The Society knows that climate science is complex and confuses many and the GHE is really hard for untrained people to understand. These are ideal blogs to recruit new members for the Flat Earth Society.
I linked Gordon to a video put out by this group. Gordon’s physics is parallel to this group. They make up and distort actual physics and make untested and unscientific declarations.
You might be amused by it. Think of Gordon as you watch it and his strange brand of physics makes more sense. He just won’t come out and admit he belongs to this group as it has a negative identity at this time. But they need more members.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa6Z_f06Je8
Yes, Gordon is not just dishonest, but also stupid. He clearly is not a bright individual.
Hey davie, tell us again about how the Sun, radiating at 5800K, can warm the Earth to 800,000K.
That’s always amusing, as you ignore both the “inverse-square law”, and 2LoT.
Hilarious.
g* = as dim as GR — at best.
dT = dQ/mc
Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.
m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg
c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume).
=> dT = 760,000 K
Q.E.D.
That’s always amusing, as you ignore both the “inverse-square law”, and 2LoT.
Hilarious.
How dumb do you have to be not to realize I’m going to just copy-and-paste the same old calculation every time.
You’re not here to discuss science. This kind of dishonesty shows that time and time again.
davie, how dumb do you have to be to copy/paste evidence that you do not know physics?
Yet you never try to address why it isn’t “physics.”
This is why you are fundamentally dishonest.
davie, study “2LoT”, “inverse-square law”, then get back to me.
You can’t address the question in a meaningful way.
How typical.
David Appell
g*e*r*a*n tried to give you some advice. He did forget his most important advice. I think you still might have to look up how a compass works. That might be the missing key. All the physics you took and the effort you put in to learn real science could have been made so much easier if g*e*r*a*n had been around to advice to look up how a compass works.
davie, it’s not for me to address why your knowledge of physics is so lacking.
That’s your problem.
Another lame and meaningless response showing your inability to discuss the science.
You’re clearly nothing but a poser.
davie, I just discussed the science.
What needs to be discussed is “why you run from truth”. Why do you devote your life to spreading falsehoods?
Another lie — you discussed nothing. You merely mentioned a couple of buzzwords without explaining how they apply.
This lameness is very typical of your replies here, which seem to come at all and any hour of the day, every day. Do you wait here just to pretend to be outraged?
Hey davie, tell us again about how the Sun, radiating at 5800K, can warm the Earth to 800,000K.
That’s always amusing, as you ignore both the “inverse-square law”, and 2LoT.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A GREAT YEAR IN CLIMATE COMEDY!
Why do I have to copy and paste the same old answer yet again?
Did you not understand it all the other times I’ve posted it?
Please, again.
I never tire of hilarious pseudoscience.
g*e*r*a*n
You are losing your focus. You are getting caught up in the addictive hilarious pseudoscience. Stay focused, man! You have true value on this blog. You can tell posters to look up how a compass works. Sometimes you might throw in look up spindle to keep things interesting.
Also you can state your POV. If David Appell puts a compass on spinning surface, the spindle does not rotate nor does the compass. Only the needle (pointing North) rotates around the spindle. The view that the compass and spindle rotate must be a deceptive optical illusion. Only you have the POV that can set us free.
DA…”dT = 760,000 K ”
Where in this universe, or any universe can you get an instantaneous change of temperature of 800,000K?
You do know that dT is an infinitesimal change in heat, do you not?
BTW…as I have tried to tell you before your equation does not apply in the way you are using it.
Gordon, please, only an idiot takes that verbatim.
DA…”Yes, Gordon is not just dishonest, but also stupid”
Smart enough to recognize a climate alarmist charlatan like you when I see one.
norman…”I think Gordon Robertson belongs to the Flat Earth Society.”
You attempted impersonation of g*r is failing. He’s way ahead of you both intellectually and in science.
Study some Don Rickles for cripes sake. Then again, he was fast mentally and you’re a plodder.
DA…”This is absolutely bonkers, because we know from common everyday experience that radiation is heat. Just sit out in sunlight. Microwave something. Measure the oceans heat content. Go out and get a sunburn”.
This only convinces me that you likely never graduated from high school, never mind got a degree. You should try what your guru at skepticalscience does and take up cartooning.
For the Eternal Lovers Of The One And Only Truth: the Moon does NOT rotate!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm7FGBSo9UY
It does not! Never and never I tell you.
This NASA video is pure trash!
Long live the Flat Earth!
Ha ha ha haaa.
Yes Bin, that clearly indicates the Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
But, it’s amazing how many folks believe otherwise. Why to you think that is?
“The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis.”
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
Sorry Appelly (rhymes with “jelly”), you are confusing “orbiting” with “rotation on its axis”.
Hilariously predictable.
g*e*r*a*n
If you is confused you might want to enlighten him by telling him to look up how a compass works. That should help him understand your confused and baffling mind state.
Also be sure to let him know that when he takes out his compass and rotates it around, that the spindle and compass are not the actual items rotating. The needle is rotating on the spindle so that it always points North, the spindle refuses to rotate even if you manually turn it, only the needle is rotating. You can find this to be true when we follow your advice to look up how a compass works and if we are feeling really smart we can look up spindle.
norman…”The needle is rotating on the spindle so that it always points North”
Which way does it point when you’re standing at the NP?
Gordon Robertson
I assume you mean the magnetic North pole. It would still most likely point North (the N on the compass) unless you forced some motion. As you are walking or driving to the magnetic north the needle still points in that direction. When you stand over it the needle no longer has a pull in any direction and using Newton’s Law of Motion, an object not in motion will remain so unless acted upon by some force.
If you walk North of the magnetic pole the needle will then rotate around the spindle.
norman…”If you walk North of the magnetic pole the needle will then rotate around the spindle”.
Sure it doesn’t point south when you’re right over the pole?
Poor Norm “assumes”: “I assume you mean the magnetic North pole. ”
The con-man likely has no clue that Earth’s “North Pole” is really Earth’s “magnetic south pole”.
Now he will spend all day, searching the web, trying to understand that basic fact!
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
Yup you are certainly a prime candidate for the make believe Flat Earth society.
It is called the “magnentic North pole” even if it is the south pole of a magnet. Just a designation.
Here this visual aid will help you understand. Odd thing about you is that you will not be able to understand what is presented. That is okay you can keep telling people to look up how a compass works.
https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/earth-magnetic-compass.png
Very good, Norm. You can learn!
You’ve just got a long road ahead of you.
g*e*r*a*n
The road will be greatly shortened if you ask me to look up how a compass works. Maybe if I can accomplish that you can tell me to look up spindle.
DA…the author at your link has a bachelor’s degree in English. Seems to me a guy with a degree in physics, as you claim, could do better than that. I still think, if you have a degree, it’s in home economics or maybe anthropology.
DA…”The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis”
So, in those 0.322 days of difference, we should gradually get around to viewing the other side of the Moon.
Duh!!!!
Appell, you have been challenged by Dr. Berry to provide a link to your PHD thesis. Why aren’t you providing one?
La Pangolina says:
February 10, 2018 at 8:05 PM
Great NASA video & really great epic music.
Thanks for posting
Yes, very nice.
The rest of the tour was great. Got to see the lunar eclipse aboard ship and noted that earlier in the evening when the moon rose, it was rotated about 90Deg to the right from what I’m used to. Well what did I expect in a land where the sundials run counter-clock and the natives drive their cars on the wrong side of the street (-:
About four o’clock on a nice sunny afternoon I was talking to our bus driver for the day, and I told him, “At home knowing the time and looking at the sun, I’d pretty well know which way North is. He pointed and said, “That way.” My guess was way off.
Here’s another nice video, this one from Astronomy Picture of the Day,
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap171203.html
Regarding the on going silly discussion:
Relative to the Earth, the Moon does not rotate.
Relative to the sun the moon does rotate
Relative to the stars the moon also rotates albeit at a different rate than it does relative to the sun.
So are lunar years always the same length?
Steve, its even simpler.
1) The moon does not rotate *on its axis*
2) The Earth does rotate *on its axis*
Its not (or, does not have to be) *relative to the Earth*, or *relative to the sun*, etc. Statements 1) and 2) are both true, from the POV of the object as it orbits. That is all!
In other words, all you need to be able to do is separate the motion *orbiting* from the motion *rotating on its axis*.
“Rotate *on its axis*”
Maybe someone could ask Halp what he means by this, and how its different from “rotate”
He seems to think a record playing on a record player is rotating, but not rotating on its axis..
Hi Steve.
You arrived late to this Moon/axis discussion, so let me help you to catch up.
I stated, back at the start, that there are TWO different, distinct, independent motions being discussed. One is “orbiting”, and the other is “rotating on its axis”. Either can occur by itself.
In the case of Earth, both are occurring. Earth is both “orbiting”, AND “rotating on its axis”.
So, your statement “Relative to the Earth, the Moon does not rotate” is misleading. Whether or not the Moon rotates on its axis is not “relative to the Earth”. Axial rotation is only relative to the axis of rotation.
And again, your statement “Relative to the sun the moon does rotate” is misleading. From the Sun, the Moon is “orbiting” around Earth. The Sun sees all sides of the Moon, due to that single motion. But, again, the Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
For anyone having trouble visualizing the motions, consider a simple toy train. If the train runs along a straight track, it is easy to observe it is not “rotating on its axis”. Now, let the straight track be curved into a large circle. The train is still not “rotating on its axis”, but it appears to be, due to its “orbiting” motion.
This “silly discussion” has really brought out those that are unable to think logically.
It’s fun to watch.
“The train is still not “rotating on its axis”, but it appears to be”
Fun to watch stuff appearing to be rotating on its axis but the stuff is still not rotating on its axis. This is already a great year in anger’s climate comedy. More please, the amused audience laughs just keep on coming.
“The train is still not “rotating on its axis”, but it appears to be”
Better:
Fun to watch stuff appearing to be rotating on its axis but the stuff is still not rotating on its axis. This is already a great year in anger’s climate comedy. More please, the amused audience laughs just keep on coming.
Cabbage Head, your silliness is all you have.
It’s likely very impressive to the 12-year-olds.
J Halp-less
I saw you had two points but forgot the most important one.
3) I J Halp-less will insert random asterisks around some words.
Not everything has to be a mystery, Norman. If the asterisks are functioning as quotation marks, that should be apparent from context. If the asterisks are functioning to place emphasis on a word, that should also be apparent from context.
But to you, it was somehow evidence that I was g*e*r*a*n…
*rolls eyes*
J Halp-less
It was not the asterisks that made me think you were another name for the same poster g*e*r*a*n. I was just amazed there could be two people on the same blog with the same backward made up physics. The connection to each other seemed a bit unreal. I was not stating it as a fact, just bringing up the possibility.
Norman, it was one of the pieces of *evidence* you listed. Please be honest.
J Halp-less
Yes, your asterisks seemed as a possible clue. I have not seen this massive use of that symbol in posts until you came along. It was only a clue the main reason was the identical incorrect thought process. First as it relates to established science of heat transfer. You are both wrong about it and neither of you know why you are wrong yet give identical wrong logic. Then in more recent posts you both think that when you rotate a compass, and the spindle along with the compass (as they are connected), the spindle is not the item rotating, it is the needle, which is fixed to point North via magnetic force. The needle does not rotate in this case. If you opened the top and moved the needle around while the spindle remained in place you would be rotating the needle around the spindle. You could likewise rotate the needle so that it rotates around the spindle if you took a magnet that overpowered the Earth’s magnetic field and moved the needle around the spindle.
That two people can get really simple ideas so wrong is a really interesting coincidence.
Doesn’t really matter how you both do it, the larger idea is you both are wrong and really do not add any value to this blog. Bad ideas are not advancement of thought. That is why you remind me of Flat Earth Society members. Bad ideas, bad science, bad logic. No value to contributions. Many posters have this innate need to correct your very poor thought process. After multiple attempts it seems you are immune to good thinking and logic is not to be found in how your brains are wired. You have lots of fun. I am glad.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-286276
Norm, are you forgetting it was YOU that gave me the idea to use asterisks?
See, you did have something to contribute, once.
1) The moon does not rotate *on its axis*
2) The Earth does rotate *on its axis*
Its not (or, does not have to be) *relative to the Earth*, or *relative to the sun*, etc. Statements 1) and 2) are both true, from the POV of the object as it orbits. That is all!
From the POV of the moon, the solar system and the universe are spinning. In that case the moon is rotating. Unless you believe that the universe orbits the moon.
barry changes the phrasing: “In that case the moon is rotating. Unless you believe that the universe orbits the moon.”
barry, why do you believe you have to change the phrasing? Why can’t you just be straight-forward? Why all the obfuscation?
The Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
That’s TRUTH.
Why are you afraid to speak truth?
barry says:
February 12, 2018 at 3:53 PM
…
“From the POV of the moon, the solar system and the universe are spinning. In that case the moon is rotating. Unless you believe that the universe orbits the moon.”
B I N G O !
Sorry, no BINGO tonight.
You’re STILL confusing “rotating on its axis” with “orbiting”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
“g*e*r*a*n says:
February 12, 2018 at 9:35 PM
Sorry, no BINGO tonight.
Youre STILL confusing rotating on its axis with orbiting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis”
You can’t face up to the fact that the orbital period of the moon is the same as its period of rotation. Barry is right once in a while, and you’re wrong once in a while. This is one of those times.
Barry on the other hand can’t face up to the facts that:
The polar bears are fine, Antarctica isn’t melting, multi-meter sea level rise isn’t happening, forest fires are less frequent, floods and droughts aren’t occurring more often nor are hurricanes or extreme tornadoes. Heavy industry and the world’s economy aren’t ever going to be powered by wind mills or solar panels and contrary to popular belief an increase in CO2 is mostly beneficial.
Steve, maybe you haven’t thought about the very clear demonstration of a toy train. If the train runs along a straight track, it is very clearly NOT “rotating on its axis”. If the track is bent into a large circle, the train is still NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Just forming the track into a circle would not cause the train to start “rotating on its axis”. There are TWO different motions. Realize that if the Moon were “rotating on its axis”, you would see more than one side, from Earth.
Study the physics of “orbiting” and “rotating on a fixed axis”, for further clarification.
binny…”This NASA video is pure trash!”
More authority worship from binny. He thinks everything out of NASA must be correct because it bears the NASA emblem. If NASA told him all German’s are idiots, binny would accept that without question. If I counter-claimed that all German’s are not idiots, binny would call me a flat-earther.
I did not see one revelation at your link suggesting the Moon rotates on its axis. It shows Moon phases. I suppose in your need-for-authority mind you think the phases are due to the Moon rotating on its axis.
g*e*r*a*n
Maybe it would help if you told them to look up how a compass works.
Or maybe sell them a T-shirt without the dreaded “r” that indicates rotation. Forbidden by your declarations. No need to prove your POV just declare it and it is so. Sell you T-shirt (without the r) and be sure to remind them to look up how a compass works. If they are daring they can also look up spindle (oooohhhh ahhhhh).
Warning to J Halp-less
I hope you are careful when you visit Roy Spencer’s Blog. He shows an image of a spherical Earth at the Top of his page. Maybe you need to divert your attention when you click on to this blog and scroll down a bit so the horrifying image does not possibly alter your established POV.
Hope you appreciate my effort to protect your POV.
norman…”I hope you are careful when you visit Roy Spencers Blog”.
Roy also supplies a graph which disproves AGW.
Gordon Robertson
Such a declarative statement that is disconnected from reality. In no way does Roy’s graph “disprove” AGW and it most certainly does not disprove GHE.
Here is what Roy states: “The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through January 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”
How exactly does this disprove AGW?
norman…”Here is what Roy states: The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through January 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
If you read the 30 year summary it states there has been little or no TRUE warming since 1979.
I have tried to explain to anyone who has ears that a trend calculated from a regression is number crunching. Roy would look pretty stupid if he submitted anything else since that’s the way most scientific outfits do it. However, interpreting what it means is another trick.
If I wanted to fit a curve to the UAH data I’d need to arrive at the same trend. However, I have been informed the trend from 1979 – 1996 was due to rewarming following aerosol cooling. I was informed further that the trend from 1998 – 2015 was flat (IPCC and UAH).
Ergo, the 0.12C/decade trend tells us nothing about the reality, nor does it tell us if CO2 contributed.
You learn that stuff when you take an advanced course in probability and statistics. The first thing we were taught was never to trust averages without understanding the context from which the data was derived. Hence, I don’t trust the 0.12C/decade trend.
Gordon Robertson
And yet it does not support your declaration. Rejecting your declaration does not mean I support the opposite. I challenged your declaration only, nothing more.
YOUR DECLARATION: “Roy also supplies a graph which disproves AGW.”
How does his graph disprove AGW? It may or may not support the hypothesis but I fail to see how you have demonstrated in anyway that the graph “disproves” AGW.
If the graph had a history of falling temperatures with rising CO2 levels you would have a point. At this time I do not believe you have enough data to establish your declaration. The temperature is showing an upward trend from 1979. If it was flat for a period of time that alone would not disprove AGW. Other factors are involved in temperature data. You can only view a long term to get a valid determination.
So again, how does this graph “disprove” AGW. It may not prove it but you declare it disproves it. I think you declarations are the same made up science you always seem to do. Make stuff up. Your declaration is another made up idea that you have no support for.
Gordon Robertson
I think you would greatly enjoy the Flat-Earth Society. You can make up all the science you want and they might accept it, especially if it supports their ideas. You like making up your own version of science, there it would be welcome and encouraged. You would not have me or David Appell telling you that you are making up crap and don’t know what you are talking about. There you would be most welcome and could even become a leader. You know enough about science to come up with all kinds of ideas, but you don’t know enough science to be good at real science. You are unable to see how your ideas are wrong or why.
You are far more suited for Flat-Earth reality with its made up science than you are on an actual science site.
You might want to consider it. You already use science like they do.
Norm opines: yelp-yelp, arf-arf, bark-bark, flat-earth, yelp-yelp, arf-arf.
(It’s fun to watch.)
g*e*r*a*n
For sure you should join the Flat-Earth society. Your physics is the same as their’s. Made up, no support. You could even tell them to look up how a compass works. For that alone you would probably be promoted to leader. Also you would have a captive audience to sell T-shirts to.
Yup join today, they need you and you made up physics.
Norm, have you been able to learn how a compass works, yet?
g*e*r*a*n
You can tell me to look up how a compass works.
norman…”You would not have me or David Appell telling you that you are making up crap and dont know what you are talking about”.
The irony is hilarious. You and Appell are right at the bottom of the totem pole of science yet both of you offer your services as authorities in your own minds.
You are still trying to disprove the 2nd law and you don’t understand heat dissipation. You think an electronic device cools more slowly in a warmer room because the room air is warming it.
You should be a comedian.
norman…”How does his graph [UAH] disprove AGW?”
18 years with no warming. The IPCC confirmed 15 of those years but I guess you skimmed that part.
Norman: you seem particularly rabid these days.
J Halp-less
Not sure what you are posting. Does it have to do with a rotating compass needle?
Your hero must have forgot to tell you to look up how a compass works so you are on the edge.
Just relax, it will be okay.
N: Does it have to do with a rotating compass needle?
J: It was more your stream-of-consciousness rambling.
J Halp-less
You picked a good online name. Your last post did not help at all.
Not sure what your point is about stream-of-consciousness rambling. Is that a drug induced term? Sounds like something maybe a drug user would claim to a wasted buddy of his.
Well, that was a good example of it.
Needed to be a bit longer to really class as a ramble, though.
The non-existent GHE remains indefinable and inexplicable.
I have an idea.
Lets all indulge in an orgy of talking about compasses, heated laboratory instruments, and how David Appell can create 800,000 K temperatures using a 5800 K source by the magic of climatological heat accumulation!
Meanwhile, still no testable GHE hypothesis, much to the consternation of GHE true believers. Its magical – the Effect which has no effect whatsoever,
Oh, how we laughed!
On the brighter side, its possible that the US Govt might soon expect renewable energy hucksters to provide economical products now, not in the future, without subsidies or handouts. It might also expect some results from the billions wasted trying to prevent the climate from changing. A hopeless fantasy, I know.
No doubt the universe will unfold as it should.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Maybe no one can ever convince you of a GHE. But g*e*r*a*n may be able to tell you to look up how a compass works. He could also challenge you to look up spindle.
While you are trying to get a response to your post I have a video for you to watch. You will be amazed I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa6Z_f06Je8&t=1072s
This is great science for you. It will answer all your questions.
Enjoy and Cheers!
Norman, MF knows there is a greenhouse effect. He’s admitted it more than once, such as
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
and
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
He just wants to fuck!ng with people on Internet forums. It brings him satisfaction.
David Appell,
I didnt realise that you knew that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun makes a thermometer colder. Exactly correct.
The more sunlight you prevent reaching the surface, the lower the temperature.
Its physics, not magic.
Unfortunately, some Warmist fools have convinced themselves otherwise. They think that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will result in global warming, or some similar Warmist foolishness!
Maybe you are dyslexic, and interpret the meaning of what I wrote as its complete opposite.
I cannot help it if you share the same mad delusion as other Warmist fools.
Cheers.
Norman,
I have no intention of watching any videos at your behest. About the only thing likely to amaze me is some Warmist fool miraculously producing a testable GHE hypothesis!
Blathering on about great science is just silly. About as silly as a blithering idiot who might claim that the science is settled! Or any other sort of idiot who claims that climatology qualifies as a science.
Science is not about convincing anyone, really. Nature doesnt care whether you are convinced that gravity exists or not. Facts are facts, fantasy is fantasy. Warmist fools get the two confused, and convince each other that fantasy is fact.
Oh well.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
The choice is entirely yours to make. You are the one missing out.
norman…”The warmer cold surroundings increase the temperature of the hotter lab equipment. How do you refute the experimental evidence?”
Please tell me you made a mistake.
I have explained this several times from a professional perspective, I have actually studied this stuff and worked with it. A device in electrical equipment that needs cooling, generates its heat from within due to electrons moving through the resistance of the device. The heat is expressed as i^2 x r, and if the device is a power device, you need to dissipate the heat as quickly as possible.
There is no way to increase the heat beyond i^2 x r. However, if you don’t provide a means for the heat to escape, via radiation of direct conduction, the device stops transferring heat to its surroundings and the heat build up within the device.
The devices are designed to dissipate so much heat and part of the design is based on heat dissipation being provided. Power transistors are mounted on heat sinks with fins, that help dissipate the heat by radiation and convection. You could run the transistor without the heat sinks but you’d have to run it much cooler and that means cutting down the amount of current it can carry.
You can apply the Fourier heat equation for conduction or Stefan-Boltzman for radiation. In both cases, the heat transfer rate is dependent on the temperature differential between the device and it’s surroundings, including metal cabinetry, heat sinks, and the air.
If you cool the room’s ambient temperature it increases the rate of heat dissipation. That’s all, the room is not magically transferring heat back to the device. If you did that the device would burn out.
With a cabinet full of electronic/electrical gear, each device is contributing heat. The air molecules warm to an average temperature and if ventilation and heat dissipation is not provided, the air can warm to a point where it prevents the devices from transferring heat effectively to its surroundings.
They install fans in the cabinets to blow out heated air and draw in cooler air. Semiconductors have operating temperatures and the aim is to keep the air temperature in that range, preferably at the lower end of the range.
Many computer installation install air conditioning units to keep the ambient air temperature cooler. The cooler the air, the better the related devices can shed their heat. The table to which you linked shows that, the cooler the ambient temperature the cooler the equipment runs.
Gordon
“If you cool the rooms ambient temperature it increases the rate of heat dissipation.”
Yes, and if you raise the room’s ambient temperature it will decrease the rate of heat dissipation.
Why can’t you figure that out?
The troposphere is about 12 kilometers thick on average; it is thicker in summer than in winter. The troposphere over low latitude regions is usually thicker than over high latitude regions. The troposphere over the equator is about 18 kilometers thick, while its thickness in the regions nearest the two poles is only about eight to nine kilometers. The temperature in the troposphere usually decreases with height at the average lapse rate of 6.5 C per kilometer. The air in the troposphere is more unstable and with strong convection. Almost all the water vapor in the atmosphere exists within this layer; therefore, common weather phenomena such as clouds, fog, rain, and snow, occur only in this layer and more often than not in its lower part.
The stratosphere extends from 10 kilometers to 50 – 55 kilometers above ground. Within the lower part which extends from the top of the troposphere to about 30-35 kilometers the temperature is almost constant, or increases slightly with height. Above 35 kilometers the temperature actually increases with height at the average rate of 5 C per kilometer. Since almost no dust or water vapor from the land surface will reach the stratosphere, the air flow in this layer is steady. The upper part of the stratosphere experiences an increase of temperature due to the fact that the sun’s ultraviolet radiation is absorbed by the ozone layer.
http://www.cwb.gov.tw/V7e/knowledge/encyclopedia/me006.htm
Artemis Dimwitty
I am at a loss why he can’t figure out what is going on. He even states it clearly.
GORDON: “You can apply the Fourier heat equation for conduction or Stefan-Boltzman for radiation. In both cases, the heat transfer rate is dependent on the temperature differential between the device and its surroundings, including metal cabinetry, heat sinks, and the air.”
Exactly what I have been saying and here he says it as well.
In this case he can see the temperature of a cold object will change the heat flow rate, in another he makes the unfounded claim a hot object cannot absorb any energy from a cold one. I cannot follow what type of logic he uses.
For some reason he can see that 26 C air will allow less heat transfer from powered lab items (their equilibrium temperature a higher value) but he does not see that this higher equilibrium temperature results when you raise the air temperature from 20 C to 26 C. He can understand the equipment cools if you take the air from 26 C to 20 C but he can’t follow that the equipment gets hotter when the 20 C air is raised to 26 C. Odd thought process.
norman…”Exactly what I have been saying and here he says it as well.
In this case he can see the temperature of a cold object will change the heat flow rate, in another he makes the unfounded claim a hot object cannot absorb any energy from a cold one. I cannot follow what type of logic he uses”.
The old switcheroo. Discover you are wrong then put forward the other person’s claim as if you’d thought it up.
Only problem is Norman, you still have not quite got it. It’s not heat flow it is affecting it’s heat dissipation. Remember, there is no heat flowing through space as radiation. The heat dissipation takes place at the equipment and S-B applies between the equipment and the room air.
snape…”Yes, and if you raise the rooms ambient temperature it will decrease the rate of heat dissipation”
Explain that to Norman, thus far I have failed. He’s trying to convince the world heat from the room is warming the devices rather than messing with dissipation.
Change your name back to snape, it suits you better.
Gordon Robertson
No you are wrong again (as usual, seems to be a standard for you, to be wrong).
No I am not trying to convince anyone that heat from the room is warming the devices. You just make up stuff, its what you do.
I don’t know how many times I have repeated it but you don’t want to listen. Heat flow (which is what is going on here) is altered by the surrounding air temperature. The same amount of input energy is going into the lab items so they change temperature based upon the surrounding air temperature.
The facts remain. I am not stipulating a why it happens, the facts are it does happen.
You have three cases:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/
At air temp of 17 C a scope reaches a temperature of 33 C
If the air temp is increased (this is the only thing changed)
At air temp of 20 C the scope reaches a temperature of 34 C
At air temp of 26 C the scope reaches a temperature of 36 C
Now for logic.
This experiment totally rejects your false interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Your Claim is that a cold object cannot make a hotter one hotter. And the test clearly shows your thoughts are false and you have no understanding of the 2nd Law.
In each case above the air temperature is colder than the hot object.
If you have warmer cold temperatures (still much colder than the hot lab item) the temperature of the hotter object goes up.
It is very clear you are wrong in your false assertions and you incorrect understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Gordon Robertson
You also lack the knowledge to understand why warmer air slows the loss of heat from the lab item.
It is again a two way energy exchange. The warmer air molecule returns more energy to the lab item in collision with the surface than a colder air molecule. There is again a two-way exchange of energy at the surface. The more energy the cold item has the more energy it will return to the surface when it exchanges energy.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Elastischer_sto%C3%9F.gif
This is what an energy exchange would look like when a hot surface molecule exchanges energy with a very cold molecule, all the energy of the hot surface gets transferred to the cold molecule.
But as the kinetic energy of the cold molecule increases it will return some of its energy to the hotter molecule in collision with it.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Elastischer_sto%C3%9F2.gif
Nice gifs Norman, but remember, in elastic collisions, they are reversible, backwards and forwards are both allowed.
very important
Norman…”It is again a two way energy exchange. The warmer air molecule returns more energy to the lab item in collision with the surface than a colder air molecule”.
You’re all wet Norman. Leave the design of cooling systems to engineers.
Norman…”No I am not trying to convince anyone that heat from the room is warming the devices. You just make up stuff, its what you do.
I dont know how many times I have repeated it but you dont want to listen. Heat flow (which is what is going on here) is altered by the surrounding air temperature. The same amount of input energy is going into the lab items so they change temperature based upon the surrounding air temperature”.
**********
There is no heat flowing through the room air Norman other than via convection. Heat dissipation is not heat flow either, it’s a reduction of heat at the equipment surfaces.
The heat transfer has to be from the devices in the cabinets to the surrounding air. That’s the interface to which S-B applies. The To, if you like is the device(s) in the cabinets and the T is the room temperature. Increase T and heat dissipation is less, lower it and heat dissipation increases.
You are still arguing that heat can magically be transferred from a cooler room to a warmer device(s). Those devices are running at temps from 40C to 80C. Have you ever been in a room that hot?
norman…”It is again a two way energy exchange. The warmer air molecule returns more energy to the lab item in collision with the surface than a colder air molecule”.
They are not concerned about cooling the cabinets for the sake of it. Inside those cabs there are devices running very hot, at 40C to 80C. The heat spreads to the inside cabinet walls which become radiators and engineers use heat sinks on the hot devices to increase surface area. They also use fans and vents to enable convective cooling.
Once all is said and done, the cabinet surfaces are usually much hotter than the room temperature. How can a cooler room temperature warm a cabinet that is warmer? Even if it’s the same temperature, the room air won’t warm it.
Why do you keep arguing this stuff with the feint hope you’ll find something wrong with my theory? You are wrong and you have failed to prove a two way heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures.
Norman…”This is what an energy exchange would look like when a hot surface molecule exchanges energy with a very cold molecule”
If you turn on an electric stove element and let it get hot, what happens when cooler air molecules collide with the hot surface. Do they make it even hotter, or does the hot element make them hotter?
You have it in your head that warmer room air is warmer than the electronic cabinets. If you stand near some of those cabinets you can feel the heated air in their proximity. They warm the air, the air does not warm them.
The original link to which you posted with differing temperatures is aimed at showing the effect of COOLING, not the effect of warming. They already know it’s warm, they want to show the effect of cooling the room.
Gordon Robertson
I read through your posts about mine. I say one thing and you twist it to mean something else and go about attacking the twisted version.
What is up with that?
It is a total mistake to try and reason with you. I do not know why I try.
Here you state more incorrect twisted Gordon version of reality that can easily be shown false. It won’t matter, you can’t see any flaw in anything you think.
So you made this claim in your post: “There is no heat flowing through the room air Norman other than via convection. Heat dissipation is not heat flow either, its a reduction of heat at the equipment surfaces.”
Just more of your made up crap!
Read this:
https://www.corrosionpedia.com/definition/5041/heat-dissipation
How can one debate in honesty when the other makes stuff up all the time every post. You have zero credibility. Every thing you post I have to waste time looking it up since you just make up stuff and I don’t know what might be real or your own make believe.
Con-man complains: “Every thing you post I have to waste time looking it up since you just make up stuff and I dont know what might be real or your own make believe.”
con-man, the reason you waste time is you can’t understand. You don’t try to learn. You just look up stuff that you believe agrees with your pseudoscience. You’re not interested in “facts” and “logic”.
It’s fun to watch.
Gordon
“…if you raise the room’s ambient temperature it will decrease the rate of heat dissipation”
Norman understands this perfectly well. We thought YOU didn’t understand it.
The how and why, and the implications, seem to be where you get lost.
‘m happy he idea is as obvious to Norman as to me.
Whoops…meant to edit out the last couple lines.
snape…”if you raise the rooms ambient temperature it will decrease the rate of heat dissipation
Norman understands this perfectly well. We thought YOU didnt understand it”.
That’s not Norman’s understanding at all. He thinks a warmer room will increase the temperature of the equipment. He is still talking heat transfer from a cooler room to warmer equipment.
The source of the heat in the devices can be 50C to 80C. Where would you get heat in a room at room temperature to make the device hotter?
Gordon Robertson
GoofBall you are getting annoying!
YOU: ” He thinks a warmer room will increase the temperature of the equipment. He is still talking heat transfer from a cooler room to warmer equipment.”
First line. No it is not what I think it is what the data shows goofball! Look at the data or shut up already!
When the room temperature goes up the equipment temperature goes up. That is factual evidence and not something I think!
Your second point is as dumb as your first. I have told you how I define heat transfer and the colder room does NOT transfer HEAT to the warmer equipment. I have explained this to you several times so just stop this distortion. The heat flow (direction) is from the hot equipment to the colder room. The amount of heat flow varies. The input energy to the equipment does not vary. Warmer air lowers heat flow. That forces the temperature to go up. That is NOT the same as saying the cold air heated the hot items.
Increasing the temperature of the colder surrounding leads to higher temperature of heated objects.
Earth’s surface is a powered item. The Sun is inputting energy to it constantly (at least half of it). If you lessen the amount of heat that can leave that surface it will get warmer. That is the GHE and it is real.
Con-man remains confused: “Increasing the temperature of the colder surrounding leads to higher temperature of heated objects.”
Norm, you just cannot understand. You believe “cold” warms “hot”, but you won’t admit your belief. Instead, you keep trying to find examples. You will NEVER find an example of “cold” warming “hot”, unless you distort the situation.
Just look at some of your past efforts:
“The thermal energy to increase the temperature of the powered lab equipment comes from the cold air.”
“The increase in thermal energy to the system is from colder air only.”
“I am not the one confused about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It clearly states that heat cannot transfer from a hot object to a colder one.”
You don’t have a clue, but yet you believe you understand thermo.
It’s fun to watch.
Snowstorm in Wisconsin and Illinois.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00958/wdxwdd8wnos1.png
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00958/xnel0wjkyys4.png
Before you write something, first check what you are writing about.
Carbon Dioxide Surface Concentration
the fraction of carbon dioxide present in air at the earths surface
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/02/10/0730Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular
And compare it with the temperature.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/equirectangular
Also remember that CO2 is heavier than air in contrast to H2O.
Specific gravity gases:
Air 1.000
Carbon dioxide – CO2 1.5189
Water vapor 0.6218
NTP – Normal Temperature and Pressure – is defined as 20oC (293.15 K, 68oF) and 1 atm ( 101.325 kN/m2, 101.325 kPa, 14.7 psia, 0 psig, 30 in Hg, 760 torr)
Since specific gravity is the ratio between the density (mass per unit volume) of an actual gas and the density of air – specific gravity has no dimension. The density of air at NTP is 1.205 kg/m3.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-gravities-gases-d_334.html
ren…”Before you write something, first check what you are writing about. Carbon Dioxide Surface Concentration…”
The IPCC has admitted 96% of atmospheric CO2 comes from natural sources like swamps and the oceans. It’s also seasonal depending on vegetation growth and decay as well as ocean temperature.
Gordon
You remain about confused about virtually everything related to climate science, even after it gets explained to you. One more time….
In the mid 1950’s, when the scripps program started, they found co2 was about 315 ppm. It constantly CIRCULATES – from the atmosphere to the ocean, swamps and surface, and then back from the oceans, swamps and surface to the atmosphere.
A little bit (roughly 2 ppm) Is ADDED TO THE CIRCULATION each year as a result of human activity, and so now the concentration is more than 408 ppm.
snape…”In the mid 1950s, when the scripps program started, they found co2 was about 315 ppm”.
So you believe that value rather than the value of Kreutz, who had a degree in chemistry, and who found over 400 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere around the same time?
That claim of 315 ppmv seems shady. The IPCC claimed 280 ppmv pre Industrial Era, so they are claiming CO2 only built up 35 ppmv in 200 years, after all the coal and wood being burned in the world, along with oil?
Here’s a better explanation. During the Little Ice Age, when global temps were 1C to 2C below normal, the oceans got pretty cold. Cold water loves CO2 and they likely sucked a lot of it out of the atmosphere during the LIA. After it ended circa 1850, the CO2 was gradually released. Glaciers started to melt faster and the ocean levels rose.
ren says:
February 11, 2018 at 2:08 AM
Before you write something, first check what you are writing about.
*
Many thanks for this precious hint. But… what do you want to tell us here, ren?
In this discussion, CO2 plays at surface no role at all:
layers up to a few km in the troposphere are H2O’s domain.
Above these few km, H2O gets more and more rare due to temperature loss (6.5 K / km altitude). Then begins CO2’s domain.
Moreover, CO2 is, despite what you seem to imagine, vertically very good distributed, up to high altitudes far above the tropopause. Please read e.g. this
https://tinyurl.com/y7p3dxpe
P.S. The SO2 overlay was far more interesting!
Abstract: Warehouses are usually large, plain industrial buildings commonly used for
storage of goods. Vertical distribution of air temperature is an important aspect for indoor
environment design, which must be taken into account by architects and engineers in
the early stages of warehouse design. The aim of this work is to analyze the vertical
temperature gradients existing in warehouses, quantifying their value and analyzing their
evolution along the year. To do so, the study outlines the monitoring of several warehouses
with different building typology and height located in different areas of Spain for a
complete annual cycle. The results obtained when applying a simple linear regression
analysis to 175,200 vertical temperature profiles show that there is a strong influence of the
outdoor temperature over the stratification of the indoor air. During warm months, the
ceiling and the upper strata get warmer, whereas the cold air accumulates in the lower levels,
increasing the stratification of indoor air (maximum values between 0.3 C/m and 0.7 C/m).
During cold months, the ceiling gets cold due to its contact with the outdoor air,
therefore, the colder, heavier air moves down to the lower strata, registering insignificant
vertical temperature differences. Air conditioning of the warehouse, besides controlling
the temperature, limits the influence of the outdoor environment on the stratification of
temperatures. The results of the study may be of great use for warehouses for products
sensitive to temperature, which may suffer a different evolution, conservation or maturation
when the temperature differences are maintained for a long time.
file:///C:/Users/321ef/Downloads/energies-07-01193.pdf
The current range of arctic air in North America (11/02/2018).
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00958/kk9xs81vtxr4.png
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00958/o2du05trwpbr.gif
Just brushing up on some loose ends.
I hear a lot from alarmists about Kircheoff’s laws regarding emissivity and absorp-tion. It has Norman thoroughly confused and Binny posted a link to an MIT article on heat which he seemed to presume proved heat flows both ways.
Whenever Kircheoff is applied, it can only be done so at thermal equilibrium. Mutual absorp-tion/emission does not apply outside thermal equilibrium. In fact, Planck claimed Kircheoff had no reality.
*******placeholder for link while testing the WordPress dumb sensor**********
“In heat transfer, Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation refers to wavelength-specific radiative emission and absorp-tion by a material body in thermodynamic equilibrium, including radiative exchange equilibrium”.
“For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorp-tion is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power”.
“For an arbitrary body emitting and absor-bing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorp-t-iv-ity”.
“Planck also noted that the perfect black bodies of Kirchhoff do not occur in physical reality”.
***********
It seems to me the modelers and alarmists have relied solely on Callendar’s work from the 1930’s, seeming to quote him verbatim.
I wonder if any of them took the time to study Clausius, Boltzmann, Kircheoff, or Planck?
yup—wordpress again:
testing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff's_law_of_thermal_radiation
The original URL had the hex code for the apostrophe in Kircheoff’s. Doesn’t seem to mind a real apostrophe.
Gordon
This is a reply to our different conversation upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/?replytocom=286254#respond
snape your internal link takes me to an entry box. Do you want me to write you a note?
12-year-olds often do not know how to add a link.
Gordon Robertson
If an electronics board heats up when you reduce the rate of heat loss, why do you refuse to accept that a planet can do the same?
You just need to figure out how to reduce the rate of heat loss.
I’ll save you the trouble–you can’t!
E,
If the Earths internal heat source is decreasing due to natural cooling – Newtons Law of Cooling is not as well known as his Laws of Motion, but is just as true – plus the ever decreasing radiogenic heat sources, maybe someone refusing to accept that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years is delusional.
If you cut off the internal energy supply to anything, from an electronics board to a human body, its temperature will not rise above ambient.
Only Warmist fools refuse to accept reality, and keep insisting that an undefinable and untestable, unwritten GHE exists. It is apparently supposed to do something bad – but even its most deluded followers cant say exactly what this evil is!
Keep the faith.
Cheers.
entropic…”If an electronics board heats up when you reduce the rate of heat loss, why do you refuse to accept that a planet can do the same?”
I did not say that. In ambient air at typical room temperature the current through a device will cause it’s heating loss to approach i^2 x r. That’s the limit for heating and it can reach 50C to 80C+ in semiconductors and processor chips. Unless you increase the room temperature above those internal values, the device will not get warmer.
I was talking about finding ways to carry the heat off more quickly. Engineers specify heat sinks and fans, and ventilate the cabinets to make hot air removal easier. If they don’t do that, they have to run the devices at a far lower current and that’s a waste if the device can run at twice that current.
The idea is to get maximum current through a power device and that means it builds up close to maximum heat. If the room is warmer, the temperature difference between the device and the room is less and according to S-B, that reduces the heat dissipation. If you make the room cooler, increasing the temperature difference, the device cools more quickly.
I gave an example of my processor chip registering in the high 80C range with the side off the cabinet. I placed a fan with a 12″ blade near the opening, focused on the processor, and it cooled to less than 50C in short order.
Got it. You adjust the rate of heat removal so that the electronics run at their optimum temperature. At that temperature heat dissipation rate equals power input.
If you then increase the room temperature the rate of heat dissipation reduces and the temperature of the electronics increases.
If power input and heat dissipation are equal, the temperature stays constant. If the two are different, the temperature changes.
Something is decreasing the heat dissipation of the Earth. The total amount of heat coming in to the surface (the power input if you will) averages about 240W/sq M and has been pretty constant since 1970. Heat dissipation back to space is about 1 watt/sq M less.
The result is a temperature rise of 0.18C/decade.
The question is What is decreasing Earth’s heat dissipation?
Any ideas?
Em believes: “Something is decreasing the heat dissipation of the Earth. The total amount of heat coming in to the surface (the power input if you will) averages about 240W/sq M and has been pretty constant since 1970. Heat dissipation back to space is about 1 watt/sq M less.”
Em, the “1 Watt/m^2 back to space” has an HUGE margin of error, something like +/- 30 Watts/M^2.
So, for you to try to make any sense out of it is, wait for it, hilarious.
Your data is obsolete.
The most recent studies centre around an imbalance of 0.8W/M^2 +/-0.2.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0339.1
Em, you can’t be serious!
That’s not “science”. It reminds me of a drinking game.
For every “estimate”, drink a shot.
For every “assumption”, drink a shot.
For every “interpretation”, drink a shot.
You’d be flat on your face before you finished the “abstract”!
And, THAT would be fun to watch.
En,
Surely you cant be as silly as you pretend?
Everyone apart from Warmist fools realises that the Earths surface is no longer molten.
It has cooled.
Similarly, rational people realise that averages are the refuge of the ratbags, who dont realise that no part of the Earths surface exposed to the Sun has constant temperature.
The real question is Why do Warmist fools believe in something that they cant even describe in any faintly scientific form – the GHE?
So sad. Too bad.
Cheers.
The adiabatic atmosphere
Of course, we know that the atmosphere is not isothermal. In fact, air temperature falls quite noticeably with increasing altitude. In ski resorts, you are told to expect the temperature to drop by about 1 degree per 100 meters you go upwards. Many people cannot understand why the atmosphere gets colder the higher up you go. They reason that as higher altitudes are closer to the Sun they ought to be hotter. In fact, the explanation is quite simple. It depends on three important properties of air. The first important property is that air is transparent to most, but by no means all, of the electromagnetic spectrum. In particular, most infrared radiation, which carries heat energy, passes straight through the lower atmosphere and heats the ground. In other words, the lower atmosphere is heated from below, not from above. The second important property of air is that it is constantly in motion. In fact, the lower 20 kilometers of the atmosphere (the so called troposphere) are fairly thoroughly mixed. You might think that this would imply that the atmosphere is isothermal. However, this is not the case because of the final important properly of air: i.e., it is a very poor conductor of heat. This, of course, is why woolly sweaters work: they trap a layer of air close to the body, and because air is such a poor conductor of heat you stay warm.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node56.html
Ren,
Many people think that both air temperature and surface temperature fall with altitude, but they dont.
Surface temperatures increase, air temperatures fall.
Odd?
Not really. Just physics – no magical thinking required.
Cheers.
Many people believe Mike Flynn to be not the sharpest tool. They are obviously correct.
Some also suspect he is part NUMBAT, a dimwitted marsupial native to western Australia. This may be true as well, but needs further investigation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Numbat.jpg
S,
Youve no doubt discovered that I am correct. If that be the case, comparing your intelligence to that of a dim witted marsupial would be no doubt be considered to be offensive by the average numbat.
Next thing youll be claiming that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Even a numbat would find that laughable!
Cheers,
Numbat
We’ve already had this conversation. Despite monthly fluctuations, the thermometers continue to warm.
S,
And maybe youre silly enough to believe that that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Other Warmist fools do, so youre in good company. Its a pity you cant actually supply a testable GHE hypothesis, isnt it?
Even the stupidest of numbats find that hilarious!
Even they know that correlation is not causation. Otherwise, theyd be inclined to believe that the close correlation between declining pirate numbers and hotter thermometers shows that lack of pirates causes global warming!
I assume you dont like me asking to see the fabled testable GHE hypothesis, beacause no foolish Warmist can produce such a nonexistent fantasy. Maybe you could try an ad hominem attack? Or deny, divert, and confuse – maybe talk about toothpicks and toy trains?
The numbats wonder!
Cheers,
Mike
You clearly are embarrassed by the results thus far, reminding us,
“correlation is not causation.”
Instead of blabbering nonsense about pirates, I suggest you conduct your own co2 test.
Snape,
Blabbering on about a CO2 test is pointless. No relevance at all!
If you cant even locate a GHE hypothesis, trying to convince any rational person that the properties of CO2 are relevant to a non-existent, unwritten fantasy, might be difficult.
First you need to produce a reproducible GHE in written form. Once others have reproduced the phenomena, you could propose a testable GHE hypothesis.
Or you could just keep up the erratic gibberish used by Warmist fools to avoid admitting that they are a clueless and clownish assortment of wannabes. And if you feel like asking, I might tell you what I really think! (Thats a joke, for any foolish Warmists without any sense of the absurd.)
You dont need to thank me for pointing out the blindingly obvious.
Cheers.
Mike
You’ve never been bright, but I see your memory is failing too.
A GHE hypothesis has been located and set under your nose……..multiple times. Don’t blame others if you can’t figure it out.
S,
And yet your magical testable GHE hypothesis seems to have gone missing again, just when you wanted to paste it here! It even seems to have vanished from the Internet! How did you manage that?
Darn! I guess its next to the unwritten explanation of the GHE, also seems to be missing.
Keep claiming it exists. Even politicians are noticing it conveniently goes missing every time they ask to see it.
Very strange – the completely ineffective effect, which cannot be described in scientific terms, replicated, or quantified. Just the thing for Warmist fools to declaim – nobody can examine or disprove something that doesnt exist!
.
Cheers.
ren…”It depends on three important properties of air”.
Ren…the author at your link forgot the most important reason why temps drop at higher altitudes, gravity. Gravity compresses the air closer to the surface more than it does at higher altitudes. The more compressed the air, the more air molecules collide, and the hotter the air.
None of the three reasons he gave explains why the oxygen density at the top of Mt. Everest is 1/3 what it is at sea level. Gravity explains it quite well, along with the Ideal Gas Equation.
Some crank commenters have been told so many times on this site that Earth’s internal heat source is no more than 100 mW / m2, to be compared to 240 W / m2 to be emitted by the planet in response to solar radiation.
But they will continue wasting all this site’s threads as long as nobody stops them.
And for the crankest among the three: Bindidon and I we share a lot, but only in a virtual sense. We are – and keep – two persons.
La Pangolina,
Are you one of those Warmist fools who cannot accept that the Earths surface is no longer molten?
Good for you! Deny the truth as much as you like! Nature doesnt care what you think.
You might even be silly enough to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer would make the thermometer hotter, but this is just a delusion shared by other Warmist fools.
After absorbing sunlight from the Sun for four and a half billion years, the surface doesnt seem to have become any hotter at all! According to David Appell, his calculations show that the temperature should be above 700000 K. If you are silly enough to believe that, you are probably silly enough to believe in a GHE,
Keep going. Maybe you can convince Nature that your fantasy should prevail.
Cheers.
Thanks for the usual, redundant, useless trash, Mr Flynn!
You could reduce it to
Foolish Warmist!
No GHE!
Cheers.
So we all would have in the sum less trash to read and discard.
Best regards
La P
La P,
You are most welcome. I appreciate your support.
As to your suggestion, I will ignore it. Feel offended if you wish – I dont care at all.
Of course, you are right – there is no reproducible GHE. If you could find one, you would probably post it here. But of course, you cant!
You appear to be a Warmist fool, who believes you can discard what you have read. Bad luck – you cant, any more than you can unlearn how to read.
Foolish Warmist, still imagining you can substitute fantasy for reality!
Still no GHE, is there?
Cheers.
Some ignorants should really start to read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
and try to understand that
– Earth is in thermal equilibrium (its temperature is quite pretty stable);
– Earth’s surface well is no black body, but only because
— it does not absorb all of Sun’s radiation (30 % albedo), and
— its emissivity is not perfectly equal to 1 (the oceans, 70 % of Earth’s surface, have an average emissivity of 0.96).
The non-ideal emissivity of course is accounted for. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Effective_Temperature_of_the_Earth
*
For a good understanding of emissivity, I recommend to read
https://tinyurl.com/yc8r9p9t
*
Regularly some crank people, like e.g. Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille ten years ago, try to redefine basic physics.
Some Wikipedia pages were infested by fans of such crank people.
It is better to read serious stuff, e.g.
http://web.ihep.su/dbserv/compas/src/einstein17/eng.pdf
or
http://www.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Bose_1924.pdf
La P,
Maybe you could try to find a testable GHE hypothesis, and paste a copy here.
Blathering about irrelevancies wont make foolish Warmist fantasy become fact.
Ill point out that the fact that the Earth has cooled would indicate that the Earth is not in a state of thermal equilibrium, unless some deluded Warmist fool has redecorated thermal equilibrium to be cooling.
Press on. Keep trying.
Cheers.
Those “ignorants” will remain ignorant if they follow your advice.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
By Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Full paper, 114 pages, 1.54MB at
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v
4.pdf
…..
In particular, from the viewpoint of theoretical physics the radiative approach, which
uses physical laws such as Planck’s law and Stefan-Boltzmann’s law that only have a limited
range of validity that denitely does not cover the atmospheric problem, must be highly questioned
[31{35]. For instance in many calculations climatologists perform calculations where
idealized black surfaces e.g. representing a CO2 layer and the ground, respectively, radiate
against each other. In reality, we must consider a bulk problem, in which at concentrations of 300 ppmv at normal state still
(calcs for N yieds)
N ~= 8 * 106 (3)
CO2 molecules are distributed within a cube V with edge length 10 um, a typical wavelength
of the relevant infrared radiation.4 In this context an application of the formulas of cavity radiation
is sheer nonsense.
It cannot be overemphasized that a microscopic theory providing the base for a derivation
of macroscopic quantities like thermal or electrical transport coefficients must be a highly
involved many-body theory. Of course, heat transfer is due to interatomic electromagnetic
interactions mediated by the electromagnetic field. But it is …….
* The constant appearing in the T4 law is not a universal constant of physics. It strongly
depends on the particular geometry of the problem considered.8
* The T4-law will no longer hold if one integrates only over a filltered spectrum, appropriate
to real world situations.
……
In countless contributions to newspapers and TV shows in Germany the popular climatologist Latif continue s to warn the public about the consequences of rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Yet even tod ay it is impossible to find a book on non-equilibrium thermodynamics or radiation transfer where this presumed effect is derived from first principles.
Corrections (the above comes from a .pdf file and I do not have a converter so not all will paste successfully):
N ~= 8 * 10^6
It cannot be overemphasized that a microscopic theory providing the base for a derivation
of macroscopic quantities like thermal or electrical transport coefficients must be a highly
involved many-body theory. Of course, heat transfer is due to interatomic electromagnetic
interactions mediated by the electromagnetic field. But it is misleading to visualize a photon
as a simple particle or wave packet travelling from one atom to another for example. Things
are pretty much more complex and cannot be understood even in a (one-)particle-wave duality
or Feynman graph picture.
* The constant appearing in the T4 law is not a universal constant of physics. It strongly
depends on the particular geometry of the problem considered.8
* The T4-law will no longer hold if one integrates only over a filltered spectrum, appropriate
to real world situations.
I meant to post my last in the thread.
I may add that the earth never has an equilibrium T. Evidence is everywhere. My own location varies by the second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year, decade, century at least.
The earth avg T, if such an average could supposedly have a thermodynamic meaning, gyrates by 4 degrees every year in absolute form in the recent past. Surely the recent el nino events drive this home where there is no fundamental change in energy in the whole system yet T avg as measured gyrated by over 0.5 C in anomaly form.
Good sequence of comments (well differing from the usual trolly blah blah some use to ‘publish’ here day after day).
I’m interesting in an answer, but it will need some longer time.
Good night from UTC+1
tonyM
I looked at the Figure 4 in the paper and I really am not sure what they are proving. The claim is you get a steeper curve with filtered light? I am not sure what the cgs units for the y-axis represent.
I am wondering if you can explain this in a way that others may follow. Thanks.
The cgs units are similar to MKS system except here they represent cm-gm-sec (cgs) basic units. The vertical scale would be ergs per cm2 per sec. This is to avoid decimals in the vertical scale, I imagine.
I don’t claim to be a full bottle on their methodology but they compare the outcome of a black body and a real body we experience in practice (“coloured” body). They take the range 3um to 5um presumably to highlight a radiation band which includes CO2. They normalize sigma to result in the same radiation value for both bodies at 290K (in the wavelength range). Elsewhere the two diverge implying that the way coloured bodies are integrated in narrow ranges will not be valid over the T differences experienced on earth.
Ultimately, this is their area of specialization theoretical and experimental Thermodynamics. The original paper was published in 2007 so it has been around for over ten years. Many have tried to falsify it but have not succeeded.
Sorry: this is definitely not true. Arthur P. Smith did that in 2008 with an excellent, mathy paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
Did you read the paper?
A german scientist called Gerhard Kramm tried to falsify (together with his mentor Ralf Dlugi) Smith’s work in 2009 but did not at all succeed in that.
He had to admit that his critique concerning a little detail in an equation in Smith’s paper was simply ill-based.
Since then: silentium. Niente.
La Pangolina:
Sometimes it helps if you are more specific rather than some vague notion of mathsy rebuttal. If the paper has been falsified as you say, and as it covers a range of issues one of which is the lack of a clear, falsifiable hypothesis do I take it that you now suggest you can provide one. Please do so. Without one, all roads lead there!
As to your comment it is more than wishy washy; it is plainly wrong. Rather than silence it has been dealt with indeed:
The title of our paper reads: \Falsifcation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics”. Until now, there are no papers that refute our work. The
only attempt to try this so far is due to Arthur P. Smith (2008) [12]. However, Kramm, Dlugi,
and Zelger (2009) showed that his entire paper is wrong [13]. Smith used inappropriate and
inconsistent formulations in averaging various quantities over the entire surface of the Earth
considered as a sphere. Using two instances of averaging procedures as customarily applied
in studies on turbulence, Kramm, Dlugi, and Zelger show that Smith’s formulations are
highly awkward. In their work, Kramm, Dlugi, and Zelger scrutinize and evaluate Smith’s
discussion of the infrared ab-sorp-tion in the atmosphere. They show that his attempt to
refute our criticism is rather fruitless. The same holds true for the comment of Halpern
et al. [9]
(g) The Earth is a multi-colored object characterized by an inhomogenous color distribution,
not a black or grey body, which cannot be altered by Arthur B. Smith, who essentially
has plagiarized our inequality [12] and did not refute anything of our work [3, 4, 13]. By
using the Stefan-Boltzmann law one always computes radiations that are far too large
[3, 4, 13].
(h) Gaseous layers never obey the Stefan-Boltzmann T4 law. All these calculations (e.g. the
shell layer calculations performed in detail by Halpern et al.) are fundamentally wrong
and prove nothing.
Now I make the observation that Arthur P. Smith was a co-author in Halpern et al in their attempted rebuttal after the solo Smith effort. This which was soundly trashed in Dec, 2010.
Yes there is silence!! Halpern, Smith et al remain very silent. I invited Halpern to present his green plate experiment to Gerlich. Il siliencio cresce.
Sorry if the paste does not copy exactly from the .pdf format, but it should be understandable.
more correctly:
il silenzio cresce
tonyM says:
February 12, 2018 at 9:47 PM
As to your comment it is more than wishy washy; it is plainly wrong. Rather than silence it has been dealt with indeed:
“Until now, there are no papers that refute our work. The only attempt to try this so far is due to Arthur P. Smith (2008) [12]. However, Kramm, Dlugi, and Zelger (2009) showed that his entire paper is wrong [13].”
*
Many thanks tonyM for your KDZ copy & paste, though it was unnecessary. I read that paper years ago.
Smith has written enough response to all that. Look for it!
La Pangolina:
I have commented on your Smith reference.
It has been dealt with and dismissed. I went to great effort to gave you the reference statements.
You now pretend there is some other question which you can’t define.
You clearly are an imposter.
Put up or shut up and stop wasting my time!
I may add that my response to you and quotes do NOT come from the KDZ paper which you refer to.
You obviously live in your own world of delusion.
Il silenzio cresce!
J Halp-less
You could kill me with your horrible thought process and bad logic.
Above somewhere you posted this:
“It may come as a shock to you, Norman, that there is more than one way of looking at things.
Since you cant understand how the compass needle could be seen as rotating, try this instead:
Take a clock, with a hand for seconds, and place it lying face up on a table. You will notice that the second hand is rotating on its axis, clockwise (surprise, surprise), as it counts through a minute. If you were to rotate that clock CCW on its axis, at exactly the right speed, that second hand would always be pointing in the same direction. Yet, it was always rotating on its axis.”
This is exactly how the Flat Earth people try to prove their invalid points. They have no logical thinking to counter their ideas and anything they think is valid to them. You are one of those.
If you put a compass on the table the needle does not move. It is not powered to rotate. It is designed to be aligned with Earth’s magnetic field. With your clock the second hand is powered and rotating even when you are not moving the clock. First, the two systems are not the same at all. One you have a non-rotating needle pointing North. In the other you have a powered second hand that is designed to rotate around the clock face.
I think you might be a person who does some form of drug. Your logic and reason are so poor to sober minds but it might make sense to a stoner. “Like yeah man cool, that freaks me out man!”
This idea of yours is horrible. That you can’t grasp the compass needle is not rotating around its axis, the axis is rotating with a fixed needle. The needle does not start to rotate unless you force it to with manual push or magnetic field.
Dude you need some serious education. Something is amiss in that brain of yours.
N,
Dude, you need to rid your brain of denial, diversion, and delusion.
Only joking. What have compasses to do with the fact that you cannot actually find a GHE definition anywhere?
Maybe you might feel more comfortable talking about religion, politics, or phrenology.
Do any of these have any more relevance to the non-existent magical GHE than magnetic compasses? What about Manns non-Nobel Prize, or Schmidts missing science background?
Keep at it. You still cant raise the temperature of a thermometer using CO2, can you? You cant even lower the temperature of the thermometer by reducing the amount of CO2 surrounding it, either.
Foolish Warmist! Your fantasy may warm you up. CO2, not so much.
Cheers.
Lol, Norman, so you can accept the second hand is rotating on a clock, even when it always points north (because you are rotating the clock CCW), but when the compass needle always points north, whilst you rotate the compass, you cant accept the needle could also be seen as rotating on its axis!?
And before you go off on another stream-of-consciousness ramble-a-thon; no, the clock doesnt function as a compass, and that isnt the point being made!
G: Its fun to watch
J: He just…writes. There is no filter between brain and keyboard. The thoughts seem to all just fall out onto the page, literally as they come into his head.
halp…”And before you go off on another stream-of-consciousness ramble-a-thon; no, the clock doesnt function as a compass, and that isnt the point being made!”
Actually, there is a way to use a wrist watch as a compass.
https://lifehacker.com/289805/use-your-wristwatch-as-a-compass
Good point!
J, poor Norm is not able to process facts and logic. It is always necessary to remember this when responding to his comments. His latest one (above) is a perfect example.
You presented him with a reasonable debunk of his confusion with a compass needle/axis. Your clock hand rotating example should have been clear to a rational person. But, poor Norm got all confused by the fact that the clock hand was “powered”! As if that made some meaningful difference about whether or not there was rotation.
Maybe he doesn’t understand that the compass needle is being “powered” by the magnetic field. He probably doesn’t understand the compass needle will be “powered” back to facing north, if the compass is moved.
He just can’t handle facts and logic.
It’s fun to watch.
g*r…”He probably doesnt understand the compass needle will be powered back to facing north, if the compass is moved”.
Heck, if you place them too close to a car body they will veer off. Fickle little things.
And don’t get too close to power lines, the AC fields drive them nuts.
Don’t ask me how I know.
Yup.
And the torque on the needle, as derived from Maxwell’s equations, is the vector cross product of the magnetic field and the dipole moment.
Amazing how it all works, every time it’s tried.
☺
g*e*r*a*n
It is obvious from reading your posts you do not possess this knowledge within your memory banks.
I was trying to find out what source you copied it from
But you did not go deep enough.
Here: “Like a compass needle, the magnetic moment () will seek to align with an externally applied magnetic field (Bo). It will experience a torque (τ) or twisting force given by the vector cross product τ = x Bo. When perfectly aligned parallel to Bo, will be in its lowest energy state and experience no torque. ”
From:
http://www.mri-q.com/magnetic-dipole-moment.html
If you read a bit more you would see that when the needle is aligned with the Earth’s magnetic field there is no torque. The needle does not spin when you rotate the compass. It experiences no torque. It does not rotate around the spindle. If you move the needle away from alignment it will experience torque and rotate to the parallel alignment once again. If some other force, like Gordon’s power lines, moves the needle, it will rotate back.
You have done nothing at all to bolster you phony idea that, if you rotate a compass the needle will rotate on the spindle. The very opposite is the correct view. Yours is pseudoscience. Made up pseudoscience.
Con-man, nice try, but no candy for you.
If you try to move the compass needle, the torque will arise from the interaction with Earth’s magnetic field, forcing it to realign with the field. That means rotating on its axis, to again face mag north.
You seem unable to grasp any concepts of physics.
It’s fun to watch.
J Halp-less
YOU: “you cant accept the needle could also be seen as rotating on its axis!?”
No I cannot accept that false notion. Just wrong in all ways.
With the clock example. You maybe need to realize that the mechanism (motor and gears) are anchored to the clock body. When you rotate the clock body the mechanism also rotates. The second hand is directly connected to this assembly and will rotate with it.
Silly man, maybe take another hit from you bong, if you stop the second hand (take out the battery) and rotate the clock and power mechanism you will see the second hand also rotating around with the clock body.
Try this instead (and I don’t mean take another hit). Make your own clock where the mechanism that rotates the second hand is not attached to the clock body. Have a rod that is connected to the clock body by rolling bearings so when the clock is rotated by you, the rod powering the second hand is not. Now when you rotate the clock body the second hand will not point in a constant direction. Rotate the clock CCW or CW, it won’t matter the second hand will rotate around independently of the clock body. That would be an equivalent state to a compass needle. It is not attached to the spindle but free of its rotation. So when you rotate the compass spindle, the needle is not forced to rotate with it.
You are closer to Flat-Earth mentality everyday. I know the other goofy poster g*e*r*a*n thinks this is valid science. I don’t mind if a druggie and goofball troll post nonsense. I just get sad when I see other posters agreeing with you and thinking what you claim is valid. It is sad so many people cannot think logically and can’t see why your points are garbage.
Well, thats one way to miss the point.
The impotent chihuahua: arf-arf, yelp-yelp, flat-earth, yelp-yelp, troll, bark-bark, compass, yelp-yelp.
(What a great year in climate comedy!)
J Halp-less
Dude your not making a point. You are claiming that when you spin a compass the needle is rotating around the spindle. Dude get off the weed, your thought process is getting messed up. You try to make some point about something that really is nothing. Weird dude. Enjoy the feeling. It will wear off after a while. Maybe read your shit when you are not high and you will see that you are really messed up!
N: You are claiming that when you spin a compass the needle is rotating around the spindle. Dude get off the weed, your thought process is getting messed up.
J: Norman, your growing insanity is becoming a concern. And Im afraid, that is not hilarious. You genuinely worry me.
g*e*r*a*n
If you were as boring and mindless as Mike Flynn I could easily ignore you. You have just enough ability to annoy that I keep responding to you. Not exactly sure why I do. I give you credit for being such a jerk that you can still provoke a response. I wish you were as boring as Flynn. You really don’t have much value as a scientific contributor. Your knowledge and logic are very low. It seems you are just making up the idea that you were some kind of engineer that actually designed usable products. You don’t have enough rational thought and logic to design your way out of a wet paper bag. I think that is all made up just like everything else you do. I am not exactly sure what type of job you had or have. It was not in a science field. Maybe an English teacher. You seem to posses more skills and knowledge in grammar and spelling than any scientific idea. If you actually worked in a science field you are the biggest Con-man of them all. You took money from someone without producing anything of value. I have seen your type at work before. They pretend like they are doing value labor but actually ride the coat tails of much more intelligent able people. If you were on some team you just manipulated the people to make them think you had this skill which you never possessed and show no sign of ever possessing.
Wow Norm, all one long rambling, yelping paragraph.
Hilarious!
Hi Norman,
I would try to convince you that an orbiting massive object which rotate around one more massive object facing always the same side is not rotating on its own axis.
Have you ever seen the olympic game called hammer throw?
In that case the atlet is equivalent to the Earth and the iron sphere is the Moon. Instead of the gravity force there is the chain with an handle that links the atlet and the sphere.
Well, if the sphere was rotating on its axis, being massive it should continue to rotate on its axis when the atlet leaves the handle because of its accumulated momentum.
But actually the sphere leaves the circular orbit around the atlet tangentially without rotating on its axis. The only rotation it make is the one needed to carry the chain behind the sphere in its path.
Get it?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo, that is probably the single best, most intuitive explanation that the moon IS rotating on its axis! It’s brilliant!
If the athlete was spinning twice per second, the hammer would fly off … and would STILL be rotating 2x per second until it hit the ground! You can easily see this continued rotation here, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCdPa5gJYmc
Or here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3g1SGZmRUY
Tim falls into the trap also.
Hilarious.
(Tim, homework assignment: Study “rotating on its axis”, and “orbital motion”.)
g*e*r*a*n says:
You can’t be this silly, hilarious prankster!
Very good, svante. You’re such a loyal fan. Always have all my quotes readily available. They will get you through the tough times.
Also, T-shirts help.
Svante
Yes it seems g*e*r*a*n gets it backwards again.
In the quote from him: “Thats why this is such a great topic. It can quickly identify those that are infested with pseudoscience.”
Yes g*e*r*a*n, J Halp-less and Gordon Robertson all are infested with pseudoscience. Literally based upon the actual definition of that term.
Here is how it is defined: “Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual, in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods.”
All three of the above mentioned make declarative statements that are not scientific or factual and there is zero evidence to support their claims and many times actual evidence shows their statements are complete opposite of reality.
The latest one is where they, for unknown reasons (certainly not logic or reason) believe if you manually spin a compass they think the needle it rotating and they can’t grasp the needle does not move, the spindle, that runs through its center, is what is rotating. No matter how you try to reason with them, they cannot understand reality and will hold on to their pseudoscience. That is all they know. If you read Flat-Earth crap it is the same type of reasoning and thought. No reason just make up whatever you want. Crazy but true, people like these three think they know the truth and all the rest of the world is wrong. Amazing blind ignorance.
Con-man, two words, “toy train”.
Now, try for two thousand words.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
You play with your toys. I will up it that you state 10,000 times
when you rotate a compass the spindle rotates not the needle. Repeat again and again and yet you are still too dense to understand that you are a goofball that spins in endless circles of complete nonsense.
You can’t stop with your pseudoscience can you?
When you go visit your stoner friend in Colorado I image the two of you will go for a ride in the mountains.
While in car the conversation goes as such:
Stoner J Halp-less after taking a deep inhale (unlike Bill Clinton);
“Hey dude (g*e*r*a*n) what if the car was not really moving man! What if the trees were zooming by us man, wouldn’t that be a trip?”
g*e*r*a*n: Thinking to himself “Man that is some batshit crazy talk, I will post it on Roy’s blog and see if I can convince Gordon Robertson of that! I know I can get a reaction from the rest of the posters. Heh heh I am so damn funny I can’t believe it sometimes. I just can’t wait to post this, it will be so much fun.”
J Halp-less: “Dude did you see that?”
g*e*r*a*n: “See what?”
J Halp-less: “Man the Sun is just a spotlight that is running in circles around a Flat-Earth man!”
g*e*r*a*n: Thinking to himself…”That might be even a little hard for Gordon Robertson to believe but I might post it anyway. I am sure they will take it serious enough to react.”
OK g* and Halp. You have stretched everybody’s patience to the limit with your nonsense so I have created a gif for your perusal.
https://s20.postimg.org/6bsb53eod/Rotating4.gif
For the the above gif, which of the three schemes A,B or C does the dumbbell not rotate on its axis? If one of them is not rotating what distinguishes this from the other two?
For bonus marks, a second question related to the following figure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.tif .
What does the lunar obliquity (6.68 degrees) in this diagram represent. What defines the North Pole and South Pole for the moon. Is it magnetic North and South or perhaps something else?
B. What distinguishes it from the others is that it is not rotating on its axis. It is orbiting. The other two are both orbiting AND rotating on their axes.
A completes 2 prograde rotations on its axis per orbit. B obviously 0 rotations per orbit. C completes 1 retrograde rotation on its axis per 2 orbits.
norman…”Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual, in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods”
Please note that I usually include references to scientists in my replies, like Clausius, Bohr, Planck, Lindzen, etc. Or, if challenged, I can supply the source. In electronics, I no longer need sources, I am an authority on most aspects of the field.
You rush out a citation based on having read something and jumped to conclusions. That’s a better definition of pseudo-science.
For example, you grabbed a reference to equipment cabinets and temperature and concluded it meant the room air was warming the cabinet. The article said nothing of the kind but you leaped to that conclusion.
You don’t understand the basics of the science, like electronics, which I have spent decades learning and applying. Then you have the temerity to infer I make it up.
Delude yourself if you like, I find it amusing.
mike r…”For the the above gif, which of the three schemes A,B or C does the dumbbell not rotate on its axis?”
B is not a rotation, you have given it a rotation in the smaller pic it does not have. You have shown it rotating about it’s centre of gravity and it is not doing that in the gif pic.
In the B gif, the dumbell is plainly not turning about it’s centre of gravity, it is orbiting around the central axis. However, you have not made it clear what is powering it. How would a dumbell do that?
You alarmists and your thought-experiments.
I concur with J.
(Appreciate the gif, miker. Glad to see you contributing something useful, for a change.)
Halp, g* and Gordon,
So in all 3 cases we agree that the dumbbell orbits the circle. That is good but only in case B it does not simultaneously rotate?
Just concentrating on the three graphics in the boxes on the left only (which is just a simultaneous direct copy of the dumbbell on the right side without the orbital motion), can you tell me that not all three dumbbells also rotate?
If it helps, cover the right side of the screen with an opaque object.
I also note that all three of you have avoided even attempting the bonus question regarding the moons oblique axis with respect to its orbital plane and correspondingly how the poles of the moon are identified.
Boy you guys are really struggling, big time.
miker, you are STILL confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on its axis”.
Or maybe that is your intent.
Do you have an agenda, or are you just stupid?
Most rational people can understand the toy train. If you don’t understand that the toy train debunks the Moon nonsense, then choose one: 1) you have an agenda, or 2) you are stupid.
G*,
Nah I am just stupid because I don’t share your highly idiotsyncratic (sic) view.
When I have some time I will change the dumbbell graphic on my gif to a choo choo train. I will then only post a gif with ten speeds of rotation (including zero) of the train but only show you the left hand graphics (in the boxes). You will then have to tell me, by observation, which one, in your mind, corresponds to zero rotation about its axis (or is on the circular track). I will reveal the correct answer after I get your submission. You have at least one chance in 10 (actually much less – see the Monty Hall problem, accordingly my next version of my gif may be a rotating goat).
You are still avoiding the bonus question, regarding the oblique axis of the moon with respect to its orbital plane.
Why do you keep avoiding this question? Please try and address this question. The same goes for Halp and Gordon.
Gordon,
I thought it was obvious to anyone that the gif of the rotating dumbbell orbiting the circle is a visual analog of the earth moon system. Consequently your question as to what is powering it’s rotation is somewhat bizarre.
It is being “powered” by the same thing that is powering the earth the sun and all the other objects in the solar system that rotate on their axes, that is, rotational inertia.
Consequently there is no reason, other than tidal locking, for an obect to rotate at the same rate it revolves around its parent body.
In the case of planets they rotate at different speeds because of the effect of solar tides are minuscule, with the exception of the closest planet to the sun, Mercury.
Mercury is interesting because how it is affected by these tides. As a budding young amateur astronomer I thought that Mercury , according to what was known at the time, was tidally locked to the sun and one side was accordingly bakingly hot and the other side’s temperature close to absolute zero.
It turns out that is not the case (thanks to radar observations), but it’s rotational speed is locked in a 3:2 resonance with it’s orbital period (Mercury solar day) , due to tidal effects, so that it rotates twice for every Mercury sidereal day see-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet) .
So Gordon, orbital mechanics is fascinating and I recommend you actually do some reading rather than going off half cocked, which is unfortunately your usual tendency.
Halp,
This is a gif with C rotating in a retrograde direction (anticlockwise) compared to the orbit (clockwise), see –
https://s20.postimg.org/6qvb92twt/retrograde.gif
This is consistent with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_and_prograde_motion .
Yes, MikeR, in that gif C also rotates in a retrograde direction. This time, with 2 retrograde rotations per orbit. Before, there was only 1 retrograde rotation per 2 orbits. Happy to help.
Halp,
Did you actually read the wiki about prograde and retrograde motion? . Clearly not. It refers to motion with respect to an inertial frame. Do you understand that a rotating frame is not inertial frame? Clearly not.
You seem to be as bad as Gordon in that you both refuse to read anything that may be discordant with your entrenched views. I recall you refused to watch numerous YouTube videos or read articles that indicated that the moon rotates on its axis for the simple reason that you already understood it all perfectly, see – –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-280467
In Australia there is a rhythming slang term for someone who displays these traits. It is “merchant banker”. Google it. You fit the definition perfectly.
MikeR, you so easily upset yourself. If only you could separate the motion of *orbiting* from the motion of *rotating on its axis*, you could remain more calm.
Halp,
Your comment above is bizarre.
“If only you could separate the motion of *orbiting* from the motion of *rotating on its axis*”.
I, unlike yourself, have always thought and have sought to demonstrate they are separate motions . That is why I have linked to my gifs that show clearly they are separate. That is also why I have referred to the angular momentum of rotation and orbit as separate. You don’t actually read the comments of others do you?
In fact, you are the one with the separation anxiety as you and g*” insist on many occasions they are one and the same!
And yes, you are correct about my exasperation. I have said in the past that my tolerance of fools is limited. My tolerance of idiots who bury their heads in the sand when they might see something that may disturb their preconceptions is even less so.
On the latter, I see you have fled to the hills to avoid responding to the question regarding the moon’s obliquity and lunar cartography at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-286861
The floor is still open.
Maybe you need the assistance of g* and Gordon. They are always good for some sage advice and more importantly a laugh.
MikeR, in the new gif, C also rotates in a retrograde direction. This time, with 2 retrograde rotations per orbit. Before, there was only 1 retrograde rotation per 2 orbits. Sorry you dont understand yet. You probably arent used to hearing those terms used with the correct logic.
Halp,
Just read the wiki for god’s sake.
I could re-read it, but its not going to help your lack of understanding. Yes, yes, it mentions inertial space etc. Of course it would. But, once you can understand the difference between *orbiting* and *rotating on its axis*, you will be able to see beyond that. Keep trying. I know if you struggle hard enough, for long enough, you can have your first ever independent thought.
Halp you choose to ignore, for obvious reasons, my question regarding the axial line joining the North and South Poles that is inclined to the Earth/Moon orbital plane by 6.65 degrees.
Maybe I need to elaborate so that I can elicit a response.
Halp, how do you think the location of the South Pole of the Moon was determined? Do you think it might be related to the axis of rotation of the moon (as per the Earth and every other planet and moons) or do you have some other whack job theory? Perhaps you think it was discovered by Amundsen on a little known expedition. No wonder Scott got lost.
I am also still vacillating about whether Halp and g* are distinct entities I thought the disparity in the hours they are present online suggested they were different, but g* seems to be an insomniac who comments at almost ant time of the day or night so maybe this is not a good guide.
Alternatively, because they share identical bizarre views on everything, perhaps they are identical conjoined twins that share the one brain. I guess half a brain is better than none.
Poor MikeR. Forced, by the complete indifference of everyone, to eventually stop playing tedious gotcha games, he sat and complimented himself on his red herring.
Halp, At least I have got your undivided attention. I know no one else is interested in my contributions so I am grateful that you started a new thread based entirely on one of my gifs see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287061
I might employ you as my publicist. You must have a talent for something.
However as you refrained from commenting on the issue of whether the moon axis has an axis of rotation, I am still interested whether you think the Moon’s poles and equator are defined by the rotational axis or something else?
Come on Halp, as an expert on orbital mechanics you must surely have an opinion on this.
I wouldnt say its only me, bothering to scroll all the way up here still, to watch you at work. Dont forget the police are still closing the net!
Only kidding. Your gif was helpful, thanks. Shame you dont get it still, but I hold out hope for you.
Hi Tim,
nice to read you again.
The first hammer has a very weight rod instead of the lighter chain and if you look closely to the movie the rod/sphere rotates on the mass barycenter of the new so made system.
The second hammer does the same indeed for the chain at the launch because of the chain is not rotating from the atlet axis during the momentum accumulation. There are the arms of the atlet that offset it.
See my replay to tonyM below about what is my current opinion.
Have a great day.
Massimo
The handle just makes it easier to see. Even if the chain suddenly broke at the very last link, the ball itself would still fly off with a rotation equal to the rotation rate of the spinning person.
Hi Tim,
I don’t agree.
But thinking a little more maybe that you could be right because the system is not just an orbiting mass around a heavier mass. The Earth mass is dominant in this system indeed.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo – The athlete is not swinging the hammer in a perfect circle. In particular, the release starts when he is sideways to the direction he wants to hurl the hammer. The motion between that point and the point of release induces a torque that takes out the spin.
Think of how you would throw an object to move without spin. It requires a gentle inflection as you release to cancel out the spin. In American baseball, a pitch that is purposefully thrown in such a way to cancel the spin is known as knuckleball. It takes a conscious effort to do so.
Added to that, you have the aerodynamic drag from the chain, which tends to damp rotation in the same way as fletching on an arrow. The center of pressure, i.e., the focus of aerodynamic force, is behind the center of mass. This produces a restoring torque so that, whenever there is rotation, the aerodynamic forces push back to keep the chain behind the hammer.
If you had the hammer chained to a rotating cylinder so that it traced a perfect circle, and you released the chain without any tangential force, and you were in a vacuum, then the hammer and its chain would continue rotating at exactly the same rate they were before the release, and translating in the direction they were going when the chain was released.
Hi Bart,
yes, I finally agree that (as said above to Tim), that’s not a good example because isn’t as simple as an orbital system indeed.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Bart, before you start your ramble, you should try to state in 50 words, or less.
If you cannot do so, readers may assume you are into pseudoscience.
Glad to help.
Massimo –
Well, it’s a fun exercise. I’ve always wondered how professional knife throwers get the knives to fly straight without rotating. I’ve never worked out what flick of the wrist they are using to make it do that. They sure make it look easy, but I’ve never been able to do it.
Bart, not knowing how incompetent you are, I should have indicated “50 words or less, that are relevant”.
tim…” and would STILL be rotating 2x per second until it hit the ground”
Come on, Tim. The handle has give the ball a moment of inertia. It’s leverage. If that ball was attached to a string, it would fly straight off in a tangential direction, dragging the string behind it.
Halp,
As this is going on in circles (pun intended), why not move on and address the obliquity of the moons axis?
You seem very reluctant to do so.
Youre at your funniest when you think youre onto something.
And your reply is?
The floor is all yours, yet again.
M: And your reply is?
J: That youre at your funniest when you think youre onto something.
M: And your reply is?
J: That youre at your funniest when you think youre onto something.
M: We could keep on doing this forever until you go through all your avoidance mechanisms. Your really don’t have a clue do you! Next avoidance meachanism!
By the way I am glad you think it is funny, but fortunately not hilarious. You wouldn’t want to sound like that total idiot do you?
M: We could keep on doing this forever
J: The weird thing is, I sometimes think you really could.
M: We could keep on doing this forever
J: The weird thing is, I sometimes think you really could
M:
Have we got there yet? Still no sight of a relevant answer from the Incredible Halp. At least your partner in g*rime attempted an answer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287131.
Are you going to help him out or just let him flounder?
M: Have we got there yet?
J: To forever? Its starting to feel like it.
MikeR said the opposite here:
https://tinyurl.com/y7q9fglp
Looking at this he is in fact right:
https://tinyurl.com/y9v54pfu
You have to set the youtube playback speed to 0.25 to be able to see it.
svante…from mike r…”if you ever watched these sports you will notice that the discus and the hammer, at the moment of release, always spin. I have never seen one leave the hand with zero rotation”.
Svante…this is basic engineering. Of course a discuss spins, it is gripped by a human hand and they make it spin to give it better dynamics. It’s like a quarterback spinning a ball to give it a spin so it’s nose will cut through the air better.
The hammer spins due to the mass of the handle in those with handles or a chain in those with chains.
As I said in another reply, if you could spin the hammer or discuss with a massless string, and cut the string at the right time, neither would spin.
In the hammer throw vid, look at the way the guy contorts his body to get ‘spring’ into it. That’s the basis of boxing and martial arts, a whipping action to get maximum momentum behind a punch or kick. With the hammer, he’s adding that spin to the hammer via the handle due to torquing it.
I don’t know how you guys got off on a tangent like this (no pun intended). This has nothing to do with the Moon orbiting the Earth under the influence of gravity and it’s own momentum.
Gordon, I can’t find any evidence of this, can you?
“With the hammer, hes adding that spin to the hammer via the handle due to torquing it.”
That would require pulling back on release, which is counter productive.
Sideways spin would create a slice or fade, making the path longer.
All I find is about rotation speed, diameter, and angle of release.
… draw or fade in golfing terms, quite useless on a hammer.
When the athlete spins the hammer, holding on to it, the hammer is orbiting the athlete. It is not rotating on its axis, as demonstrated by the fact it is held in place by the chain. Once the athlete lets go, it is now free to rotate on its axis (there is angular momentum built up in the orbit).
Exactly J. They see “conservation of angular momentum” and believe it means the Moon is rotating on it axis.
It’s fun to watch.
Everything they see, is evidence for what they already want to believe!
https://tinyurl.com/y72gvbc8
And, they believe they are so “cute”!
It’s fun to watch.
Good picture Svante.
The audience roars approval since they know Halp-less and anger both miss that if the thing on the end of the chain doesn’t rotate once per orbit, then the chain is wrapped around and around the thing using up chain until it clunks the athlete: perhaps that experiment would wake up those two in your picture.
Or perhaps not; at any rate the audience will continue to be happily amused as Halp-less and anger flail stuff around, fun to watch. More from those two please.
Each *wrap around of the chain* around the hammer would equal one rotation of the hammer on its axis, whilst orbiting. It doesnt happen, because the hammer doesnt rotate on its axis whilst orbiting. You need to be able to separate *rotating on its axis* from *orbiting*. If the hammer was meant to represent the Earth, and the athlete the sun; instead of the hammer the moon, and the athlete the Earth; then the hammer would indeed have to get wrapped in that chain.
(so, the hammer throw cannot function as an analogy for the sun and Earth, other than to understand the difference between *orbiting* and *rotating on its axis*)
You are making a distinction without meaning. If, looking out from a body, the scene is changing, then the body is rotating with respect to the scene, or equivalently the scene with respect to the body. This is definitional.
Bart, do you even know that you don’t even know what you don’t know?
And, that’s before you know what you don’t know that you know you don’t know.
Get back to us when you arrive on planet Earth.
bart…”If, looking out from a body, the scene is changing, then the body is rotating with respect to the scene, or equivalently the scene with respect to the body. This is definitional”.
Then if we are looking out at the same face of the Moon all the time, because it is tidally-locked in the same position, the Moon must be rotating???
Makes no sense. That’s what we call an orbit.
Let’s stick to the initial premise, that the Moon is not rotating around ‘IT’S’ axis.
All the rest of it is a semantical argument trying to support a red herring argument. Much the same as AGW jargon.
Gordon – Yes, the Moon is not rotating with respect to its orbit about the Earth. But, it is rotating with respect to the stars.
Rotation is a relative motion. You always have to specify what the object is rotating relative to.
I don’t know why you guys have so much trouble with this. It’s really elementary.
bart… “If, looking out from a body, the scene is changing, then the body is rotating with respect to the scene, or equivalently the scene with respect to the body. This is definitional”.
Then if we are looking out at the same face of the Moon all the time
Why did you shift the POV from the moon to the Earth?
“…If, looking out from a body, the scene is changing, then the body is rotating with respect to the scene…”
Looking out from the moon, the scene is changing. The stars move across the sky. This is “rotating with respect to the scene.”
There is only one part of the scene that doesn’t change from the surface of the moon, and that is looking directly at the Earth while ignoring the star field.
This is tidal locking. Unfortunately some have conflated this with no rotation. These people have a Geocentric view of the solar system, a frame of reference for the motion of the planets that was abandoned after Copernicus showed it to be flawed 600 years ago.
In short, the non-rotationists view is medieval.
By popular request (g* likes them) , I have a simulation of a hammer throw see-
https://s20.postimg.org/evm9g4gi5/hammer_throw.gif .
Yes conservation of momentum (both types) is a requirement.
The angular momentum of the hammer at the moment before release is made up of
1. The “orbital angular momentum” that is converted into linear momentum as the hammer travels in a straight trajectory upon release and
2. the “rotational angular momentum” that is conserved upon release. That is the hammer rotates around its axis after release at the same rate as before it was released.
MikeR continues to prove that he cannot distinguish between *orbiting* and *rotating on its axis*.
Halp, is that your only response? Not even an attempt at refutation. Rather pathetic.
How about responding to the bonus question I posed a day or so ago which was related to this figure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.tif .
I repeat, what does the lunar obliquity (6.68 degrees) in this diagram represent? What defines the North Pole and South Pole for the moon? Is it magnetic North and South or could it be something else?
I would love to see your response. The floor is yours so go for it.
You can do it, MikeR. I believe in you.
Another stunning reply from hopeless Halp.
We are now exploring the entire range of mechanisms that Halp manifests when he cannot cope.
It is a very limited range.
I believe in you.
Hi Massimo,
Usually I am in agreement with you as you make very good sense with your observations. Today is an exception.
M: …if the sphere was rotating on its axis, being massive it should continue to rotate on its axis when the atlet leaves the handle because of its accumulated momentum.
Me: Disagree as although there are a number of forces at play to create momentum the axial rotational momentum is perpendicular to the plane of rotation (ie ground). It is very small and would be offset by the chain/handle dragging behind which has little angular momentum but drags from a wider circle.
The problem I have suggested is that the frame of reference is never defined. It does not matter how a body rotates or what forces are at play. The issue is whether it rotates relative to that frame of reference. Without that frame we can have no physics discussion.
People like G* jump in and out of a rotational frame viewed from within the orbit and an inertial frame from outside the orbit without adjusting for the transform. This leads to an absurd discussion. It is no different to the classical guy on a train (constant velocity) bouncing his ball up and down in a vertical direction. A person on the platform a relative inertial frame at rest wrt the train – sees the ball bounce in parabolic fashion. Both are right.
You have a nice day too.
Hi TonyM,
“The problem I have suggested is that the frame of reference is never defined. It does not matter how a body rotates or what forces are at play. The issue is whether it rotates relative to that frame of reference. Without that frame we can have no physics discussion.”
I agree with you when you write about a frame of reference (it was the first thing I wrote about that), but I think that g*e*r*a*n was arguing about the definition of a simple orbiting mass around a much bigger mass and no other gravitational/magnetic or whatever forces in the system.
In my point of view, in that case he should be right.
Because what should be the behaviour of a so simple system?
Can you imagine an orbiting mass that during the orbitational period is facing the same side always to an external point?
I’m not, why should it do that?
I can just imagine a an orbiting mass that is always facing with the same side the much bigger mass instead.
By the way, probably (I’m not an astronomer) the Moon is not completely locked facing the Earth with the same side, I think that it should tilt a little forward and backward because of the Sun influence. But that’s an another issue.
Have a great day.
Massimo
P.S.
Thank you for making the discussion friendly, I don’t really like the tone that took the discussion.
“Can you imagine an orbiting mass that during the orbitational period is facing the same side always to an external point?”
The Hubble Space Telescope does so for long stretches of time as it focuses on specific celestial scenes. But, I suppose you mean natural objects.
The spin rate of an orbiting body is not generally the same as the orbit rate. All of the planets spin faster than their orbital rates about the Sun.
Moons tend to spin synchronously with their orbits about their respective planets due to tidal locking. But, that’s not an intrinsic property of orbital motion. It is a result of the moon’s mass distribution, and the inverse square law of gravity, which together induce a torque on the moon to enforce the synchronous spin rate.
Bart, you need to study orbital dynamics.
And, it would help if you could think for yourself.
Glad to help.
You’re a nut.
Another one bites the dust.. ..
bart…”The Hubble Space Telescope does so for long stretches of time as it focuses on specific celestial scenes”.
You mean Hubble is spinning on it’s axis??? It would never see anything, the background would be a blur.
bart…”Moons tend to spin synchronously with their orbits about their respective planets due to tidal locking”.
A spin describes a circular rotation of a body about a local axis. Like a spinning top, or a figure skater spinning on skate tips. The Moon is not spinning relative to itself, that was the original argument.
“You mean Hubble is spinning on its axis???”
Read the question from Massimo again. I’ll help you. Here it is again:
Can you imagine an orbiting mass that during the orbitational period is facing the same side always to an external point?
“The Moon is not spinning relative to itself, that was the original argument.”
Nothing is spinning with respect to itself. You always have to have an external reference.
Gordon,
“You mean Hubble is spinning on its axis??? It would never see anything, the background would be a blur.”
Yes that is why it is continually its orientation is changed to counter this rotation and other second order orbital effects such as orbital precession.
This is also why every telescope, both optical and radio telescope has a mechanism to rotate the telescope around the polar axis (for equatorial mounts) and altitude and azimuth drives for alt-azimuth mounts so that stars do not trail. The only exception I know of is the Arecibo radio telescope, for obvious reasons,
Gordon, you could have found out this information with a 30 second Google search.
You must regard the Google search engine as your enemy because it will, more often than not, show information that indicates that you are totally wrong. All you are doing with this attitude is perpetuating the view that you are an old ignorant fool.
Sorry to be so harsh, but the disconnect between your fingers and your brain is profound and may be getting worse.
Mike – you jumped too fast. Hubble is in space. It stays inertially fixed when taking its photos.
Yes Bart,
You are right. My understanding the orientation of the Hubble tekescole is stabilised in orientation by feedback from cameras using reference stars combined with gyroscopes and fly wheels see
http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/nuts_.and._bolts/spacecraft_systems/pointing/pointing2.php.
Hi Bart,
are you sure about Hubble orbital behavior?
I ask because all geostationary satellites, despite your wrote above exist from the sixties and AFIK they don’t need any correction (if not little corrections for adjust drifts) to fix their antennas footprints on particular areas of the Earth.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo – quite sure. If you want to take pictures of the stars, you have to zero out your rotation with respect to the stars, not with respect to the Earth.
In any case, Hubble is not geostationary. If it were, the Space Shuttle astronauts could never have gotten to it to repair the optics. The Space Shuttle had a maximum altitude under 1000 km. GEO satellites are at 22,000 km. Hubble is at about 600 km altitude. It’s orbital period is about 1.5 hours, not the 24 hours you get at GEO.
Plus, BTW, GEO birds do have to control their rotation to synchronize with the orbit rate in order to point a camera or antenna to the Earth. They generally do this with reaction wheels and thrusters.
Slight correction, the geostationary orbit is at 35786 km.
Hi Bart,
yes I know that Hubble is not geostationary, and I know the implications of being not that.
Maybe I don’t get right your point. I understood that you used the Hubble example to demonstrate that an orbiting object around the Earth points still in a particular direction or star.
Hubble has some orienting tools such as the Attitude Controls and the Fine Guidance Sensors to continuously face the telescope slit to a fixed star, without those tools it apparently rotates because of its orbiting around the Earth.
I’m not very good in English, but IMHO this document seems support my point, that is the natural state of motion when an object is orbiting around the Earth is the one where the orbiting object faces the Earth always with the same side (as the Moon does):
http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/courses/aoe5984/bs.pdf
See in particular pages 4 and 5.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Svante –
“Slight correction, the geostationary orbit is at 35786 km.”
Thanks. It’s 22,000 miles.
Massimo –
A body in orbit is in free fall. If you were in space, and you closed your eyes, you could not tell if you were in orbit, or far away from any object.
The only thing that could tell you that you were in orbit, if you could sense it, would be the tiny differential in gravitational pull from one side of your body to the other, due to the fact that the gravitational attraction is decreasing with distance. We call that the gravity gradient.
For a magnetically and electrically inert body, there is no coupling to the object you are orbiting around except through that gravity gradient. And, except for that small coupling, you are free to rotate around any which way. Except for that, there is nothing to enforce any particular orientation with respect to the object being orbited.
I explain the torque due to gravity gradient to you in a post below.
MikeR says:
I think you’re wrong for once, Google tries to serve people what they want, so his search results will confirm whatever he wants. Even a first search has a crank bias based others.
Svante,
I am not sure how Gordon and the other miscreants could use Google to confirm their biases. If you put in keywords such as “moon”, “rotation” and or “tidal locking” you get reams and reams of information that is highly divergent from their whack job views.
Is there an alt right version of Google that filters out information that suits that agenda? More likely they are just limiting their reading to sites such as Joe Postma, or Anthony Watts, if they are feeling adventurous . They never seem to disclose the provenance of their crackpot theories and rarey produce links to any other sites.
They certainly don’t use Google Scholar. I am not sure if they have heard of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Personalized_Search
“All searches on Google Search are associated with a browser cookie record.[1] Then, when a user performs a search, the search results are not only based on the relevance of each web page to the search term, but also on which websites the user (or someone else using the same browser) visited through previous search results.[…] Such filtering may also has some side effects, such as or creating a filter bubble.”
Google Scholar should be better, but we see little evidence from there in this case.
tony…”The issue is whether it rotates relative to that frame of reference…”
There is no such thing as an inertial frame, it’s a creation of the human mind. It’s very difficult sometimes as human to see the reality of a situation. We created frames to help us visualize relative motion and it is helpful. However, misuse of such frames leads to illusions like space-time, where the frame we created based on time and space does not exist in reality.
As astronomer Wal Thornhill put it, we can’t have a 4 dimensional space-time in a 3 dimensional space. Even the 3D space was defined by humans.
In the Earth-Moon system, the Moon is constrained to orbit the Earth due to the gravitational force and its angular momentum. The resultant of the two produces an orbit.
The Moon is always facing the Earth due to the tidal force of gravity. Claiming that as a rotation over one orbital period is incorrect. The turning of the Moon is a product of gravity and the Moon’s angular momentum in the orbit.
There are no other forces causing the Moon to turn. In fact, there’s only one force in the system, gravity. It’s momentum keeps the Moon in orbit and it has no angular momentum of it’s own that could cause rotation about an axis.
The Moon is actually moving in a straight line. The straight line (rectilinear) momentum combined with a normal vector of gravity toward the Earth, produces an orbit as a resultant. No gravity, the Moon shoots off in a straight line, not a curve.
“In the Earth-Moon system, the Moon is constrained to orbit the Earth due to the gravitational force and its angular momentum. “
It is not, however, intrinsically constrained to rotate at orbital rate. It only does so because of its non-uniform mass distribution.
“The Moon is actually moving in a straight line.”
It is moving along a geodesic in four dimensional spacetime, but it is definitely moving along a straight line in three dimensional space.
“not”
Poor Bart has not transitioned into 4th dimension.
Hilarious.
bart…”It is moving along a geodesic in four dimensional spacetime, but it is definitely moving along a straight line in three dimensional space”.
Bart…do yourself a favour and get it that no 4th dimension exists. Time is claimed to be that 4th dimension and it does not exist. We invented it, time is a product of the human mind, hence an illusion.
If that’s what they are teaching you in school they’ll have you as stupid as those teaching this nonsense. Hopefully they have not convinced you that gravity is not a force but a product of space time.
bart…”It is not, however, intrinsically constrained to rotate at orbital rate. It only does so because of its non-uniform mass distribution”.
You admitted recently that the Moon is tidally-locked to the Earth’s gravitational field. In the above, you are now claiming it is not.
Look up the word “intrinsically”.
If the Moon were a perfect sphere, it would not be tidally locked, and it could rotate however it pleased. There is nothing special about the orbit itself that causes the Moon to synchronize its spin. It is only because of the mass distribution that wants to preferentially align its minor axis of inertia along the gravity gradient.
Hi Bart,
I responded you above, but reading this your post I got your point.
For what it worth, It makes sense to me.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Bart,
Uhmmm… I thought a little more and maybe your point doesn’t hold.
Imagine a perfect sphere orbiting around the Earth, you were supposing that the sphere is under an homogeneous Earth gravitational field but it is not indeed.
In that case the side facing the Earth is closer to the Earth than the opposite side and for that the first is constrained to facing the Earth forever.
IMHO the difference between the perfect sphere and an irregular body orbiting the Earth, should be that while an irregular body tidally locks with the heavier side facing the Earth, while the perfect sphere locks randomly, but still locks.
Maybe I missed something (I’m just an electronic engineer), but this seems to me much closer to the reality of a simple orbiting system without any other elements involved.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo –
“In that case the side facing the Earth is closer to the Earth than the opposite side and for that the first is constrained to facing the Earth forever.”
It isn’t. It is free to spin in any direction.
I don’t know how much training you have had in rigid body dynamics. Most engineering students are required to take a sampling of subjects outside their major. Perhaps you are familiar with a concept known as the inertia tensor? This is a 3 X 3 matrix that contains information regarding the second moments of mass.
Due to the weakening of gravity with distance in the inverse square law, there is a torque exerted on orbit bodies with is proportional to R X I*R, where R is the position of the body with respect to the Earth’s center arranged as a column vector, “X” denotes the vector cross product, and I is the 3 X 3 inertia tensor. This is the so-called “gravity gradient torque”.
If I is uniform, i.e., if the eigenvalues of the matrix are all the same, then this cross product is always zero, and the torque is always zero. A sphere, or more accurately spheroid, has a uniform inertia tensor. With zero torque, there is no influence on the body, and it is free to rotate as it will based upon whatever initial spin momentum and energy it has.
The torque is also zero if R is aligned to an eigenvector of the inertia tensor. It turns out that potential energy is minimized when it is aligned to the principal axis associated with the smallest eigenvalue, i.e., the minor axis. That is why a body with non-uniform inertia tends to end up with the minor axis aligned to the object it is orbiting.
Note on this: …while an irregular body tidally locks with the heavier side facing the Earth…”
It doesn’t necessarily. The body may have no “heavier side”, but it can still have a minor axis (e.g., a uniform ellipsoid). When there is a heavier side, the minor axis generally runs from that side to the lighter side. So, in the minimum energy state, the heavier side can end up facing the Earth, or it can end up facing radially outward, with the ligher side facing the Earth.
Hi Bart,
I’m an EE and my training in rigid body dynamic is practically null,
I’m a complete ignorant on that.
But let me know if I’m wrong:
“With zero torque, there is no influence on the body, and it is free to rotate as it will based upon whatever initial spin momentum and energy it has.”
It is free to do it, but if it wasn’t rotating on it’s axis when it entered the orbit, shouldn’t it always facing the same side to the much massive object?
AFIK an incoming (non rotating on its axis) body which starts orbiting around a much massive body shouldn’t be deflected to turn around this last, just following a path as the result of the vectorial sum of its momentum of inertia and the perpendicular gravitational force of the much massive body?
Have a great day.
Massimo
If it came in without rotation it would not show the same side all the time.
Tidal effects can make it rotate over time, eventually giving it synchronous rotation.
“It is free to do it, but if it wasnt rotating on its axis when it entered the orbit, shouldnt it always facing the same side to the much massive object?”
You must first define what you mean by “rotating on its axis”. Rotating with respect to what?
If it is not rotating with respect to the orbit, then it will display the same side facing the more massive object. But, this is a contrived setup. If I tell you a perfectly spherical ball is free to rotate on a perfectly flat table, you can say well, what if I set the ball down very carefully so that it has no rotation, then the part touching the table will always touch the table. Well, sure. But, you are the agency that made it do that by your careful placement of the ball on the table.
There’s no restoring torque, no pit in the table that keeps the ball in place. If you just place it on the table, it will tend to roll wherever it wants, based on how it was rotating when you released it. Just so, a perfectly spherical body in orbit has no preferred orientation. It will rotate with whatever initial angular momentum it is given.
Svante – “Tidal effects can make it rotate over time, eventually giving it synchronous rotation.”
We are talking about a hypothetical body with uniform inertia on its three principal axes. Such a body experiences no tidal effects.
What I am trying to explain is that the tidal locking that happened with the Moon is not an intrinsic property of the orbit, but of the mass distribution. Without an oblong mass distribution, the Moon would not be tidally locked, and could rotate in orbit arbitrarily based on its initial angular momentum and rotational energy.
Bart says:
“Without an oblong mass distribution, the Moon would not be tidally locked”
That’s not tidal locking, this is:
“The change in rotation rate necessary to tidally lock a body B to a larger body A is caused by the torque applied by A’s gravity on bulges it has induced on B by tidal forces.”
I’m taking Massimos non-rotation to be with respect to the universe, i.e. a Foucault pendulum showing no rotation.
Whatever the rotation is, the tidal effect will slow it down or “For the other case where B starts off rotating too slowly, tidal locking […] speeds up its rotation.”
See https://tinyurl.com/j3dxhb4
Hi Bart and Svante,
first of all, many tanks to considering my posts and discussing this issue.
As said, I’m almost a complete ignorant about this matter, and I hope I also haven’t misunderstood your posts.
Maybe also that I was not clear when I wrote my previous posts.
You asked “You must first define what you mean by rotating on its axis. Rotating with respect to what?”
I was arguing about an orbital body that entered the orbiting system already without any rotation around its own axis.
My point would be exactly that once the orbiting object entered the gravity field of the much massive object it doesn’t gain any torque and that in that case it shows always the same side to the much massive object as the Moon is doing to the Earth, and that also if it was a perfect spheroid.
That because the the gravitational field deflects the path of the orbiting object but it does it maintaining the object trajectory always tangential to the orbit.
I think that La Pangolina posted this nice link:
https://tinyurl.com/y7do8trb
As she pointed out, starting on page 4 you can read:
“At the soire held at the house of the Marquess of Northampton President of the Royal Society on the 13th of February 1847 Mr H Perigal exhibited and explained a variety of experiments with a view to elucidate the theory of Revolution and Rotation especially referring to the hypothetical motions that have been attributed to the Moon to account for her presenting towards us always the same face or hemisphere…”
Mr. Perigal examined 3 options and went to the conclusion that the 3rd was the right one (if I didn’t misunderstand the reading) which reads:
“… 3rd That the Moon revolves round the Earth but does not rotate on her own axis This single circular motion would cause all the component atoms of the Moon to describe round the Earth concentric circles varying in size according to their radial distance from the centre of revolution In this case the Moon would have one sidereal day and night every time she revolved about the Earth because she would thereby turn round as regards the Stars while her aspect to the Earth being unchanged by her orbital motion she would have no alternation of terrestrial day and night Consequently if the Moon were to revolve about the Earth without any additional rotation on an axis within herself the same hemisphere must be presented constantly towards the Earth as the inevitable of such single motion and we should see the same as we do now Map 3
Thus it was rendered evident to the eye as well as to the mind that the last hypothesis may be true but that neither of the others would produce the effect that hitherto has been attributed to them by their respective advocates”
IMHO this is the minimum energy state for the system because if the object (the Moon) entered the orbiting path not already rotating on its own axis it couldn’t start to rotate to maintain the same side facing a particular star (for example).
For this precise reason I think that g*e*r*a*n is right when he writes that into a (pure) orbiting system the orbiting mass faces always the same side to the fixed much massive object.
Instead, if the orbiting object is orbiting maintaining the same side oriented in the very same direction on the orbital plane, the system is not a pure orbiting system, but it is an orbiting system where while the orbiting object is orbiting around a much massive object is also rotating on its own axis to face always the same direction on the orbital plane.
Please be patient, maybe I wrote silly things, but in that case I would know why.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Svante –
“Thats not tidal locking, this is:”
Yes, that is what tidal locking is. Bulges = oblong distribution.
Massimo –
“I was arguing about an orbital body that entered the orbiting system already without any rotation around its own axis.”
No, you were arguing no rotation with respect to the orbit. However, if you are not rotating with respect to the orbit, then you are rotating with respect to inertial space.
If you are sitting on the near side of the Moon, you will always see the Earth in one spot below you, but the stars you see will change. You are not rotating with respect to your orbit about the Earth, but you are rotating with respect to the stars.
And, as I said, this is a very contrived setup, because you have to place the body at precisely the angular rate of the orbit, aligned with its spin axis normal to the orbit plane.
“That because the the gravitational field deflects the path of the orbiting object but it does it maintaining the object trajectory always tangential to the orbit.”
This is only for translational motion, not rotation. The only impact of the gravitational field on rotation is via the gravity gradient torque. And, for a perfect spheroid, there is no torque due to the gravity gradient.
Forces affect translational motion. Torques affect rotational motion. Without a torque, you cannot change rotational motion, and the only torque from gravity acting on a body is from the gradient acting on a non-uniform mass distribution.
Look again at this graphic, guys –
https://tinyurl.com/y8xskpqc
The moon on the left is rotating with respect to inertial space, but not with respect to the orbit.
The moon on the right is not rotating with respect to inertial space, but it is rotating with respect to the orbit.
Both configurations will continue indefinitely unless a torque acts upon the bodies to change the rotation state.
Massimo,
I agree with these guys. Rotational inertia will keep an object not rotating (wrt to stars) as it entered an orbit, and it will maintain its non-rotation and keep its orientation fixed w rt the stars as it orbits. So a crater on its side will always point to the same star.
You can try this experiment at home. I took the front wheel off a bike. I hung the axle of the bike from a piece of string, so that the wheel was horizontal and could spin freely.
I walked in a circle holding the string out front, the air valve was pointing east at the start, and remained pointing east as I walked in a circle. Its inertia kept its orientation fixed.
tonyM identifies his confusion: “The problem I have suggested is that the frame of reference is never defined.”
No tonyM, the “frame of reference” is the axis of rotation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
Your reference material is of a fixed axis. A fixed axis has one dimension only. You now wish to describe physics of celestial bodies from a one dimensional fixed frame.
That must simplify physics enormously. Imagine its simplicity with no angles, no circles, celestial bodies of zero space and only one direction for accidents of these non existing bodies.
One can see you have a strong feel for physics hence it may be advisable to stick to your boilermaking trade.
Sorry tonyM, but the “axis of rotation” of a spherical object is along a diameter. The Moon has no such axis. A sphere is NOT one dimensional.
More “red herrings”, please.
G* asserted I was confused about the frame of reference.
G* added:
No tonyM, the “frame of reference” is the axis of rotation.
That axis of rotation is a one dimensional frame of reference according to you. QED.
G* stick to your trade of boiler maker. An engineer you are not and physics leaves you cold.
tony…”Your reference material is of a fixed axis. A fixed axis has one dimension only. You now wish to describe physics of celestial bodies from a one dimensional fixed frame”.
An axis has to be a one-dimensional line but the Earth’s axis runs through a 3 dimensional frame, as does the Moon’s axis. We live on a two-dimensional rotating tangential plane with the horizons in all directions being the borders of the plane. It actually has a slight curve but we cannot perceive the curve at our latitude, and for all intents and purposes it’s a flat plane with undulations. Think of the axis as the Z-axis in a 3D Cartesian frame.
Of course we can DEFINE a 3D space above our 2D plane, or below, if we like, but that is strictly a definition. The surface upon which we walk and generally do our business is a 2 dimensional rotating plane on a 3 dimensional sphere.
That’s why we see the illusion of sunrises and sunsets. As our plane, turning about 800 MPH at my latitude, encounters the Sun in the morning, as the eastern horizon of our 2D plane dips below it, in our unmitigated arrogance we see the Sun as rising.
If you want a mind-bender, try to imagine yourself on that rotating 2D plane sometime then try to visualize where you are with regard to our orbit around the Sun. If you get that far, try visualizing Venus and Mars orbiting the Sun wrt to us in essentially the same orbital plane. You’ll see how screwed up the human mind really is.
When I think of north here in Vancouver, Canada, I am actually thinking north along my tangential plane, not true north. If I focus on true north, by spotting the North Star and visualizing an axis through the Earth pointing at it, north takes on an entirely new meaning.
For me, it’s obvious the Earth is lying pretty well on its side with respect to my personal frame of reference. When I spot the Sun low in the western sky, and visualize my tangential plane, bounded by all horizons, turning west to east, that orients my latitude rotation. Then I line up the North Star with the Earth’s axis pointed at it, perpendicular to my visualized rotating latitudinal plane (slice), it reveals the Earth lying on it’s side with orientation ‘up’ relative to my tangential plane.
Of course, ‘up’ does not exist. Up to you in Australia as much different than up to me here in Canada. For the same reason, inertial frames do not exist either, they are relative to the human observer’s mind.
My point is, forget about inertial frames unless you’re a mathematician or theoretical physicist who needs them. They don’t pertain to the reality we are discussing.
tony…a bit of typing dyslexia. I wrote:
“we cannot perceive the curve at our latitude”
Should read:
“we cannot perceive the curve at our altitude”
Never noticed before that altitude and latitude have only a swapped ‘al’ in difference.
The Moon is not a sphere. It’s not even a spheroid. It is approximately an ellipsoid. That is what provides the non-uniform inertia that leads to tidal locking.
Bart demonstrates he has no clue: “That is what provides the non-uniform inertia that leads to tidal locking.”
Bart, you may need to study Kepler and Newton. Newton had a pretty good grasp of calculus. He also had a pretty good grasp of forces.
You might need to study some valid sources, before you make a fool of yourself, AGAIN.
tonyM: “That axis of rotation is a one dimensional frame of reference according to you.”
Sorry tony, I never stated that. The axis of rotation is in three dimensions.
You are just looking for some way to discredit me, because you know you are wrong.
It’s fun to watch.
G*
G*: No tonyM, the frame of reference is the axis of rotation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
Your cited Wiki page states clearly:
Rotation around a fixed axisis a special case ofrotationalmotion.
The fixed axis hypothesis excludes the possibility of an axis changing its orientation, and cannot describe such phenomena aswobblingorprecession
Sure that definition excludes the moon, but the axis so defined is one dimension; you confirm this by stating:
G* Sorry tonyM, but the “axis of rotation” of a spherical object is along a diameter.
There is indeed even a nice picture showing a sphere rotating around one of its diameters! on that Wiki page.
Guess what, that diameter depicts a one dimensional straight line!!
However the clear point is that you have claimed the diameter to be your FRAME OF REFERENCE.
Go back to doing your boiler making; physics eludes you. So does telling the truth.
It is probably CO2 that causes such warming in the Arctic? But why is it quite cold in the southern hemisphere?
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/ciw0g8re9rin.png
Is it warm in the Northern Hemisphere if I turn off the “hot” (in winter) Arctic?
Is the temperature in the Arctic not due to breakdown of the stratospheric polar vortex?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_10_nh_f00.png
Sorry.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/ttxo9zbju91u.png
ren…”Is the temperature in the Arctic not due to breakdown of the stratospheric polar vortex?”
It’s all about the lack of solar energy for 5 months of the year. CO2 warming is fiction.
ren…”It is probably CO2 that causes such warming in the Arctic?”
If you look at the UAH global maps showing temperature distribution the hot spots move around month to month. I think Arctic warming is largely the product of weather and ocean influences.
How so?
Why does the ocean keep warming — it reached a record high in 2017…..
Current temperature in Montana. Feeling temperature:
-50 C.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/jwbnwqvrsf23.png
Hey ren…out here in Vancouver it’s 1C. Feels more like -20C for some reason. The cold, moist air off the water makes it appear much colder. What’s that about and how can I get some of the global warming over here?
Oh no Lotus-lander.. I call dibs on some of that GW first…
-40 here in Manitoba thismorning
I’m sorry, but the Hudson Bay will remain very cold.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f72.png
phil…”Oh no Lotus-lander.. I call dibs on some of that GW first
-40 here in Manitoba this morning”
Phil…spent some time out your way when it was -50C, or so they claimed. Found it not bad during a bright Sun with ice crystals falling on my face. Later at night, not so much fun, unless you were in a bar with some of those Prairie babes. Some of the most beautiful women I have ever seen out your way.
I’ll try to send some Pacific warming your way. Don’t hold your breath, the way they are fighting over the Trans-Mountain pipeline the warm air will likely be blocked at the Alberta border.
Gordon Robertson it will be warmer in Vancouver. A big high in the east.
http://www.lightningwizard.com/maps/North_America/gfs_cape_usa24.png
ren…”it will be warmer in Vancouver. A big high in the east”.
ren…our 14 day forecast is calling for daytime temps between 2C and 5C. Nights between -4C and 1C.
Oh, well, last year we had some good snow dumps in February but thus far nothing to shovel or trudge through.
Dr Spencer, the globe is blanketed by 400ppm. That should cause a shift in the temperature curve, if it impacts it at all. Temperature measurements over the ground are impacted by many many more things than CO2. Basically, temperatures over deserts, are different from temperatures over Antarctica, are different from temperatures over Iowa corn fields, NYC, and rain forests. It is a multi-variable problem of all multi-variable problems. To reduce the noise, have you considered focusing on controlling for as many factors as possible? To do this, why not just use the temperatures over the oceans? CO2 is 400ppm over land and ocean, so you can isolate the impact of CO2. Also, if you break it down into latitude and longitude, you can further isolate CO2. Just a thought, but I would appreciate if you published Ocean Only, or N or S Hemisphere only graphics.
At climate4you -> Global Temperature -> Temperature over land versus over oceans, there are plots for global NH & SH up to November 2017.
Thanks
G” (Dim) sits on a horse facing north. Halp (Dimmer) sits right behind him facing South. After 1/2 a lap, both will have competed 1/2 an orbit.
However, Dim will now be pointing South. Dimmer will now be pointing North. As they rode, back to back, they had ROTATED on an imaginary axis between them.
Dim thinks that facing a new direction equals “orbiting”. Dimmer nods in agreement. That is incorrect.
The definition of “orbit” pertains only to the PATH an object takes. It has nothing to do with which way the object points.
“To orbit is to follow a circular or elliptical path around a central body.”
Snake, you’re STILL confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on its axis”.
But, that’s no surprise.
Dim, it’s very simple.
Orbiting refers to the path an object takes.
Rotation is turning from one direction to another.
Of course, it’s quite common for an object to turn from one direction to another as it follows a circular path.
Poor snake believes: “Rotation is turning from one direction to another.”
Hilarious.
snake, the text will be over your head, but there is a graphic you might be able to understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
Dim
The squares on the globe are constantly turning from one direction to another…….around a fixed line.
Textbook example of rotation about an axis.
The globe itself appears to be stationary (not orbiting)
The globe can change locations and still have a fixed axis. “Fixed” in this case means the axis’s orientation doesn’t change. No wobbling or precession.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession
Here you can see that the earth’s axis of rotation is not fixed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
What does rotation have to do with climate science? Well, the earth’s axial precession traces a circle every 26,000 years. Some scientists think this is related to the coming and going of ice ages.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=USBpfZ9UnrM
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/
Snape,
Climate science?
Surely you mean the foolish Warmist redefinition of science to include calculating the average of historical numbers?
By that definition, every reasonably competent 12 year old qualifies as a climate scientist. Certainly, Gavin Schmidt claims to be a climate scientist, supposedly on the basis that he can calculate averages.
No wonder Warmists fools dont want to talk about anything like testable GHE hypotheses, or other faintly scientific matters.
Good on yer, Snape. Warmist fools need more gullible followers. Even politicians are waking up to the silliness calling itself climate science.
Cheers.
Young snake believes he has found ANOTHER red herring, “precession”!
It’s fun to watch.
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
snape…”After 1/2 a lap, both will have competed 1/2 an orbit”.
Why are you calling a lap an orbit? That’s where your confusion is coming from. A lap is not an orbit, nor is it a rotation.
The terms rotation and orbit are used in science specificaly to describe a body turning around an axis under some form of control. With the Earth/Moon the control factor is gravity. With a body attacked to an axis by a rigid member, the factor is the mechanical connection itself.
A horse lapping a track has no connection whatsoever to an axis. It’s neither rotating nor is it orbiting.
Merriam-Webster/rotation
1 a (1) : the action or process of rotating on or as if on an axis or center (2) : the act or an instance of rotating something
b : one complete turn : the angular displacement required to return a rotating body or figure to its original orientation
Merriam-Webster/orbit
a : a path described by one body in its revolution about another (as by the earth about the sun or by an electron about an atomic nucleus); also : one complete revolution of a body describing such a path
Gordon
If you’re still convinced the orbiting/rotating needs to be “under some form of control”, then fine. Simply imagine the dimwitted duo on a merry-go-round instead of a horse.
Doesn’t change the argument.
snake, here’s the Merriam-Webster definition for you:
Definition of adolescence
1 : the period of life when a child develops into an adult : the period from puberty to maturity terminating legally at the age of majority (see majority 2a) He struggled through his adolescence.
2 : the state or process of growing up
3 : a stage of development (as of a language or culture) prior to maturity
You can also look up “immaturity”. Also, “puerile”.
Glad to help.
snape…”1 a (1) : the action or process of rotating on or as if on an axis or center (2) : the act or an instance of rotating something
b : one complete turn : the angular displacement required to return a rotating body or figure to its original orientation”
None of which describes the initial claim of g*r. He claimed the Moon does not rotate on it’s axis.
Gordon, does the Moon rotate with respect to the Sun?
Dr Spencer, here is an example of the concept discussed above
Isolating the Contribution of CO2 on Atmospheric CO2
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/14/isolating-the-contribution-of-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/
CO2isLife says:
February 12, 2018 at 12:17 PM
Just a thought, but I would appreciate if you published Ocean Only, or N or S Hemisphere only graphics.
*
Well it is so easy!
You just need to download Roy Spencer’s usual 27 zone time series of the UAH6.0 TLT data he publishes every month a link to:
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
There you find all you need, beginning with data column 3 (oceans only).
And that you might for example compare it with NOAA’s monthly ocean 90S-90N mask time series (1880-present):
https://tinyurl.com/y8byufg6
of course restricted to 1979-present, in order to obtain a valuable comparison between oceanic surfaces and the lower troposphere above them.
Linear global estimates
– NOAA ocean: 0.12 C / decade
– UAH6.0 ocean: 0.11 C / decade
Graph (courtesy Bindidon):
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518480402396.jpg
Good luck in inspecting the data. Your chance in finding there any relation to CO2’s atmospheric increase imho is equal to 0.000 :-))
Simply because we actually have no idea about how much of it is stored in the oceans, and how much of that amount is released at which time.
“Your chance in finding there any relation to CO2s atmospheric increase imho is equal to 0.000”
So what is causing all this prolonged warming?
Thanks, this is what I wrote.
Isolating the Contribution of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/14/isolating-the-contribution-of-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/
Massimo PORZIO says:
February 12, 2018 at 9:54 AM
…
I would try to convince you that an orbiting massive object which rotate around one more massive object facing always the same side is not rotating on its own axis.
…
*
Hi Massimo PORZIO,
to be honest, I can’t contribute with own real knowledge to this strange discussion here, which seems me to be driven far more by ideology and egocentric views than by science.
Did you ever read this book written in 1826 (!!!) by Watkin Maddy:
The Elements of the Theory of Plane Astronomy
I moved Google’s cursor to page 204:
https://tinyurl.com/yc48339g
What do you think about it?
Rgds
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518287731581.jpg
Hi La Pangolina,
nice to read you again here.
I replied to tonyM about about what’s my point of view.
I don’t think is a question of ideology, I think is just a question of misunderstandings between the posters.
Thank you for the link, because it revealed me that what I supposed to tonyM was true and it is called “libration”, it should be partially due to the Sun gravity which I was arguing there.
Have a great day.
Massimo
All this talk of the rotation of the Moon around its local axis seems to me to be dependent on the frame of reference.
One can get into a bit of a pickle without much trouble, by considering a few hypotheticals.
For example, if an object firmly fixed to the Earths surface faces the Sun directly, after some hours, the Sun will be to the objects side. Later, the Sun will be completely behind the object (at midnight), and so on.
So it might be said that the object has performed one complete revolution with respect to the Sun, as an observer on the Sun would see every side of the object in the absence of the Earth. Further, without the presence of the Earth, the object would be seen to be orbiting at a fixed distance from the notional centre of the Earth.
Now the Moon just happens to be geolocked to the centre of its orbit, and if it was fixed to a surface with a rotational period of the Moons orbital period, it would be perceived the same way as say, Mount Everests peak in relation to the Earth.
If you wish to state that Mt Everest rotates on its axis, then good luck to you. If you can find use for your knowledge, I salute you!
But heres a possible conundrum. If, instead of the force of gravity, the Moon was locked to its orbital centre by a string of spheres attached firmly to each other, like pearls on a string, then each pearl (being quite stationary with respect to the Moon), would also be considered to be rotating on its axis.
If anyone is interested, the continuation is a fair way below. Sorry. Starts with Whoops.
Cheers.
mike…”All this talk of the rotation of the Moon around its local axis seems to me to be dependent on the frame of reference”.
There is a saying, ‘the observer is the observed’. In science, one needs to create a separation between the internal observer, with his biases and distortions, and observe without that centre.
I am finding with many modern scientists that they cannot do that, they see through their own biases.
All physics is w.r.t. a particular reference frame.
You should have learned this in the first weeks of your physics class. Didn’t you?
A well spicy detail concerning this stupid discussion about Moon’s spin.
Recently my friend and neighbour Bindidon was looking for traces of a discussion between the german skeptic Gerhard Kramm and other people (Joshua Halpern, Arthur Smith, Chris Ho-Stuart).
And he discovered this, within
http://rabett.blogspot.de/2009/05/krammed-to-our-misfortune-gerhard-kramm.html
in a comment:
let me quote you: “Kramm neglects to point out that this pretty well is what happens on the moon and cannot happen on a rotating earth.”
Are you kidding? The earth’s moon is rotating, too. The moon’s angular velocity is slower than that of the earth (roughly a factor of 28).
Perfect. Written by a very, very skeptic anti-GHE person, you can believe me.
What do you think of it, J Halp-less?
See also the same stuff appearing in the abstract of
http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-8302911_78836.htm
La P,
And this relates to the inability of anyone to actually locate a scientific definition of a Greenhouse Effect, precisely how?
The worn out foolish Warmist tactics of deny, divert, and confuse, are becoming even less relevant. If you cant actually write down what the mythical Greenhouse Effect is supposed to do, and how it may be reproduced, then you cant really blame people for treating it as seriously as unicorns or the Tooth Fairy!
Go for it! Provide all the links to blog comments you like – it still wont make the GHE fantasy become real.
Cheers.
Jesus Flynn what a troll you are!
What does this boring GHE have to do in this Moon’s spin discussion?
La Pangolina
I quit reading Mike Flynn’s post a few months ago. If you want to remember what he says you only need to read one of his posts a month. They do not change much and are very boring and repetitive.
He is one to tune out. You won’t find anything of value in his posts. And I do really mean never. I read his for awhile hoping there might be some new ideas or something interesting. Nope, it is not there.
At least the goofballs g*e*r*a*n and J Halp-less can be a little entertaining as they come up with the worst science ever. I read theirs just to see how ridiculous their next post will be. Unlike Flynn they do keep coming up with new outrageously stupid ideas. Then they get a bunch of people engaged to try an prove them wrong. I guess it might be a game druggies play to amuse themselves.
La P,
I understand this blog to generally relate to so-called climatology, the mythical GHE, its effects, and so on. Dr Spencer has not indicated to the contrary to date, but maybe you could instruct him otherwise.
You cant provide any science to back up the mad assertion that the GHE exists, but seem to be reluctant to agree that it doesnt. Warmist fools are often hard to pin down, twisting, wriggling, and otherwise trying to get off the hook on which they have impaled themselves.
I suppose you could actually state whether you believe in the GHE, and write down its definition. After everyone has finished laughing, you will no doubt wish to discuss anything else than nonsense involving the Earth heating due to CO2 in the atmosphere, melting ice and rising seas due to CO2 in the atmosphere, and all the other fantasies that Warmist fools believe.
The GHE, just like other non-existent fantasies, may indeed be boring. I find people who believe in the GHE, without to being able to state precisely the basis of their beliefs, quite entertaining.
Keep it up. Im not aware of any adverse side effects from feeling entertained, so I certainly wouldnt ask you to stop your most entertaining efforts to deny, divert, and confuse.
As to your opinion of my posts, I couldnt care less what you think. Why should I?
Feel free to return to irrelevancies. Maybe a pointless analogy would be a change? Anything to avoid admitting that the GHE is a silly fantasy, or admit that a testable GHE hypothesis is a foolish Warmist dream.
Maybe prayer would help?
Cheers.
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
Bin finds some history of belief that the Moon rotates on its axis, and to Bin, that means something.
Hilarious.
Bin, can you find some history of belief in the medical practice of “blood letting”? That might be useful for your next hangover.
g*r…”Bin finds some history of belief that the Moon rotates on its axis, and to Bin, that means something”.
That’s the entire basis of AGW, that Arrhenius and Callendar believed it be so therefore it must be so.
Difference is, both Arrhenius and Callendar saw positive benefits to their projected AGW.
The basis of AGW depends on the rotation of the Moon?????
You can’t be serious……….
No, climate clown.
But, it’s the same type of pseudoscience.
binny…”Recently my friend and neighbour Bindidon was looking for traces of a discussion between the german skeptic Gerhard Kramm and other people (Joshua Halpern, Arthur Smith, Chris Ho-Stuart)”.
This charade reveals you as the idiot I claimed you to be. You sign off this blog, claiming you are tired of it, then a few day’s later pagolina shows up, talking like you with a memory of past events….even using the word troll.
Now you are promoting hacker science emanating from the blog of Eli Rabbett. He cannot face the world under his real name of Josh Halpern, so he hides like a timid Rabbett behind the facade of Eli Rabbett.
Halpern et al had their butts kicked by G&T after they had the temerity to challenge a G&T paper. They based their arguments on a misunderstanding of the difference between heat and IR. G&T explained that to them and to this day Eli still doesn’t get it, offering his lame green plate/blue plate thought experiment to this blog.
Eli missed his calling, he writes good satire, provided you are an alarmist who can appreciate it.
One of those you cite, Arthur Smith, had already challenged G&T, ignoring most of the paper and focusing on a mathematical analysis of an Earth with no oceans and atmosphere and one with both. He was proved wrong by an independent analysis of his claims.
Smith has a degree in physics and has worked mainly as a librarian, Halpern, aka Eli, has a degree in physics and teaches chemistry. G&T are both bona fide experts in thermodynamics.
Does that not say it all?
Several days ago, GR commented..
NO HEAT ENTERS OR LEAVES THE BODY BY RADIATION.
When it was pointed out that this was ludicrous, GR hid out, refusing to respond. Now, he’s back to the same old gig, referencing the ramblings of G & T and denying the facts so clear to all, which is that microwave EM radiation can add considerable “heat” to a body.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285772
Not to mention that other obvious example of “heating”, the EM radiant energy provided by the Sun. Of course, given that he has no case, he resorts to character assignation, which is a typical response of denialist trolls.
swannie…”NO HEAT ENTERS OR LEAVES THE BODY BY RADIATION.
When it was pointed out that this was ludicrous, GR hid out, refusing to respond. Now, hes back to the same old gig, referencing the ramblings of G & T and denying the facts so clear to all, which is that microwave EM radiation can add considerable heat to a body”.
Have not been hiding out that I know of. Why have you failed to respond to my proof that heat does not leave or enter a body by radiation? Heat is always associated with matter, with atoms. If heat leaves a body it must do so as mass.
EM has no mass, so how does it transport heat?
G&T have expertise in thermodynamics and they are saying the same thing as me.
I have never claimed that EM cannot add heat to a body but first it has to be converted to heat. EM and heat are entirely different forms of energy.
If I power an electric light bulb with electricity, is the light bulb transmitting electrical energy through space?
“EM has no mass, so how does it transport heat?”
Because it has energy, dumbsh!t.
E=h*nu
“If I power an electric light bulb with electricity, is the light bulb transmitting electrical energy through space?”
Why do you assume energy can only take one form — electrical?
That’s obviously false. So why do you do it?
GR repeats claims which are clearly wrong,
Why have you failed to respond to my proof that heat does not leave or enter a body by radiation?
What proof? One counter example, the ISS uses radiators to remove excess heat from inside. All that heat loss is the result of EM radiation.
EM has no mass, so how does it transport heat?
Ever seen one of those old radiometers, now used as kids toys? What makes the paddles spin when exposed to sunlight? Doesn’t EM deposits momentum to the paddles, which makes them spin?
If I power an electric light bulb with electricity, is the light bulb transmitting electrical energy through space?
The electrical energy heats the bulb’s filament, which then radiates EM radiation in the visible portion of the EM spectrum. Your distinction between “electrical energy” and “electromagnetic energy” appears pointless, as both are forms of energy and represent conversion from one form to another. BTW, your old bulb gets rather hot from the EM as it passes thru the glass and a version called a “heat lamp” produces IR EM radiation, which is intended to locally heat things up…
binny…”Are you kidding? The earths moon is rotating, too. The moons angular velocity is slower than that of the earth (roughly a factor of 28)”.
Do you understand what tidally-locked means? If the Moon has an angular velocity close to it’s orbital period, it would slowly reveal more than the face toward us. Why doesn’t it?
Furthermore, the Earth’s angular velocity is roughly 1000 MPH at the Equator. It’s rotating inside the lunar orbit. So how is the difference between the Moon’s angular velocity and the Earth’s AV a factor of 28? That would mean the Moon was rotating at roughly 36 MPH at its equator. It would not take long before we saw the proverbial dark side f the Moon.
Is there ever an occasion when you think for yourself? Try it sometime, it’s not as intimidating as it may seem.
Gordon,
Maybe your infinite wisdom could be of some help to g* and Halp with respect to the two questions I posed for them here –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-286501.
Any ideas that could assist?
mike…”Maybe your infinite wisdom could be of some help to g* and Halp with respect to the two questions I posed for them here ”
I have already replied elsewhere. The B example is NOT rotation. You have made it appear that way by incorrectly assigning it a rotation about it’s centre of gravity it does not have in the associated gif.
Does the Moon rotate with respect to the Sun?
Do you receive a check form public funds?
See how g* opts out of the scientific discussion….
davie, you opted out of a science discussion below.
What did you want to discuss?
The fact that the Sun can NOT heat the Earth to 800,000K?
I thought we’d already discussed how stupid that was.
Did you need further clarification?
The Sun can heat the Earth to 800 kK, under the conditions given in the question. That’s easy to calculate.
False.
Then show the calculation that says otherwise.
davie, see if there is anyway you can understand 2LoT. Then, do the same for “inverse-square law”.
Gordon Robertson
This one is for you. You can see a little more of the Moon because of its rotation. The Moon has an elliptical orbit but rotates at the same rate, sometimes the Moon is rotating a little faster than it orbits and other times it is slightly slower showing more of the Moon.
http://www.moonconnection.com/moon-same-side.phtml
Yes, it is called “Libration”.
And, the orbital rate is identified by Kepler’s second law of planetary motion.
(Not that that will mean anything to you.)
The Moon continues NOT “rotating on its axis”, even with all your efforts to believe otherwise.
Don’t you think that is hilarious?
norman…from your link….”It turns out that the speed at which the Moon rotates has led to this particular phenomenon. Millions of years ago, the Moon spun at a much faster pace than it does now. However, the gravitational influence of the Earth has gradually acted upon the Moon to slow its rotation down…”
This is just plain wrong. Here’s a wiki explanation of that effect and libration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
“The Moon keeps one hemisphere of itself facing the Earth, due to tidal locking”.
The article also points out the rocking of the Moon that seems to reveal more of it’s surface is a property of it’s orbit.
The same occurs with Mercury, and to an extent, all of the planets. They appear to be moving backwards at times when observed from Earth at certain positions in our orbit around the Sun. The Moon appears to rock, or oscillate. It’s caused by relative motion.
The Moon does speed up and slow down in it’s orbit to conserve angular momentum. That’s caused by its elliptical orbit.
Does the same side of the Moon always face the Sun?
What about Jupiter?
Do you have a job?
See what I mean….
Do you even have a part-time job?
The rotation time of the moon is ~1 month and the heat capacity of the surface is zilch. so yeah, it is pretty much (note the words) what happens on the moon.
See for the math: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
Whoops. Sent accidentally, typos and all. Oh well. To continue –
So the Moon would be rotating on its axis, according to some, and all the little Moonlets – spheres, pearls or whatever – would also be rotating on their respective axes, but quite stationary with respect to each other!
The practical effect of the foolish Rotator redefinition of rotation on an axis is precisely zero. A great similarity to the constant redefinitions by Warmist fools – reduction in the rate of cooling is heating, outputs of chaotic computer models are experiments – and so on.
A pretty effort to avoid any discussion of so-called CO2 induced global warming, climate change, the GHE, or similar fantasies which have diverted billions of dollars away from possibly useful scientific or medical research.
Still no GHE. No amount of blather, no amount of strident shrieking or bellowing, combined with all usual attempts to deny, divert, and confuse, will turn fantasy into reality. You might just as well argue about toy trains, toothpicks and grapes – all in relation to something which bears precisely no relation to anything of use or value.
Cheers.
Mike…”The practical effect of the foolish Rotator redefinition of rotation on an axis is precisely zero. A great similarity to the constant redefinitions by Warmist fools reduction in the rate of cooling is heating, outputs of chaotic computer models are experiments and so on”.
The scary part is that their gurus at the IPCC, NOAA, and GISS, tend to think the same way.
After being caught in the Climategate emails admitting the warming had stopped, claiming it a travesty that no one knew why, Kevin Trenberth turned to a cockamamey theory that the ‘missing’ heat was hiding in the oceans.
The lead guru at real climate, Pierrehumbert, goes off into sci-fi explanations of warming that confuse EMR with heat.
Co-owner at realclimate, Gavin Schmidt, the current head of GISS, is a mathematician, yet he could not offer a correct mathematical definition of positive feedback, a key pseudo-scientific component of climate models that project catastrophic warming.
A fellow guru at RC, Stefan Rahmstorf, has claimed recycled IR from the surface can be added to incoming solar energy to increase its effect, hence a super-warming of the surface. He blithely ignored the fact that much of that recycled IR came from a cooler source than the surface.
Head of Had-crut, Phil Jones, was noted in the Climategate emails bragging about using Mike’s trick to hide declining temperatures. The trick of Michael Mann was too cut off proxy data showing cooling then splice in real data showing warming. Mann et al’s entire project, whence the trick came, the hockey stick, was eventually trashed, essentially as junk science, by NAS, a statistics expert, and the IPCC itself.
It’s more than foolish Warmists, it’s incompetent Warmists. Problem is, equally incompetent politicians are listening to them.
“So the Moon would be rotating on its axis, according to some … “
Yes, according to people in any non-rotating, inertial frame of reference.
The “practical effect” is that any laws of physics developed to work in inertial reference frames — like Newton’s Laws for example — can be used.
Conversely, people working in rotating reference frames who say the moon is not rotating cannot use Newton’s Laws. They need a whole different set of equations modified to work in rotating frames. In the frame of a car driving around a curve, they need to invent a ‘centrifugal force’ pushing them out against the car door. On earth, they need to invent a ‘Coriolis force’ to explain hurricane rotation. This can work of course, but it is a conscious choice when you decide to leave the comfort of inertial frames and Newton’s Laws.
In the appropriate rotating frame of reference, the moon is not rotating!
The simplest statement is “The Moon does NOT ‘rotate on its axis’.”
No, the SIMPLEST statement is The Moon DOES rotate on its axis’ in an inertial, non-rotating reference frame.” Then Newton’s Laws can be used.
The SECOND simplest statement is The Moon does NOT rotate on its axis’ if you are using a non-inertial reference frame that is rotating once per month. Here fictitious forces (coriolis force and centrifugal force) must be added.
Tim, you are still trying to confuse yourself. The “reference frame” is the “axis of rotation”. Orbital forces do not produce axial rotation of the orbiting body. The Moon is ONLY responding to orbital forces. It is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
But, I bet you won’t leave your world of pseudoscience.
An “axis of rotation” cannot be a reference frame, since it is only 2-dimensional, while (classical) space is 3-dimensional.
Tim is right — unless you view the situation from an inertial reference frame, you must include fictitious forces.
davie, you are so lost in your pseudoscience you can not even see a toy train on a circular track.
But, at least you don’t have to work for a living.
More insults in lieu of science.
Typically weak.
More insults in lieu of science.
Typically weak.
Is an axis of rotation 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional?
What percentage of your income is from welfare-type sources?
You can’t answer.
That’s all the answer we need.
No, you can’t answer.
Is the little toy train rotating on its axis as it travels the circular track?
Rotating with respect to what reference frame?
BTW, the train is fixed to its tracks, so this is a poor example.
BTW, you reject facts and logic, so you are incompetent.
tim…”In the appropriate rotating frame of reference, the moon is not rotating!”
It’s not rotating about its axis in any frame. It’s an illusion created by the Moon being locked to the Earth’s gravitational field while orbiting the Earth.
The observer is the observed. If you want to delude yourself into seeing something happening just think of sunrises and sunsets. Time is even better.
GR, does the Moon rotate w.r.t. Pluto??
Why do you not know that?
So you admit the Moon rotates.
QED.
Is this where I’m supposed to call you a “liar”?
I don’t stoop to your level, davie.
I just say you’ve got it wrong.
But, I do get to laugh at you.
Hilarious.
Does the Moon rotate with respect to the galactic center?
davie, the Moon orbits Earth. So, outside the orbit, one would see all sides.
But, inside its orbit, since it is NOT “rotating on its axis”, one would only see one side.
So you think the rotational status of an object depends on the point from which it is viewed.
The Moon is rotating with respect to the Sun, but not with respect to the Earth.
How odd.
davie, you can’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
How odd.
In the appropriate frame of reference the earth is not rotating either !
And in the appropriate group of people, even idiots don’t look like idiots !
Hilarious !
Let’s see, “frame of reference”, Foucault’s Pendulum, “definitions”, etc.
How many red herrings are out there?
Yet, the little toy train continues “orbiting”, but NOT “rotating on its axis”, debunking all the pseudoscience.
It’s fun to watch.
So G, suppose your car is driving around a curve (perfectly flat) when it suddenly hits a frictionless patch of ice. The car’s center of mass will, of course, continue straight ahead in accordance with Newton’s 1st law.
Will the headlights of the car continue to point straight ahead?
Tim, the car will be “rotating on its axis”. If it does a full 360 spin, the headlights will be visible from the inside of the turn.
But that is NOT what we see from the Moon, because it is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Next red herring, please.
“Use your vivid imagination and see a train on a circular track. Maybe you even had such a toy train. The train can NOT rotate on its axis”
“Tim, the car will be rotating on its axis
So … a train going around a circular path is NOT rotating on its axis, but a car going around a circular path IS rotating on its axis!
That’s a GREAT red herring, TIm.
You have attempted to mix two different scenarios, in an effort to protect your pseudoscience.
The toy train is not “rotating on its axis”. But, YOUR car is “rotating on its axis”.
You are either purposely misrepresenting the “facts”, or your “logic” is just completely stupid.
Which is it?
(This is going to be a record-setting year in climate comedy.)
G, the only difference is the name “car” vs “train”. A train locomotive and a car can follow identical circular paths. Either both are rotating about their axes or neither is. But you clearly claimed one is and one is not.
Tim, you car is in a “spinout”.
Do you not even understand driving on ice?
Does the same side of the Moon always face the Sun?
No.
Does appelly (rhymes with jelly) ever face reality?
Does the same side of the Moon always face the Sun?
davie, you ask questions that only reveal your incompetence.
Does the same side of the Moon always face the Sun?
g* knows the answer.
davie, the Moon orbits around the Earth. It does NOT rotate on its axis. You are a clown.
From the Sun, you would see all sides of the Moon, as it orbits around Earth. You are a clown.
Hope that helps you to understand basic orbital dynamics of Earth/Moon system.
You are a clown.
So the Moon rotates wrt the Sun.
What about with respect to Mars?
wrt the Galactic center?
Notice the desperation of davie:
“What about with respect to Mars?”
“wrt the Galactic center?”
barry, is this embarrassing you? If not, it should be.
How about any other “rotators”?
Anyone want to “tidal lock” with davie?
Hilarious.
He’s afraid to answer.
You don’t have to wonder why.
tim…”So G, suppose your car is driving around a curve (perfectly flat) when it suddenly hits a frictionless patch of ice”.
That’s an entirely different problem than a car running around a track. Tire friction keeps it on the track, once the friction is compromised you have a different problem.
tim…”suppose your car is driving around a curve (perfectly flat) when it suddenly hits a frictionless patch of ice…”
Please not that the car is powering itself whereas with orbital motion there is a central force at play.
So does the Moon rotate w.r.t. the Sun?
Why do you not know that?
GR, does the Moon rotate w.r.t. the galactic center?
davie, you poor climate clown, the moon will appear to “rotate” to a viewer outside its orbit, just as a race horse appears to “rotate” as it runs an oval race track.
But neither the Moon, nor the horse, is “rotating on its axis”.
But climate clowns “believe” otherwise.
It’s fun to watch.
So you’re saying the Moon isn’t still, but its rotation depends on from where one looks at it.
Interesting. The Moon isn’t still….
davie, you can’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
At some point, that just makes you a buffoon.
“once the friction is compromised you have a different problem.”
But do you have a different definition of “rotation about an axis” in this “different problem” that you define?
Suppose the car is driving in a tight little circle, completing one “orbit” every 4 seconds. If friction suddenly fails, the car will slide off in a straight line — but it will CONTINUE to spin on its axis once every 4 seconds. Conservation of angular momentum requires it.
You seem to be saying “before it slipped, it was NOT rotating on its axis, but after it started slipping, it suddenly started to rotate once every 4 seconds.” So .. the “different problem” allows rotation to suddenly begin?
(Dang– just thought of a great explanation for all this, but it really works better with pictures. )
gamma…”In the appropriate frame of reference the earth is not rotating either ! ”
My point exactly. We know it is rotating but anyone can create a reality in which it is standing still and the universe is turning around it.
A similar logic is applied to AGW.
So you admit the Moon is rotating, even though you deny this in other comments.
Gotcha.
No Tim, and gammacrux, the simplest statement is *the moon does not rotate on its axis*. Because, in exactly the same way that it is true to say that *the moon does not rotate on its axis, it is true to say that *the earth does rotate on its axis*. The only thing you need to be able to do is to separate the motion of *orbiting* from the motion of *rotating on its axis*.
Nope.
A Foucault pendulum’s plane of swing rotates a full 360 in 24 (sidereal) hours when located at pole on Earth.
A Foucault pendulum’s plane of swing rotates a full 360 in 27.3 (mean) days when located at pole on Moon.
So the simplest statement is that both rotate with respect to inertial frames though angular velocity of Moon is about 27. 3 times slower than Earth’s.
Of course people who are drunk and/or simply utter idiots may well not be capable to notice the slower Moon’s rotation, but that’s nothing to be worried about. Actually if one had to rely on what the idiots find out and notice Earth’s rotation would be still unknown too.
Missing the point again!
gummy spews: “Of course people who are drunk and/or simply utter idiots may well not be capable to notice the slower Moons rotation, but thats nothing to be worried about.”
gummy, your pseudoscience says the Moon “rotates on its axis” once about every 27 days. We would surely be able to see such rotation from Earth. But, we can’t.
Maybe only a drunk and/or simply an utter idiot can see such motion.
Does the Moon always present the same side to the Sun?
What about to the Galactic center?
davie fishes for red herrings:
“Does the Moon always present the same side to the Sun?”
“What about to the Galactic center?”
Most people would be embarrassed to pose such nonsense.
But, that’s why we have out climate clowns.
Afraid to answer. How typical.
davie, I only answer to responsible questions.
You would not have any.
Does the Moon always present the same side to the Sun??
Why do you not know that?
DA…”Does the Moon always present the same side to the Sun?”
They had a similar skit on Monty Python where they tied a carrot around a woman’s head and claimed she was a witch…because she had a long nose. They were being funny but I do believe you are serious.
Gordon, davie always tries to be “serious”.
That’s why he makes such a good climate clown.
Gordon, you avoided the question.
Does the same side of the Moon always face the Sun?
davie, I’ve answered before.
But you run from truth.
The Sun “sees” both sides of the Moon, as it orbits around Earth.
But, Earth only “sees” ONE side. That means the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis.
Now, you have more truth that you can ignore.
It’s fun to watch.
So the Moon is rotation with respect to the Sun, but not with respect to the Earth?
Either the Moon is rotating or it is not. Which is it?
g*e*r*a*n says:
“The Sun sees both sides of the Moon, as it orbits around Earth.”
So you think the Moon, a sphere, only has two sides.
Interesting.
How many sides does a basketball have?
How many sides does a buffoon have?
J Halp-less
What is your meaning concerning the work done and published in 1826 by the astronomer W. Maddy:
The Elements of the Theory of Plane Astronomy
therein
Section 319 on page 204:
https://tinyurl.com/yc48339g
What do you think about it?
Regards
R. J. Koelm
Bin, 1826 may be where the pseudoscience began. That wasn’t too long before the CO2 pseudoscience started.
But back that far, they can be forgiven. There’s really no excuse today. ..
g*e*r*a*n
I did not ask you.
I guess one day you will consider Einstein’s work being pseudoscience as well.
I was asking J Halp-less and hope s/he will be able to do that in a more meaningful way than you do: one g*e*r*a*n per web site is fairly more than enough.
I know: to this comment you will reply again. You can’t stop writing your crank blah blah, and will never stop to do.
You can call me ‘Bin’ as long as you want. No problem!
R. J. Koelm
Bin, Pang, Herr Koelm,
I’m happy to address you anyway you prefer, as long as you treat me with the same respect.
You spout something like: “I guess one day you will consider Einsteins work being pseudoscience as well”. And you expect me not to respond?
Courtesy is a two-way street.
La Pangolina is a… woman.
I knew it! Pangolina Jolie.
Sex changes are happening everywhere.
People are so confused.
Yes J, but… Hilarious aka Pseudoscience has some doubt.
She/He is sure I’m Bindidon.
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518287731581.jpg
Nice pic!
binny…Maddy, in 319, points out that the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth and that the Moon has been mapped over the centuries showing the same face toward the Earth.
Then Maddy reaches the astounding conclusion that the Moon’s rotation is EXACTLY the same as it’s orbital period about the Earth, hence we cannot see the rotation. Why did Maddy fail to see the obvious, that the Moon is not rotating at all?
Does the same side of the Moon always face the Sun?
davie, the Moon orbits Earth. So, outside the orbit, one would see all sides.
But, inside its orbit, since it is NOT “rotating on its axis”, one would only see one side.
Are you saying that the rotation of the Moon depends on the reference frame in which it’s being viewed?
What is interesting is that Maddy and every other qualified astronomer and astrophysicist in modern times agree that the moon is rotating, but the non-rotationists here believe they have the *truth* and everyone else is wrong.
The arrogance of fleas thinking that they are steering the dog. It’s quite funny.
barry, I wouldn’t say davie is a “dog”. He’s more like a buffoon.
J Halp-less: Does the same side of the Moon always face the Sun?
davie, the Moon orbits Earth. So, outside the orbit, one would see all sides.
But, inside its orbit, since it is NOT “rotating on its axis”, one would only see one side.
So you’re saying the rotation of the Moon depends on the reference frame in which it is being viewed?
Watch as G does not answer that question to the point.
davie, and willing accomplice barry, “axial rotation” involves the axis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
One of the funny things about climate clowns is that they are unable to learn.
It’s fun to watch.
And voila.
Interestingly, G’s link alludes to a frame of reference, which was what David was asking about.
In general, any rotation can be specified completely by the three angular displacements with respect to the rectangular-coordinate axes x, y, and z. Any change in the position of the rigid body is thus completely described by three translational and three rotational coordinates.
I wonder if you could tell us where the rectangular coordinates x, y and z are located, G. That’s the frame of reference.
Barry, your 24-hour update: still no progress.
G’s wiling accomplice J-Halpless likewise does not answer the question.
What are they afraid of?
D: So youre saying the rotation of the Moon depends on the reference frame in which it is being viewed?
J: No. The question of the rotation of the moon on its axis, does not depend on reference frames.
G’s article says:
“any rotation can be specified completely by the three angular displacements with respect to the rectangular-coordinate axes x, y, and z. Any change in the position of the rigid body is thus completely described by three translational and three rotational coordinates.”
Where do these axes lie WRT to the moon/earth system, on the question of lunar rotation?
Or is G’s article in fact not applicable here?
J: No. The question of the rotation of the moon on its axis, does not depend on reference frames.
Though of course, it does require looking at things differently! Well, its all been explained 1000 times already, in detail. Now its just time to sit back and chuckle that people still arent getting it.
Other than the toy train analogy the ‘explanations’ have been pretty threadbare. Questions have been avoided, usually by distraction or simply repeating the toy train mantra.
A frame of reference is requisite to determining any change in position or orientation of an object. The toy train example has a frame of reference.
Your best answer to this specific question so far is “orbit reference frame,” but when queried about it you dodged that question, too.
One day you say there is a reference frame for your argument, the next you say we need to “look beyond” reference frames.
Not only are your explanations threadbare, they contradict. What to make of this?
Can you explain how to determine the motion of an object without a reference frame? A credible source corroborating would be great.
Chuckle.
Powerful high in the east of the US with a center over the Great Lakes.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00958/zdfva293rjpj.png
https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/compare_years/
Well done Ren. Interesting diversions from the monotony of constant verbal storms.
BTW thanks for the reference earlier to the Nikolov and Zeller paper. Seems most recent at 2017. Am not sure if there are new insights over their previous work but will read it in due course.
N&Z’s paper was published in a journal indicted for fraud.
Their own work is fraudulent — they lied about their names in order to get a paper published.
The paper referred to here is also fraudulent, because they did not plot values for Mercury or Pluto on their graph, because those data did not fit the line they wanted to draw.
In short, N&Z are dishonest and have had to rely on dishonesty and fraud to get their work published.
Appell, you have been challenged by Dr. Berry to provide a link to your PHD thesis. Why arent you providing one?
I don’t think my PhD is online — it was earned before putting documents online was done, and even before PDFs were made. It’s in the Stony Brook library, I know, and SB’s ITP library. I have two copies on my bookshelf. You’re free to come look at them if you wish.
Ed Berry is the kind of person who, since he can’t address the science, reverts to personal attacks. It’s cowardly.
PS: My PhD doesn’t change the facts around N&Z’s paper. It’s noteworthy that you ignored all that.
Yes, it’s in the Stony Brook library.
Where is evidence of Ed Berry’s PhD?
It’s certainly not in his scientific claims — he’s as dumb as any denier out there….
As usual horse manure from Appell.
This was thoroughly discussed at the time years ago. There is no fraud as only an idiot like Appell can claim fraud when there is no gain.
They certainly did not try too hard to disguise their names (they simply wrote them backwards) which related to employment constraints.
This dimwitted Appell is now confirming that publishing is only for those “authorized” to publish in these journals. Hence the name pal review and confirms that Phil Jones was indeed serious about stopping publication by skeptics.
Is name calling all you have? Can’t critique my views and claims? It appears not.
Dr. Berry’s PHD is just where he told you it is. You are the one with the personal attacks. Why? Could it be that you couldn’t refute his theory? Probably so. I have read the comments back and forth on his website and you came up lacking in your rebuttals. Then you have the audacity to call him “the dumbest of deniers”. A classic case of projection if I ever saw one. You should be a bit classier than that but I suspect you aren’t capable. My opinion that even if you have a PHD in Physics, you are nothing more than a blowhard and gadfly.
Where is proof of his PhD? I don’t read his site regularly, because his science is so far off-track.
I have refuted Berry’s “science” time and time again. Of course, it does not good because his views are based on his ideology, not science.
I sit here and wonder. Most people here are trained in the physical sciences or engineering (applied sciences) and yet we can have such absurd arguments over the bread and butter issues of those disciplines; the absolute need for clear frames of reference (I don’t wish to exclude anyone not trained in these fields; all who try to think clearly are very much welcomed) Take that away and where does that leave Einstein? We fail to define clearly the terms we use. Incredible!
Is it any wonder that once the polis get involved we can have no science other than gibberish fostered by the polis; the Gore consensus crap then dominates.
Gore has communicated the science pretty well.
Certainly much better than GW Bush the Junior.
By your standards Gore did a good job eh!!??
That’s why in the UK, courts made orders to qualify parts of his film before being shown to school kids. That’s why he never engages in scrutiny or debate. That’s why he confounds and intimates CO2 leads T in ice cores. That’s why his footprint was a $20K p.a. bill to power his home.
Another hero of yours.
Bush jnr is hardly someone skeptics foster. I certainly don’t think much of Obama; charismatic by all means but also deceptive. I am not a US resident but have seen him deliver an address out in the cold and start patting his forehead with his handkerchief feigning heat.
This is reminiscent of the Gore/Hansen fraud perpetrated in the 1988 Senate inquiry. Deliberately make the room and building hot while delivering the warmistae message. Of course these guys are your heroes.
I love CO2, double it for perfect food and health!
Go Trump, go; he may just help the West save itself from itself!
tonyM, David Appell is nothing more than a blowhard and gadfly.
George: Prove my science wrong.
You’ve avoided that so far.
David, you have no science. You are roasted regularly on Dr. Berry’s website and that is the place to go see where your responses are beyond shallow. You have yet to prove him wrong.
Gordon Robertson
Once again you shred your credibility. Because you constantly make stuff up a person responding to you has to spend lots of time researching your claims. A lot of times your claims are wrong and you just make up stuff.
HERE YOU SAY: “You rush out a citation based on having read something and jumped to conclusions. Thats a better definition of pseudo-science.
For example, you grabbed a reference to equipment cabinets and temperature and concluded it meant the room air was warming the cabinet. The article said nothing of the kind but you leaped to that conclusion.”
The article directly said the air temperature was controlling the lab equipment temperature. So your claim is false.
The article actually said this: There was a direct relationship between room temperature and equipment temperature stability. When room temperature increased or decreased, equipment temperature reacted in a corresponding manner.
That is saying when the air warmed up so did the equipment. They are not saying anything different. Warmer air leads to warmer lab equipment.
Con-man, don’t forget your pseudoscience:
“The thermal energy to increase the temperature of the powered lab equipment comes from the cold air.”
“The increase in thermal energy to the system is from colder air only.
You always need to carry your pseudoscience with you.
Don’t leave home without it.
(Hilarious.)
g*e*r*a*n
Yes that is true. When the cold air molecules strike the powered lab equipment they will transfer their energy to the hotter items’ surface molecules (elastic collisions). At the same time the faster vibrating surface molecules of the hot surface will transfer their energy to the slower moving air molecules.
Now if you introduce warmer air it will have molecules with more average kinetic energy than the colder air had.
When the molecules of the warmer air collide with the hotter molecules of the hot surface molecules they transfer more energy in the collision than the colder air molecules were able to. In the NET exchange between the collisions the hotter lab item is not able to transfer away as much kinetic energy. It has a constant input of energy so it increases in temperature.
The warmer cold air molecules transfer more energy back to the hot item than the colder air molecules do. The result is less energy lost by the hot item and its temperature goes up.
No pseudoscience at all. Just valid and real physics. Something you don’t like and don’t understand. You call actual physics pseudoscience and your made up science you think is valid. Not much can be done educating you.
Con-man claims: “When the cold air molecules strike the powered lab equipment they will transfer their energy to the hotter items surface molecules (elastic collisions).”
Hilarious.
(Poor con-man does not understand 2LoT. This is going to be a great year in climate comedy.)
g*e*r*a*n
g*e*r*a*n does not understand elastic collision or the 2nd Law. You have a warped version of the second law of thermodynamics.
I have asked you numerous times but pseudoscience does not have to answer. What valid science description of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes the claim that warmer surroundings will not cause powered objects to reach higher temperatures.
The empirical evidence clearly shows that increasing the temperature of the cold surroundings directly increases the temperature of the hotter items. It is an established fact.
You would be wise to reconsider that the version of the 2nd Law (handed down by holy prophet Joe Postma as a divine revelation) you now believe true is not so. Real world evidence shows your view is not valid. It is incorrect and in need of update to correspond to reality.
Con-man, your cons are hilarious.
The blue/green plate scenario clearly destroys your pseudoscience.
The green plate can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.
“Cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
But, as always, you are welcome to provide more climate comedy.
Please continue.
g*e*r*a*n
You can make your declarations. Reality is not on your side.
HERE:
You have three cases:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/
At air temp of 17 C a scope reaches a temperature of 33 C
If the air temp is increased (this is the only thing changed)
At air temp of 20 C the scope reaches a temperature of 34 C
At air temp of 26 C the scope reaches a temperature of 36 C
Now for logic.
This experiment totally rejects your false interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Your Claim is that a cold object cannot make a hotter one hotter. And the test clearly shows your thoughts are false and you have no understanding of the 2nd Law.
g*e*r*a*n
I do not think you have a broad enough understanding of thermodynamics. You can understand it okay in a case of a system that has no energy input (no power input). Once you have powered items your grasp of thermodynamics falls apart.
When you claim cold cannot warm hot, that only applies to a system with no power input. When you have an influx of energy to the system your mind goes blank.
Coni-man you get yourself so wrapped around you axel, that you cannot even breath.
Present you problem in an easily understandable format. (Less than 50 words.)
Then, I might be able to help you.
(Corrected version. I was on the phone scheduling next week, sorry.)
Con-man you get yourself so wrapped around your axel, that you cannot even breathe.
Present your problem in an easily understandable format. (Less than 50 words.)
Then, I might be able to help you.
g*e*r*a*n
Sorry. No can do. If you can’t figure out what I wrote too bad for you. Your problem not mine.
Simple you are wrong and don’t know what you are talking about.
As always, your pseudoscience fails you.
But, it’s fun to watch.
Hey con-man, I know you can’t present your pseudoscience for critical review.
But, just as a reminder, “cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
Not that I would ever rub it in. ..
☺
Norman wrote:
“And the test clearly shows your thoughts are false and you have no understanding of the 2nd Law.”
Yes. What none of the deniers here understand is the adiabaticity condition in the 2nd law.
davie, what you don’t understand is that you are unemployable.
I can understand you don’t want to talk about your other problems.
See how g* resorts to personal insults?
Because he can’t address the science.
davie, you don’t have any science.
You believe CO2 is a “heat source”.
You believe the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000 K.
You believe Earth is warming the Sun.
You have no science. All you have are your beliefs, and your personal insults.
You are an affable, bumbling climate clown.
More hilarity, please.
Again g* avoids all science, opting for nothing but insults.
That’s how you know when you’ve got them.
{grin}
You know we’ve beaten the silly davie when he puts out the {grin}.
it’s hilarious.
Still avoiding any science.
That’s why no one here takes you seriously.
What science do you believe I am avoiding, appelly?
the adiabaticity condition in the 2nd law.
where am I avoiding that, davie?
Your poor behavior means you forfeit the right to an reply. As do your poor questions.
g*e*r*a*n
I gave you the critical review with real world data. That you are unable to process reality is not my problem. I would be concerned or yourself with this condition.
That you can’t read a post more than 50 words long indicates a mental issue of which I can’t help you with. With your vast limitations of ability:
List:
1) Cannot think logically
2) thinks real science is pseduoscience
3) thinks his make believe science is pseudoscience
4) insults nearly everyone on the blog and wonders why he is called
an idiot
5) Cannot follow rational thought process and thinks it is hilarious
6) Is supported by Gordon Robertson and J Halp-less
7) Can see actual real world evidence but does not accept it
I might think of more, you have lots of limitations.
Climate clown davie claims I am avoiding science:
“Because he cant address the science.”
“Again g* avoids all science, opting for nothing but insults.”
“Still avoiding any science.”
So when I press davie for an example of where I have avoided science, he responds:
“Your poor behavior means you forfeit the right to an [sic] reply.”
The climate clown has to swallow his own spew, again.
Hilarious.
Gordon Robertson
That was one case of you making up stuff that is not true an requires effort to see if your statement is valid.
Here is another.
YOU: “There is no heat flowing through the room air Norman other than via convection. Heat dissipation is not heat flow either, its a reduction of heat at the equipment surfaces.”
Reality directly contradicts what you say.
https://www.corrosionpedia.com/definition/5041/heat-dissipation
From this link: “Heat dissipation is a type of heat transfer.”
Heat flow and heat transfer are the same synonymous:
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Heat+Flow
“Heat Flow
the amount of heat transferred across an isothermal surface in a unit time.”
Right. Gordon’s denial runs so deep that he must deny, some way or the other, the electromagnetic radiation is heat, in contradiction to everything modern physics says.
He won’t discuss this, or address questions about it. That’s how severe his denial is.
You keep showing your lack of knowledge.
EMR is not heat.
The graph shows a sharp rise in temperature in the lower stratosphere. The result is a strong weakening of the polar vortex, which will release cold air masses from the Arctic.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/70mb9065.png
oceanic temperatures now +.121c above means down we go.
Attention appelly (rhymes with jelly), Sal is inviting you to respond to the lower ocean temps.
The Globe is cooling:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
God save the Queen!
“The Globe is cooling”
Hardly. That’s only one measure of the planet’s temperature, and not a very good one.
The best measure is ocean heat content, which last year set a record high.
I can’t link to the data, since this dumb blog blocks URLs to a prominent US data center.
Exactly what I had predicted indeed happened (the other way round this time).
If you did, then clearly SSTs aren’t the sign of planetary cooling, like you just implied above (@ 4:08 pm).
You didn’t understand, Appell.
What I predicted and what indeed happened was… your reaction.
OK, sorry. Frankly, I find it difficult to ascertain what your point of view is….
A lagging indicator David ,that will follow.
appelly (rhymes with “jelly”) answers the call!
appelly informs us that, contrarily to observations, the planet continues to overheat.
The oceans aren’t boiling yet, because all the heat content is setting a new land speed record.
Hilarious.
Like we expect boiling. This is another response that shows why no one here takes you seriously. Insulting people is your only way to get attention.
davie, what year do you expect the oceans to begin boiling?
(You may consult the “papers” you use for bird-cage liners, if necessary.)
Another dumb question.
In a few billion years.
And I got the dumb answer I expected.
If you know the answer, why don’t you give it to me?
The oceans are about as likely to boil as you are to understand physics.
The fish are safe. ..
Yes, the ocean will boil away someday, as the Sun keeps getting hotter. Basic science.
In fact I should be happy about some people considering here that the Moon’s spin belongs to what they call ‘pseudoscience’.
Simply because somewhere in a comment published lots of years ago (in 2009), a German guy named Gerhard Kramm wrote:
‘ The earths moon is rotating, too. The moons angular velocity is slower than that of the earth (roughly a factor of 28). ‘
And this he repeated in one of his recent articles (2017):
http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-8302911_78836.htm
Since the angular velocity of Moons rotation is 27.4 times slower than that of the Earth…
Thus on the one hand, Kramm is a very good skeptic, but on the other hand he writes pseudoscience!
All in one! I enjoy that.
But Im sure somebody here will tell us that no no no, Kramm means here something quite different :-))
Bin, what I tell you is that you are desperate. Your web searches and “cute” are NOT science.
The little toy train beats you every time.
It’s called “reality”.
la P,
Foolish Warmist!
Sir Isaac Newton worked out quite a lot of things relating to physics, mathematics, optics and so on. We even refer to things by his name – Newtons Laws of Motion, Newtons Law of Cooling. On the other hand, we consider Newtons alchemical researches as pseudoscience.
So you can choose to believe in the pseudoscience, and dismiss the real science if you wish.
Or you could claim that alchemy is real science because a very clever chap like Lewton believed in it!
On the other hand, would you believe that Mike Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize, because climatology is real science?
Pish and tosh !
Maybe you could dig up a testable GHE hypothesis! It will stand until disproven. That is the way normal science works. Climatological pseudoscience, on the other hand, tries to use semantics, logical fallacies, redefinitions, bizarre correlations, and endless irrelevant analogies to avoid using the scientific method!
Back to ad hominem attacks and presenting blog comments as facts for you! All quite normal behaviour for Warmist fools.
Cheers.
Exactly what I had predicted indeed happened.
La P,
Except that you followed the prediction methods of Warmist fools. Dont actually predict anything specific, but then claim you predicted everything – in hindsight, of course.
You then wind up posting a completely information free comment, which only appears cogent to a similarly foolish Warmist.
Well done.
You could always follow it up with a pointless ad hominem attack, hiding behind the *we* so people might think you represent a group with substance, rather than a ragtag pack of foolish Warmists!
Keep trying. Maybe with enough effort, you might convince the US Govt to renew the climate change propaganda campaign and the funding that goes with it.
Im not really sure why you bother reading my posts, but I appreciate your interest. Maybe Warmist fools suffer from a self control deficit , along with enhanced abilities to confuse fantasy with reality!
What do you think? Have you located a testable GHE hypothesis yet? It might be more useful than the usual foolish Warmist tactics of deny, divert and confuse.
Cheers.
“The atmosphere is an insulator.
”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
Oh and btw: maybe we should ask the AlphaGo Zero team to implement a robot simulating Mike Flynn’s nonsense, I’m sure they well get it spouting even better.
While actual daily SST anomalies clearly show an increased cooling far outside the local NINO3+4 region (look at the SST cooling tail along Southern America’s west coast down to Chile)
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
and MEI is plunging a bit
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
the Japanese JMA shows a forecast with a tiny El Nino restart (10 %):
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Wait and see.
Interesting:
The SOI has been negative for 14 days in a row.
The average (13-days) SOI for February, so far, is about -16.
That’s right. And, just to clarify, SOI < 0 is associated with neutral or El Nino conditions.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/30daysoivalues/
davie, keep hoping.
We need more heat in the ENSO waters.
Where’s all that CO2 heating when we need it?
The latest IRI forecast calls for La Nina ending around April-May 2018:
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/
Why do we have to wait months?
Why isn’t the GHE working?
Hilarious.
Dumb question. Natural variability does not disappear in an AGW world.
When does NV disappear?
Another dumb question. Never.
If you are then admitting NV trumps the non-existent GHE, then we can agree on something.
I never said that. Learn to read.
ProfessorP, La Bindolina
Trade winds show that nino area will soon get warmer. (Scroll down to “zonal east – west wind anomalies”)
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
For another good website to follow ENSO you can google, “Stormsurf power tools quick look”. I couldn’t get it to link.
Why do we have to wait? Let’s get some heat going. People are freezing. The southwest US hasn’t had rain in months.
Has Trump issued an EO to cancel the GHE?
I predict nino 3.4 will be well positive by April.
snake, if you are right I will allow you to have an ice cream cone.
(Just show this to your parent or legal guardian.)
J Halp-less
Here is visual evidence that you peddle pseudoscience. If you are rational you will see your error in thought, grow and learn. If you possess no rational thought you will see the evidence but reject it.
In this video the person rotates a compass. The needle does not rotate as he rotates the compass, it remains fixed. The visual evidence shows your point is false and incorrect. You can thank me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22cQWuRXdjU
Con-man, you must get your pseudoscience from such sources.
The compass “niddle” was hilarious.
Just like your pseudoscience.
Norman, as I said before, its becoming a concern. I wouldnt joke about that sort of thing.
g*e*r*a*n
Do you have some issues with reality? You seem concerned by the use of the word “niddle” instead of “needle”. That absolutely does not change what the video shows. You are just wrong but way too arrogant to admit it. I looked at differnt videos. This one shows what you cannot accept. The individual is rotating the compass, The needle does NOT roatate on the axis. Your cheap attempt to pretend you know something does not work. Hopefully others click on the link and see how phony you are. You are the Con-man of the blog and the biggest pseudoscience peddler of all. Look at the video. You are wrong. Again.
con-man presents his academic credentials: “I looked at differnt videos.”
(Next month will be even better. It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy.)
g*e*r*a*n
When you are wrong and know it you avoid reality with pointless posts.
I found a video that clearly shows you don’t know what you are talking about (mostly making up stuff). The evidence is against you.
You are so arrogant that even with evidence (similar to powered lab equipment getting warmer as you increase room temperature) you will not accept you are wrong and move on.
I presented a video showing you are totally wrong about your make believe on compass needles and all you can do is say this:
“con-man presents his academic credentials: I looked at different videos.
You should just admit you are wrong and move on. What is the point of your post. Does it change the reality that you don’t know what you are talking about? Does what is shown in the video (that you are wrong) change because of your post. No. Your post changes nothing. I makes you look ridiculous. Caught with your pants down but pretending nothing is wrong. Funny man you are. Still totally wrong regardless of your posts.
con-man, if you can’t present a responsible question in 50 words or less, it is just more of your con.
But, you rambling con attempts are hilarious, so more please.
J Halp-less
So showing your flawed thought makes you concerned. That would be good maybe you could get some rational thought going. That would be nice and would stop endless debate. I would not joke about not being able to think logically either. It is not fun when you can see that your reasoning is bad and faulty.
Some of your pals on The Team really ought to have had the decency to help you out with this one. Instead, they just sit there as you slip further and further into it. What lovely people they are!
Halp
You and g* are like flies buzzing around this blog. Norman needs a fly swatter.
J Halp-less
There is no “Team”. I think you got upset with me about me linking you to drug use so your retaliation is to insinuate I am going insane. Too bad for your delusions that my sanity is quite intact. My logic circuits are working. I can reason. Not sure what you are able to do. I have not seen very good thoughts in your posts. I have seen abundance of asterisks, not much useful information.
So you believe questioning my sanity will somehow make your horrible physics valid. I wish it were that easy for you. You have some bad science for sure. Covering up your poor thought process by a perceived attack on my character will not improve your thinking ability.
Yes. People who know the science don’t need a “team.”
snake, the con-man, and davie–What a team!
No Norman, I hoped questioning your sanity, and asking some others to help you out, might help bring you back to your senses. And, that was genuine. But what happened is, you dont believe it was genuine, and still nobody from The Team has had the decency to help you out.
D: Yes. People who know the science, dont need a team.
J: Exactly. And yet, there is one. And no, the Team members didnt help Norman out. Instead, a couple of them posted some inane comments, whilst avoiding the issue (theyre not going to publically agree with him on it, obviously, and they are also not going to do the decent thing and help him out). What lovely people!
J Halp-less
Regardless of what you think about my sanity, it does not help improve your bad science. You know you probably should be more concerned with you flawed thought process, and how you might go about improving it (by actually reading valid science). Your flawed thoughts about my mental state will not make you understand science better. Opening and reading a textbook might. You have to put out some effort though.
What lovely people!
norman…”The needle does not rotate as he rotates the compass, it remains fixed”.
Like I said, don’t try that near a stronger magnetic source or power lines, the needle WILL rotate on it’s axis. I have seen it rotate just moving near a metal body, like a car.
Gordon Robertson
That is correct and I do not disagree. A magnet will also cause needle rotation as will metal objects. Which does not address the bad idea J Halp-less and g*e*r*a*n were stating. Usually people can see their flaws and correct them once they see evidence against it.
Not with those two. g*e*r*a*n makes fun of the video (to get out of embarrassment for being wrong) and J Halp-less launches an attack on my sanity. Both use different methods to pretend they are not wrong.
The false point they made is that when you rotate a compass the needle rotates around the spindle. They added no other factors. They are wrong and have been proven wrong.
Norman, the compass needle always points north. That was the one thing you didnt need to demonstrate. From there onwards, your descent begins…
…and nobody but Gordon, g*e*r*a*n and myself have even bothered to try to help you!
J Halp-less
It is remarkable that you can’t just come out and say you were wrong about the compass idea. You just ignore it and pretend to have some ability to diagnose mental health issues. Good for you. Maybe you should treat the mentally ill and stay of a blog you don’t know what you are talking about. You would be more useful than posting some empty illogical comments that you seem to need to do.
Oh, thats why nobody cares.
One last try, to help you:
The compass is designed so that the needle is free to rotate on its axis. This is so the needle can remain pointing north, when you move the compass. If it was not a requirement, for the functioning of a compass, that the needle rotates on its axis; then it could be made with a fixed needle. If it was made with a fixed needle, then the needle would just move along with the compass body, when you rotated the compass. So, the needle wouldnt be free, and able to be drawn, by magnetism, to always point north. Because that would require the needle to rotate on its axis, which it would not be free to do, if it was fixed.
Which means, on a real, functioning compass; the needle, free to rotate on its axis, and drawn by magnetism, must do so (rotate on its axis) when you turn the compass.
J Halp-less
Maybe you skipped the video I linked to. I suggest you watch it.
You are still posting totally untrue material.
When you rotate the compass body the needle DOES NOT rotate on its axis. You can see if quite clearly in the video.
The axis rotates the needle does not. The needle does not rotate on the axis. The axis rotates with a fixed needle. It is very obvious.
I am not sure what you are seeing that makes you post this made up reality.
N: The axis rotates
J: !
David Appell…”Yes, its in the Stony Brook library”.
While searching for Stony Brook Library, to make sure it was not an elementary school, or a reform school, I came across this banishment letter at WUWT from Anthony Watts. Seems David Appell was writing nonsense about Watts’ mother and Watts banished him:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/24/david-appell-denies-he-has-any-class/
DA seems far more weird than I had imagined. His behavior does indeed mark him as a climate alarmist troll, as I suspected.
I made a joke about Watts’ denial, and he chose to play the victim, since his mother had just died. As if I knew anything about that.
What kind of man seeks advantage from his own mother’s death??
And what is wrong with the character of deniers like Watts and Gordon and g*, dissembling like they do.
Note GR can’t even stick to the topic here, but, like g*, has nothing to offer but personal insults.
DA…how about your fictitious death threats against scientists claim?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/03/paging-david-appell-death-threats-against-climate-scientists-story-even-deader-than-yesterday/
davie has credibility only with the lowest level of Perps.
I think the con-man likes him.
DA…”I made a joke about Watts denial, and he chose to play the victim, since his mother had just died. As if I knew anything about that.
What kind of man seeks advantage from his own mothers death??”
There are certain things that are off-limits on blogs, like people’s mothers, wives, and family in general. A while back, someone on here took a shot at a guy’s wife, supposedly in jest. Turns out the guy’s wife had a terminal illness.
Was that you?
I might ask you why you’d even consider treading into that territory.
You might send Watts an apology by email. I am of the opinion that human beings come first and all the rest of this doesn’t really matter. Of course, if someone wants to take me on in a no holds barred debate, that’s another thing.
I have worked construction and I can trade insults with the best.
How would I know that Watts’ mother had died?
Again, what kind of man takes advantage of his own mother’s death for political purposes?
—
Now let’s see you stop avoiding the question about the moon’s rotation relative to the Sun.
Might as well save your breath, Gordon. DA’s the kind of guy who thinks he scores scientific debating points by referring to eminent female scientists by pornographic nicknames. You can’t appeal to the conscience of someone like that, ’cause he doesn’t have one.
And accusation with no proof. Typical of the deniers here, who will do anything to avoid discussing science. BART especially.
I must apologize profusely. The link I have is here:
https://tinyurl.com/y7oeyoc5
It was not you who referred to Dr. Curry with the porn-referenced sobriquet “Aunt Judy.” It was Tamino, whom you quoted. Indeed, I must congratulate you for shining the light on such underhanded tactics, which have no place in science.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, it’s lunchtime. I’m having crow.
bart…”It was Tamino, whom you quoted”.
Tamino is another idiot.
That apology was genuine. I was careless reading the article I linked to, and assumed it was DA’s words. In fact, he was criticizing Tamino for it.
See Bart lie.
However, apology accepted.
Make that just “apology accepted.”
What’s wrong with Tamino’s science, Gordon?
Or is name calling all you have?
Sorry, Bart, for making light of your genuine apology.
I think you have a right to some snark in this case. I accused you of a pretty awful thing, and I was wrong.
GR, does the same side of the Moon always face the Sun?
davie, do you have clue about anything?
You’re a denier who won’t address basic questions.
That makes you ignorable. When are people here like you ever going to learn?
davie, here’s a basic question for you: Why do you come here with stupid questions?
DA,
Why dont you just ignore him, then? Uncontrollable urges?
Maybe they result from mental perturbations due to things like the missing GHE hypothesis, Trenberths missing heat, Manns missing Nobel Prize, and missing increased climate change propaganda funding in the US budget.
The props holding up the foolish Warmist cult headquarters seem to be going missing one by one.
Do you think that asking more foolish Warmist gotchas might support the edifice a little longer?
Really? Good luck with that!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
DA,
Exactly so. Any real physicist would agree. Please keep repeating it if you have the time. Maybe even undistinguished mathematicians like Gavin Schmidt might eventually understand, if you repeat it often enough.
I cant be bothered, so feel free to do it for me.
Cheers.
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
DA,
Thank you for agreeing. Do you think you can convince any other Warmist fools that I am correct, and that the GHE doesnt exist?
Maybe you need to post factual quotes from me over and over, hoping that it will eventually overcome the usual foolish Warmist fantasies.
Many thanks.
Cheers.
mike…”Maybe even undistinguished mathematicians like Gavin Schmidt might eventually understand, if you repeat it often enough.”
Schmiddy is still likely trying to figure out how positive feedback works. He’s also likely trying to explain that Mike’s trick is just a prank.
MF: I hear that the atmosphere is an insulator. Have you heard that too anyway?
DA,
I was wondering how many times you would have to quote me saying the atmosphere was an insulator, before you could bring yourself to accept something known even to some foolish Warmists.
The next thing you might care to learn is that insulators are widely used to keep things from heating up – in things like refrigerators, coldrooms, firemens suits, and so on,
Completely irrelevant to the non-existent GHE of course. Warmist fools cannot even say what phenomena the Greenhouse Effect relates to, let alone how to reproduce it.
Cheers.
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
– Mike Flynn, 5/23/17
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
Usually ad hominem occurs as a tactic when debating a topic or point.
This is plain old trash talk. Laced with the familiar bullshit.
Gee.
The hardest thing to do in this world is apparently to get the believers in CO2 induced global warming to actually explain the basis of their religion. Its obviously too valuable to expose to the scrutiny of unbelievers!
A religion which explains everything – too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too extreme, not extreme enough – just believe, and you will be saved from some undefined dangerous future! Too hot, you will be given cold. Too cold, you will be heated – and so on. What a crock. These Warmist fools cant even say what would happen if the climate was actually prevented from changing.
The Warmist fools have much faith, but little science. Science requires use of the scientific method. Warmist fools abhor the scientific method – it would expose them for the fools they are.
Only a Warmist fool would believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer causes the temperature of a thermometer to rise! No wonder they run away when asked to justify such magical thinking.
Oh well, over to the Warmist fools. Lets see if they can come up with any fresh humorous diversions. The world can always use more laughter.
Cheers.
The basics:
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
DA,
I suppose in your foolish Warmist fantasy that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Is this the supposedly wondrous GHE? An insulator? Even if it is a seemingly magic one – the more sunlight you prevent reaching the surface, the hotter a thermometer becomes! Still, in scientific parlance an effect is more than a word. In foolish Warmist parlance, cooling is warming, Watts are degrees, Michael Mann is a Nobel laureate, and Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, so I suppose that saying the non-existent Greenhouse Effect is Warnese for insulator, fits right in.
I suppose you claim that at night, with no Sun at all, the thermometers might all melt – maybe even reaching 700,000 K! Or is that a separate fantasy? Maybe backed up by bizarre fantasy formulae!
Witless Warmist fool!
Still no GHE!
The Earth has cooled quite a bit over the last four and a half billion years. This inconvenient fact may have escaped your notice.
Cheers.
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, 5/5/17
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
DA,
Absolutely correct, as I usually am. Thanks for agreeing.
I dont think you have a point, but if you have, you could always let me know.
It might seem that you are just trying to deny, divert and confuse, as Warmist fools often do.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“The atmosphere is an insulator….”
June 18, 2017, 3:34 am
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
DA,
Thanks for the support. Maybe more Warmist fools will learn to appreciate the difference between fact (which I prefer), to fantasy (which is the stock in trade of the foolish Warmist).
Cheers.
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
DA,
Thank you for your continuing support.
Would you mind posting my quotes 50 or 100 times? Warmist fools are a bit slow on the uptake at times.
Would you believe that Michael Mann actually thought he won a Nobel Prize, for a while!
Im guessing not even you would be so dim as to not ealise you havent been awarded the Nobel Prize. Maybe you do, but Ill give you the benefit of the doubt.
Keep quoting me – every little bit helps to convince the dumb and the dumber.
Cheers.
More gotcha questions. Silly deniers never learn.
DA,
Oh dear.
I agree with you. Warmist fools deny reality, and substitute fantasy. Unfortunately, those suffering from delusional psychosis are unable to overcome their denial. Acceptance of reality, essential to actually learning anything new, is beyond them
Warmist fools truly believe that the GHE exists, that climatology is science, and that it would have an adverse effect on the scientific world if they were to resign en masse!
Gavin Schmidt promptly withdrew his bizarre threat to resign, after he discovered nobody in authority really cared.
Its about as vacuous as you threatening to ignore me, or to stop commenting on this blog!
Carry on, I enjoy a good chuckle.
Cheers.
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
Gordon, does the same side of the Moon always face the Sun?
DA…”Gordon, does the same side of the Moon always face the Sun?”
How about that apology to Anthony Watts?
Suppose you are sitting on a park bench, maybe after sleeping it off outside for the night under a newspaper, and you are the Sun. There is a mother not to far in front of you holding a small child by the hands and swinging the child in a circle around her.
You see the child from different angles. The feet are pointed toward you, then a side, then the head, then another side. Is that child rotating about the child’s centre of gravity or another internal axis?
Don’t think so.
Don’t be proud, feel free to admit you’re wrong. Same applies re Anthony Watts.
Gordon, does the same side of the Moon always face the Sun?
PS: It’s Watts who owes me the apology. What kind of man uses his mother’s death to score points on his blog?
DA…”Gordon, does the same side of the Moon always face the Sun?”
No wonder Wattsy booted you off his site. He complained about you repeating the same question over and over as well. Did you learn that at SkS or realclimate?
All deniers avoid difficult questions. You as well as Watts.
DA,
Here are a couple of questions for you David.
Are you really stupid enough to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
If not, why do Warmist fools claim that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter?
I understand if you wont answer. As you say, deniers avoid direct answers to simple questions.
Oh well, at least the US Govt is reducing funding of foolish Warmist propaganda campaigns. Warmist fools dont believe they have any obligations to answer questions from people wondering what use foolish Warmist pseudo science actually is.
Apparently, Tim Ball just won the lawsuit brought against him by a foolish Warmist. Hopefully, the foolish Warmist will have to pay Tim Balls costs as well as his own. Of course, the foolish Warmist went to water, and didnt have the guts to call any witnesses on his behalf. All bluff and bluster – in this case hes learnt a valuable lesson.
The judge delivered his opinion, and it doesnt matter whether Dr Weaver (foolish Warmist, self styled climatologist and climate modeller), cares for his opinion or not. I wonder what Michael Mann is thinking at the moment? Maybe not such a smart move, trying to
Whoops. More fat finger!
. . . suppress free speech with foolish Warmist bully boy tactics.
Ah, the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
Mike…”The judge delivered his opinion, and it doesnt matter whether Dr Weaver (foolish Warmist, self styled climatologist and climate modeller), cares for his opinion or not”.
Great news!!! Unfortunately we’re stuck with Weaver up here as a politician. He has 3 seats in the Legislature and is propping up the NDP government in a minority government.
The NDP have gone looney with climate alarmist rhetoric. Meantime, one Province over another NDP party in power is supporting a pipeline deal and they are being opposed by the BC NDP. How’s that for two allegedly left wing parties butting heads?
When Weaver was editor of the Journal of Climate he had Schmidt and Mann sitting on the editorial board. That’s the same Mann caught in Climategate trying to interfere with peer review to block skeptics posting papers.
Tim Ball “won” because the judge ruled he was too incompetent to be taken seriously. Ha.
And Ball, and the publication where he wrote, had both already apologized to Weaver.
DA,
Still at it with the gotchas, I see.
Are you still the same Warmist fool you were yesterday?
The world wonders (well, not really. I was attempting a little irony. Possibly wasted on Warmists of the foolish variety.)!
Come on, David, time to deny, divert, and confuse, if you can spare time from the onerous demands of churning out Warmist propaganda. Give it your best shot, if you feel like it.
Cheers.
MF, I’m just quoting yourself back to you. It’s interesting (and telling) that that annoys you so much….
DA,
Your mind reading skills are at the usual foolish Warmist level. Non existent, just like the GHE.
I generally decline to allow myself to become annoyed. I can see no reason to make an exception for you.
As usual, you appear confused. I appreciate people valuing my expertise by quoting me as an authority. Thank you, but my natural humility prevents me from feeling overly flattered.
Cheers,
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
DA,
Thanks so much. Please keep quoting me. Im far too modest to blow my own horn.
Im grateful that you appreciate that the GHE is a fantasy. Keep it up.
Cheers.
Flynn, do you think I care about your opinion? I do not.
DA,
Im glad to hear you are as uncaring of my opinion as I am of yours.
I choose fact over opinion, generally. By choosing to quote my facts, you may be adopting a course at odds with Warmist fools. That would either be a fact or not, with no opinion needed or necessary.
As you dont care about my opinion, I obviously wont tell how much I appreciate you taking the time to post extracts from my comments verbatim!
Once again, thanks for saving my time.
Cheers.
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
And we all know what insulators do….
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “davie, Ive answered before.
But you run from truth.
The Sun sees both sides of the Moon, as it orbits around Earth.
But, Earth only sees ONE side. That means the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis.
Now, you have more truth that you can ignore.
Its fun to watch.:”
Why do you believe you possess logical thought or scientific ability? Your claim is because the Earth “sees” ONE side that is fact the Moon does not rotate on its axis.
That is just a made up statement. No evidence, no support you talk about trains but you can’t see real evidence that you are clearly wrong in the vast majority of your thoughts.
You don’t like this video but it shows you don’t know what you are talking about. You just make stuff up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exIpL0Uhr_k
And again this one you reject without merit. It goes into detail to show the Moon is rotating. You can’t explain what you see so you just ignore it or make fun of it but you have no valid logic to reject what you see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKTQx8IySBk
Norman…”Why do you believe you possess logical thought or scientific ability?”
Here’s a totally unbiased opinion….I think g*r is both logical and scientific.
Gordon Robertson
Coming from you that is not a compliment. You make up as much or more physics than he does. People correct you constantly with reality it does not matter. You go on with your fantasy physics. You are like minded. Neither of your are logical or scientific. You both make up physics that is not supported by any valid science.
norman…”You go on with your fantasy physics”.
Some people become delusional, like you, and feel persecuted.
Con-man, look at the graphic. I realize you can’t understand the text.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
g*e*r*a*n
I can understand both the text and video. Comprehension of reality is your problem not mine. You cannot accept reality when it hits you in the face. You are not just a science denier but also a reality denier. You live in a fantasy world or your own creation. A bubble world that is not open to the outside world. You can share your dreams and fantasies with other people on this blog.
My goal with you is just to make sure other people are aware that you are no a credible source of any science and you make up stuff. Also you will deny reality unless if fits in your fantasy dream world. I really have no interest in your posts, they never contain any valuable information that will aid in my learning. I just like to warn unsuspecting people on your character.
As long as you post or respond to me with your fantasy world, I will correct the flawed thinking you present with real and valid, supportable science. Others can judge for themselves who presents pseudoscience and who presents the real deal. It is obvious to long term posters. New people can’t tell at first, until they read some of your posts.
Yes con-man, we already know you have unfounded and unsupportable beliefs. But for any new people, you should always mention your lack of any meaningful science background.
g*e*r*a*n
I have a great scientific background and I have never stopped learning long after I completed my Chemistry degree. I like science and scientific thought.
There are no unsupportable beliefs from my end. I support all what I claim. All of it. You are the one who supports nothing. You make tons of declarations with zero support no evidence. When someone shows you absolute evidence that you are wrong you still don’t admit it. You are a very silly poster. Funny really. Deny the truth, deny reality. Your fantasy living must be fun. No rational poster has yet been able to convince of one thing of actual science. No the problem is on your end only. My vision is good. My thoughts are logical. I support my claims. When will you support even one of your claims. Never, I think.
Con-man, your chemistry “degree” is a BA. Translation: “Kitchen chemistry”. That institution no longer even offers that degree.
And, you’ve never studied things like radiative heat transfer or thermodynamics. Consequently, you always get so wrapped around your axle, when someone tries to explain things to you.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
I am not claiming to be an expert in those fields as are Tim Folkerts or gammacrux or David Appell. I can learn the concepts covering this material.
One thing is certain. I am considerably more advanced than you are in any science topic. It is easy to do you hate science and love fantasy. You like your imagined reality and can’t stand when real scientists try to tell you your world is a delusion. It is not real.
Then you go off with your insults, derogatory remarks, put-downs and pet names for other posters and you shut off meaningful conversation by ending many of your posts with “hilarious”. This is very similar to people who don’t want to hear the truth cover their ears and go “La, La La”
How is it there living in La-La Land? Strawberry Fields Forever. Where nothing is real.
norman…”I have never stopped learning long after I completed my Chemistry degree”.
Chemistry degree???? What an outright lie.
You don’t understand even the basics of chemistry. You have no idea that atoms and molecules are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. You refer to neutral atoms as having charges that radiate EMR.
Enough is enough, I doubt if you have even had a first year course in chemistry. If you had you were either goofing off and sleeping through lectures or flunked it outright.
The basis of introductory chemistry is about the equations of chemical reactions and part of the study of such reactions is heat given off and taken in. As a student of basic chemistry you would have known about heat and how it is produced but you don’t even have a clue about heat.
Another part of basic chemistry is the Bohr model and how to figure out the energy bands from the inner shell out. You don’t have the slightest idea what I’m talking about when I describe that. In fact, you have called me a liar.
No way you have a degree in chemistry.
Gordon Robertson
Believe what you need to. Again you demonstrate that you just make stuff up that has no basis in fact.
Your allegations are false and made up and you can go back and read any of my posts on the issue.
You just make they false claims (maybe out of anger because I do not accept your made up physics and call you out on it).
Your whole post is made up allegations on what you claim I said that are untrue!
Here is one of your absolutely made up statements:
YOU: “You dont understand even the basics of chemistry. You have no idea that atoms and molecules are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. You refer to neutral atoms as having charges that radiate EMR.”
Where do you get the idea that I don’t know about electrons, protons and neutrons? I specified directly to you that the charged state is because of charge distribution caused by electronegativity. It results in a dipole in the molecule. One part is more negative another more positive. When the atoms of the molecule vibrate with this different charge potential they emit lower energy EMR (Mid-IR). You don’t even understand what I am posting but you will think I have not clue about chemistry.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Another part of basic chemistry is the Bohr model and how to figure out the energy bands from the inner shell out. You dont have the slightest idea what Im talking about when I describe that. In fact, you have called me a liar.”
I know exactly what you are talking about and have linked to to visible light spectra. I think you either do not see those post, don’t link to them, or ignore them.
I tell you in every post on the topic, electron transitions, electrons moving in up and down energy levels produces UV, visible and Near-IR EMR. I think I have stated this same thing many times over and over. Every time you bring up the Bohr model I state this same fact. I do not at all disagree, nor have I ever, that visible light is caused by electron transitions.
I say, which is totally correct, that electron transitions ARE NOT what produce MID-IR (the type given off by the Earth’s surface).
Before you launch an attack on my character or skill sets get your attack correct.
Quit making stuff up.
Norm requests: “Before you launch an attack on my character or skill sets get your attack correct.”
Norm, no one needs to “launch an attack” on you. You are your own worst enemy. No one associates a yelping, rabid chihuahua with “character”.
And, you probably have a sufficient “skill set”, for a dishwasher.
Hope that helps.
What is your degree in, Gordon? At what level?
David Appell…do you belong to the secret journalist society Gamechangers Salon?
https://www.fitsnews.com/2014/08/06/gamechanger-salon-the-vast-left-wing-conspiracy/
https://archive.fo/XB0B2
Apparently the current Trump-bashers at CNN who have created fake news about the Russians interfering with US politics are members.
I guess fake news is not as strange as it may seem to be.
How about the Club of Rome?
https://www.jeremiahproject.com/new-world-order/the-club-of-rome/
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself. Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991”
Speaking of fake news, here’s reference to an article written by famed journalist David Appell. In his quest to find out if warming has slowed Appell interviewed only notorious alarmists. Doesn’t bother with skeptical scientists like Roy and John of UAH.
In his article, the responses from the alarmists may have surprised him. They seem to be back-pedaling furiously.
Judith Curry actually compliments him on the article, I wonder why? I wonder if she knows how he carries on here at Roy’s blog.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/05/07/more-on-the-pause/
Jealous, huh Gordon?
I interviewed those who I thought had relevant expertise. Of course, Youre welcome to write your own article, and interview whom you wish. Have at it.
DA…”I interviewed those who I thought had relevant expertise”.
It shows your bias as well as poor taste. Dr. John Christy of UAH has been on several IPCC reviews as a lead author and reviewer. He has testified in front of several US government panels. He is a legitimate climate scientist with a degree in climate science. How many of those you interviewed can say that?
Dr. Christy is one of the most eminently qualified to answer your question, as is Roy (Dr. Spencer).
Could it be that Roy and John have the data that answers your stupid question for you?
Has cooling slowed down??? No stupid, it had stopped altogether for 16 years when you did the interview.
GR, the work of Spencer and Christy were hailed as a breakthrough when they first appeared, but over the years, they have repeatedly produced results which were later shown to be flawed. Their latest version 6 produces the least warming trend compared to the results from four groups which analyze the data. Having looked at the three of the data sets and having published a peer reviewed comparison between them, I submit that the UAH product is still questionable.
Of course, when you choose to cherry pick data beginning with the El Nino year of 1998, all three data sets exhibited a negative trend until the next large El Nino in 2016. Now, in 2018, the trend over the entire set of satellite data shows warming, an inconvenient fact for members of the denialist camp.
BTW, Roy Spencer is on record as agreeing that CO2 is warming the Earth. Why don’t you agree with him?
Swannie, Drs Spencer and Christy suffer from the same handicap as you. They were “educated” in “institutionalized science”. But, unlike you, they recognize something is wrong. They know that the IPCC/CO2/AGW/GHE has failed, as their work proves. They have the gift of being able to think for themselves. So, I expect they will eventually figure it all out.
g*e*r*a*n
With your post are you finally coming out of the closet and admitting you have never studied science at a higher education level.
YOU: “Swannie, Drs Spencer and Christy suffer from the same handicap as you. They were educated in institutionalized science.
It does show in your posts. I think I understand now. You believe that thinking for oneself means making up physics that suits their belief. Or getting all your physics from Postma.
Now you are showing that you reject established physics, which is based upon empirical evidence, logic, mathematical principles.
You are directly antiscience, a hostile agent against science. Science is not about thinking freely and making up your own ideas that you like. It is about finding the truth about nature, what is really going on. It does not require making up your own science (which is what you think free thinking is). Science is bound thinking. It can be creative and come up with new ideas to solve problems but it is still bound by logic, reason, empirical evidence. The fantasy world you think is science is just your made up reality with your own made up laws. It might be free thought but it is not GOOD thought.
con-man, that was hilarious. It’s always a blast to see you pretend that you understand science.
But, you forgot the punchline. You forgot to mention you have not meaningful education in physics, and you wash dishes for a living.
A good comedian never forgets the punchline.
Glad to help.
Good summary Norman. Two worlds colliding, love versus hate of science and scientists.
Any discussion should start a much more fundamental level.
S,
The Universe doesnt care about love or hate, when it comes to facts.
Or when it comes to the human creation known as science.
Your opinion can change physical fact just as much as mine – which is to say, not at all!
Still no GHE, nor testable GHE hypothesis. Maybe you could opinion one into existence, if you opinion really, really, really hard. Do you think getting a lot of people opinioning just as hard might help?
Keep trying – you never know.
Cheers.
g*e*r*a*n
This will help:
You: Fantasy
“noun, plural fantasies.
1.
imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained.
2.
the forming of mental images, especially wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing.
3.
a mental image, especially when unreal or fantastic; vision:
a nightmare fantasy.
4.
Psychology. an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream.
5.
a hallucination.
6.
a supposition based on no solid foundation; visionary idea; illusion:
dreams of Utopias and similar fantasies.
7.
caprice; whim.”
Norman: Science
“noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.”
g*e*r*a*n
Your imagination not related to anything real. Something you do all the time on this blog.
YOU: ” and you wash dishes for a living.”
Make believe world and also false. I do wash labware after doing various tests but that is not exactly dishes and it is far from my primary job. You just make it up and keep posting, just your imagination. You are not even a good guesser.
Here is another make believe. YOU: “You forgot to mention you have not meaningful education in physics,”
Whatever that means to you. I had High School physics and a year of College physics. That is far more than you could imagine having.
On top of that I am not afraid of science textbooks and I do not start by assuming they are wrong. I do not suffer delusions that haunt your mind. I like reading science material. I enjoy it. What I don’t have in memory I can read and learn. You are not able to do this. You can’t read more than 50 words, no way you could read a textbook. The introduction is hundreds of words long even before you get to any actual material.
Your severe limitations. Not being able to read. Not accepting valid science as truthful or real. Having no logical reasoning ability (probably the worst of your many flaws). All make it impossible for you to figure out actual science. That is why you supply this blog with fantasy. Things you imagine are real that are not. Ideas of posters you imagine are real but they are not.
Norman,
Richard Feynman said that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Warmist fools think that science is belief in the majority opinions of self proclaimed experts.
So far, I have not seen much to convince me that Feynman was wrong.
Keep believing. It wont change a darn thing. Good luck.
Cheers.
norman…”You are directly antiscience, a hostile agent against science. Science is not about thinking freely and making up your own ideas that you like”.
You are seriously confused. Science is not about thinking freely??????
You keep talking about science yet your thinking is anti-science. You read a couple of articles, form an incorrect opinions, then claim those who don’t agree with your incorrect opinions are wrong.
I have decades of experience in electronics to the point I can consider myself an expert in the field, although no one can become a complete expert in all facets of electronics. I have had to learn about cooling in circuits and cabinetry and you have the temerity to tell me I am making up what I have learned from experts.
When I expound on basic electronics theory that is taught as part of an electrical engineering degree, you claim I am making it up. Yet you cannot offer any more than the absurd notion that EMR is emitted by charged atoms. You even confuse EMR with static electricity.
You have no idea what you are talking about yet you keep yapping away.
You cannot tell the difference between the heat dissipation in a device and warming of the device by air at ambient room temperature. You seem to have no idea that electronic devices can reach temperatures of 80C yet you claim ambient room temperatures of 20C can make the device even hotter.
You continue to push the notion that heat can flow through space and both ways between devices as does e. swanson. That’s why I think norman and swannie are one and the same.
You are the last person who should be advising any one as to what constitutes science but in your arrogance, you persist.
e. swanson…”GR, the work of Spencer and Christy were hailed as a breakthrough when they first appeared, but over the years, they have repeatedly produced results which were later shown to be flawed”.
Roy and John can’t tell you this by I can. You’re a bloody idiot.
Any flaw in UAH data was worked out between UAH and RSS circa 2005 and FIXED. It was an orbital issue affecting mainly the tropics and the error margin was within the stated error margin.
I called you an idiot because such propaganda is the work of idiot alarmists who cannot refute the accuracy of satellite data so they have attacked it with red herring arguments. Anyone who believes that crap is an idiot too.
Then again, I already knew you were an idiot and I was too polite to say so. The ridiculous conclusions you reached from your experiments, that lacked any degree of control, that a cookie sheet parked six inches above a heat source was back-radiating heat to the source is a direct contravention of the 2nd law.
If you don’t get that then you’re an idiot.
g*r…”But, unlike you, they (Roy and John of UAH] recognize something is wrong”.
And they had the guts and integrity to say so, unlike most of those interviewed by Appell who had their dirty little secrets exposed by Climategate.
Both Roy and John could likely have made themselves very wealthy by playing the game and benefiting from the lucrative funding available to those willing to play along.
GR, you claim S & C have fixed all their problems, back about 2005. I found otherwise and published my results last year. I showed that the main difference was a negative trend during the MSU period of data, as compared to 2 other groups work, while the AMSU data comparison showed similar trends among the three groups.
For example, here’s another area of dispute. S & C used to warn about the validity of their MSU measurements over the high altitude regions, specifically, over the Antarctic, in spite of their warning. Yet, they have continued to present results over the Antarctic and Greenland. RSS decided to exclude data from 70S to the South Pole and they also exclude data over the high mountain ranges as well, which I think addresses the problem.
Perhaps worse, the measured data does not extend beyond 82.5 latitude for both poles, yet, S & C showed results by extrapolating the available data thru v5.6. I have no clue how they calculate these data with v6, which also runs out of completely filled data points above the ground track maximum latitude around 81.5 to 81.8 degrees. In their paper describing V6, there’s no mention of this data manipulation. I’ve studied the literature about the MSU/AMSU analysis, have you read all the papers out there, or are you just assuming S & C are correct because it fits your tribal world view?
Your name calling and claim that I’m promoting propaganda is laughable. I’ve presented my work for all to see. What have you got to show for your claim of expertise? Where are your published papers? Where is your refutation of my little demonstration, which was not intended to be a precise scientific experiment. So far, all you’ve done is blow smoke, simply asserting that I’m wrong because the results don’t fit your version of the 2nd law, which I think is seriously in error. You made no mention of the incandescent light bulb which emits EM radiation, both visible and IR and the IR heats the glass of the bulb, which would get hot enough to burn your hand if you were so foolish as to grab it while it’s turned on. Give it a try, test your theory first hand…
Gordon Robertson
Science is based upon empirical data and logical thought. You deny reality and have no logical thought and you make stuff up all the time.
REALITY: HERE:
You have three cases:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/
At air temp of 17 C a scope reaches a temperature of 33 C
If the air temp is increased (this is the only thing changed)
At air temp of 20 C the scope reaches a temperature of 34 C
At air temp of 26 C the scope reaches a temperature of 36 C
If you have a room at 17 C and a powered object is at 33 C then all you do is change the temperature of the room air to 26 C the equipment temperature goes up to 36 C.
Logic thought states that the warmer cold air led to a higher temperature of the powered object (it warmed)
Reality is not something you like so you ignore it.
Stating heat dissipation does not change the fact that the cold air led to a higher temperature. Facts and reality are what they are. You can’t deal with the truth. You are antiscience. You like science fiction and fantasy. Worlds you can make up however you like.
N: If you have a room at 17 C and a powered object is at 33 C then all you do is change the temperature of the room air to 26 C the equipment temperature goes up to 36 C.
J: And what is required to make the temperature of the room air increase?
J Halp-less
To answer you question. To raise energy of the air would require energy.
That still does not help Gordon Robertson’s or g*e*r*a*n’s case that cold cannot warm hot.
This application of the 2nd Law is valid in an isolated system. No energy in or our. A cold object will not increase the temperature of a hotter item. Of that I have no disagreement with. The 2nd Law does not state that same condition for a system that new energy is added constantly.
When energy is added the temperature of a hot item can increase above what its current state is. It will depend upon the surroundings. Warmer surrounding directly result in higher temperature of a powered object. Yet the surroundings are still much colder than the hot objects.
As far as I was aware, Gordon and g*e*r*a*n use *cold cannot warm hot* as a shorthand form of the 2LoT. So, it seems that all you are currently doing is agreeing with them that this experiment does not prove that cold can warm hot (i.e experiment does not break 2LoT).
If this experiment is supposed to relate to the greenhouse effect, in some way, to attempt to prove that the GHE also does not break 2LoT, then what is meant to represent the sun, what is meant to represent the earth, and what is meant to represent the GHGs, in this experiment?
Norm, you are conning yourself, AGAIN!
2LoT applies even if new energy is being added to a system. You do not get to determine where and when 2LoT applies. That is just more of your made-up pseudoscience.
But, it’s fun to watch.
J Halp-less
Then maybe you can help as the other two will not. I have asked them and I have asked g*e*r*a*n numerous times.
J: “As far as I was aware, Gordon and g*e*r*a*n use *cold cannot warm hot* as a shorthand form of the 2LoT. ”
That is not what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states. The 2nd Law gives a direction for heat flow. It does not determine that cold cannot warm hot. The evidence shows this is not the case.
The shorthand 2nd Law is only for isolated systems. The 2nd Law still holds for open systems where energy can enter and exist. It determines the direction of heat flow. Heat will flow from the hot lab items to the colder surrounding air. It does not go further to make any claim that “cold cannot warm hot”. Different levels of cold can definitely warm hot. The temperature goes up that is, by definition, warming. The 2nd Law is not violated. Heat is not flowing from the cold to hot. Energy is flowing both ways. More energy flows back to the hot as the air temperature rises.
It has two sources of energy. The electrical heating element and the energy contained by the air molecules. If the air molecules have more energy they will add more energy to the lab items than even colder air. This will increase the internal energy of the lab items and their temperature rises. Look at the evidence. They do not understand the 2nd Law. In their imagined view, they think energy from cold can not exchange with a hotter item. That is made up and contradictory. You can see by my example above that they are not correct. Hope you can see this by examining the real data.
Norm wants to believe: “The 2nd Law gives a direction for heat flow. It does not determine that cold cannot warm hot.”
NOPE. You’re STILL conning yourself. 2LoT does indeed “determine” that “cold” cannot warm “hot”. You always want to ignore the qualifier: “without additional energy”.
You’re largely predictable, and always hilarious.
No Norman, my point was (even ignoring your redefinition of the 2LoT, what heat is, etc), I still dont see how the experiment even remotely relates to the GHE. Plus, an axis doesnt rotate. By definition, objects rotate around an axis.
J Halp-less
On your definition of axis it depends upon which one of the various ones you use.
“axis1
[ak-sis]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural axes [ak-seez] (Show IPA)
1.
the line about which a rotating body, such as the earth, turns.
2.
Mathematics.
a central line that bisects a two-dimensional body or figure.
a line about which a three-dimensional body or figure is symmetrical.”
So what would you say with a wheel, that is not anchored to an axle (so it does not rotate when the axle does), when the axle rotates but the wheel does not? The central point is rotating but the wheel is not. The line you draw through the center rotates. If you have the wheel connected and spin the axle what part is not rotating?
That was the point I was making with a person on a merry-go-round. They do not spin on their axis (a line drawn through their center) with their feet planted but axis itself is rotating and they rotate with it. The person on the merry-go-round still rotates. Their orientation is changing but they are not rotating around their axis because the axis is rotating as well. Does that make sense to you?
On the 2nd Law, I am asking for support for your version of what you claim the Law states. g*e*r*a*n makes declarations, he provides no evidence. That is not science.
You state: “No Norman, my point was (even ignoring your redefinition of the 2LoT, what heat is, etc)
No I do not redefine the terms. I have shown this both to g*e*r*a*n and Gordon Robertson and now I show it you.
“It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
You find the most elaborate ways to confuse yourself about the simplest of things. But, you will never change. Oh well.
Con-man, what a great idea. Put all your pseudoscience in one rambling comment. Very effective. We’re not even two months into 2018, and you’re creating new comedy routines.
You are now mixing up “orbiting”, with “rotating on its axis”, with “spinning on your axel”, with “2LoT”.
Hilarious.
It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy.
J Halp-less
No I am not confused at all. It seems you have adopted your partner’s tactics. Don’t answer anything. Do not prove any of your points or declarations.
Act like you are highly knowledgeable and then get out of any situation by stating I am confused.
I posted an established point about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Your partner, g*e*r*a*n, takes out a portion of this ignoring what he does not like. Will you be the same limited poster as your partner or will you show some ability to think on your own. Since you started posted you have shown no thought of your own. You just mimic g*e*r*a*n even copying his pet phrases.
I think you will just support your partner regardless. One time i thought you might have been g*e*r*a*n. Now I am thinking you are g*e*r*a*n’s wife and defending your husband. That would explain why you act so much like g*e*r*a*n. You live with him.
Norman, that an object rotates around its axis, is not some sort of unsupported declaration. You even kindly provided the relevant definition yourself (you might want to double-check what the mathematical one means)
Norm, you keep trying to con yourself. You must believe you are an easy con!
I’m not refusing to answer “responsible” questions. But, I no longer try to make sense out of your long, rambling nonsense.
If you have a responsible question, and can phrase it reasonably coherently, I’ll try to answer. Otherwise, I’ll just enjoy the humor.
g*e*r*a*n
The simple question. What is your supporting evidence, from valid established science sources, that supports your claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that Cold cannot warm Hot?
Norman: I read the link you were referring to. The paper is unbelievable. The lab is supposed to be cell culture laboratory. Therefore, all the equipments should be strictly temperature controlled by a thermostat. So, if the ambient temperature is changing the thermostat releases more or less heat but keeps the temperature constant. Seems that the equpments of that lab are not thermostat controlled at all but have a constant heating source. Then of course the temperature of the equipment is dependent of the temperature of the surroundings.The higher is the temperature of the surroundings the less heat of the equipment is lost and the higher will be its temperature. In your house, if your electric heater is on all the time your room is the colder the colder is the outside temperature. Nothing to do with the 2nd law but lot to do with the Newton’s cooling law.
Norm, glad to answer your question:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
esalil states: “Nothing to do with the 2nd law but lot to do with the Newton’s cooling law.”
Poor Norm doesn’t understand either!
Gordon Robertson says:
DAI interviewed those who I thought had relevant expertise.
“It shows your bias as well as poor taste.”
Wrong. Neither JC or RS has written papers about the claimed “pause.” Whereas lots of other scientists have, thinking about it carefully..
If you disagree, go write and publish your own articles, Gordon. What’s stopping you?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Could it be that Roy and John have the data that answers your stupid question for you?”
What data is that?
Has JC or RS written about the so-called “pause?” Where?
High praise there, congratulations David.
svante…”High praise there, congratulations David”.
For what, biased reporting and general butt-kissing?
In what way was my reporting biased?
Sea surface temperature anomalies equalize on both hemispheres.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00958/7nf593lyl0yz.png
Sorry, you cannot determine that just by looking at a map. Let alone a map for only one day.
Sorry, the El Nino 3.4 index drops.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
DA,
Are you really and truly sorry, or attempting sarcasm through lying?
Oh the sorrow! Oh the hypocrisy!
Cheers.
Sorry, Great Lakes freeze.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00958/w3lfcxs7cgcc.gif
Overall sea surface temperatures are LEADING the cooling which is key. Now at +.115c above means down from around +.35c this summer.
The end of AGW is happening this year as the prolong solar minimum has established itself and is now reaching the values which are necessary to have a climatic impact after several years of sub solar activity in general.
This has been my prediction for the last 10 years and I never changed my mind. The reason it did not pan out earlier was because solar activity was much higher from years 2010- to mid 2017 than I thought it would be.
But now we have it and the test is on and I say AGW, is finally meeting it’s demise.
Biggest falls in UAH OCEAN temperature anomaly from July to following February:
1983/84 … 0.23
1984/85 … 0.20
1988/89 … 0.29
1991/92 … 0.34
1998/99 … 0.44
2007/08 … 0.24
2010/11 … 0.33
2011/12 … 0.33
The connection between all of those years? Except for 1991/92 which was caused by the Pinatubo eruption, the rest were all La Nina years.
So a drop of 0.23 looks very consistent with what we should expect for a La Nina year.
Come back 6 months after ENSO returns to neutral.
and ocean heat content will follow overall sea surface temperatures because it is a lagging indicator not a leading one.
Sea surface temperature (SST) and SST anomaly maps are generated from NOAA Optimum Interpolation SST version 2 (OISST V2). OISST is a 0.25×0.25 blendend dataset derived from satellite, ship, and buoy measurements. The SST anomaly is based on a 1971-2000 NOAA climatology.
See equatorial Pacific.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/uyu7te7glb9e.png
1. http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/long_term_sst_global/glb_warm_e.html
2. http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html
Feel free to draw your conclusions. I did for my own.
out of date bit irrelevant now
Harry
Harry Cummings says:
February 14, 2018 at 3:07 PM
What is ‘out of date’ here, Harry Cummings ???
Just because it doesn’t contain the January 2018 data ???
Please explain.
I am very happy because I was afraid of cooling.
La P,
Many people believe the sort of rubbish to which you link.
Unfortunately, sciency looking nonsense remains nonsense.
No one has the faintest idea of the ocean temperatures at any level at any given time, with any precision or accuracy. About as silly as trying to measure an average sea level!
I get a good laugh from brightly coloured graphs and associated data, claiming to know an average sea surface temperature to 0.01 C – particularly in 1900 or so!
What hubris! What Warmist fools! Do they not realise that a very thin film of water sitting on the slightly thicker skin of a ball of molten rock in constant chaotic motion. This gives rise to completely erratic hotspots, thermal vents, varying output from the mid ocean ridges which divide the crust into hemispheres skating around on the liquid interior.
Warmist fools either do not know, or do not care for reality. Their foolish – albeit exceptionally expensive – computer games feed their fantasies.
Keep linking to your pointless and irrelevant links. I hope you derive contentment from your fantasy.
Still no testable GHE hypothesis! Until there is, the GHE remains speculation at best, fantasy in all likelihood.
Cheers.
Flynn
Expect a few people behaving as unscientific as you do, nobody reads your nonsense here.
What a stupid, superficial and above all discrediting, agressive ‘comment’, typical for you.
Even a barking dog would sound more intelligent.
“I get a good laugh from brightly coloured graphs and associated data, claiming to know an average sea surface temperature to 0.01 C ”
Ha!
Mike thinks when they tell us the birth rate is 1.89 per woman, that’s impossible, cuz they can’t measure 0.01 of a baby!
Mike Flynn
Do you have a link to the Mann v Ball judgement?
There are various bits of fake news from last Summer,but nothing online about the final outcome.
I guess there can’t be any, as the story has not gone to end yet.
My thought exactly.
If Ball had won every denier site would be crowing. If Mann had won they would all have been complaining.
Silence indicates no result yet.
From Dr Tim Ball –
*There are no media reports and my guess is there wont be any.*
Do you think may be right?
Cheers.
La P,
Whether the media reports it or not doesnt matter.
From the judgment –
”Dr. Weavers claim is dismissed. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make arrangements to speak to the issue.
Whether Weaver cares for the judges opinion probably doesnt matter either.
Mann has asked for yet another adjournment. Not keen to actually appear in court at this time. Probably looking for the missing witnesses that he needs. Everyone knows they exist, they just cant be found at the moment.
So sad.
Maybe you could volunteer to support Mann in court – if you could produce a testable GHE hypothesis, it might help. Some judges are aware of the scientific method, and would be impressed if they could see some some actual evidence, rather than unsubstantiated assertions.
Have you contacted Mann offering financial support? Or support as a witness?
Keep the faith.
Cheers.
E,
You appear to be confused, as usual. Maybe you could quote me exactly, before questioning what you think I wrote, rather than what I actually wrote.
I agree with you about fake news. The fake media are full of it, particularly in regard to tales of impending doom as a result of the presence of the gas of life, CO2!
The fake news purveyors are probably as lacking in comprehension and research ability as yourself. If you wish to check what I said, and follow up the same source, you can establish whether my information was correct or otherwise. I appreciate that you obviously consider me to be a fount of knowledge on all matters, but I try to help the needy, not the lazy and greedy.
Cheers.
My mistake, you were talking about Weaver v Ball. I’d still like a link.
That’s ok.
I found the judgement.
Dr Weaver’s case was dismissed. Defamation was not proved because Ball’s article was considered so absurd that no reasonable reader would take it seriously.
Costs to be agreed between the parties.
For anyone wanting to read the judgement:-
Judge Skolrood, re Weaver v Ball, 02-13 pdf
En,
Thanks for admitting you made a mistake. Glad you found the judgement by yourself.
If what you claiim is true (and of course you cant bring yourself to quote verbatim), both Weaver and his legal advisers exhibited the usual foolish Warmist dimness, for wasting their time, money, and effort, attacking an absurdity. Wouldnt you agree?
Be that as it may, Weavers claim of defamation was dismissed. I wouldnt be surprised if the usual foolish Warmist truth deniers pretend that Weaver actually won a stunning victory.
Such a pity Weaver couldnt actually produce any plausible witnesses to support his claims. So sad! Too bad!
Maybe the amazing fake Nobel Laureate (actually dim enough to not know whether he was actually awarded a Nobel Prize or not), Michael Mann, might stop delaying, and present his facts and witnesses to the court. Or do you think hes also silly enough to complain about something so absurd that no reasonable reader would take seriously?
I suppose anyone dim enough to believe in fantasies like the GHE, might well feel defamed by someone expressing the truth.
Cheers.!
The next wave of the arctic air on February 16 will reach the north-central US states.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/60d4pi9v25az.png
Here is a link to the interesting ENSO/trade wind website I mentioned yesterday:
http://www.stormsurf.com/page2/links/ensocurr.html
More on David Appell and his rudeness and ruthlessness when it comes to pushing his AGW propaganda.
I took him to task after he had taken a shot at mpainter’s wife. mpainter was a former poster here, although he may be posting under another nym.
Here is the link and commentary from the link. Just want posters to realize who they are dealing with in Appell.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/shots-fired-into-the-christyspencer-building-at-uah/
This was a post where Roy had reported shots being fired into his building. Appell had tried to divert the seriousness of the situation by asking Roy why he had never complained when Mann received death threats.
Turns out Appell had used the alleged death threat scenario in other circumstances and was proved wrong.
************
“Gordon Robertson says:
April 24, 2017 at 6:01 PM
DAIm being a journalist, Roy and you have no evidence at all to back up your suspicions.
[GR]The more I see of your logic the more I am convinced that your objectivity has been seriously clouded by your emotions.
A while back you asked mpainter if he was still beating his wife. mpainter replied, My wife passed away last year of lymphoma.
Rather than apologize, as a decent human being might, you carried it on, replying, If you ask disrespectful questions, you dont get to complain when you get them in return.
Get to complain??? The guys wife died of lymphoma and you ask him if he is still beating her. Your ego could not let it go, however, you offered no compassion for mpainter.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/on-that-2015-record-warmest-claim/
You are a serious jerk, Appell, and that is further cemented by your insensitive reply to Roy, who has obviously been targeted by bullets from eco-loonies.
Bart says:
April 24, 2017 at 6:49 PM
Not to mention his pornographic Aunt Judy references to Dr. Judith Curry. The guy has got some serious screws loose.
D Appell says:
April 24, 2017 at 10:16 PM
Poor lady.
**************
There is something seriously wrong with Appell when he can
insult two people by making callous remarks about their wives/mothers then refuse to back off and apologize when both people inform him their wife/mother had recently passed away.
Then he insults Dr. Judith Curry. When called on it he replies, “Poor lady”.
I have noticed this callousness as a common factor with climate alarmists. It’s far too noticeable to be ignored.
Appell seems to think that being a journalist excuses him from being a decent human being. Then again, he is learning from his gurus, who were caught applauding the death of skeptic John Daly in the Climategate emails.
David apologized here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/shots-fired-into-the-christyspencer-building-at-uah/#comment-244921
Well done David. That’s a much better, likeable side to you.
svante…”David apologized here:”
Thanks Svante, I missed that. My apologies to David on that account.
Which means today’s uncalled for personal attack was brought to you by …. GORDON.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I took him to task after he had taken a shot at mpainters wife”
Bullsh!t. I made a joke, and mpainter — like Anthony Watts — choose to play the victim. I knew nothing about mpainter’s wife, or if he even has one, if she died, nothing.
Deniers love to play the victim. It’s about the only role left to them.
Congratulations! Temperatures are back to where they have been 30 years ago in 1988!
If you don’t understand the concept of a DISTRIBUTION and you cherry pick your data.
des…”If you dont understand the concept of a DISTRIBUTION and you cherry pick your data”.
Glad you said ‘concept’. I understand distribution in something like radiation from a body in real time but not in a time series. Care to elaborate?
We’ve been through this before, and I linked to a video at the time. Here is the video again based on the UAH data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-7xL7BLDBs
Please try to find some space upstairs to store the concept away this time.
des…”Here is the video again based on the UAH data:”
Bunch of statistics-weenie trash. No pause on the UAH time series, they claim. Anyone who has studied calculus can ‘SEE’ it by inspection.You don’t need any calculations.
Follow the red running average curve, so-called pause is as plain as day.
Of course, you types with your heads buried in calculators would never see it.
A 13-month average is not long enough to measure climate. Hell – it’s not even long enough to get through an ENSO cycle. Look at a TEN year running average and tell me what you see.
You really don’t get it do you. By looking at monthly data or 13-month data, you are not filtering out short-term non-climate-related temperature effects. The aim is to measure the BACKGROUND temperature upon which short-term variation is superimposed.
Thanks Des for the interesting info.
Des,
You might inadvertently be cherry picking, yourself.
The longest term trend is the four and a half billion years up to now. No warming at all.
Molten then, not molten now. Inconvenient truth denied by Warmist fools. The surface has cooled, and will continue to cool as the interior loses heat. Inevitable and inescapable, it would appear.
Go for it. Pick a few more cherries if you wish. Maybe you can find a testable GHE hypothesis amongst them. Or maybe its with Trenberths missing heat, Mike Manns missing Nobel Prize, and Gavin Schmidts missing physics qualifications.
Or maybe not – whats your guess?
Cheers.
What was the human impact of climate over that 4.5 billion years?
Zilch, zero, zip, nada, rien, null, “goose-egg”.
g*e*r*a*n
So are you claiming that climate change had never had an impact on humans, or do you simply have poor comprehension skills? I assume you don’t understand the difference between “of” and “on” …
Based on the subject flow, I thought you meant “on”.
So … comprehension issue it is then.
How about “overly active” comprehension?
☺
Des,
You wrote –
What was the human impact of climate over that 4.5 billion years?
Are you posing an incredibly ill formed gotcha, or are you really unaware that humans cannot live on a molten rock surface?
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer wont make the thermometer hotter, regardless of the strident assertions of Warmist fools. The GHE has never been scientifically described – for the simple reason that it cannot be done. It doesnt exist.
Climate is merely the average of weather, and, as the weather (however defined), contains unpredictable chaotic elements, taking its average is a pastime for fools.
Even the IPCC states that the prediction of future climate states is impossible. Warmist fools seem to be claiming otherwise for reasons presumably based on faith.
Keep preaching. The rational audience seems to be shrinking – obviously the fake media is populated by people who are inclined to be loose with the truth, and incapable of establishing facts before they leap into print. I suppose they are only journalists, after all.
Maybe you could explain why additional CO2 in the atmosphere has demonstrably and quantifiably adverse effects on humanity? If you cant, of course, all your comments might appear completely pointless example of foolish Warmist doomsaying!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Glad someone got my point. There were no humans earlier than 2.6 million years ago, so climate before then is not relevant to the human story.
Saying “climate is merely the average of weather” is a gross mis-representation of what climate is about. Saying it IS the average is insufficient … climate SETS the average. Weather then determines the variation from this average.
January, 1988:
– 17th month of an el nino
– UAH/TLT: + 0.15
January, 2018:
– 4th month of la nina conditions
– UAH/TLT: + 0.26
Again, very heavy snowfall in the Swiss Alps.
This year snowfalls in the northern hemisphere are record-breaking.
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
What feature of that graph is telling you that this year is “record-breaking”?
des…”What feature of that graph is telling you that this year is record-breaking?”
Maybe in small parts of Australia but not up here in North America.
Oh, forgot, you have the BOM, your fudgers trying to emulate NOAA.
Sorry …. how does your response even remotely connect to my question or his graph??
I wanted to see how the UAH record looks like when taking all bigger Nino events out of it (but without modifying any Nina event).
In blue you see the modified UAH record, in red behind it the original one:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518698513129.jpg
Trend original: 0.128 C / decade
Trend modified: 0.122 C / decade
For the lovers of the pause (it does not interest me that much): it is still in the modified record, even if somewhat weaker. That of course is due to the non-removal of any Nina peak.
Here we are with overall oceanic temperatures only +.115c. above means down from +.35c this summer. Global warming, right.
Global temperatures will follow overall sea surface temperatures ,they have to if this trend continues which I think it will due to the very low entrenched solar conditions which are now entering my criteria.
The last two items needed are solar wind speeds to drop to less then 350km/sec. and the AP index to average 5 or lower.
EUV light/UV light, galactic cosmic ray counts, overall solar irradiance have been for sometime within my criteria.
Again my theory is not complicated.
I think low solar conditions if low enough in degree of magnitude (which I tired to quantify) and duration of time will result in lower overall global temperatures due to an overall drop in sea surface temperatures, a slight increase in albedo due to greater cloud/snow coverage and an increase in major volcanic activity, greater meridional atmospheric circulation.
If one looks at the global temperatures as a whole almost all of the warming is due to above average temperatures in the Arctic which only have been occurring during the winter season, due to ice conditions being low which is due I think to oceanic currents.
If summers were above average in the Arctic as well that might be a different story but they are not.
The upshot is, if solar conditions continue as is which is VERY likely, global temperatures are heading down and it will be now ,this year not 5 years 10 years from now.
I am calling for a turn ,while most everyone else can’t get around trends in the past due change they do not continue forever.
Let me add this the global cooling could come in spurts rather then a gradual decline.
As you continue to post this trash, I’m sure you won’t mind me reposting my last reply:
Biggest falls in UAH OCEAN temperature anomaly from July to following February:
1983/84 0.23
1984/85 0.20
1988/89 0.29
1991/92 0.34
1998/99 0.44
2007/08 0.24
2010/11 0.33
2011/12 0.33
The connection between all of those years? Except for 1991/92 which was caused by the Pinatubo eruption, the rest were all La Nina years.
So a drop of 0.23 looks very consistent with what we should expect for a La Nina year.
Come back 6 months after ENSO returns to neutral.
Des, according to what you say it is all natural having nothing to do with CO2.
But Salvatore… who, the alarmist Appell excepted, does tells you it has?
I know, they are living in a fantasy.
Sorry – where did I say anything remotely like that?
I do not think we have an official La Nina just a tendency toward La Nina.
We have “La Nina conditions”. The only thing preventing an official La Nina is duration. Nevertheless, “La Nina conditions” means exactly what it says.
“Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
I have been saying overall sea surface temperatures will fall, it has nothing to due with the state of ENSO.
And besides if you believe in global warming so much why does everything hinge on ENSO?
Variation between La Nina and El Nino periods: on the order of half a degree.
Annual warming trend: about 0.015 degrees per year.
So in any one ENSO “cycle”, global warming barely enters into the picture. Over 30 years, they are about on par.
It is still to early to know how it will all play out. We will see.
One thing is certain … there is no more ocean cooling than is to be expected from a La Nina. ie. no climate cooling signal
Des,
Once there was no liquid water at all.
Then there was. It was boiling.
Then 70 C.
Now, most of the abyssal depths are around 2C or so. Parts of the ocean are actually covered by ice!
As to climate cooling, this is just a nonsense term used by Warmist fools, of course.
Climate is the average of weather. There is no meaningful global climate. If there was, Im sure some Warmist fool would be able to say what it was. Of course, even foolish Warmists find it impossible to express the inexpressible.
I wouldnt be surprised if you were using sciency words to avoid admitting you have no clue whatever!
Cheers.
It is to early to draw any conclusions.
Mike Flynn
“Warmist fools cannot help attempting to deny, divert and confuse by avoiding addressing facts, and instead talking about anything else”.
Your comment here suggests the subject of that sentence was incorrectly chosen.
Hi there,
I had a strange thought about the orbiting Moon issue.
Practically one man standing up at the equator is just orbiting almost it does the Moon (just at ground zero altitude of course).
His feet are always in the direction of the ground, and every 12 hours if he was seen from the outer space perpendicularly to his equatorial orbital plane, he looks like he was upside down: for this, does he rotate on his axis?
Have a great day.
Massimo
My answer is: No. And it would be the same answer for a large stone sphere sitting on the equator.
And, it’s the same for the Moon, which was Massimo’s point.
Exactly!
Massimo
Yep, it’s all relative. A few days a go I didn’t fully get the idea. The moon doesn’t rotate with respect to Earth, but it does with respect to the other planets, sun and stars.
Are Australians upside down? Depends who you ask.
snake, the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis.
Keep working on it. You appear to be making progress.
Snape, with Massimos example in mind, do you think B is rotating on its axis, or not?
https://postimg.org/image/bcrfhffft/
Halp
Look at the letter “a” in the diagram. Let’s call that a stationery reference point. Now look at the corresponding object rotating around the planet.
If you adjusted the object’s rotation rate so only one side was ever visible to the fixed reference, then you would say the object does not rotate with respect to that reference point.
(Notice the object would still be following a circular path around the planet……orbiting.)
The object in diagram b does not rotate with respect to the planet. The planet always sees one side.
The letter b, however, sees multiple sides of the object, so from its point of view the object is indeed rotating.
snake, I thought you were making some progress. But, it looks like it’s one step forward, and now, one step backward.
The Moon does NOT rotate on its axis.
You can’t get away from the little toy train.
A few days ago I thought the moon was unequivocally rotating about its axis. Now I think that was wrong.
The moon unequivocally DOES NOT rotate about its axis with respect to earth. We only see one side.
It unequivocally DOES rotate on its axis with respect to inertial space. Distant stars see multiple sides.
Sorry, you’re still confused.
Maybe ask your parent or guardian to buy you a toy train?
All three objects are orbiting, only two are rotating on their axes whilst orbiting.
Halp
Motion only exists relative to something else. Make a mark on any one of the objects. The object does not rotate on its axis relative to that mark.
Obviously, both the mark and the object still circle around the planet (orbit).
Snape, the statement:
All three objects are orbiting, only two are rotating on their axes whilst orbiting.
Is fact, regardless of reference frame. Thats the final step, really. Consider the statement, look at the gif, until you get it. Thats it.
And this:
S: Yep, its all relative. A few days a go I didnt fully get the idea
J: You might assume this is a *tactic*; but, Im happy to have been a part of that, however insignificant I may have been.
Dear Hap-less,
All three objects are rotating on their axis as they are shown by themselves on the left side of the diagram. They are simply rotating at different speeds and directions. A and B are rotating CW, and C is rotating CCW. Nothing changes when they are placed on the orbital path.
In fact, B looks like two wheels of a Segway being steered around a circular track. Which is another example of how a car or train likewise rotates on its own axis while orbiting a circular track.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287083
J Brainless,
I see you refuse to answer. Nice tactic.
Its a great tactic. I love how much it annoys ignorant and arrogant laughables. What a delight.
It does not annoy me j-Brainless. It just proves to everyone reading the blog that you are clueless. A person with no answers.
I just feel bad making you look so stupid. Well, not that bad.
Good for you.
By the way, SGW, if you had been paying attention earlier, you would have seen I had already provided extra information about the gif, in order to help.
A: rotates on its axis, CW, twice whilst completing one orbit.
B: does not rotate on its axis, it just orbits.
C; rotates on its axis, CCW, twice whilst completing one orbit.
snape…”Motion only exists relative to something else. Make a mark on any one of the objects. The object does not rotate on its axis relative to that mark”.
This is the kind of nonsense that comes from relativity theory vis-a-vis inertial frames. It’s the kind of nonsense that has lead to the concept of space-time, going so far as to claim gravity is not a force but an artefact of space-time.
Come back to Earth, snape. A car on a road being powered at 30 MPH is moving regardless of whomever is viewing it. That’s our reality but of course alarmists prefer alternative realities.
Gordon Robertson says:
“A car on a road being powered at 30 MPH is moving regardless of whomever is viewing it”
It’s certainly not moving w.r.t someone riding in the car.
All three objects, A B & C, are rotating on their axis. You can see their rotation off to the left of the orbit diagram. The rotating objects are just placed on the orbital path in the diagram to the right, but they are still rotating on their axis as they make an orbit about the center of the circle.
This is junior level stuff.
The statement is:
All three objects are orbiting, only two are rotating on their axes whilst orbiting.
Once you learn the difference between *orbiting*, and *rotating on their axes*, you will get it. And dont worry, you are someone I definitely dont mind laughing at.
SGW
Suppose you are sitting at a table looking at a motionless globe. Let’s say you are trying to memorize the different countries in Africa.
If we consider you a “frame of reference”, do you think the globe is rotating on its axis?
All three object are performing rotations about their own axis as they are shown on the left, dumbass.
Snape,
I meant J-hapless.
.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287083
Ok J Brain-less. Which object on the left side is not rotating and why?
Your betters know better.
SGW, you are deceiving yourself with the computer graphics. That’s why you keep refusing to address the toy train. You would prefer to deceive yourself.
It’s fun to watch.
Its absoluteky hilarious to watch bad people lose.
snake, you keep trying to play with different “frames of reference”. That’s just desperately grasping at straws.
J-Baby,
I suggest you get yourself a little education. You are way out of your league here. You have no answers.
All three object shown on the left are rotating about their own axis per the definition of rotation.
All that happens is they are placed on the orbital path in the diagram on the right.
Keep pounding the keyboard randomly. Maybe in 5 billion years a correct answer might appear out of the jumble.
Your education did not grant you intelligence, just arrogance.
Turnip boy,
Lay off the drugs and booze. What you see in this diagram does not lie. This just makes you look all the more stupid.
Bless you.
J, do you suppose SGW and Norm are the same person?
The similarities are glaring. Neither can process logic or facts.
And they both can become instantly rabid.
It’s fun to watch.
Norman seems genuinely delusional…was having a bit of a crisis of conscience about that.
But then, he is *so* rabid, generally unpleasant, and perfectly illogical, it seems difficult not to laugh.
Turnip Boy,
J-Clueless could not answer the question.
So which of the three objects on the left, A,B or C is not rotating and why?
Simple question.
[Jeopardy theme plays continuously………..]
SGW, the graphics all “appear” to be rotating. That’s what’s confusing you.
If you want to avoid confusion, consider understanding the simple toy train. It’s really simple.
Your choice, confusion or reality.
“SGW, the graphics all appear to be rotating.”
ROTFLMAO. They “appear” to be rotating because they are!
Wow. Just wow.
[Jeopardy theme continues to plays ..]
SGW, even though you are how you are, I would just like you to know, that if one day you ever figure it out, I will be happy for you.
That’s what you can’t understand, SGW. If you were to take one of the rotating graphics and place it on the toy train, you would see the graphic rotating from inside the track.
But, if you stopped the graphic from “rotating on its axis”, and THEN placed it on the toy train, you would always see one side from inside the track.
That’s how easy it is to verify the Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
It’s amazingly simple.
“But, if you stopped the graphic from rotating on its axis, and THEN placed it on the toy train, you would always see one side from inside the track.”
Absolutely not. Object B, which is shown rotating on the left, is the one object when placed on the orbit path, you only see one side of the object, because it is rotating once on its axis per one orbit. It’s staring you right in the face.
The graphic does not show an object that is not rotating. If it did, you would see all sides of the object when viewed from the center of orbit.
SGW, B is rotating CW. The train is going CCW (to replicate the Moon). So, if you knew vector rotation, you could figure it out quickly. You would see all sides of the graphic from inside the track.
So, I guess you will have to buy a little toy train, also.
Sorry to intrude into this discussion but I think I may have some rights in this matter as I generated the gif graphics that is referenced here.
Halp chooses to (but is clearly incapable) of answering how the Moon ‘s North, South Pole and equator are defined. Are they defined by random or are they related to the rotational axis of the Moon as they are for all other planets, and moons (tidally locked or otherwise).
G* this is where your expertise in orbital mechanics could be he handy. Also do you have any skills in lunar cartography?
To assist you could also consider that the equator of the Moon is tilted by about 7 degrees with respect to the plane of the Moon’s orbit around the Earth.
Ok g* show us your mettle. However I expect avoidance (too many words) or just references to trains. You never know, he might surprise.
miker, the Moon’s “poles” are defined from Earth and Sun orbits.
Sorry, just another failure.
Please try your luck again.
“SGW, B is rotating CW. The train is going CCW”
OMG G*! We are referring to the graphic. If you reverse the spin and orbit for B at the same rotation and orbit rate, you get the same result.
OMG, you are getting yourself wrapped around your axle, SGW.
I’m talking about what I was talking about in my previous comment to you. Try to stay focused.
As I’ve already mentioned, the graphics will only confuse you. They do not represent actual orbital motions.
It’s interesting how you keep going off in new directions, huh?
snape…”So which of the three objects on the left, A,B or C is not rotating and why?”
If you’re talking about Mike’s gif images, B is incorrectly depicted on the left as rotating about its centre of gravity. Mike made a mistake.
B should be shown as a dumbell turning around one end of the dumbell, not around it’s centre of gravity. It’s not turning around its COG in the gif. The other two are.
skeptic…”All three object shown on the left are rotating about their own axis per the definition of rotation”.
Not so. B is not turning about its centre of gravity in the moving gif to its right.
A and C are actually rotating about their COG as they orbit. B is not.
G* you replied! I thought you might have taken the safer approach of Halp and hoped the question would go away.
You are so effiin wrong it is well beyond amusing and entering into the territory of embarrassing bathos.
The Moon’s poles are oriented at 6.7 degrees to the plane of the orbit . Consult any book on the solar system, the Moon, the Wiki etc. or just Google it.
However If you have any evidence to the contrary please provide it. I would love to see it.
It is liking saying the earth poles are defined in relation to the plane of the earth’s orbit around the sun! You then must wonder why it is cold at this time where you are, and hot where I am currently, and vice versa in 6 months time!
I think you have now removed any doubt about your profound ignorance and intellectual capabilities. Anyway anyone reading your contributions would have realized this long so maybe my comments are superfluous.
Halp, have you anything further to add?
Gordon,
No. All three object on the left are rotating about their own axis (the centroid). Then on the right they are placed on the orbital path. There is nothing wrong with B.
The center of gravity and centroid are the one in the same for these objects, since it is assumed they are of uniform density. And the orbital path intersects the centroid of each object.
miker, when you try to twist my words, that signals you don’t have a case, AGAIN.
I indicated the poles of the Moon were defined by orbits. You said that was “wrong”. Then you said: “The Moons poles are oriented at 6.7 degrees to the plane of the orbit . Consult any book on the solar system, the Moon, the Wiki etc. or just Google it.”
Hilarious.
Want to try your luck again?
SGW, I realize you have never studied vector rotation, or you could have figured this out by now. So, this is just for anyone else that wishes to understand. (SGW may now ignore the rest of this comment.)
The “B” of the graphic shows the “moon” rotating on its axis CW. Then it is “orbiting” CW. So, to represent the motion with vector rotation, position a pencil on a desk, pointing “north” (away from you).
Now, rotate the pencil 90 degrees CW, representing “orbital” motion. The pencil should be pointing “east”, or to your right. Now, rotate the pencil another 90 degrees CW, representing “rotating on its axis” motion. The pencil should be pointing “south”.
But, in the graphic, the arrow would be pointing “east” (or has only made a combined 90 degrees motion).
That indicates how confused miker gets when he tricks himself.
It’s fun to watch.
G* what a joke you are.
The lunar equator is not in the plane of the orbit defined by the earth and the moon. Likewise for the poles see-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_north_pole
From the wiki it is made very clear that they are defined by the rotational axis of the Moon as per the Earth and all the other spheroidal bodies in the solar system.
As I said, if you are stupid enough to believe that the poles are defined by their orientation with respect to the orbital plane then your explanation for the occurrence of summer and winter for the Earth (and Mars) would be novel, to say the least.
Anyway for g*’s edification the following maybe be useful, as it explains the seasons and gives the angle of inclination between the rotational axis and the orbital plane for the major bodies of the solar system and wait for it – drum roll….. THE MOON ,
So g* the obvious question is, why would they even give a figure for the inclination of the rotational axis if the Moon was not rotating? Another NASA conspiracy?
Sorry g*, I stupidly left out the link to the wiki that explains the seasons and gives the angles of inclination between the rotational axes and orbital planes for the major bodies in the solar system . This is the link
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt
Apologies again for my omission but interacting with g*, Halp etc. has exacerbated my dementia.
G* with respect to your rotating pencil, I am not sure what you are on about (or in fact what meds you are on).
Recall that I provided my services gratis when you required bespoke modifications to the Eli Rabbett diagram that for some reason included an extra arrow.
However in this case, If you think my rendition of the orbiting/rotating dumbbells are incorrect then maybe you could get your crayons out and sketch what you think is the correct diagram.
Upload your sketch and then I might be able to incorporate your suggestions.
miker returns to try his luck.
In 3 dangling comments, complete with links from wiki, he confuses the “definition” of the Moon’s axis with Earth’s REAL axis of rotation. And, goes on to seemingly confuse it with Earth’s seasons! (Earth’s seasons are caused by axial tilt, a completely different topic. Poor miker.)
Then, miker wants me to somehow make his graphics valid!
miker, here you go:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277084
December 21, 2017 at 6:18 AM
G* is the ultimate bulls****er. He mentions “vector rotation”, but thinks drawing a line with an arrow is a vector. What type of vector are you using G*? Do you even know how to add vectors? Are you talking about rotation vectors, the kind with the right-hand rule?
Then he states:
“Now, rotate the pencil 90 degrees CW, representing orbital motion.”
Rotating an object does not represent orbital motion. All you are doing is rotating an object about its axis.
You don’t make any sense at all. And atop with the phony vector stuff. You probably don’t even know what a vector is.
SGW, I understand you do not understand vector rotation. That’s why I started off the comment with:
“SGW, I realize you have never studied vector rotation, or you could have figured this out by now. So, this is just for anyone else that wishes to understand. (SGW may now ignore the rest of this comment.)”
G*,
You are pathetic. You did not define any vectors or perform any vector calcs. You are only fooling yourself, and making a fool of yourself for all to see.
SWG, feel free to ignore issues that are over your head.
Maybe that way, you will not be so frustrated.
G*. First a mea culpa. I was wrong yet again. The figure I quoted for the angle of inclination of the rotational axis 6.7 degrees was with respect to the ecliptic (the plane of the Earth’s orbit around the sun). The figure with respect to orbital plane of the moon is 1.5 degrees
See
https://goo.gl/images/ZtJ1U4
As I have said before it is a sign of emotional maturity to aknowledge when you are wrong particularly when you keep digging a hole that currently exceeds the depth of the Mariana trench.
Another article that might rectify the deficiencies in your education is the following
https://www.nasa.gov/ames/feature/lunar-polar-ice-reveals-tilting-axis-of-earth-s-moon
that is interesting as the paper it refers to, shows evidence that the axis of rotation of the moon moved substantially and quite suddenly 3 billion years.
One of the authors of the paper is a colleague of Dr Spencer at UAH. Maybe you should write an angry letter to this individual and explain that the paper is wrong as the moon doesn’t rotate on its axis!
Alternatively a letter to Breitbart or Fox News explaing your theory. This should get the attention of the of someone who could get rid of those incompetents at NASA and all those equally stupid pseudo-science astronomy departments.
G* you could become famous beyond the confines of this blog. Fame and fortune awaits.
Possibly enough fortune to provide for the pharmacological treatment you urgently require. Lithium is the standard for a bipolar disorder (pun intended).
More links and “cute” from miker.
But, he STILL can’t out-cute the little toy train.
miker, the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. Believing that it does is pseudoscience. But just so you can sleep better. NASA would tell you that the Moon used to rotate on its axis, until the rotation was halted by tidal locking.
Now, sleep well. I’m sure that little toy train won’t run over you in your sleep. ..
g
e*e*w*i*z*z.
I will do anything to avoid G*’s 25 attention span word limit.
Actually g* you have pegged me to the wrong time zone. Geography is another of your core in-competencies.
Mine is accidentally pressing he send key on my phone.
g*e*r*a*n, the more you try to help them, the more they reject that help! The clearer you make it, the harder it is for them to see. I dont know how you have the patience, I really dont.
If they *really*, deep down, believed it was all just BS, then this discussion would have finished weeks ago. Obviously, there is something in the back of their minds telling them that they might be missing something, or they wouldnt keep coming back; and they wouldnt get so angry about it!
Yep Halp, I agree the irrelevant discussion about the Moon’s rotation should never have got off the ground, particularly in a comments section concerning climate change.
I guess the adverse reaction by so many was just an opportunity to lambast the person who was stupid enough to introduce the topic in the first place. Your contributions were also judged accordingly.
Anyway your reference to providing help was worth the price of admission. However I can’t see anyone rushing to taking up your offer based on,
Firstly your unwillingness or inability to read or understand the voluminous amounts of material that is easily accessible using commonly available search tools. These clearly provide strong, and in many cases, incontrovertible evidence that your home made science is, as you aptly put it just plain old BS. These credible sources are from a diverse range of universities, research institutes, scientific organisations, books , scientific publications and even material appropriate for the lay man such as YouTube videos.
Secondly your corresponding total inability to provide a scrap of evidence, or even indicate the origin of your confabulations. Even a single reference that is not just another self referential link back to your own series of assertions would be a start.
I guess, if there is anger, it stems from a realization that g” and yourself have wasted so much time of others with your series of inane and mostly repetitive comments.
Personally I think it is about time to call it quits and do something more productive than involving myself with futile exchange of comments with fools. So g”and Halp you can continue with your nonsense unimpeded^ by myself.
.
^with my usual caveat, that is, unless unduly provoked by material that is even more egregiously stupid than usual.
M: However I cant see anyone rushing to taking up your offer
J: It wasnt an offer MikeR. Theres been hundreds of comments explaining it already, from myself and others, dating back right until December. If you dont get it by now, maybe you never will. I did say I had faith in you, I believed you could get it, but Im starting to seriously doubt it.
miker “Personally I think it is about time to call it quits”
Yes miker, “cute” is never a good substitute for facts and logic.
Hi Massimo,
I propose you to do the same work as that was done here, but of course with your own ideas, data, calculations and tools:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLCw_M3VtaA
Best regards from Germany
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518287731581.jpg
Hi La Pangolina,
I was joking indeed : – )
The man at the equator wasn’t orbiting at all, that because his apparent orbit is due to the friction between his feet and the Earth surface that wasn’t a true geostationary orbit of course.
I wrote that just to highlight that under a pure geometric perspective, if we apply the concepts of those who supports that the Moon is rotating on its axis just because one can see it from a point of view perpendicular to its orbit, than everything that lays on the Earth is apparently spinning on its own axis if viewed from that particular point of view.
Have a great day.
Massimo
P.S.
I admit that I didn’t know anything about the pangolin before you were here for the first time. But I also must admit that I never seen a so particular mammal like that and the exemplar in the photo you use a sign for your posts is very nice and cute.
Hi Massimo:
Consider a mini merry-go-round in kiddies playgrounds which is only a few metres in diameter. Say a child was positioned exactly in the centre ie. his axis being perpendicular to the centre of the rotating disc (ie he is on the central axis). Child stays erect and does not move. Let us rotate that disc once slowly and observe from a constant position outside that disc.
I see the child as having rotated once from my perspective. I see no orbit about that central axis. I would also observe a laser pointed perpendicular from his stomach would cover all the points of a compass.
I think you agree here that he has rotated around that axis but not orbited. If not please explain.
If we agree he has rotated once then we shift him (ie his axis) just one millimetre and rotate that disc once. From the same observation position with everything else being the same I claim he has rotated once and orbited once. I take it you claim he now has NOT rotated but orbited around the axis of the disc once. Yet you can see basically nothing different not even in the laser covering all 360 degrees.
We can keep shifting him incrementally towards the perimeter of the disc. From my perspective nothing has changed wrt to orbit and rotation just the radius has changed. In all these observations, that fixed laser covers all the angles of a compass.
If we don’t agree here then the next part is of no consequence. Repeat all that except the boy is on a small platform which automatically adjusts so that he always faces north while being moved along the same radius and while the disc rotates. You are an engineer so I’m sure you will be able to design this well.
What do I see now. When at the centre I see the boy does not rotate and does not orbit and the laser covers no angle. Move him along the same radius; I see orbiting but no rotation with the laser covering no additional angle (it will of course cover the uni-directoal parallel range defined by the width of his orbit). What do you see?
It is not material what forces are at play. For example suppose a ball is rotating at 10 rps and we apply a braking force to slow it down to 1 rps it does not mean that the ball now rotates at the same 10 rps by making allowance for the force. Rotation is defined by what we observe relative to some reference frame.
tonyM tries to obfuscate: “Rotation is defined by what we observe relative to some reference frame.”
tony, “rotation on its axis” is defined by the axis, and rotation there about.
But, nice try.
Hi tonyM,
yes if the child stand exactly in the centre, he was rotating on his vertical axis.
But if he was just 1 mm away from the centre he wasn’t rotating on his vertical axis, he was just rotating (not orbiting, as said to La Pangolina I was joking defining that an orbit in my post above) on a point 1 mm from his vertical axis. I know you may think it’s a quibble, but under a philosophical point of view that’s what make the difference.
I the case of a pure orbital system IMHO what defines a pure orbital system, it’s the fact that you have:
1) one orbiting massive object
2) one much massive object having the orbital axis in its mass barycenter (not really needed to be precisely there indeed)
3) Nothing other.
In this case the orbiting object shows always the same side to the inner much massive object.
Note that if the 2 objects were of the same mass, they orbited each other around the middle of the system always facing the same side each other.
Even in IMHO, I think that someone is confused by the fact that looking to an orbiting object from very far, you see it rotating on its axis, but it is not. It’s your sight that moves around the orbit that allows you to imagine that the orbiting object is not orbiting but it is rotating around its axis.
The farer is the sighting point placed perpendicular to the orbital plane, the more the illusion is effective.
Definitively IMHO by a physical perspective, in the orbital dynamic there is no place for a sighting point.
I hope I expressed my point clear, excuse me but English is not my language and when I was at school it was not very taught those times.
BTW J Halp-less above posted a nice link with animated 3 orbital systems. I fully agree with him but to make the quiz more tricky I would add a 4th orbital system with the orbiting H-shaped object always oriented in the same direction. That “D” option would be referencing to an orbiting object which was rotating on its axis in the meantime, but the illusion of the far sighting point made it not rotating on its axis instead.
As always I should say, this is my opinion from the perspective of a mere electronic engineer.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO
I have a point that might convince you. A lot of the examples may seem confusing because with a hammer throw the chain is connected to the ball.
Gravity does not work like this. It is a force that just pulls down. You can see jets move in any direction. Gravity does not hold them to a position like a chain would. The jet only has to overcome gravity with a lifting force. A jet can fly against the Earth’s spin below with no more energy required to go with the spin. Gravity does not tether objects to it.
So in space you have a round asteroid with one hemisphere completely blue and the opposite side completely green. The asteroid is approaching Earth with the blue side facing Earth. The asteroid is not rotating on its axis. The asteroid is caught by Earth’s gravity and starts to orbit. Gravity will not add torque or twisting motion to get the asteroid moving. The blue side that was facing Earth will not move, it will stay in the same orientation as it orbits. When it gets on the other side of the Earth the blue side will face away from Earth and the green side will face Earth. Any other configuration would state that the gravity is twisting the asteroid.
Now you have the asteroid with a slow rotation doing the same thing, getting caught by Earth’s orbit. It is rotating slowly so the blue side slowly moving as it orbits. It the rate of rotation is the same as it moves in orbit the blue side will always face Earth.
One must get away from the idea tidal locking means gravity acts like a chain holding the Moon in a locked rotation as it orbits. Gravity does not work like that.
I have another example to let you know about if that one does not convince you.
You were doing fine, Norm, until you drifted into pseudoscience: “It is rotating slowly so the blue side slowly moving as it orbits. It the rate of rotation is the same as it moves in orbit the blue side will always face Earth.”
The blue side would continue to face its forward motion. So, it is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Now, yelp your way out of your own scenario.
g*e*r*a*n
I would have to know what you are claiming before I can respond. Your post does not contain enough information to evaluate what you are trying to say.
Sometimes you may have to type a few more words to make a point meaningful.
I think, in my example I gave two different situation. The first one was a nonrotating asteroid. The gravity field of the Earth would not create any rotation. The blue side always faces ne way. In the gravity field it would not change. If the asteroid may a half loop and went back the same way it cam, the blue side would face the same way it was before it met the Earth.
In the second case I have a slowly rotating asteroid. Moving in a straight line the blue side will rotate around to the opposite side with no gravity field. When it enters a gravity field it will still rotate around. Without a tether or direct connection, if you see the same side in a gravity field it has to be rotating once for each orbital period.
If you go back to the nonrotating asteroid, on Earth you will first see the blue side, when it is no the opposite side of the orbit you will see the green side. It is the only way it can move around a circle without rotation. You would have to see all sides.
My post was for Massimo. I am hoping he can understand the ideas. I do not think you will make an effort to grasp them.
Well Norm, it’s a lot of rambling for you to end up saying the asteroid/moon would NOT be “rotating on its axis”.
But, then denying what you are saying!
It’s fun to watch.
Hi Norman,
if I get it right (maybe I misunderstood your explanation), I don’t agree with you.
I suggest you to read what La Pangolina linked above.
I re-post the link here:
https://tinyurl.com/y7do8trb
As she suggested read from page 4 the three hypotheses and the conclusion made by Mr. Perigal.
I think he did a great explanation about when a body really rotates on its own axis.
And the Moon is not rotating on its own axis indeed.
Have a great day.
Massimo
TOKIO, February 14 (RIA Novosti). Fifteen people were killed, 222 were injured due to snowfall in the north of Japan and on the coast of the Sea of Japan.
In total, in the north of the main island of Honshu and on the coast of the Sea of Japan, 222 people suffered injuries of varying severity.
On Wednesday the height of the snow cover in Fukui is 2.78 m, in Niigata 2.5 m, in Toyama over 60 centimeters.
And still it continues.
Reduction in the rate of cooling is warming.
Redefinition of rotating allows rotation where none exists (or does, according to your definition.
CO2 creates floods, droughts, deserts, ice caps, halitosis and alopecia! Nobody can actually write down when, where or how this may happen, of course.
Hence the obsessional preoccupation with efforts to deny, divert, and confuse.
Has anyone considered discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Depending on the definitions, the answer can be anything you want. That should suit foolish Warmists admirably. Just as the output from NASAs very expensive computer games!
And so it goes. The Climate Clowns keep us continuously amused. Well done.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Reduction in the rate of cooling is warming.”
Why do you sleep under blankets? They generate no heat of their own….
Why wear a coat? Why insulate your house?
Pretty good mirror of this Moon’s spin discussion:
https://tinyurl.com/y7do8trb
Start reading on page 4.
La P (or would you like me to call you Bindidon),
I refer to your link, of course.
Are you merely imitating a Warmist fool, or is that your true nature?
The world has given up wondering – it has become pretty much irrelevant, wouldnt you think?
The usual foolish Warmists command to read this, or read that, for some bizarre reason, is not particularly persuasive. Why should I? Why should anyone?
You might just as well demand that some person read a Gavin Schmidt utterance claiming that a 38% chance means more likely than not! Maybe to Warmist fools, but not to rational 6th graders.
Dish up more pointless and irrelevant links – if you try really hard, by repeating them ad nauseam, you could try to emulate David Appell. Go for it.
Cheers.
Flynn
Expect a few people behaving as unscientific as you do, nobody reads your nonsense here.
What a stupid, superficial and above all discrediting, agressive ‘comment’, so typical for you.
Even a barking dog would sound more intelligent.
La P,
I assume you mean *accept* rather than *expec*t, but I accept that Warmist fools often become confused with English meanings and definitions.
You are probably right. Only the mentally defective, delusionally psychotic, or other Warmist fools would bother responding to such as myself, I guess.
Which are you?
Cheers.
To the denier fool who is confused about English meanings and definitions:
I’m sure YOU meant “EXCEPT”. “Accept” is totally meaningless here. His word is clearly just a typo – what is YOUR excuse, Herr Hickmeister?
Then of course there is the fact that you believe asterisks can be used as quotes.
Nice on Des. Too funny.
lmao: on=*one*, oops, I mean “one”
I guess you have to change cloaks whenever one gets soiled.
Des,
I’m done with the GHE. Pointless to argue.
Look back two years ago on this blog. Same stuff.
Nice one – feigning ignorance of my meaning.
Feigning ignorance has saved my ass many a time.
But no, it’s more like the boxer who is arm weary from beating the crap out of his opponent, and needs a slight rest before once again starts beating the crap out of his opponent.
You mean … a boxer who is so punch-drunk that he hallucinates about beating the hell out of his opponent while lying prone on the canvas.
Beautiful find Pangolina, they were just like us.
History repeats itself, why don’t we learn from it?
This would be a fun conversation if not for the aggravatingly stupid input of the trolls.
A few days ago I was a little confused. I thought the moon rotated with respect to earth, but only appeared not to….like a magic trick.
Now I believe the moon does not actually rotate, or have poles, if the earth is the frame of reference. Kind of a tricky distinction.
snape…”Now I believe the moon does not actually rotate, or have poles, if the earth is the frame of reference. Kind of a tricky distinction”.
It does not rotate even with the Earth as a frame of reference. It revolves while being held in place by a gravitational field turning inside its orbit.
There is little doubt that the Moon turns different faces to the Sun but that is hardly a rotation. It’s caused by the gravitational force of the Earth holding the Moon in place while the Moon’s momentum carries it around the Earth in an orbit.
The Earth does the same revolving around the Sun. Even though the Earth does rotate on it’s axis, the Earth’s tilt is at various inclinations to the Sun as the Earth revolves in its axis. The Sun sees the tilt angle from different perspectives as it sees the Moon’s surface.
Keep trying snape, the light will go on, and hopefully the same will happen with AGW.
Gordon 8:09pm tries to be serious: “(The moon) does not rotate…(the moon) revolves…turning…There is little doubt that the Moon turns…”
Keep trying Gordon, the light will go on, and hopefully the same will happen with AGW.
Gordon
I claimed the moon does not rotate relative to earth. You replied,
“It does not rotate even with the Earth as a frame of reference.”
Isn’t that the same thing?
Then “There is little doubt that the Moon turns different faces to the Sun but that is hardly a rotation…”
If a face of the moon had an arrow that pointed strait towards the sun, and then the arrow progressively pointed to the left, directly away, to the right, and finally back towards the sun again, why would you not consider that a rotation?
Gordon says:
“This is the kind of nonsense that comes from relativity theory vis-a-vis inertia….”
It’s actually very very simple. Here:
Place two mugs on a kitchen table 5 inches apart from each other. If left undisturbed, in 10 minutes they will still be 5 inches apart.
It turns out the room is actually the cabin on a ship traveling 6 mph.
Therefore, during those 10 minutes, the two mugs had actually moved 1 mile with respect to the surrounding ocean, but had not moved even one inch relative to each other.
You don’t need to be Einstein to figure that one out, do you?
During those 10 minutes, the two mugs traveled ~ 11,000 miles on their journey around the sun.
So the question is: Were they moving at 66,000 mph, 6 mph, or were they stationary?
S,
An extremely Ill posed question – about standard in the foolish Warmist arena.
Where is your reference point, for a start? Your supposed quest for knowledge appears to be another badly designed attempt at a gotcha, standard foolish Warmist fare. Maybe you could ask David Appell for advice, and do the exact opposite.
Cheers.
S,
I presume that the aggravatingly stupid input of the trolls is anything with which you disagree, but about which you cant actually provide any facts in rebuttal, outside the Warmist fool frame of reference.
If you choose to feel annoyed or exasperated, that might be your personal failing. You seem to be blaming others for your lack of knowledge, or for Nature refusing to obey the dictates of Warmist fools, or for pointing out inconvenient facts
There is still no GHE. The rational way to rebut this statement might be to provide a clear reproducible definition of the GHE. Of course you cant, so anybody pointing out this incontrovertible fact is obviously an aggravating stupidity troll – in your foolish Warmist opinion, of course.
Your frame of reference might be firmly founded in foolish Warmist fantasy. Have you checked recently?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“There is still no GHE.”
“The atmosphere is an insulator.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
That may well have been where that particular hoax started.
It just shows you how long nonsense can survive, once it becomes institutionalized.
anger does show how long nonsense can survive once it becomes institutionalized in writing the train appearing to be rotating on its axis but the train is still not rotating on its axis.
It has been a great 2018 for anger’s science comedy. More please, the year is young.
tricky trick, all you have are your tricks.
It’s fun to watch.
Just for a bit of light relief, this is pasted verbatim from a university website –
In astronomy many stars, planets and disks of material move in circular orbits and require a force equivalent to the centripetal force to maintain their circular motion. This force is usually gravity. By balancing the gravitational and centripetal forces it is possible to obtain estimates of the mass within a given radius from the rotation curves of galaxies or accretion disks around supermassive black holes.
When we sit on a merry-go-round or in a car taking a corner we feel the centrifugal force pulling us away from the centre of our circular motion which has the same magnitude but opposite sign as the centripedal force. This pseudo-force should not be confused with the reality of the centripetal force, but arises because of Newtons third law of motion: For every action, there is an equal, but opposite, reaction. The centrifugal force is a pseudo-force because if the centripetal force ceased for an object in circular motion, the centrifugal force the body is feeling would instantly disappear, and the object would travel tangentially to its line of motion. It only arises because the body is in a non-inertial frame of reference.
Nothing really to do with the rotation of the Moon, but an example of what is passed off as authoritative. If it all seems OK to you, you might believe climatology is a science. If you cant see any errors or inconsistencies, you are probably well on the way to being accepted into the foolish Warmist cult.
Just for fun, of course.
Cheers.
Mike…from your link…”By balancing the gravitational and centripetal forces…”
Seriously confused. The centripetal force is the gravitational force. And what do they mean by the force ‘usually’ being gravity? What else could it be?
“When we sit on a merry-go-round or in a car taking a corner we feel the centrifugal force pulling us away from the centre of our circular motion….”
There is no force pulling us anywhere other than the friction of the car seat. Like the Moon in its orbit, we want to go in a straight line, it is the friction on the seat of the car that drags us along with the car.
Centrifugal force is a force in the opposite direction to centripetal force. People once believed that the water in a bucket being swing around a person’s head on a rope was pulling on the rope. That would be a centrifugal force. It has more recently been discovered that the only force is the tension in the rope caused by the person swinging the bucket.
It could be argued that part of that tension has to allow for the effect of gravity but that’s another argument.
It’s amazing how much of this pseudo-science is all over the Net, yet the alarmists rush off and grab any kind of it as proof to back their arguments. It amazes me how alarmists rush to defend NOAA and GISS when they are both flagrantly fudging data.
With regard to climatology, I read that as a word applied to people in fields like geography who dabble in the science. There are scientists like John Christy who has a degree in CS, and Roy, with an associated degree in meteorology, who understand the complexity of weather/climate and how it cannot be reduced to a pat theory.
“People once believed that the water in a bucket being swing around a persons head on a rope was pulling on the rope. That would be a centrifugal force. “
Actually, BOTH of those sentences are wrong.
The rope pulls inward on the bucket to make the bucket move in a circular path. The size of that inward force can be determined from Newton’s 2nd Law. F = mv^2/r.
Then Newton’s 3rd Law assures us that if the rope is pulling inward on the bucket. the bucket is pulling outward on the rope — with a force that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The water & bucket ARE pulling out on the rope!
On the other hand, “centrifugal force” is a pseudo-force (exactly as the quoted article says). In a rotating frame (like a person riding in a car going around a corner), objects do not move in straight lines — they move torward the outdi
“Many commenters have introduced philosophical arguments, insisting it is technically rotating around something in another frame of reference. I think thats all bs since I live in this reality and hopefully most others do as well.”
You are being inconsistent. If you “live in the frame of reference” of a car going around a corner, then objects moving in a straight like do NOT continue in a straight line, and you have to assume the existence a force pushing things outward — the “centrifugal force”. Only the “philosophical argument” of imagining things from the external, inertial frame eliminates this ‘centrifugal force’.
“The centripetal force is the gravitational force”
No – the centripetal force is SUPPLIED BY the gravitational force.
Re media coverage on the win for Tim Ball over Andrew Weaver:
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/b-c-green-party-s-andrew-weaver-loses-defamation-lawsuit-1.23174209
The judge weighed in with a political opinion, claiming Ball’s article was poorly written. Ball claimed later the judge had no business offering such an opinion, however, it seems the judge’s ignorance of climate matters likely won the day for Ball.
Or maybe the judge is a sly old fox. Maybe he saw what Ball had claimed about Weaver and agreed but could not legally rule on it without claiming Ball’s article was not defamatory but incompetent.
Ball is far from incompetent, he’s dead on with his criticism of AGW and it’s supporters. However, he tends to get emotional about it. I do admire his guts for calling a spade a spade in public.
Bring on Mann. He is apparently being counter-sued in another case for $10 million.
Yeah he ruled against Weaver because Ball is sofa “Balls article was rife with errors and inaccuracies that showed a lack of attention to detail and an indifference to the truth, Skolrood wrote.” king
an indifference to the truth
That means he said Ball was a liar.
Weaver doesn’t have a case because no one should believe Ball.
Hardly a win
But I guess you will take it.
It is a win Bob. The judge is clueless in regards to physics, climate science etc. So it does not matter. He has no standing to make a judgment on the science.
S,
Bad luck. Saying *it does not matter* is just the usual foolish Warmist fantasy of trying to make inconvenient facts vanish.
Maybe Weaver should accept your judgement, rather than the real judge’s, and say *It doesnt matter* ignore the judgement, and proceed merrily on his way. Foolish Warmists have a track record of ignoring real scientists, and proceeding merrily on their way, so it would be in character.
Pity the US Govt is reducing the funding for foolish Warmists. Failed defamation actions can also provide a salutary lesson if you have pay the defendants costs as well as your own – another reduction in funding to particular over confident Warmist fools?
Keep at it. Spin away. Maybe you can spin a GHE into existence? Nah, dont think so.
Cheers.
Mike,
I don’t know what the hell you are talking about. I don’t accept the GHE at all. It’s pure pseudo-science.
Try making sense sometime and pay attention.
S,
Glad to hear you reject the foolish Warmist nonsense.
I accept you havent the faintest idea what I am talking about. That is fairly obvious. I suppose your intention to avoid making the slightest effort to increase your knowledge reflects something -Im not sure what.
I have no intention of following your commands. If you feel like taking offence, be my guest.
At least we agree that the GHE is a foolish warmist fantasy.
Cheers.
Hey Mike
I see you finally found your falsifiable GHE hypothesis.
And it came from your own Cheetos stained fingers.
“GHE is a foolish warmist fantasy”
skeptic…”The judge is clueless in regards to physics, climate science etc.”
The judge probably consulted with Weaver on the science.
I don’t think he made a judgment on the science, at least from the news reports I have read.
He made a judgment on Ball’s credibility and found it wanting to say the least.
The winner doesn’t say
“I sincerely apologize to Dr. Weaver and express regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by my article.”
+1
bob,
I wrote previously –
I wouldnt be surprised if the usual foolish Warmist truth deniers pretend that Weaver actually won a stunning victory.
Im still waiting , of course.
Even you couldnt bring yourself to say that Weaver won. I suppose the usual foolish Warmist tactic of deny, divert, and confuse is all you have.
Characterising the judges written statement that *Dr. Weavers claim is dismissed.* as *Hardly a win* for Ball, shows the usual foolish Warmist disconnect from reality.
If Weaver was silly enough to proceed with a defamation case, knowingthat no-one could possibly believe the statements of the defendant as being true, how stupid would that make Weaver? Maybe you could read his mind for me, and let me know. You seem to be claiming that you know what the judge meant, in addition to what he wrote. That would seem to involve an amount of mind reading, or possibly God-like omniscience.
Carry on. Maybe you could complain that Nature doesnt seem to be complying with the demands of Warmist fools. Bad Nature!
Cheers.
Judge says to Ball, I dismiss the suit against you because you are koo-koo for co-co puffs.
Ball leaves the courtroom kicking and dancing I won the case, I won the case!
I mean, he’s the guy claiming it’s all a Club of Rome conspiracy.
This is the one thing the WUWT crowd completely ignores.
Bob….”Balls article was rife with errors and inaccuracies that showed a lack of attention to detail and an indifference to the truth, Skolrood wrote.”
According to a judge who doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground with regard to climate. I might add that Weaver, being a climate modeler, is in a similar category. Thus far, all modelers have done is make a fool of themselves.
It shows how far the rot has set in with AGW propaganda that a judge would take sides with it. The judge just made a fool of himself by getting involved with it.
Tim Ball is a 79-year old geographer.
That says it all.
p,
Judge: *Dr Weavers claim is dismissed*
That says it all. The judge doesnt give a fig for what you think, does he? Oh, what a shame.
Foolish Warmist.
Oh, by the way – Gavin Schmidt is an undistinguished mathematician and Michael Mann is a geologist, apparently unable to figure out whether he was awarded a Nobel Prize or not.
Your point was?
Cheers.
Fred Singer:
“John Christy, my fellow skeptic and fellow co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize (by virtue of having our names listed in IPCC reports) in the WSJ [ITEM #4].”
http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2007/November%203.htm
Gordon, instead of calling people names, how about critiquing Weaver’s science.
Go ahead.
Does Weaver have any science? I thought he was a GHE believer, like you, immersed in pseudoscience.
He didn’t make a judgment on the science or on Ball’s understanding of the science.
He judged that Ball got non-climate issues wrong and lied about them.
Des,
You wrote –
Saying climate is merely the average of weather is a gross mis-representation of what climate is about. Saying it IS the average is insufficient climate SETS the average. Weather then determines the variation from this average.
Are you afflicted with delusional psychosis or some other form of mental affliction, perhaps?
Heres the definition provided by the IPCC
Climate
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the �average weather�, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind.
Maybe you are just completely confused about weather and climate, or possibly living in some fantasy world of alternate reality. Climate is not* about* anything, except in the mind of deluded Warmist fools. It is an average – it determines nothing.
Foolish Warmist – maybe you could come up with something useful.
Cheers.
I guess in your mind you skimmed over “IN A NARROW SENSE”.
Des,
You guess incorrectly, as almost every Warmist fool guesses incorrectly.
But what the heck, what else would be expected from someone who thinks that cooling is heating, or that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Only a Warmist fool would think such attempts to deny, divert or confuse will alter reality.
Still no GHE. Not a smidgen, a skerrick, or a sliver of anything so ridiculous. Maybe you could magic one up?
Or maybe you could guess the GHE into existence? Give it a shot – *Yes, Virginia, I guess there is a GHE!* (to the accompaniment of raucous laughter).
Really?
Cheers.
Do you EVER answer a question DIRECTLY? Bluster is for people who need to disguise the fact that they don’t have answers.
MF doesn’t answer questions. It’s point #1 in how to tell someone is full of BS.
Why did you choose to leave out the final sentence, the one that confirms what I said:
“Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.”
Climate System: “The climate system is the highly complex system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the land surface, and the biosphere, and the interactions between them. The climate system evolves in time under the influence of its own internal dynamics and because of external forcings such as volcanic eruptions, solar variations and human-induced forcings such as the changing composition of the atmosphere and land use.”
Cherry picking at its worst.
Des,
Why not?
The climate system exists only in the fantasies of Warmist fools. Complete nonsense, following on from the IPCC admission that climate is the average of weather. An average is no more a system than any other average. The shoe size system, perhaps? Dictates shoe sizes, do you think?
Maybe you could have shot at defining the climate (or climate system) of, say, California, in meaningful, quantifiable, scientific terms. How about comparing it with the California *climate system* of 30 years ago?
Increased? Decreased? Percentage change in real terms?
Warmist fool! No wonder even politicians are waking up to the foolish Warmist delusion. Keep going. Maybe you can convince the US Govt that there have been some measurable benefits from the funds wasted at the behest of strange odds and sods such as Hansen, Schmidt and Mann.
Over to you.
Cheers.
“Warmist fools cannot help attempting to deny, divert and confuse by avoiding addressing facts, and instead talking about anything else”
Nate wrote –
Mike thinks when they tell us the birth rate is 1.89 per woman, thats impossible, cuz they cant measure 0.01 of a baby!
Nate may believe he has mastered the Warmist fools mind reading course, but alas, he has failed abysmally.
He has not the faintest idea, and has not found his missing clue. He remains clueless.
Warmist fools cannot help attempting to deny, divert and confuse by avoiding addressing facts, and instead talking about anything else – in this case, childbirth statistics! Oh well, about the level expertise one might expect from Warmist fools, or their gullible followers.
Maybe you could talk about rotation of the Moon. That might avoid the necessity of discussing the magical proposition that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Grapes, toothpicks, and toy trains, anyone?
Cheers.
Your reply is useless.
SAO PAULO (AP) Heavy rain and high winds in Rio de Janeiro have left four people dead.
Overnight storms flooded roads, downed trees and damaged several homes. Several hospitals lost power and were forced to run on generators.
By Thursday evening, authorities had cordoned off more than 50 homes that had been severely damaged in the Alemao slum complex and another neighborhood.
The mayor’s office said that the rainfall in one area was the highest recorded since authorities began gathering data in 1997. It received more rain in an hour than it would normally receive throughout February.
The range of arctic air in the north-central US is expanding.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/9fvz09uivgrw.png
How is Alaska looking?
This is now the circulation in the lower stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.png
I am asking for today’s temperature map for Alaska.
Des,
Seek and ye shall find.
if you said that you were seeking knowledge, someone might ask you to demonstrate the you had made the slightest effort to find the information you claim cannot be found by your independent efforts.
Why do you consider ren to be a superior source of knowledge? Are his links to US Govt sources superior to others, in your opinion?
I assume you are trying for a gotcha, but I could be wrong.
Cheers.
“Warmist fools cannot help attempting to deny, divert and confuse by avoiding addressing facts, and instead talking about anything else”
The circulation in the lower stratosphere.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-74.48,90.58,342
When will the winter in Canada end? Maybe in April.
ren…”When will the winter in Canada end? Maybe in April….”
March is usually a transition month out here on the south Pacific coast. It usually begins to show shirt-sleeve warmth in April around here but I recall camping trips at the end of May where it got pretty cold at night. Not freezing, but damp and cold.
That was further inland.
June is another transition month in which we tend to have warm but unsettled weather. It can rain a lot.
I was working in the Tar Sands in the Edmonton region and further north in Fort McMurray in late March about 10 years ago. It was nice when I first got there but suddenly dropped to -20C and below for several weeks at night.
17 days in a row of negative SOI values.
The 30-day average is now about -2
p,
Ooooh. So sciency. Colour me less than totally blown away.
The point of your comment escapes me. Does it have something to do with some foolish Warmist fantasy, or are you just reporting an average of some measurement of no particular use to anyone?
Maybe detailed examination of past averages or chicken entrails will enable the future to be laid open to the climatological high priests.
Maybe you are just a Warmist fool, trying to sound as though someone should be impressed?
Maybe someone is. Another Warmist cultist, perhaps.
Cheers.
“Warmist fools cannot help attempting to deny, divert and confuse by avoiding addressing facts, and instead talking about anything else”
des…”Warmist fools cannot help attempting to deny, divert and confuse by avoiding addressing facts, and instead talking about anything else”
Des has turned into a parrot.
Poly want a cracker?
Poly??
Are you saying I am a polymath? Are you struggling with my polysyllabic words? Are you struggling to keep up with my simple polysyllogistic arguments? Are you polygamous? Is your wife polyandrous?
OR … are you confused by simple polyphonous words.
Gordon can’t critique anyone’s science, so he has to resort to name-calling.
Poor Mike.
You sound just like Homer Simpson.
Being so distressed by such a simple observation is a sign of ignorance. So sad.
Let me help you:
The Southern Oscillation Index, or SOI, gives an indication of the development and intensity of El Nio or La Nia events in the Pacific Ocean. The SOI is calculated using the pressure differences between Tahiti and Darwin.
Sustained negative values of the SOI below −7 often indicate El Nio episodes. These negative values are usually accompanied by sustained warming of the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, a decrease in the strength of the Pacific Trade Winds.
Sustainted positive values of the SOI above +7 are typical of a La Nia episode. They are associated with stronger Pacific trade winds.
There, now that was’nt so difficult to understand was it?
https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/965645118811275264
Bart from Feb 5
“As soon as temperatures start to decline, the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 will start to decline.”
So we can use CO2 rates of increase as a litmus test for the truth of your cooling hypothesis then? (Over periods long enough to smooth out ENSO cycles of course.)
Why CO2 does not work over the Pacific?
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/3xf6aaq62mxf.png
ren, you clearly don’t understand the first thing about GHG warming. But by all means, keep letting us see that.
davie, the first thing YOU need to learn is that there is NO GHG warming!
But by all means, keep entertaining us with your pseudoscience.
you’re stupid.
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
Why CO2 also does not work over the Atlantic?
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00958/zdp6legm3pce.png
ren….”Why CO2 also does not work over the Atlantic?”
Here’s UAH global map for January 2018:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/jan2018/JANUARY%202018.png
There’s a smidgen of warming below Greenland but look at all the white over the rest of the globe…no warming.
Also, look at the wide blob of cooling green east of Greenland. What’s that doing there in a warming Arctic?
Look at Australia. Unlike what our alarmist friends from Oz tell us, there was a slight warming over part of Oz but most of it had no warming and even a bit of cooling.
Of course, the Bureau of Meteorology down there will be showing record breaking warming.
UAH LT v6 warming over Australia = +0.70 C over the entire record (39.1 years).
davie, what was the value the previous 39.1 years?
(Hilarious.)
There weren’t measurements for that period.
Why is that “hilarious?”
Operational SST Anomaly Charts for 2018
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.2.15.2018.gif
Nino 3,4 Index
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
G*e*r*a*n
What axis? If the Moon is not rotating, it cannot have an axis? How can you identify the Moon’s North pole, South Pole or Equator?
Em, here’s where that discussion begins:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287131
Glad to see you’re trying to keep up.
entropic…”If the Moon is not rotating, it cannot have an axis? How can you identify the Moons North pole, South Pole or Equator?”
They were not identified on the Earth either, they were defined. The Earth does rotate but the notion of an axis perpendicular to the direction of rotation is a figment of the human imagination.
You could define an axis on the Moon by noting the orientation to it’s orbital plane. It would have no meaning if the Moon is not rotating and has no magnetic field.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The Earth does rotate but the notion of an axis perpendicular to the direction of rotation is a figment of the human imagination.”
The vector associated with the Earth’s rotation is *PARALLEL* to the direction associated with its axis.
Golf Charlie
Alas, I have a life. Circumstances force me to leave this website, sometimes for hours at a time.
Gordon Robertson
Back to frames of reference again?
entropic…”Back to frames of reference again?”
Frames can lead to an interesting philosophical discussion like, ‘Who am I anyway”. A simple observation of conversations people have with themselves suggest there are at least two separate entities in there, like a conscious ‘me’ and someone representing the rest of the body/mind.
Frames serve no useful purpose in normal, everyday science. I think g*r’s initial point brought the question down to a definite frame of reference, the Moon and its axis. Is the Moon turning around it’s axis?
Many commenters have introduced philosophical arguments, insisting it is technically rotating around something in another frame of reference. I think that’s all bs since I live in this reality and hopefully most others do as well. I used to enjoy philosophical discussion till I began to realize how much sheer nonsense is involved.
If you empty your mind, even for a few seconds, before the garbage starts to flood back in, and that applies equally to me, you will ‘see’ there is really only one person in there. Furthermore, there is only one frame of reference for the most part. In order for there to be more, we have to divide our minds into different people looking from different perspectives, a purely psychological exercise.
Do yourself a favour an try to ‘see’ what is really going on. If you keep things to one frame of reference and focus hard on the situation you can see all motions relative to the one frame. It cuts the bs that leads to space-time nonsense and so on.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Frames serve no useful purpose in normal, everyday science.”
You’re an uninformed idiot.
And someone who has clearly never studied special or general relativity, where reference frames, particularly inertial frames, are paramount.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Many commenters have introduced philosophical arguments, insisting it is technically rotating around something in another frame of reference. I think thats all bs since I live in this reality and hopefully most others do as well.”
Is the Earth spinning with respect to your reference frame?
Is is spinning with respect to the center of the Sun?
des…here I’ll post it for you again:
“The climate system is the highly complex system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the land surface, and the biosphere, and the interactions between them. The climate system evolves in time under the influence of its own internal dynamics and because of external forcings such as volcanic eruptions, solar variations and human-induced forcings such as the changing composition of the atmosphere and land use.”
The problem with such an analogy is the imposition of the human mind. We invented time to keep tract of changes then we began talking about time as if it actually exists.
Think of the planet as a vast space of now, no future no past, which is the reality. In that space, it rains a lot, not much, or hardly at all. And/or, there’s a lot of sun, not much, or hardly any. There is a lot of wind, not much, or hardly any. There are many clouds, not much, or hardly any.
All of this is what we call weather and there is no climate with it’s own forcings. The so-called forcings are natural events like solar warming, or lack thereof, resultant thermals, clouds formation, precipitation, etc. Nothing to do with climate.
In that space of now, if there’s hardly any rain, a lot of strong solar energy and not many clouds, things tend not to grow (deserts). In the opposition situation, many things grow, often in abundance. And of course, there are conditions in between.
Along comes the human being with his penchant for keeping tract of things, so he needs to introduce time. He invents a machine called a clock to generate the time, not measure it as some think. However, all the clocks would run on their own time and each person with a clock would have a different time. Also, it would be a different time of day in different parts of the world.
So a syncrhonizing system was setup in Greenwich, England as 0 hours and the globe was divided into partitions of longitude with 24 time zones. For anyone who thinks time is an independent entity, it must take some explaining how the Earth has 24 time zones.
So, the wily human needed to keep tract of daily weather and he averaged it’s effects and called that climate, a human invention. Later, as his ego and arrogance grew, he claimed his invention had it’s own internal dynamics. Some of the more arrogant went even further, claiming time is a separate dimension that can combine with space to form gravity and black holes.
There is no accounting for the bs that emanates from the human mind.
I was hoping for a SCIENTIFIC response, not a Gordon response.
And apparently you believe that “keep track of” should be “keep tract of”. You said it twice, so it is clearly not a typo. Your English skills belie your claims of an education before even considering your rubbish science.
Des says:
“I was hoping for a SCIENTIFIC response, not a Gordon response”
+1
des…”I was hoping for a SCIENTIFIC response…”
You got one you’re just too stupid to figure it out.
Some Australians, like their counterparts in New Zealand and England have an obtuse, arrogant nature through which they receive a biased version of the world. I could not give a hoot how you assess my input, you got it, live with it and quit your pathetic whining.
As for your sniveling sidekick, Appell, he groveled to Roy to get back on the board and perhaps Roy, in a moment of benevolence, decided to allow it, giving him the benefit of the doubt. Turns out Appell is still the same basic ass who insulted Roy, Dr. Judith Curry, and Anthony Watts.
Between the two of you, having half a brain each, maybe you could team together and make a complete human. I doubt it, but you could try.
Recognition that what you write is not science is ubiquitous – nationality doesn’t come into it. It is interesting that you decry personal attacks while being comfortable with prejudicial attacks on entire countries. Apparently you believe that the more people you attack at once, the lesser the offence.
You really are ignorant, there are more like 35 time zones, but who’s counting?
GR, How did that that light bulb test of your revised 2nd Law turn out? Did you grab hold of the hot bulb and burn your hand, thus take a trip back to reality?
swannie…still think you’re norman….”How did that that light bulb test of your revised 2nd Law turn out? Did you grab hold of the hot bulb and burn your hand, thus take a trip back to reality?”
What’s your point? An incandescent light bulb uses a tungsten filament that gets so hot it emits visible light. It heats the glass with IR, which in turn burns your fingers. You surely did not think it was direct EM radiation burning your fingers, did you?
GR wrote…
Whats your point? An incandescent light bulb uses a tungsten filament that gets so hot it emits visible light. It heats the glass with IR, which in turn burns your fingers. You surely did not think it was direct EM radiation burning your fingers, did you?
Thanks, you’ve answered your own question. The EM radiation from the filament heats the glass, as well as your hand, if you held it there very long. That EM radiation includes both visible and IR, either of which would deposit energy on your hand, causing a painful response.
Other than that, let me state again that I’m not Norman and have identified myself for anyone who cares to look. You, however, continue to be a troll spreading FUD and disinformation, repeating your mantra from G & T, something you have been doing since 2008. Maybe you aren’t really an engineer living in BC, but another one of those Russian trolls we are hearing about these days.
swannie, you may not be Norm, but your grasp of physics is as confused as his. The visible light from the filament passes through the glass bulb. That is going to burn your hand!
The filament is typically about 2500C (4500F). The glass bulb is only about 95C (200F).
I really did not know that persons writing on this thread could be stubborn enough to repeat like parrots ‘No warming, no warming’ when looking at no more than the most recent global UAH anomalies, of january 2018.
Incredible but true: they exist.
Here are two pictures differing fundamentally but having the same origin, as you can see:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
On the left you see these monthly anomalies which tell you nothing about warming or cooling.
On the right you see a picture telling you a bit more.
Of course: the same people will tell you all that warming be due to El Nino.
But look how the UAH6.0 record looks like when you flatten the bigger Nino events (but without modifying any Nina event):
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518698513129.jpg
Trend original: 0.128 C / decade
Trend modified: 0.122 C / decade
That means that when you remove the bigger El Nino peaks by replacing, in a copy of the original UAH6.0 Globe anomaly time series, the biggest anomalies by smaller ones, the trend difference (i.e. the so called El Nino warming) is no more than 0.006 C / decade.
I laugh right now about the Flynn dog barking one more time, woooah woooah woooah:
Foolish warmist!
No GHE!
Cheers.
*
By the way: he and his Kumpel Robertson should try to do that at WUWT.
They would experience some increasingly harsh reaction:
1. [? .mod]
2. [Is that nonsense all you can bring to us? .mod]
3. [snip. What nonsense are you telling us here? .mod]
But never and never would these two guys be courageous enough to face WUWT’s moderation that way !!!
It’s much more convenient to silently, cowardly abuse Roy Spencer’s tolerance, right?
La P,
Wrong again, foolish Warmist.
I dont believe I have ever been subject to censorship on WUWT. You pretend to know better, of course!
I assume you are trying the foolish Warmist tactics of deny, divert and confuse because you cant actually provide a testable GHE hypothesis.To do that, youd have to find a properly expressed description of the Greenhouse Effect.
I also get the impression you are attempting some sort of weird ad hominem argument, involving presentation of your fantasies as having some relevance to the real world.
As to Dr Spencers tolerance – his blog, his rules. Have you tried telling him how he should carry out his affairs? He might agree, or he might not. If you dont try, youll never know.
If you want to stop me asking to see some science in relation to the fabled heating effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, you might wish to supply a rigorous description of the GHE, and a testable GHE hypothesis to accompany it.
In the meantime, feel free to attempt to squash any attempts to ascertain what Warmist fools actually believe. Its quite entertaining.
Until you can provide one –
No GHE. Just the fantasies of a foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
“…I believe I have pointed out why the lowest temperatures on Earth are to be found where the amount of GHGs is least. Basic physics.”
– Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
David,
Absolutely true. As is the accompanying statement that the highest temperatures on Earth are to be found where the amount of GHGs is least. The GHE doesnt exist. The effect with no effect, one might say.
Doesnt seem to apply when it is hot, when it is cold, at night, when its overcast, raining or foggy. It also seems to stop working in the path of a total eclipse when the Sun is occluded.
Do you think that Warmist fools are confusing sunlight with the GHE? As there is no written scientific description of the GHE, who would know? Have you found a properly constructed GHE hypothesis yet?
You dont need to answer, of course.
Cheers.
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
Flynn
Nobody pretends that you ever would have been censored at WUWT.
That is your typical way to pervert other people’s arguments.
*
What I wrote is that you are too much a coward to behave at WUWT exactly as you do here at Roy Spencer’s site.
Because you perfectly know that doing the like, Anthony Watts would ban you within one or two days.
And would you write your foolish rubbish at Climate Etc, Judith Curry would have the same reaction, and… you pretty good know that, and publish there quite different things.
I know: you will continue to waste this wonderful site with your unscientific, nosensical and egocentric nonsense.
Na und? Wer sind Sie schon, Flynn?
Flynn’s flippancy hides his fear of being wrong. Refusing to answer questions about one’s ideas is another way to avoid being wrong.
Wer ist er? Ein scheinbar weg g*e*r*a*nnte Mensch.
Jemand hat zu viel getrunken.
Hoffentlich “j*e*m*a*n*d” jetzt besser fhlt.
binny…”But look how the UAH6.0 record looks like when you flatten the bigger Nino events (but without modifying any Nina event):”
Your still a clown, even with your new fruity nym.
Come back when you can read a graph and understand the difference between half a trend line representing rewarming (below baseline) and the other half representing true warming (above baseline), post 1998. Then look at the post 1998 era and see three major El Ninos in 1998, 2010, and 2016.
Now tell me they have nothing to do with psot-1998 warming.
Are you really that dumb, Robertson?
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518698513129.jpg
Don’t you see that your El Ninos have been dropped of the graph (while all la Ninas were kept in), and that nevertheless the trend keeps the same, differing by no more than 0.006 C / decade?
What does that mean?
Will you ever be able to figure it out, instead of writing your usual, so incredibly unscientific ‘below/above baseline’ blah blah.
I’m afraid you won’t.
My friend Bindidon calls you a troll. I understand him.
Best regards
Rose J. Koelm
It means you can always fit a least squares trend to any set of data. I think you need to submit a paper to the Journal of the Patently Obvious.
The most recent El Nino season was the warmest on record (for both surface and lower troposphere).
The most recent La Nina season was the warmest on record for….
The most recent neutral season was the warmest on record for….
All these seasons are getting warmer.
why?
Aren’t all points of a graph after a sustained rise by construction higher than those that came before? This is mere tautology.
binny…”My friend Bindidon calls you a troll. I understand him”.
Enough with the lies. We know you are binny. You must be an insecure teenager with the way you feel the need to deceive people.
Gordon, we have already been through this one, no need to repeat it:
“half a trend line representing rewarming (below baseline) and the other half representing true warming (above baseline)”.
The baseline is an arbitrary convention.
binny…”But never and never would these two guys be courageous enough to face WUWTs moderation that way !!! ”
Better fitted to you and your fetish with authority.
ren says:
February 16, 2018 at 11:19 AM
ren says:
February 16, 2018 at 11:26 AM
– Why CO2 does not work over the Pacific?
– Why CO2 also does not work over the Atlantic?
*
The inverse questions might be:
– Why do you expect this poor CO2 guy to work in the way you present us here?
– Why do you try to draw conclusions out of a daily picture of temperature anomalies?
– Why don’t you try to obtain a gridded time series of CO2 concentration together with an equally gridded time series of temperatures, in order to compare for example their 36 or even 60 month month running means?
Gute Nacht / Dobranoc ren…
Jesus is that Moon spin discussion boring!
It is so boring because so many people pretend to know somewhat about it, but in fact don’t. It is far more fun to guess.
Ich bin keine Spezialistin der Astronomie und ziehe es daher vor, in der Sache zu schweigen.
No object can be tidally locked if it is not rotating.
And no object that is rotating in one reference frame but not another can be said to not be spinning.
davie, you have locked yourself out of understanding the difference between “orbiting” and “rotation on its axis”.
It’s fun to watch.
The Earth orbits the Sun, but doesn’t always present the same side to it.
very good davie.
Keep learning.
g*%^$#@: Therefore, presenting or orbiting does not mean always presenting the same side to another body.
La P,
if you wish to be bored, that is your affair. Thank you for sharing. I never choose to be bored. I cant see any benefit.
Maybe you enjoy being bored, or try to blame your inadequacies on others. Nobody is forcing you to read comments, as far as I know.
Can you not control your mind? Do you find yourself unable to resist reading things which you claim make you bored? Oh well, maybe you have the sort of mental condition that Warmist fools require of their worshippers. Cults thrive on people who give control of their lives to others.
I suppose that foolish Warmists prefer to talk about anything but the missing magical, GHE, and what it is supposed to explain. And why not?
Cheers.
Mike, you are totally bored (and boring). Why else would you spend so much time on this site repeating ad nauseum the same old rubbish. Go get a life.
That’s what I don’t understand. How can repeating the same old witless things time and time again, while staunchly refusing to answer any questions at all about one’s claims or ideas, be in any way satisfying to anyone?
Number of months each decade with a UAH anomaly of +0.25 or greater:
1980s … 1
1990s … 15
2000s … 18
2010s … 41 not out
Number of YEARS each decade with a positive UAH anomaly:
1980s … 2
1990s … 4
2000s … 8
2010s … 8 not out
Yes Des!
So what?
Hahahaha ….
Teacher A:
“The marks of my 5 students … 92,99,89,96,85 …
the marks of your 5 students … 62, 27, 48, 59, 17”
Teacher B:
“So what?”
So what?
Tell you what – I’ll play the logical scientist and you can play the conservative without a clue.
Oops – looks like you came up with that idea first.
Come on. So what? What does it mean?
I can’t be bothered reading all the post on the moon’s rotation.
But even though we have 365.25 DAYS in a year, the earth completes 366.25 ROTATIONS in a year. The earth rotates approximately 361 degrees in a day on its own axis.
The moon bulges at the equator like the earth, due to the fact it IS rotating.
des, learn the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
The Moon’s equatorial bulge is explained by the past, before it was “tidally locked”.
des…”The moon bulges at the equator like the earth, due to the fact it IS rotating”.
Now there’s an example of Australian logic and brilliance. I know there are smart Australians, like tony m, but is it a coincidence we get the bottom of the barrel here and they are all alarmists?
There’s a new one for physics 101, any moon/planet with a bulging equator must be rotating.
Turning and rotating are synonyms.
It would be very difficult for a horse to make its way around a track while always facing north. It’s possible, but would require the horse to step sideways (or be carried sideways), and to walk backwards for much of the route. Much easier for the horse to turn.
A circular route (path) around a center point is the definition of orbit.
The horse would perform that motion (orbit) regardless of whether it was careful to always face north, or whether it did so while turning.
If a face of the moon had an arrow that pointed strait towards the sun, the arrow would progressively point to the right, directly away, to the left, and finally back towards the sun again. The arrow rotated with respect to the sun.
While doing so, the moon also completed a circular path around the earth…..an orbit.
A train is stuck on tracks. It doesn’t have the ability to complete an orbit while always facing north. It is forced to turn (rotate).
???
snake, you really need a toy train to observe and study. It’s hard to understand the Moon issue if you don’t even understand train motion.
snape…”If a face of the moon had an arrow that pointed strait towards the sun, the arrow would progressively point to the right, directly away, to the left, and finally back towards the sun again. The arrow rotated with respect to the sun”.
I don’t understand why you are getting hung up on this. Sure the arrow turns wrt the Sun but why does it turn?
It’s turning because it has one face glued to the Earth’s gravitational field to which the Moon is held in its orbit. What you are seeing with the arrow is an effect of the orbit, not the Moon turning on an axis.
Suppose the Moon was modeled by a large ball atop the Eiffel Tower. It is held rigidly to the Earth as the Earth turns. The Sun sees the ball as turning as well but the ball cannot rotate because it is held in position.
Mike R’s B example is the same as what I have just described. He made a mistake and showed the dumbell rotating about it’s centre of gravity.
Young snake believes: “Turning and rotating are synonyms.”
Well snake, some people believe that. So, it’s important to always use the terms “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”. Then there’s no confusion.
Except for the uneducated.
From Dictionary.com:
Turn: to cause to move around on an axis or about a center; rotate:
Get an education, turnip boy. Aren’t you tired of being on the losing end all the time?
Merriam Webster:
Turn: to cause to move around an axis or a center : make rotate or revolve.
Total bummer, G*!
Bummer: 1. A word describing the misfortune of something or someone. 2. A situation in which no desireable result can occur [the Urban Dictionary]
SGW, if you understand those basic definitions, now see if you can understand this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
G*
Looking at the globe, the squares we see are moving from right to left. The squares on the opposite side of the globe are moving left to right. That shows the globe is rotating about an axis.
When a horse is running around a track, if its head is turning from north to east, the horses ass (you) will be turning from south to west. That shows the horse is rotating about an axis.
G*, I have no problem with your link. Now please look at the paragraph entitled “Vector Expression” and you will see that none of your mumbo-jumbo about vectors remotely resembles anything in this paragraph.
You don’t get that an object rotating about its axis can follow an orbital path, and that when that object rotates at the rate of one 360 degree revolution per one orbit, one would see the same side of that object from the viewpoint of the center of orbit.
Your confusion remains.
Your link even refers to the rotation as a “turning”:
“The Angular Momentum of a rotating body is proportional to its mass and to how rapidly it is turning.”
Poor snake continues in his confusion: “That shows the horse is rotating about an axis.”
No, the horse is NOT “rotating on its axis”. The horse is “orbiting”!
You really need to get a toy train set and study its motion.
G*,
Your declarations remain unsupported.
You fail to realize that objects can and do rotate on their own axis while following an orbital path.
Place a directional arrow through the centroid (axis of rotation) of the train which will point in the train’s direction of travel. Place a north arrow through the centroid of the train. What you will observe is the directional arrow of the train rotating about the north arrow as the train follows the orbital path.
SGW says: “Now please look at the paragraph entitled ‘Vector Expression’ and you will see that none of your mumbo-jumbo about vectors remotely resembles anything in this paragraph.”
They are representing forces with vectors. I was using geometric vectors as a visual aid. Just use a pencil, if vector rotation confuses you.
SGW says: “You dont get that an object rotating about its axis can follow an orbital path, and that when that object rotates at the rate of one 360 degree revolution per one orbit, one would see the same side of that object from the viewpoint of the center of orbit.”
No, I exactly “get” that. That’s why I’m saying the Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”. The only way you would see only one side of the Moon, from Earth, would be if the Moon were NOT “rotating on its axis”. That’s why the little toy train is such a perfect illustration, for those that can think for themselves.
Same result with a horse.
SGW continues to confuse himself: “You fail to realize that objects can and do rotate on their own axis while following an orbital path.”
SGW, how many times have you failed to understand the basic issue. The issue is not whether object can “orbit” and “rotate on its axis”, at the same time. The Earth does that!
The issue is that the Moon does not “rotate on its axis”.
You confuse yourself because you can’t stay focused on the issue.
Focus!
MikeR’s visual proves you wrong. Object B which is shown rotating on the left is placed on an orbital path on the right. The graphic shows they are both rotating as the same rpm. And one side of the object is visible from the center of orbit during its orbit.
All the practical experiments I’ve performed (and anyone can perform) prove you wrong.
All you are left with is rabid proclamations which are worthless. You never provide answers. Just insane proclamations.
Meanwhile…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287438
And its two clowns in here against the rest of us and NASA, which DOES know stuff about space.
SGW, miker’s graphics are wrong, and just confuse you. Your “experiments” just confuse you further, because you can’t even understand the issue.
If you understood the issue, the little toy train would be all the proof you needed.
But, you can’t process facts and logic.
It’s fun to watch.
G*,
All you EVER do is make unsupported proclamations.
The north arrow and directional arrow on the train prove my point. The directional arrow rotates about the north arrow as train moves along the orbital path.
Hold a toy train in your hand and make it point north. Now perform a circular orbit, keeping the train pointing north. A person at the center of orbit will see all sides of the train.
Now rotate the toy train in your hand as it follows the orbital path so the side of the train points towards the center of orbit. A person at the center of orbit will see only one side of the train as it follows the orbital path, since it rotates once on its axis per one orbit.
Go to your local community college and ask any physics professor. Go online to any physics forum and explain your nonsense. Then get back to us.
SGW, you STILL don’t get it. By holding the train facing north, as you make an orbit, you are forcing both an orbit and rotation on it axis.
Consider a CCW orbit. If you make the orbit, holding the train north, you are replicating the object “rotating on its axis” CW, once per orbit. If you can’t understand this, go back to the train on the track. The train is always facing down the track. The track in curved, forcing the train into the orbit. But the train is NOT “rotating on its axis”. Orbital motion does NOT force “rotating on it axis”. There are TWO different, independent motions being discussed.
I tried to teach you with the simple example of a string tied to an orange. But, you reject anything that does not fit your pre-conceived, closed-mind, irrational opinion.
THAT’s called “pseudoscience”, and it’s fun to watch.
More please.
OMG G*. An object that always faces north does not rotate. That is mathematically impossible. Do you even have a 6th grade education? You have to turn it to make it rotate. You really don’t get this stuff.
You are confusing translational motion with rotational motion. In the link you provided, translation “occurs when every particle of the body has the same instantaneous velocity as every other particle; then the path traced out by any particle is exactly parallel to the path traced out by every other particle in the body.” In simplistic terms, the body does not change its orientation with respect to the non-rotating reference frame.
A toy train that is held in the north position, but only changes position in the xy plane is exhibiting translational motion per the definition. You learn this in first year college physics.
For rotation you HAVE to have an angular displacement. That does not occur when the train is held so that it always points north during an orbit.
You are WAY out of your league here. You obviously have not taken any physics courses that involve kinematics.
G*
From Wikipedia, under “translation”:
“In physics, translation (Translational motion) is movement that changes the position of an object, as opposed to rotation”
A train, horse, car or whatever object you want, that makes an orbit about a circular track, and always points north, is experiencing translation motion, not rotational, PER THE DEFINITION.
And a person at the center of orbit will see all sides of the object.
Whereas, if the object rotates so that the inside always faces the center of orbit as it follows the orbital path, a person at the center of orbit will only see one side of the object. It is experiencing rotation per the clear definition.
You are violating the definitions of rotation and orbit that are clearly defined in the field of kinematics.
As a parting (I hope) gift to g* , I have modified my gif to include his much beloved train.
See –
https://s20.postimg.org/vuw6lvrv1/moon_with_wheels.gif .
If only the moon had wheels and there was a track with a radius of 385,000 km around the earth, the analogy would be perfect.
But of course according to g*’s view , the train is not rotating with respect to an inertial frame of reference such as the stationary box (B) at left.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“SGW, how many times have you failed to understand the basic issue. The issue is not whether object can orbit and rotate on its axis, at the same time. The Earth does that!”
From your perspective, does the Earth rotate on its axis?
How do you know?
With Mike’s new gif, object B (the train) is shown rotating on its axis on the left. Now on the right, the same rotating train (rotating on its axis) is placed on an orbital path, with one side always facing the center of orbit as it moves along the orbital path. Poor G* loses again.
“But of course according to g*s view , the train is not rotating with respect to an inertial frame of reference such as the stationary box (B) at left.”
This is where G* fails with respect to the precise definitions of rotational and translational motion. Because if the object B is not rotating, then it has to be experiencing translation motion. But it is not per the precise definition of translation motion, where all points of an object would need to maintain their precise relative position with respect to the non-rotating x-y reference frame.
SGW, there are two types of translational motion: rectilinear and curvilinear.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-286213
LMAO.
Crickets from G* because he cannot understand translation, rotation, and orbit.
[Jeopardy theme continues to play]
I think for the music playing in your head, the theme to The Magic Roundabout would be more appropriate.
Hey J-Dumbass,
Your idiot buddy left with his tail between his legs. Suggest you do likewise. Every time you open your mouth, stupid stuff emerges.
Your buddy Dumber thinks an object that always points north is rotating. LMAO. That’s what happens when you have rookie imbeciles trying to compete with those of us who have a physics related degree and a physics related career.
You are downright embarrassing yourself.
2nd Spirograph wheel.
snape…”Turning and rotating are synonyms.
It would be very difficult for a horse to make its way around a track while always facing nort”.
No matter how you define it, a horse does not rotate around a track. Not unless it’s one of those carousel horses mounted on an axis about which he can turn while the goes around the track on a rail.
Gordon,
No. You are not considering the fixed reference frame. It does not matter that the horse is fixed to the merry-go-round. It is still exhibiting rotation with respect to the non-rotating fixed reference frame as it follows the orbital path. By the simple definition of rotation. This is confusing to some people.
Imagine a person riding on the horse, holding a compass. The horse will be rotating about the north arrow of the compass as the horse follows the orbital path.
Please look at MikeR’s new gif:
https://s20.postimg.org/vuw6lvrv1/moon_with_wheels.gif
Object B, in this case a train, it shown rotating about it’s own axis on the left. This rotating train is then placed on an orbital path on the right (it is still rotating on it’s axis). The object rotates on its own axis as it follows the orbital path. And since the train makes one rotation per one orbit, an observer at the center of orbit will see the same side of the train.
SGW refuses to consider the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
What a great year in climate comedy!
So sad that so many people abandon physics and invent their own science, believing that a dictionary will help them with physics concepts. The kinetic energy of a rotating body is Iω. A tidally locked planet has TWO KE contributions, an orbital KE and a rotational KE.
Even sadder that so many people replied to this incidental post and ignored my more important and more relevant previous post. I guess I will learn next time not to provide a diversion for deniers from the hard facts of the warming climate.
I didn’t ignore your cherry-picking, des. I saw it, just didn’t comment.
But, if you’re fishing for compliments, then: “Great job cherry-picking, des!”
As I used ALL UAH TLT global monthly data (except for 1979 – not a full decade), I’d love to know how you consider that to be cherry-picking. Cherry picking occurs when deniers pick a a handful of months from 1998 as their baseline.
The “cherry-picking” refers to the brief time period, not the data source. Do you believe 40 years catches all natural variation of planet Earth?
All I was trying to show was the the UAH data shows significant warming over the past 40 years and that there has been no “pause”. Good to see we agree on that now.
Oh, I can definitely agree that was what you were trying to show. That’s why I used the phrase “cherry-picking”.
So, yes we can agree on that.
Good to see you also agree that I showed this successfully.
Sorry des, only ONE KE for Moon–orbital.
Trying to create energy, where there is none, is right out of AGW pseudoscience. But, you probably knew that.
If a spherical object is fired horizontally with no intrinsic rotation (ie. a perfect knuckle-ball) high above the earth with orbital velocity, as it rotates about the earth it will NOT start rotating relative to the background stars due to the earth’s gravity, yet it WILL rotate relative to the earth. Apparently some people here believe that the earth’s gravity can apply a torque to the sphere. No torque = no rotation, so clearly the earth is NOT the correct reference frame for judging rotation (or rotational energy).
I typed this in the wrong place. It wasn’t designed to be a direct response to your comment. (Assertions without justification followed by bluster don’t warrant a response.)
Exactly. So, are you wanting to take your name off the “rotators” list?
Sorry?? Are you seriously unable to comprehend that I am saying the moon DOES rotate?? I argued that “the earth is NOT the correct reference frame for judging rotation”, and you have just agreed with me. So we both now agree that just because we see no rotation from earth’s reference frame does NOT mean the moon is not rotating.
des, the “knuckle-ball” you mentioned would NOT be “rotating on its axis”. I thought you could make the connection to the Moon.
Sorry if I mistakenly assumed you had suddenly acquired the ability to reason.
the knuckle-ball you mentioned would NOT be rotating on its axis
Yes – that is EXACTLY what I said … “no intrinsic rotation”.
You really need to work on those comprehension skills.
Just like the Moon.
Your inability to thoroughly analyse my syllogism is hilarious. You exhibit the laziness of a typical science denier.
I guess you lost me when you denied your own example of the knuckle-ball that was not rotating, but in orbit, but that was not analogous to the moon.
So what would the view be from the moon?
Say from a spot visible from the earth, so you would see the earth hanging in view but not moving.
Now you would see the sun rise and traverse across your view and set, and the stars would rise and set as well.
How could this happen if the moon was not rotating on its axis?
The not-rotating group are challenging a box of moon rocks for intelligence.
bob, learn the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
The Earth has both motions. The Moon only has “orbiting”.
The observation that the sun rises and sets to an observer on the moon proves that the moon rotates on its axis.
The moon most definitely rotates on its axis while it revolves around the earth.
you are one **** ******-******
No bob, the Moon only has one motion. Think of a little toy train going around an oval track.
I can’t make it any simpler than that.
No way dude,
The motion of the moon is complex, for one it revolves, (and that is the correct term, not orbits) around the earth, it also revolves around the sun, it also revolves around the center of the milky way galaxy, as well as moving in the same general direction as the local group.
It’s not so simple as simpletons would wish.
And I have a little toy train set, with a headlight on the locomotive, and it shines a light, which traces a path all around the room.
notice the term around, the light from the toy train goes around the room because the little toy train is rotating.
Else it couldn’t do that.
Its orbiting.
J-Brainless,
It’s orbiting AND rotating. Objects can orbit without rotating. It’s called translation. Get with the program.
Yes, the Earth both orbits and rotates on its axis, for example. Next straw man, please.
But, of course, bobs toy train is just *orbiting*.
Not literally, of course, just an analogy.
Let’s say you don’t see the toy train set, you just see the light.
What properties would you assign to the object making that pattern of light?
Illusions are illusions. It wouldnt change the reality of what the toy train is doing.
So if you can’t see the toy train, it could be a model lighthouse with a light that is spinning on its axis.
Or are you going to say a lighthouse light doesn’t spin on its axis.
Or the toy train is spinning on its axis like the moon is spinning on its axis.
If you are disagreeing with every astronomer on the planet, maybe you are wrong.
Ask Phil Plait
Bob, the toy train is *orbiting*, not *rotating on its axis*. In order to do the latter, whilst going round the track, it would have to effectively derail itself.
It is doing both, rotating and orbiting.
Poor Fool
Its orbiting. Poor fool.
bobdroege says: “Ask Phil Plait”
Hilarious!
bob considers Plait his “expert”!
g*
Last comment to you on this topic. We are in 1/2 agreement:
Sitting in the stands, I am able to see all sides of a horse as it moves around the track. Therefore is rotates on its axis relative to me.
If I were to stand in the middle of the track, only one side of the horse would ever be visible. The horse is therefore not rotating about an axis relative to this central location.
The same idea can be applied to the moon. Relative to earth the moon does not rotate. Relative to a man on the moon the moon does not rotate.
Relative to just about any other vantage point in the universe, the moon definitely DOES rotate.
snape, you’re getting there, but just afraid to make the last step. You’ve arrived at the swimming hole, but you’re afraid to take the plunge!
The Moon is NOT “rotating on it axis”. There are TWO different motions being discussed. The motion you would see from the stands is “orbiting”.
Jump in, the water’s fine (heated by CO2)!
☺
Yes, nearly there Snape. Maybe time for a look back at MikeRs gif, and this might help too:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287141
Dimmer
In the central diagram, the planet only sees one side of the dumbbell. The letter “b” sees all sides.
Relative to the planet there is no rotation. Relative to the letter B there is.
Halp
Just to be clear. I’m talking about the middle diagram. I used the letter B itself as a fixed external reference point from which to view the orbit of the corresponding dumbbell.
Like I said, from that viewpoint all sides of the dumbbell are visible.
Also, If a spider was riding on any one of the dumbbells, that dumbbell would not be rotating relative to the spider. If the spider stayed still, it would only ever see one side.
snake, the issue is “rotating on its axis”, not rotating relative to some location of your choosing.
rotating with respect to WHAT?
All movement is with respect to something — basic Galilean physics.
No, Snape, you need to distinguish orbital motion from *rotating on its axis*. People are just making the same mistakes over and over again.
S: Like I said, from that viewpoint all sides of the dumbbell are visible.
J: Because its *orbiting*! Snape, two of the dumbbell shapes *are* both orbiting and rotating on their axes, but B is not. I even directed you to a comment where I describe how many times they rotate on their axes whilst orbiting, and in which direction. If you disagree, tell me how many times you think they are rotating on their axes per orbit? Try doing that without reference to the boxes on the left, just looking at main illustration of the orbiting dumbbells.
Halp
The letter “B”, used as a reference point, sees the corresponding dumbbell circling the planet. “Circling the planet” is the orbital motion.
As the dumbbell orbits the planet, one side can always point to a fixed reference point (non rotation), or one side can progressively turn (rotate).
David
“All movement is with respect to something basic Galilean physics.”
“Movement” is a very vague term. Are you talking about velocity or acceleration? The implications of your statement are different for each.
In the case of velocity, there is no privileged inertial reference frame. Meaning that, in absolute terms, no one ever has the right to demand that they are stationary and the other person is not. The concept of being stationary is only meaningful with reference to a specified reference frame. Perhaps that is what you were trying to say.
Acceleration is different. There IS a concept of absolute zero acceleration without the need to refer to a reference frame. If you are accelerating in a car and another car is driving past you in the other direction at constant velocity, you have no right to say “I have zero acceleration and the other car is moving”. Why? Because YOU are the one being pushed back in your seat and spilling your coffee over your shirt, not them. The EFFECTS of acceleration are absolute, and F=ma does not work on measurements taken from within an accelerating (ie. non-inertial) reference frame.
For a rotating ball, EVERY point on the ball (except those on the axis of rotation) is accelerating IN ABSOLUTE TERMS. Which means that there is an ABSOLUTE concept of zero rotation. This is the only state in which F=ma works as measured from a point on the ball, and the only state in which, were it not for gravity, objects on the surface would not appear to be flung off into space.
Des
By “absolute terms” are you saying there is no need for an external reference? Certainly all motion needs some sort of comparison to be meaningful. Don’t you agree?
Acceleration compares present velocity with past velocity.
Rotation compares points moving in a circle wrt something that’s said to not be moving in a circle (or moving at a different rate).
I agree with David. If two people are in a car, do they have a velocity or are they stationary? It depends.
They will move at the same rate as the car relative to the road, but they will remain motionless relative to each other.
Similarly, if the car accelerates, no motion relative to each other.
Edit: I have zero acceleration and the other car is ACCELERATING
All movement is with respect to something basic Galilean physics.
‘ If you are accelerating in a car and another car is driving past you in the other direction at constant velocity, you have no right to say I have zero acceleration and the other car is moving. ‘
You seem unaware that you are measuring your movement with respect to the other vehicle.
S: The letter B, used as a reference point, sees the corresponding dumbbell circling the planet. Circling the planet is the orbital motion.
As the dumbbell orbits the planet, one side can always point to a fixed reference point (non rotation), or one side can progressively turn (rotate).
J: Oh, I see you are doing that thing again where you are able to post your comments wherever you want. Snape, if the dumbbell (orbiting clockwise) had one side always pointing to a fixed reference point (always pointing north, for example), then it would have to be rotating CCW on its axis 1 time, per orbit. You have it exactly backwards.
Snape
“By absolute terms are you saying there is no need for an external reference? Certainly all motion needs some sort of comparison to be meaningful.”
Light doesn’t.
How do you know? Ah, you measured it with respect to something. Hmm…
Good point Des:
“There IS a concept of absolute zero acceleration without the need to refer to a reference frame.”
So zero rotation is when the centripetal acceleration is zero, allowing gravity to operate at full strength. Rotation can be calculated by analyzing acceleration differences between equator and pole.
Not so fast, Svante. Yes, what you describe is more or less true, you can measure rotation with respect to inertial space based on measuring specific force differentials. However, the reference frame is the inertial frame.
What makes the inertial frame inertial? This is a deep philosophical question, and one for which we do not know the answer. One school of thought holds that the inertial frame is itself decreed by the distribution of mass in the universe. This is Mach’s Principle.
It has a certain intuitive appeal. Einstein was a fan. Moreover, it should, in principle, be possible to detect effects implied by the hypothesis, and this is an area of active research.
I agree Bart, it is mysterious and yet measured by something as simple as a Foucault pendulum.
From your link, Einstein said:
“It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure subject in the theory of particles and fields. Mach’s principle may therefore have a future but not without the quantum theory.”
Bart, davie, snake, des, svante, the Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
Buy an inexpensive toy train, if you have had a deprived childhood, to go along with your deprived knowledge of physics.
Or, continue with your hilarious comedy routine.
Your choice.
I’m happy either way.
Try a gif with some hand waving.
Or, you could try to understand the gifs already made, Svante.
Iω is angular momentum. Rotational kinetic energy is 0.5*Iω^2. This plus the 0.5*m*v^2 translational kinetic energy is the total kinetic energy.
I typed the 1/2 and ^2 directly using characters from Word. But apparently this site doesn’t like those characters – something I should have learned from all the people here referring to “El Nio”.
And no – there are TWO components to rotational energy.
In fact, for the orbital component you can just use 1/2 mv^2 if you care only about the kinetic energy of the moon and not the kinetic energy of the entire earth-moon system. The rest of the moon’s energy (only a small component) comes from its own rotation.
v=ωR for a circular orbit, if that pleases you. But this ω and the other ω do not necessarily have to be the same.
PS: I’m on your side here, I’m just trying to help you be precise.
des…”The kinetic energy of a rotating body is Iω…”
Try KE = 1/2 Iw^2
Question for the Moon non-rotators:
Why does the Moon have this zero rotation rate you speak of? If it is because that is the natural state of a body in orbit, why does the Earth spin relative to its orbit about the Sun?
In fact, why do ALL the planets spin relative to their orbits?
Bart, the belief is that the Moon is “tidally locked” to the Earth. Supposedly, the Moon once did “rotate on its axis”, but no longer due to gravitational forces.
There are other moons with similar motion.
So, why are the planets not “tidally locked” to the Sun?
As the belief goes, they still have too much angular momentum.
Come back in some billions of years.
How does the angular momentum get reduced?
PS I’m not saying the “beliefs” from the “soft sciences” are correct. I’m just saying the Moon does NOT “rotate on its axis”.
Are you impersonating davie?
So Physics is a “soft science”?? Interesting.
Now des, you don’t want to stoop to rewriting my words, do you?
Physics is “hard science”.
Good. And as orbital mechanics is a branch of Physics, we agree now that the only “soft science” here is that which challenges Physics, ie. YOUR “science”.
I’m trying to get you to understand the implications of your POV. How does the angular momentum get reduced?
Now des, you keep trying to rewrite my words. Tsk-tsk.
“Guessing” about whether or not some moon was “rotating on its axis” millions of years ago is NOT “orbital physics”. As with the AGW nonsense, guesses, assumptions, estimates, fabrications, and imaginary concepts quickly turn into “pseudoscience”.
Bart, like des, are you trying to “imagine” my POV for me?
There is absolutely NO “guessing”. It uses precisely the same type of mathematics that accurately predicts the timing of eclipses decades in advance to an accuracy of tiny fractions of a second. Anyone who believes there is guessing involved has never studied this physics.
des, more of that “upside-down” logic?
Trying to determine the Moon’s axial rotation years and years and years in the past is “soft science”. You are confusing “rotating on its axis” with orbiting. Eclipses are determined by orbits, not “rotating on its axis”.
Anyone that has ever studied orbital physics knows that.
OK well, let me cut straight to the chase. I thought of a better example than the one I was steering you to, anyway.
Mars has two major moons, Phobos and Deimos. Both are in nearly equatorial orbits.Both are tidally locked. Phobos has an orbit period of 7 hours and 40 minutes. Deimos has an orbit period of 30 hours and 20 minutes.
If you are sitting on Deimos looking at Phobos directly beneath you, it will soon outpace you and move towards the side. In 1 hour and 54 minutes, you will be looking at its side, 90 degrees from where you were looking at it before. In 5 hours and 8 minutes, if Mars were transparent, you would be looking at the opposite face you saw when it was beneath you.
Questions:
1) Is Phobos rotating?
2) Is Deimos rotating?
3) How do you get to see other sides if they are not rotating?
For anyone else following along, the point of this exercise is that orbit rate is dependent upon the radius of the orbit. So, if you say tidally locked Deimos is not rotating, then you also have to say that tidally locked Phobos is not rotating. Yet clearly, they are rotating relative to one another.
This exercise shows that referencing rotation to a particular orbit does not provide an objective basis for measuring rotation.
Bart, you must have missed the hundred times I specified “orbiting on its axis”.
It’s amazing, quite a few of your type can NOT handle facts and logic.
But, you EXCEL at confusing the issue, rewriting my words, and creating my POV.
It’s fun to watch.
Okay, for your 3 questions. The two moon of Mars are NOT “rotating on their axes”.
You can see all sides if you are positioned properly. Just as someone outside the race track can see all sides of a race horse, as it orbits the track. The fact that you do not see all sides from Mars proves they are NOT rotating on their axes.
Now, come up with some more nonsense, to avoid facing reality. As you may know, this is a great year in climate comedy.
Please define “rotation” in your own words.
“The fact that you do not see all sides from Mars proves they are NOT rotating on their axes.”
How about we try it this way. A geosynchronous satellite stares down on the same spot of the Earth all the time, because its orbit rate matches the spin rate of the Earth.
From the vantage point of the satellite, it sees only the one side of the Earth.
Does this mean the Earth is not rotating?
Please define rotation in your own words.
Bart, the issue involves “rotating on its axis”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
Does this mean the Earth is not rotating?
Only to someone that does not understand “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
Anymore red herrings or distracting questions, davie?
No, I want your own words, not a link.
‘Only to someone that does not understand orbiting and rotating on its axis.’
It’s your words. The fact that you do not see all sides from the satellite proves it is NOT rotating on its axis.
Why is this different?
Is the satellite orbiting the Earth, or is the Earth orbiting the satellite? Explain your reasoning.
Well, let’s see what kind of nonsense bart/davie came up with this time.
First, he didn’t want to learn about “rotating on its axis”. Typical. He doesn’t want to be confused by the facts.
Next, he appeared to be trying to change my words, AGAIN. I don’t know where he got this nonsense: “The fact that you do not see all sides from the satellite proves it is NOT rotating on its axis.” I never indicated anything like that.
Then, he asks a question, with no clarification: “Why is this different?” He doesn’t explain what “this” is. It’s not only a red herring. It’s a disjointed and confused red herring.
Finally, he ends up indicating he does not know what a satellite is: “Is the satellite orbiting the Earth, or is the Earth orbiting the satellite?”
Hilarious.
bart/davie, try one, and only one, properly-worded, responsible question at a time. Then, maybe I can help.
“Anyone that has ever studied orbital physics knows that.”
So not you then. We both know you have never studied Physics at uni.
And funny how Mike/g*e*r*a*n tries to pretend a denier and a science -adherent are the same person, just because one of them happens to have got the science right on this one.
No des, that’s your fantasy world, AGAIN.
You should try reality someday. You might like it.
Is the satellite orbiting the Earth, or is the Earth orbiting the satellite? Explain your reasoning.
You don’t really know what an orbit is, do you?
Let’s try putting a finer point on it. Suppose the satellite is another Earth. Which is orbiting which?
More of your fantasy, des.
Bart is a GHE believer. That puts him right up there with davie, top of the pseudoscience list. That’s why he’s so confused about what a satellite is.
And, that’s why Bart is copying davie’s avoidance techniques.
Bart, you need to look up the definition of “satellite”. Then, you wouldn’t be asking such dumb questions.
Glad to help.
Is the satellite orbiting the Earth, or is the Earth orbiting the satellite? Explain your reasoning.
Explain why you can’t learn what a satellite is.
In fact, you can’t even learn what the Moon/axis issue is about? There is no evidence you even understand the issue. It’s like you’re not very bright, but you’re trying to get even dumber. There’s NO forward motion.
But, it’s fun to watch.
You don’t know, do you?
So a “believer” in the greenhouse effect “does not understand what a satellite is”??
Looks like you’ve just destroyed the credibility of Mr Spencer and his satellite temperature data.
g*e*r*a*n says:
Bart is a GHE believer. That puts him right up there with davie, top of the pseudoscience list. Thats why hes so confused about what a satellite is.
And, thats why Bart is copying davies avoidance techniques.
This is how you resort to insults when you can’t handle the science.
That’s Dr. Spencer.
No its MR Spencer. I refuse to use elitist titles on anyone.
Anyway … thanks for agreeing by avoidance.
He earned it. And, you’re a jerk.
I’m sure I’ve worked more hours in my life than him (and a lot more fruitfully). If he’s earned a title then so have I. Welcome to the Duchy of Des.
It’s your fault if you didn’t get a certificate. He did. His title is Doctor.
bart…”Lets try putting a finer point on it. Suppose the satellite is another Earth. Which is orbiting which?”
Can you not see the stupidity in that question?
“Can you not see the stupidity in that question?”
Yes I can.
(Just checking … we are talking about that self-referential question which I quoted, right?)
I did indeed get a “certificate” (the name uneducated people use for a DEGREE.
Call me Des, BSc (Phys, Maths), DipEd
(Oh, and almost BEng (Elec) … but I decided to leave that with a year to go)
Have you ever referred to someone like that?
davie feels offended: “This is how you resort to insults when you can’t handle the science.”
davie, I thought you wanted to be at the “top of the heap”.
And, your pseudoscience is heaped pretty high. ..
Don’t call it a satellite. Call it an object.
Is the object orbiting the Earth, or is the Earth orbiting the object? Explain your reasoning.
Neither object is orbiting the other — both are orbiting their center of mass.
That’s a valid description, and one that is useful in general contexts. But in fact, without any external reference points, there is no way to know. Either description is valid from the point of view of observations.
This shows the fundamental inconsistency of the suggestion that objects synchronized to orbit rate have zero rate. If we assume that is axiomatic, we can prove in this way that no object in the universe actually rotates, because we can always synchronize some other object with the rotation, and thereby proclaim it is not rotating.
davie almost gets it right: “Neither object is orbiting the other both are orbiting their center of mass.”
It is believed both bodies are orbiting the center of mass of BOTH bodies. It’s called the “barycenter”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
The barycenter is the center of mass. And, again, this is just a convenient conceptualization which allows decoupling of translational and rotational motion. But, there is no fundamental truth to it. It is mere convention.
Bart believes: “But, there is no fundamental truth to it.”
WHAT???
Bart, you’ve obviously never studied “gravity”. Now that I am aware of that, your comments will be even more enjoyable.
Please continue.
But, supposing we adopt this convention, I again ask you: suppose we have two Earth sized planets orbiting their common barycenter. The orbit rate is precisely the rotation rate of both, so both present the same side to one another at all times.
Under your system of thought, which one is rotating, and which one is not? Earth-Like-Planet #1, or Earth-Like-Planet #2?
They are clearly “orbiting”, not “rotating on their axes”.
And, now being fully aware of your lack of understanding of orbital motions AND gravity, I predict you can not understand that either.
It’s fun to watch.
bart…”Is the object orbiting the Earth, or is the Earth orbiting the object? Explain your reasoning”.
Bart…this kind of reasoning has lead to the current mess we call quantum theory. Circa 1930, Bohr took QT off into La La Land while Einstein and Schrodinger, the father of quantum theory, abstained.
Both Einstein and Schrodinger were realists who thought science should be about observing real phenomenon. Bohr wanted to speculate and today we have people wasting their time and money trying to design a quantum computer.
The human mind is capable of both realistic observation and sheer illusion, like space-time.
It’s obvious that a satellite orbits the Earth and not vice-versa. The Earth has by far the greater mass therefore the far greater gravitational field and the satellite’s orbit has to be pre-calculated so it can enter orbit post-launch.
After the fact, some philosopher will come along and claims, “Ah, yes, but is the satellite orbiting the Earth or is the Earth orbiting the satellite? Tell him to eff-off and get a life.
Another matter, the Earth is orbiting the Sun therefore it cannot orbit a satellite at the same time.
“the Earth is orbiting the Sun therefore it cannot orbit a satellite at the same time.”
FFS – how could someone who claims to be an electrical engineer not understand the concept of superposition?
Gordon says:
“today we have idiots building computers called quantum computers based on the sci-fi of Bohr. Even NASA is sucked into it.”
“I predict quantum computing will fade into the sunset as NASA et al finally get it that mathematically produced theories dont always translate to the real world.”
Gordon, see if this works:
https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/qx/experience
Get a Canadian D-Wave 2000Q from https://www.dwavesys.com
Conceived by Feynman based on solid physics.
“The Earth has by far the greater mass therefore the far greater gravitational field and the satellites orbit has to be pre-calculated so it can enter orbit post-launch.”
I did not specify the mass of the satellite.
Let’s make this rotation thing simple even for the s*i*m*p*l*e man.
But first … go away and take a double dose of your Ritalin … I don’t want you claiming you couldn’t be bothered reading it.
I will try not to present anything that cannot be imagined.
(1)
G*e*r*a*n is playing baseball and knocks his first pitch out of the park. (Damn – failed on my promise already.) The pitcher retreats to the exact centre of the diamond. The s*i*m*p*l*e man runs to first and stops dead on the base. He then turns 90 degrees and faces second.
Now – only the biggest contrarian would deny that you have just rotated 90 degrees ABOUT YOUR OWN AXIS.
M*I*K*E then proceeds to circle the bases, performing the same routine at each base. He has done four rotations of 90 degrees about his own axis, for a total rotation of 360 degrees ABOUT HIS OWN AXIS.
What is NOT true YET is that his left shoulder is always pointing at the pitcher. The line through his shoulders will miss the pitcher by up to 45 feet.
(2)
In his next at bat, he does the same thing, but doesn’t pause at each base. Again, only a contrarian would claim that the continuity of motion somehow annihilates the 360 degree rotation.
(3)
Next day, he plays a modified game of baseball which has 360 bases (but still a total base length of 360 feet). First at bat he knocks over a homer. He runs to first, pauses, then rotates one degree ABOUT HIS OWN AXIS to face second. He sets off to second and continues to do the same thing at each base. In total, he does 360 rotations each of one degree ABOUT HIS OWN AXIS for a total of 360 degrees.
Again, his left shoulder will not be pointing at the pitcher most of the time. But the line through his shoulders will miss the pitcher by at most 6 inches.
(4)
Next at bat, same thing but no pausing at the bases. Same result – 360 rotations of one degree about his own axis.
(5)
Next day he plays a game of baseball with 36000 bases. On his trip round the bases, he makes 36000 individual rotations each of 0.01 degrees, for a total of 360 degrees. The line through his shoulders will miss the pitcher by at most 1.5 millimetres.
(6)
Each day thereafter he plays versions of baseball with more and more bases. In each version of the game he rotates exactly 360 degrees on his own axis. And, in the LIMIT, the line through his shoulders will ALWAYS pass through the pitcher. In other words, in the limit he is moving in a CIRCLE, with his left side always pointing at the pitcher, and doing a CONTINUOUS rotation of 360 degrees ABOUT HIS OWN AXIS.
If you challenge the concept of a limit (assuming you have ever heard of the concept) then you throw away all of calculus and 90% of the maths developed since Newton.
Now I KNOW you will understand this, but I also KNOW you will deny understanding. Its that proud conservative cant show weakness to the enemy thing, and is the cornerstone of the Trump liefest. But when you provide your denial, I will being seeing that unconscious wink which you wont be able to conceal.
des…”In his next at bat, he does the same thing, but doesnt pause at each base. Again, only a contrarian would claim that the continuity of motion somehow annihilates the 360 degree rotation”.
You should stay out of this, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Really? Why don’t you EXPLAIN that statement in the context of your quote. Remember … just yesterday you prefaced a comment with “anyone who understands calculus would understand that …”. Please illustrate your understanding of calculus in your explanation.
Gordon – you guys have really got to get off of this. You are ceding the high ground over matters that genuinely are cut, dried, packaged and shipped. We’ve been to the Moon based on these principles, for chrissake.
What you should be doing is highlighting why this is different from CliSci, which hasn’t been confirmed, and hasn’t gotten us hardly anywhere beyond predicting the weather reasonably well some days in advance.
“…in the limit he is moving in a CIRCLE…”
No, he is moving in a diamond, always. But, the average direction of his shoulders intersects the center of the diamond in the limit.
Come on mate – show some understanding here. If I turn by THE SAME ANGLE at each base, it is clear to anyone whose has done simple geometry that the bases form a REGULAR POLYGON. How could that possibly be a diamond if there are more than 4 bases? In the limit that becomes a CIRCLE.
Correction – I would also need to state that all base lengths are equal for it to be regular. But any reasonable person would have made that assumption. (In before the unreasonable join the conversation.) And even without that clarification, it clearly can’t be a diamond if n>4.
Des
Great argument
Have to admit, I didn’t read too carefully. Too long. It’s almost impossible to get a point across with something more than a couple of paragraphs in venues such as this.
That has more to do with the type of person this site attracts than the site itself.
Yes, it attracts you.
Except … YOU are the one who admitted to not having the ability to focus on comments more than a couple of paragraphs long. Not only is flipping the subject the laziest form of come-back, it doesn’t work after you have made an admission like that.
Maybe you’re just boring, didja’ ever think of that?
Nah … that never entered my mind … you are paying me so much attention.
Bart, careful. DNFTT
Another slight amendment has to be made to my argument to make it work. When he gets home, he has to turn and face first in order to complete the circuit. In other words, he should finish in a position ready to begin another circuit.
Also, I should point out that the “orbit” doesn’t need to be a circle. As long as the path is closed, and doesn’t cross over itself, you will rotate 360 degrees each revolution about your own axis provided your ‘front’ is always moving in the direction of the path (ie. tangentially).
The concept even applies when the path is not convex (again assuming no crossing over). In this case you associate negative angles with the reverse concavity. All positive and negative rotations must add up to 360 degrees.
If anyone is interested in what happens when the path crosses itself, look at this Wikipedia article on the “Winding Number”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winding_number
It is not precisely the same thing as what is happening here, because it allows for the possibility of considering rotations about non-standard points. For a circle, if we are considering rotation about a point inside the circle, the winding number is 1 or -1. If the centre of rotation is outside the circle then the winding number is zero.
[Now we will get people with no interest in science and maths ruining interesting mathematics by shouting their ignorance all over this thread.]
Des,
Foolish Warmists love a good redefinition when it suits them.
Heres the definition from the Oxford Dictionary –
“a : a path described by one body in its revolution about another (as by the earth about the sun or by an electron about an atomic nucleus); also : one complete revolution of a body describing such a path
b : a circular path
Other definitions seem to be much the same.
You must be using the usual tactics of the Warmist fool to deny, divert and confuse.
Maybe you could support your argument (I can support both views) within conventional definition, depending on the frame of reference.
This still wont create either a scientific GHE description. or a testable GHE hypothesis.
Carry on.
Cheers.
Hi g*e*r*a*n,
Good to see you cycling through your identities.
Still confused about the meanings of “accept” and “except”? You can imagine the hilarity of seeing you correcting someone’s obvious typo, complaining about their standard of English, only to tell them they should have used “accept” when their real meaning was “except”. Your name isn’t Dan Quayle is it, Mr Potatoe Head?
Oh … and most people who provide a dictionary reference actually mention which word it is they are attempting to define. Are you playing “guess the word”? I certainly hope it was a word that has something to do with a rigid body’s rotation about its own axis, and not a word whose very choice is designed to exclude that possibility … such as ‘orbit’.
Anyway – thanks for replying – it’s always satisfying when one of my predictions comes true.
Des, thanks for confusing me with Mike Flynn. Like all real Skeptics, he has the ability to think for himself. As you know, that’s rare these days.
I see you had to delay your reply for a couple of hours in order to maintain the illusion. That must have been frustrating for you.
des, it’s called “a good night’s sleep”.
Whatever you say Mikey.
Oh … and I haven’t seen a response to my original explanation. I guess that means you get it. Of course you would never admit to that, but thanks for your silent affirmation.
Well, Des, I would imagine that response would be exactly the same as it was when Norman brought up his *walking around the table* or *driving around the block* analogies which were attempting to make exactly the same point. After a while, it just gets boring repeating yourself. I would venture that as an explanation as to why g*e*r*a*n hasnt responded.
g*e*r*a*n never gets bored posting his rants.
des, sorry I was busy yesterday. (And, probably will be today also.)
But, I see that J continues to squash all pseudoscience. And, if J ever gets tired of playing “squash”, there’s always the little toy train, to run over you. ..
‘Come back when you can read a graph and understand the difference between half a trend line representing rewarming (below baseline) and the other half representing true warming (above baseline), post 1998.’
*
Many people have told Gordon Robertson, on various Roy Spencer threads, what a baseline means.
Manifestly, this strange guy
– understands baselines as inherent constituents of time series;
– did not understand that the 1998 El Nino is by accident exactly in the middle of UAH’s baseline
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518698513129.jpg
for which the actual 1981-2010 period was chosen a few years ago (is seems to have been 1979-1998 in earlier times).
How is it then possible no only to be, but above all to keep so ignorant? But maybe he simulates ignorance, who knows?
His thorough unability to deal with unexpected matters you see in his repeated refusal to accept that Pangolina and Bindidon are two persons. (Note: we can live with that.)
It took me two minutes last year to understand the concept of a baseline. Bindidon is not so bad as teacher.
Here are three examples, each having a different baseline resulting from the mean of three different 8-year periods.
1. 1979-1987
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518972101868.jpg
2. 1993-2000
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518972328875.jpg
3. 2010-2017
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518972416129.jpg
You all can see how interesting these rewarming and true warming periods can look like, amazing isn’t it :-))
binny…”Many people have told Gordon Robertson, on various Roy Spencer threads, what a baseline means”.
I am clear what it means, the rest are not. I confirmed it with NOAA.
*****placeholder for URL to test WordPress*******
They call it a reference value with anomalies above it representing warming and those below representing cooling, wrt the baseline/reference value. Of course, it’s all relative with anomalies since the average represented by the baseline could be warming.
It is you and your alarmists brothers who don’t get it. The first 19 years of the UAH time series is below the baseline and according to NOAA those are cooler temps. According to UAH, ‘true’ warming did not occur till the 1998 EN. From then on, temps were essentially above the baseline.
However, the trend from 1998 – 2015 was flat.
So explain your 0.12C/decade trend given that the first 19 years were a recovery from cooling and the next 15 years had no warming.
I am tired of calling you an idiot, I am reserving that in future for people who can think.
And will you get off the childish game of insisting you are not Bindidon.
https://www.here.gov/monitoring-references/f_a_q/anomalies.php
replace ‘here’ with n_c_d_c.n_o_a_a without the ‘_’
that is remove 6 x ‘_’ from n_c_d_c.n_o_a_a and paste the remaining words in place of here in http://www.here.gov.
Keep the dot between n*** and n*** as in n***.n***
Correction:
I put underscores in faq to test it and forgot to remove them.
URL should be:
https://www.here.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
with the here in http://www.here.gov amended as above.
Sorry for all this. The URL explains anomalies and baselines quite well.
Robertson
You are too dumb to understand what the graphs above exactly mean. I give it up, you aren’t worth other people’s energy.
Feel free to continue wasting this wonderful site with your nonsensical, egocentric trash, as does your friend Flynn all the time.
No problem. People with a brain all can manage to read around all that!
Rose J. Koelm
binny…”You are too dumb to understand what the graphs above exactly mean”.
I am not the one posing as Rose J. Koelm after signing off as Bindidon then referring to that nym as a third party. Anyone so immature would not understand the meaning of the UAH declared decadal trend.
You are hung up on authority and your understanding of statistics is superficial. You are reacting like an armchair statistician who has been caught out on his lack of understanding of the discipline. You’re a number cruncher, nothing more. You lack the ability to look at the data and understand what it means.
“They call it a reference value with anomalies above it representing warming and those below representing cooling”
NOAA’s actual definition:
The deviation of a measurable unit (e.g., temperature or precipitation) over a period in a given region from the long-term average, often the thirty-year mean, for that region.
No mention of ‘warming’ or ‘cooling’. Do you get off on misrepresenting people?
The choice of baseline period is completely arbitrary. If comparing 1980 and 2017, there is no difference between saying the anomaly rose from -10 to -9.6, from -0.2 to +0.2, or from +111 to +111.4. (I’ve made up that rise of 0.4 – I am illustrating a concept here, not trying to get the figures right). In all three cases, the globe has warmed, and warmed by the same amount.
This really is very simple Gordon. Only you could complicate it so.
“Think of a little toy train going around an oval track.”
We’ve all been there, done that G*. Your problem is you don’t perform the “think” part.
MikeR’s gif already shows your toy train example:
https://s20.postimg.org/vuw6lvrv1/moon_with_wheels.gif
We see the toy train (object B) rotating on its own axis on the left. Then on the right, this same train, which is still rotating on its own axis, is placed on an orbital path. Since the train performs one rotation per one orbit, the same side of the train faces the center of orbit at all times.
But turnip boy thinks we are all hallucinating. Too funny.
SGW, obviously you don’t understand the graphic. The train engine APPEARS to be rotating, just as a race horse APPEARS to be rotating, viewed from outside the track.
You STILL cannot separate the two motions, “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
Your brain appears to be idling in neutral. There’s no progress. It’s fun to watch.
MikeRs second gif adds absolutely nothing new to the discussion. Its just B from the first one, shown with three different objects. Why do you think that would change anything?
How would you answer my question to g* above?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287746
I will repeat it here:
Suppose we have two Earth sized planets orbiting their common barycenter. The orbit rate is precisely the rotation rate of both, so both present the same side to one another at all times.
Under your system of thought, which one is rotating, and which one is not? Earth-Like-Planet #1, or Earth-Like-Planet #2?
bart…”Suppose we have two Earth sized planets orbiting their common barycenter. The orbit rate is precisely the rotation rate of both, so both present the same side to one another at all times”.
Why not stick with examples that make sense? Where have you ever seen two planets the same size orbiting a barycentre. I mean, what initial conditions could possibly lead to that?
First you started asking if a satellite in orbit around the Earth was orbiting it, or whether the Earth was orbiting it. That’s plain stupid. That’s the human mind revealing it’s propensity for illusion. In science, you need to suspend that crap and learn to look objectively.
“Thats plain stupid.”
That’s your illusion. In fact, the situation is entirely symmetrical. You cannot detect which is orbiting which. You can only justify a choice based on the ease of describing interactions with other bodies.
Indeed, if I make the satellite another Earth, or at the very least as massive as the Earth, the symmetry becomes clear. Which is orbiting which? How can you say?
Bart, you are most successful at confusing yourself.
Your two “earths” are both orbiting the barycenter. If “tidally locked”, then they would not be “rotating on their axes”.
More confusion, please. It’s fun to watch.
So, Earth does not rotate. Thank you for your perspective.
No clown, YOUR earth, in YOUR scenario, does NOT rotate.
Thanks for the hilarious effort to evade your own scenario.
It’s fun to watch.
It is exactly the same as the real Earth. Except for the duplicate Earth orbiting around it, it is the same in every detail.
Clown, they are “tidally locked”.
You STILL don’t understand orbital motions.
I see no progress. Your head (notice I didn’t say “brain”) is not responding to facts and logic.
I can’t help if you are unable to process facts and logic.
You may have personal problems that reflect as much.
So what? It’s still rotating at the same rate. If you mask out the duplicate Earth orbiting it, it looks exactly the same.
Bart convinces himself: “If you mask out the duplicate Earth orbiting it, it looks exactly the same.”
Bart, the key word is “looks”. You see what you want to see. You do not understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”. You refuse “facts” and “logic”.
You’ve made no progress. The disadvantage of having a closed-mind.
But, it’s fun to watch.
So, the Earth just looks like it’s rotating, but it really isn’t. Gotcha.
Halp,
The latest version of my gif was to address the concerns of your intimate buddy who thought a train running on its track was essential to provide the necessary insight to convince all us doubters of his genius.
The top part of the graphic is a view of the moon from its north pole which corresponds to the position where the axis of rotation intersects with the surface. This is a point of reference for lunar latitude and longitude. As I pointed out earlier this is the same method that is used for the Earth and all other spheroidal objects in the solar system. Correspondingly if the moon is not rotating and does not have an axis of rotation then some drastic corrections need to be done to lunar cartography.
As I have also said in reference to Gordon, another unrecognized genius, that all this information is readily available. All you have to do is to work out how to use a search engine.
To help you along here is a good starting point
https://www.google.com/search?q=Moon+rotation&oq=Moon+rotation
Let.me know when you locate a reference that indicates that the moon is not rotating. Good luck.
miker, somewhere in your head is there any understanding of “orbiting” vs. “rotating on its axis”?
Halp, G* and Gordon,
I have uploaded yet another gif, this time 3 identical dumbbells both rotating and non rotating.
Which of the three A, B or C has the least total rotational kinetic energy and which has the greatest?
https://s20.postimg.org/4ezriaj71/energy_of_rotation.gif
To assist I suggest you consult the wiki on the moment of interia and the also parallel axis theorem.
miker, you continue to confuse yourself with these graphics.
If you want to do something constructive, try this:
Write a program that has TWO different motions. The first motion is called “orbiting”. (Allow the orbit to be CCW.) The second motion is called “rotating on its axis”.
Use pointed arrows for the graphics, for clarity. Calculate a rotation of the arrow at 1 degree CCW rotation per 1 degree of orbit. Run that program. It should show the motion of a train on a circular track, and also, the Moon.
Now, add a second calculation. This calculation provides a rotation of the arrow a based on “rotating on its axis”. Have the program add the two calculations, to then show up graphically. You can try various combinations of CW and CCW.
If you do the programming correctly, you might learn something.
Best of luck.
G*, I didn’t ask you for another critique particularly after I previously altered my diagram to accommodate your desire to use a train instead of a dumbbell. Even Halp had sufficient insight to realize this was not helpful to anybody.
It is patently obvious to everyone that your sudden request for yet another change shows how desperate you are to avoid answering the question.
I repeat, with respect to my diagram, do you have any inkling as to which of A, B or C has the lowest total kinetic energy?
miker, I appreciate that you want to pass your incompetence off. It’s not my fault you don’t know how to correctly model the Moon/axis issue.
Even after all my input, there is NO evidence you understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
Your attempt to run from your incompetence is fun to watch.
G* As I am unable to understand your latest requirements, and I challenge anyone else to understand, man or beast, w.t.f. you are talking about. Maybe you could make another rudimentary sketch so us mere mortals can understand. Is it going to involve a boat again?
Otherwise I urge you , rather than to continue to complain, have a go yourself.
If you don’t have the skills to do so, I suggest you go and do a course on computer programming (JavaScript and webGL would be a good start) . Courses on elementary physics, as astronomy and introductory to logic would be useful additions to your limited skill set.
However, you could redeem yourself and , rather than avoidance by any means, you could say which of A,B or C has the lowest total kinetic energy.? It is easy, just pick one. Easy as ABC.
So, it turns out miker does not want to correctly model orbital motions.
No surprise.
G*,
I would love to pictorially depict your “correct” version of orbital motions but I need some guidance rather than the totally confused verbal depiction that you have presented above.
Are you that incompetent that you cannot even produce a rough sketch of your version? That clearly was a rhetorical question as I think everyone already knows the answer, even Halp.
Talking of Halp, he seems to have deserted you in your hour of need. Either that or he is also having troubles with his ABCs.
Neither are rotating on their axes, if they are just orbiting each other.
Assuming that by this:
B: The orbit rate is precisely the rotation rate of both
J: I take that to mean you are making the same mistake that has been continuously made throughout this entire discussion…that an object completing an orbit completes a rotation on its axis by virtue of having completed an orbit. I fundamentally disagree there. An object does not complete a rotation on its axis by virtue of having completed an orbit.
So, even though both are precisely Earth-like in every detail, neither is rotating. Ergo, the Earth does not rotate. Interesting…
Nope, the Earth does rotate on its axis. Uninteresting.
So, both Earth #1 and Earth #2 are rotating… But, I’m pretty sure you just said they weren’t.
No. Try reading my comment again. Particularly from the *I take that to mean…* part onwards.
Earth #1 and Earth # 2 are duplicates of the Earth, precise in every detail. The orbit rate is 1 rev/day, so they each show the same face to each other at all times.
It seems, by you, these are Schrodinger’s Earths. They are both spinning, and not spinning, at the same time.
B: Earth #1 and Earth # 2 are duplicates of the Earth, precise in every detail. The orbit rate is 1 rev/day, so they each show the same face to each other at all times.
J: The orbit rate is 1 rev/day? So…nothing like the Earth.
I think you are being willfully obtuse.
Mod – Nah, Bart. Why ever would you think that?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287775
“that an object completing an orbit completes a rotation on its axis by virtue of having completed an orbit”
No. Because an object can perform an orbit without rotating. All your definitions are screwed up. You are the one continually making the mistakes.
Thats right, SGW. An object can perform an orbit without rotating.
And, that would be the right or the left side in this gif?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Left. Right side is rotating on its axis, once, CW, whilst completing one CCW orbit.
But, all the right side is doing is translating its position on the page.
All the one on the left is doing is curvilinear motion. The one on the right is also rotating on its axis.
Do you need glasses J-hapless?? The object on the right is merely orbiting. It is not rotating. A translation moves every point of an object by the same amount in a given direction. The orbiting motion just translates the object as Bart mentions.
Im happy with my answers.
I am glad you are happy. But you are also wrong per the definitions of rotation and translation.
Pick any two points on the object on the right. Those two points maintain the same orientation with respect to the non-rotating reference frame throughout the orbit, so the object is merely exhibiting translational motion while following the orbital path.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287682
I am not clicking on your stupid links. Just post your answers here. But you obviously have no answers. Just repetitions of the same stupid mistakes.
I suggest you and turnip boy go to school and take some physics classes. You are way out of your league here.
Calm down.
bart…”that would be the right or the left side in this gif?”
The one on the left is rotating once on its axis per orbit. There’s something wrong with the one on the right. The black area should always face the circle to emulate the Moon.
I don’t understand your point. The one on the right is not tidally locked.
Gordon, the one on the left is basically like B, from MikeRs original gif.
Only its orbiting CCW, instead of CW.
Bart and SGW continue to be confused about “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
Possibly their brains are “tidally locked”!
But in our train example, it does rotate about its axis while following the orbital path. Because in order to perform an orbit without rotating, it would have to remain in the same direction throughout its orbit.
No, in order to remain pointing in the same direction (e.g front of the train always pointing north) throughout its orbit, it would have to rotate on its axis whilst following the orbital path. If the train orbits CCW, it would have to rotate once CW per orbit.
OMG J-Brainless. An object that always faces north during its motion is merely translating by definition! You are violating definitions left and right.
I just don’t understand your confusion. Hold a toy car or train in your hand. Make it point north while you perform an orbit with it. It is not rotating. You would have to rotate the object in your hand while orbiting. With the object pointing north, you are just changing its position with respect to the fixed background. That’s called translation.
The translational motion is the orbital motion. The *rotating on its axis*, or otherwise, is separate to that.
Halp
One of the many things you are inexplicably confused by:
If we say an arrow is fixed on North, that is NOT saying the object no longer rotates. It may very well continue to rotate wrt another frame of reference. A center of orbit, for example.
What it DOES mean is that the arrow never for a moment points in any direction other than North.
A wrist watch is a good example. You can rotate the watch CCW so that the second hand is fixed on North. Has the second hand stopped rotating? Of course not. It still rotates CW wrt the numbers and the rest of the watch.
Snape agrees with me whilst pretending its a disagreement…
Read what I said:
No, in order to remain pointing in the same direction (e.g front of the train always pointing north) throughout its orbit, it would have to rotate on its axis whilst following the orbital path. If the train orbits CCW, it would have to rotate once CW per orbit
Halp
OMG. This is so painful.
The orbital path is not forcing the train to turn to the left, the tracks are!
Use an object not on tracks. How about a person? A person is not forced to turn as he walks around a track….there is therefore no counter rotation required to keep him facing north.
This is completely different than my wristwatch example. Someone is physically turning the wristwatch CCW. To maintain a Northerly orientation, the second hand must therefore rotate CW.
Again, nobody is physically turning the person. No counter rotation necessary. (Do you feel a force pulling you to the left as you walk around a track? Of course not. It takes effort to not to walk straight!)
S: Use an object not on tracks. How about a person? A person is not forced to turn as he walks around a track.there is therefore no counter rotation required to keep him facing north.
J: OMG Snape, if a person was always facing north whilst walking around a circular track, it would require him to be walking sideways, walking diagonally, and walking backwards, at points. In fact the only time he would be walking normally is on one (proportionally) tiny section of the track, and at that very same point on the track in each subsequent *orbit*.
G*
Imagine a tiny merrygoround, only two feet in diameter. A person stands on it facing north. Somebody rotates it CCW and the person starts to turn in a circle. This is like a tiny person standing on the wristwatch in my example upthread.
And like the second hand, the person would actually have to perform a CW rotation in order to stay fixed on North.
This is completely different than the BS “forcing” you invent to make your argument work.
SGW, Bart, snake, et al, show the advantages of a closed-mind.
They just see what they want to see.
Of course, there are many disadvantages. ..
Snake, imagine a large compass, two feet in diameter. A needle stands on it facing north. Somebody rotates it CCW and the needle starts to turn in a circle. This is like a tiny person standing on the wristwatch in my example upthread.
And like the second hand, the needle, drawn by magnetism, has to perform a CW rotation in order to stay fixed on North.
Lol….. which is why your example is so retarded. People don’t get rotated when they walk around a track.
Actually, my example upthread was of a clock, not a wristwatch, but Im sure you get the idea. Be sure to let Norman know he was wrong, Snape.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-286276
g*
The hands on a clock are engineered to ALWAYS rotate wrt the numbers. True even if we spin the clock.
The needle on a compass is engineered to NEVER rotate away from north. True even if we spin the compass.
S: People dont get rotated when they walk around a track.
J: Exactly. Orbital motion is separate from *rotating on its axis*. Im glad you find your own confusion as funny as I find your confusion.
Yes. The path around a center point is an orbit. You can follow that path while always facing an external reference, or you can follow it while rotating wrt an external reference.
The moon is tidally locked, unable to perform the former.
Snape, Im glad you can tell the difference between a clock and a compass. And, that you can miss the point of analogies involving either. Im not sure why you keep calling for g*e*r*a*n, but please do continue.
S: Yes. The path around a center point is an orbit. You can follow that path while always facing an external reference, or you can follow it while rotating wrt an external reference.
The moon is tidally locked, unable to perform the former.
J: Snape, how is it that you can post your comments wherever you want? Most peoples comments just post chronologically. Anyway, if we must:
If you are *following the path* whilst always facing an external reference, you are *rotating on your axis* whilst you do so. Just like the guy walking around the circular track, walking normally (very occasionally), or walking diagonally, or walking backwards, or walking diagonally backwards, in order to always face north (for example).
H*a*l*p
Facing one direction is not rotation. Walking forward or sideways or backwards is not rotation. Rotation involves turning.
Seems you will say a pig goes “mooo”
if it helps support your argument.
Snape, it boils down to this:
There are two basic states which could represent *orbital motion* in this *walking around the circular track* analogy. Your position is, essentially, that a guy walking around the track sideways, forward diagonally, backwards, backwards diagonally, and occasionally normally, is the logical way to represent *orbital motion*. You then define *rotating on an axis* as separate to that. My position is, that the state which best represents *orbital motion* is a guy walking like a normal human being around a circular track. *Rotating on an axis* is then defined as separate to that.
S: Facing one direction is not rotation. Walking forward or sideways or backwards is not rotation. Rotation involves turning.
J: And *rotating on its axis* always involves rotation, or turning, of the object about that axis. Not *rotation of the axis* itself. Thats why its so important to be able to separate the motion of *orbiting* from the motion of *rotating on its axis*.
Snape, quick quiz:
Question One: Why is is that you are able to post wherever you please? Most commenters are forced to post their comments in chronological order.
H*a*l*p
Tape a compass atop a man’s head.
Ask the man to walk naturally around a track. After one lap, the compass, as well as the man underneath, will have rotated 360 degrees relative to the compass needle, which will have remained fixed on North.
The man’s left shoulder will have always faced the middle of the track, meaning the shoulder, and the man, had not rotated wrt that central location.
(Best guess: I think you post comments while I’m still working on a reply.)
Snape, stop lying. Look through this thread again. Look at the times each comment have posted. Your comments post out of chronological order.
These posts are screwing up all the time. Posts arbitrarily posting in the wrong location…. Texts going all over the place.
Not to mention someone’s name “randomly” acquiring and losing an initial “Hap”, as though ‘someone’ is stuffing up when changing between identities.
Des-perate Des, the des-perately des-eptive des-epti-CON.
Hahaha …. g*e*r*a*n’s words exactly. This goes deeper than I thought.
At least I now know where the “Hap” comes from.
Des, you dont think maybe…just maybe…I had seen g*e*r*a*n make the des-perate joke in a previous conversation, and I decided that (given some of your recent comments) that it would be funny to encourage you?
Hilarious!
Des, you dont think maybe…just maybe…I had seen J Halp-less make the des-perate joke in a previous conversation, and I decided that (given some of your recent comments) that it would be funny to encourage you?
Hilarious!
(That should really confuse poor des!)
Double hilarious!
Des, how deep does the conspiracy go? Im fascinated. Is g*e*r*a*n everybody that you disagree with? Does J Halp-less (secretly really g*e*r*a*n) also like to create identities, like SGW, who vehemently disagree with him? Is Bart also g*e*r*a*n?
It all makes so much sense now…
Conspiracy? I didn’t use that word. Conspiracy requires at least two people.
Great point, Des. And since theres only one person controlling all these different identities, its not a conspiracy. Youve got me there.
Great … that means I’ve got at least four ‘people’ in one hit.
Great work, Des. But why stop there? Des, have you ever considered that from the POV of someone reading this blog, who doesnt comment, every single person commenting here could just be one individual, with multiple identities, just sort of…having fun?
Not everyone here uses identical phrasology.
Of course there is a second explanation – that deniers are simply regurgitating the mantra they have been taught at the plethora of sites run by non-scientists such as WUWT, mantra which was of course originally disseminated by the fossil fuel industry. That is certainly the case on YouTube.
But what if the one individual writing every single comment on this blog was able to…mimic the phraseology of different people, in order to create his identities? Like how a good author can write different types of speech, for different characters, in their stories?
Sounds as though you have spent a lot of time thinking about the possibilities. And of course – time is money.
It sounds as though you dont spend a lot of time thinking. Maybe you should?
Read my explanation of the moon’s rotation, then tell me again I don’t spend time thinking. Anyway, I’ll take your avoidance as an admission.
des, I missed your “explanation” of the Moon’s rotation.
And, since I love your humor, could you link to it?
Thanks.
bart…”Gordon you guys have really got to get off of this. You are ceding the high ground over matters that genuinely are cut, dried, packaged and shipped. Weve been to the Moon based on these principles, for chrissake.
What you should be doing is highlighting why this is different from CliSci, which hasnt been confirmed, and hasnt gotten us hardly anywhere beyond predicting the weather reasonably well some days in advance”.
************
I have no issues with you thus far but I do with Des. I am tired of the incessant nonsense coming out of alarmists and they are revealing their mettle with their obstinate stance on this simple problem regarding the moon rotating on its axis.
With regard to your claim about something being cut, dried, packaged, and shipped, you’ll need to expand on your meaning. I was trained intensively in orbital mechanics and problems of space flight as part of an engineering course of study. Most of the stuff being offered here by alarmists on orbital mechanics is sheer nonsense.
People are talking about frames of reference without having the slightest idea what that means wrt to the reality in which we live. I say, leave that to philosophers and mathematicians and describe our reality without such mental crap. It’s not required in general.
g*r posed a very simple observation, that the Moon does not rotate on it’s axis. See the truth in that without getting carried off into different dimensions and mental spaces. Whether you view the Moon directly or from any frame of reference it is NOT rotating on its axis.
Case closed.
Gordon – It is rotating on its axis with respect to inertial space – it presents a different face to the field of stars as it goes around the orbit.
Inertial space is what we care about because that is where Newton’s laws hold. By measuring the rotation relative to inertial space, we can model the rotation dynamics using Euler’s equations. That is the point.
This episode is an embarrassment to the people holding the non-rotating view. The best thing to do is move off it as quickly as possible, acknowledge that it is reasonable to describe the Moon as rotating on its axis with respect to inertial space, and maintain that it has no bearing on your views about the climate.
In fact, the fact that we can use the theory to predict rigid body dynamics so precisely stands in stark contrast to CliSci, which hasn’t predicted anything right so far.
Bart STILL confuses “orbiting” with “rotating on its axis”.
Hilarious.
GR, Bart has it right. The Moon rotates in an inertial reference frame. If one places a gyroscopic device in a 3 axis gimbal on the Moon’s equator with the axis of the gyro pointing toward the Earth, the gyro will rotate in the opposite direction of the Moon’s rotation. Thus, the gyro’s axis will slowly turn away from pointing toward the Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
swannie follows the “consensus”, confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on its axis”.
Confusion is obviously contagious to those that can’t think for themselves.
It’s fun to watch.
d*e*r*a*n*g*o, we know you gain pleasure from spreading BS, but this is getting tiresome.
All rotation is measured relative to some reference. For the Earth, a vector between the center of the Earth and the Sun is used to define the daily rotation with a period of 24 hours. Standing on the Equator, the Sun “rises” in the East, then appears to move overhead and finally “sets” in the west, repeating an endless cycle over 24 hours. On the Moon, seen from the lunar equator, the Sun “rises” on the east, then appears to move overhead and finally “sets” in the west, repeating an endless cycle over 29 days 12 hours and 44 minutes. Clearly, the Moon rotates with respect to the Sun, just as does the Earth.
Furthermore, since the vector between the Earth and the Sun also rotates once a year, both the Earth and the Moon experience one additional rotation over the year with respect to inertial space, i.e., wrt the stars…
swannie’s confusion continues: “Clearly, the Moon rotates with respect to the Sun, just as does the Earth.”
He STILL can’t distinguish between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”. The Earth makes both motions. The Moon only makes one. Poor swannie just cannot figure it out.
It’s fun to watch.
d*e*r*a*n*g*o, What’s it like working in a troll farm? Do they give you time off for sick leave?
Actually, the Moon experiences a complicated rotation beyond merely its synchronous rotation with respect to its orbit. Over the course of each month, it librates significantly, i.e., it wobbles. Here is a time lapsed video:
https://tinyurl.com/xyzzzzzzz
Like a top wobbling on a tabletop. This is not motion associated with a non-rotating object.
swannie has no clue, and Bart continues to study Moon motions.
Hilarious.
Gordon has a very geocentric view of the universe. Apparently he hasn’t stepped out of the dark ages.
des…I noticed in passing that you had commented on my claim of being able to visualize the flat trend in UAH data. You challenged me on the math behind it.
Any continuous curve can be described as a series or by the area under the curve. That’s the basis of calculus. If you construct rectangles between the x-axis and the curve you will be left with an error since the rectangles leave a space between the curve and the top of the rectangle.
By making the rectangles smaller and smaller, the error space becomes less and less and to get an exact area fit to the curve you need to diminish the width of the rectangles to an infinitely small width.
Once you understand the relationship between the curve shape and the area lying under it above the x-axis, you can often estimate based on the perceived areas.
Look at the UAH graph and focus on the red running average curve. Imagine an average along the 1.5C line. Beginning at the middle of the 1998 EN look at the area under the red curve above the 1.5C line then look at the area below it from 1999 – 2002. The area above is thinner with more height whereas the latter is wider with less height. They essentially cancel, leaving no trend.
From 2002 to 2008, the red curve moves above and below 1.5C so they cancel as well. From 2008 to 2010 you have an almost perfect cosine wave and it cancels. From 2010 – 2013 you are below the 1.5C line then till 2015 there is a climb above it.
I am basing this on the actuality. The IPCC reported no warming from 1998 – 2012. As you can see, with 1.5C as the flat trend, the no trend continues roughly till 2015.
I might add that we were allowed to use visual inspection on exams to an extent. It applied to more exact areas such as a curve representing a washer region centred at 0,0,0. The washer comes from a nut and bolts related washer with no thickness drawn on the graph.
However, you had to know that a sine wave centred on the x-axis had equal areas above and below the axis hence they canceled. That’s used in electrical theory as well. The average power over one cycle of a sine wave is zero.
According to Gordon then average power over once cycle of a sine wave is zero!
The average voltage (and current) is zero but the power(P=I^2R, P=V^2/R) definitely is not zero.
I thought Gordon was an electrical engineer. I wonder how he thinks A.C. power works?
As mikeR says … WHAT A LOAD OF BS.
You have to wonder about the intelligence of someone who claims that the average of a quantity THAT CAN NEVER BE NEGATIVE could possibly be zero given that the quantity of not always zero.
… IS not always zero.
As I said before:
Meanwhile…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287438
Lets just copy and paste the text from Massimos comment, this time:
Hi Norman,
if I get it right (maybe I misunderstood your explanation), I dont agree with you.
I suggest you to read what La Pangolina linked above.
I re-post the link here:
https://tinyurl.com/y7do8trb
As she suggested read from page 4 the three hypotheses and the conclusion made by Mr. Perigal.
I think he did a great explanation about when a body really rotates on its own axis.
And the Moon is not rotating on its own axis indeed.
Have a great day.
Massimo
J Halp-less
The problem is that we all here don’t know enough about that to definitely state about Moon’s spin.
I know nothing about it and this was the reason for me to publish references to older texts.
To this older text by Mr Perigal you seem to perfectly agree; but… you should not forget that I also sent a reference to the work of astronomer Mr Maddy.
Below is a copy of my communication to you
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-286545
which you did not reply to. But another commenter did very well, as you can see:
*
J Halp-less
What is your meaning concerning the work done and published in 1826 by the astronomer W. Maddy:
The Elements of the Theory of Plane Astronomy
therein
Section 319 on page 204:
https://tinyurl.com/yc48339g
What do you think about it?
Regards
R. J. Koelm
*
g*e*r*a*n says:
February 13, 2018 at 11:01 AM
Bin, 1826 may be where the pseudoscience began. That wasnt too long before the CO2 pseudoscience started.
*
Interestingly, J Halp-less, the pseudoscience started in 1826 but was suddenly interrupted in… 1854 (Clausius, 2LoT) and resumed a bit later.
Rgds
Perhaps you should discuss it with Massimo…oh…wait…Des! G*e*r*a*n isnt Massimo too, is he!?
No no no, J Halp-less!
You still owe me a scientifically valuable explanation about why Mr. Perigal is right, and Mr Maddy is not.
La P: You still owe me a scientifically valuable explanation about why Mr. Perigal is right, and Mr Maddy is not.
J: Ms. Jolie, I dont owe you anything but my gratitude, for your help in providing those two links. So, thank you very much.
Halp,
G* is struggling big time.
Perhaps you could help him out. I know he particularly values your opinion.
Which of A, B or C has the least total kinetic energy? See –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287872
miker, here is a valid way to represent the motions being discussed:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287942
Let me know if you have any responsible questions.
Halp,
Where are you? Maybe you could explain or sketch g*’s concept.
see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-288104 .
Also Halp, maybe you could also have a go at having a guess at which of the representations has the least kinetic energy, using the following diagram.
https://s20.postimg.org/4ezriaj71/energy_of_rotation.gif .
miker, you keep asking that same stupid question, as if it means anything.
The one that is not “rotating on its axis” would have zero rotational kinetic energy. Your continued confusion is both amazing and hilarious.
G*, I take it that your answer is B?
Pang, when you start misrepresenting my words, no matter how subtle, that just means you have lost.
I was clearly talking about ONLY the Moon/axis issue.
If you were ever to learn respect for truth, you wouldn’t have to use such tricks.
‘…when you start misrepresenting my words…’
Bin, 1826 may be where the pseudoscience began.
Your words were not misrepresented at all. You weren’t specific enough. Had you written
Bin, 1826 may be where the Moon rotation pseudoscience began.
everybody including myself would have understood you.
That’s why you must take into account the “context”.
Or, you can avoid facts and logic.
Your choice.
Norman won’t be replying to you. Not after claiming that when an AC voltage is applied to a resistor that the dissipated power can somehow be zero. He will hide for the rest of the month and come back fresh with new BS in next month’s thread, trying to pretend it didn’t happen. Needless to say, I will be reminding him.
Des
I am wondering if you would be so kind as to put a link to the post where I made this alleged claim. I do not recall ever making this claim and if you read a post where I stated such link me to it. Possibly someone is using my name to post this.
I am not hiding from anyone. I just get tired of the endless declarations. Nothing of value going on here.
Des
I scrolled up a bit and found the reference. It was a post from Gordon Robertson not me. I hope you don’t get confused by the two of us. I usually do not agree with much of Gordon’s material. I like science, Gordon is the anti-scientist on this blog.
He does not like Big Bang Theory. He thinks scientists just made it up. It is the model they came up with to explain the evidence they had found. Red Shift of more distant objects without a mix of blue and red shift. It the Universe were static and stars and galaxies were moving around in random directions you should have as many blue shift galaxies as red shift one. Also microwave background.
The abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the Universe.
It does not mean it is a factual model, it just explains the current data set. Other models are possible but they must be able to explain all the current data.
Damn …. sorry. Somehow I confused Norman and Gordon.
mikeR says:
February 18, 2018 at 9:33 PM
According to Gordon then average power over once cycle of a sine wave is zero!
*
What else could you expect from a commenter writing such total nonsense like
‘Come back when you can read a graph and understand the difference between half a trend line representing rewarming (below baseline) and the other half representing true warming (above baseline), post 1998.’
I’m not sure that the graph links I replicate below will have been enough for him to understand.
1. 1979-1987
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518972101868.jpg
2. 1993-2000
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518972328875.jpg
3. 2010-2017
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1518972416129.jpg
*
And what he also is not able to grasp is that if you simply remove all major El Nino peaks out of the UAH record, the trend keeps nearly unchanged.
But… there is a point nevertheless where I fully agree with Robertson: the existence of a pause in the temperature records (of the lower troposhere !!!), a pause which was accepted even by IPCC.
Simply because this pause is visible no only within the very similar TLT records UAH6.0 and RSS3.3, but in the TLT record RSS4.0 as well.
While RSS4.0 shows, with 0.18 C / decade for 1979-2017, a linear trend even above that of the surface records JMA, GISS, NOAA and Had.CRUT, it shows for 1998-2012 clearly a pause: 0.02 C / decade.
There was no ‘pause’.
At surface indeed there was none. But in the troposphere there was clearly one, you see it even when you remove all strong Nino peaks.
It only appears that way because the surface data have been massaged. Before Karlization, and a bevy of other dubious “corrections”, the surface and atmospheric measurements agreed substantially in form.
‘Before Karlization…’
Typical WUWT blah blah.
https://tinyurl.com/yd23v7zd
What we see here is that four time series
UAH6.0 TLT Globe
RSS4.0 TLT Globe
GISS l+o
Had_CRUT4.5 l+o (which doesn’t refer to ERSST V4/5)
are pretty good on par from 1979 till 2004.
And then we see UAH6.0 TLT suddenly disconnecting.
It is not the job of us commenters to provide for big explanations here. That’s the job of Spencer vs. Mears.
Funny, your tinyurl doesn’t work for me here.
And, another typical alarmist whitewash of questionable activities, blah, blah, blah.
Mears finally felt the heat, and “adjusted” his series a year or two ago.
Typical trivial conversation a la Bart.
The goods show right, and the bads adjust.
Ein Bisschen zu einfach, denke ich…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
That’s a two edged sword, LP. It cuts you as easily as it does me.
For the other, that’s from rather a long time ago, and RSS has been altered since.
Bart says:
February 19, 2018 at 5:29 PM
For the other, thats from rather a long time ago, and RSS has been altered since.
*
I know that. It was just a hint on the fact that even Roy Spencer experienced (more than once) the need for an adjustment to higher temperatures.
This was inverted four years later: that I know too, Bart.
‘Funny, your tinyurl doesn’t work for me here.’
Maybe this one works (same WFT chart, but editable):
https://tinyurl.com/ybr84c4l
I’m sorry Bart: this Karlization is a 100 % invention of weather reporter Watts, reproduced ad nauseam by lots of so called ‘skeptic’ web sites:
https://tinyurl.com/yasad989
LP
Looks like I have to link to the video yet again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-7xL7BLDBs
As it shows, anyone (including you and me) who looks at a line plot of temperature is subconsciously only looking at the top of the temperature distribution. You need to look at the ENTIRE distribution.
Des
I viewed behind this link, excellent work. But I want to keep the discussion based on usual thoughts and graphs.
So … you want to focus only on the extremes of the temperature distribution, just like deniers?
Des
If you feel some need to call me a denier like others call me an alarmist: simply do.
I know where I am, and why I write this and don’t write that.
So einfach ist das.
Where did I call you are denier? I said you are misinterpreting the graphs LIKE deniers. There was NO pause.
Des says “There was no ‘pause'”.
Not really, unless you cherry pick, but there could have been, and if it had been it would have made no difference in the long run.
So as far as I’m concerned, Gordon can have his pause, it’s immaterial.
All “facts” and “logic” are immaterial to Svante.
He prefers pseudoscience.
Yup, it’s fun to watch.
I am doing the exact opposite of cherry picking. Focusing on when new records are broken is the cherry picking.
Pauses in the UAH record are possible, but they make little difference in the long run.
I know they are possible, especially over short periods. But there wasn’t one here.
You need to follow these three steps:
https://tinyurl.com/y85mj95j
Haha – that pretty much nails the denier ethos.
I would like to draw attention to the above post to g*.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287992
Actually, the Moon experiences a complicated rotation beyond merely its synchronous rotation with respect to its orbit. Over the course of each month, it librates significantly, i.e., it wobbles. Here is a time lapsed video of the view from the Earth:
https://tinyurl.com/xyzzzzzzz
Like a top wobbling on a tabletop. This is not motion associated with a non-rotating object.
Unfortunately, the tiny doesn’t lead to a valid link.
It does on my machine. Anyone else have this problem?
I will try the regular link – sometimes they go through, sometimes not:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004600/a004604/phases_2018_plain_360p30.mp4
Thanks Bart, very interesting. About the usual, expected comments I don’t wonder.
But I lack theoretical knowledge helping me to understand who is right.
This may help:
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-much-of-the-moon-can-we-see-from-earth-lunar-libration
No, I know this page already.
What I mean is not observation but a mathematical description or a computation with 3D display of one lunar surface point in space.
Ladies, the Moon ONLY orbits. It does NOT “rotate on it axis”.
Bart, continue to study the Moon. If you can then open your mind, you will find that the Moon does NOT “rotate on its axis”.
Keep us posted on your learning.
Standard spin with wobble due to nutation and precession, g, that’s all it is.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004600/a004604/phases_2018_plain_360p30.mp4
Yup, just “orbiting”, and NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Why are you in denial?
What explains the wobble?
What explains your inability to process facts and logic?
C’mon. What explains the wobble? How do you get a wobble without spin? Do you have a fantastical explanation, or do you hope to just brazen it out and run out the clock?
Bart, why do you want to be a clown? What is the incentive? Do you have nothing else going in your life? Do you strive to live in a GOV-assisted apartment, like davie?
So many questions, huh?
You have no answers to my questions, yet I can answer yours.
The “wobble” is due to gravitational forces.
Now, try to answer my questions, before you pose more distractions for me.
Looks like you took option 2.
fart, your only option is REALITY.
g*e*r*a*n
I was reading Bart’s very intelligent replies to Massimo PORZIO above and your posts are blithering stupidity. You possess no knowledge at all. Pretend, make-up, peddle your pseudoscience day in and day out.
You have your wife (Halp-less) and Gordon Robertson (who makes up almost as much stuff as you do) who accept your ravings and lunacy.
No one else does. You know so little physics it is really funny to ready you posts. Entertainment to see how absolute little you know.
You are funny with your ignorance. Not as boring as the most boring poster I have ever encountered. Mike Flynn. See his name, ignore. Repeats the same lines and things over and over.
People think they can change your view or educate. That is also funny. You have to have a little basics to be able to learn.
I also get a chuckle from you when you look up some term like eigen-vector (you have zero idea what that means) and then you post it to try and fool people that you now something.
You are dangerously close to being as boring as Mike Flynn. You declare things all the time with no evidence, no proof, no understanding and you cannot accept for a second that your world view might be totally wrong. Anyway you have some limited entertainment value. You are awful at science. Bart is many times above your simple level of made up physics.
Someone call the dog-catcher.
The rabid, yelping chihuahua is loose, AGAIN!
g*e*r*a*n
Either you are a retired old fool or a high school student.
You really don’t know anything at all about physics but you are similar to Mike Flynn. You don’t have a clue but you think making endless numbers of unfounded declarative statements makes you important. You just repeat things endlessly but don’t have any physics background to understand reality.
When you call Bart “fart” that makes me think either you are a very childish drunk old timer that is bored an thinks his tactics here are amusing, or a brat high school student who thinks they are funny.
Any poster who can’t read a post more than 50 words long never read a textbook. You need an attention span and ability to focus to do so.
Bart was out of control, as you are.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
More correctly, your “out of control” hypothesis is not valid, is that Barth is considerably more knowledgeable and intelligent than you and you are totally defeated by his intelligent and thoughtful posts so rather than start to reason and think you call him “fart”. Funny stuff g*e*r*a*n. Not intelligent or witty but funny. You are outmatched by nearly all posters on this blog. It is funny to watch. Your great comebacks are repetition of you declarations.
Con-man, if you want to see “out-of-control”, just look at your record of comments.
You are obsessed with me, but you can’t see it. Your comment this morning is a long rambling tirade, with nothing of substance.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-288112
You only want to attack me, but you can’t show even one time where my science has been wrong.
That’s why I don’t waste any time on you. You’re only conning yourself.
And, it’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
Finally you are listening. My complaint with you has been constant.
YOU: “You only want to attack me, but you cant show even one time where my science has been wrong.”
That is because you never show any science. You make declarative statements and back none of them up. I ask you several times for support and you never come through.
My obsession is not with you. I guess you have to believe this. I do not like your pseudoscience and made up physics. If you will note I will challenge Gordon Robertson as much as you. The bad science is what I oppose.
If you would support your declarations then we could have adult debates on issues. You attack people constantly and whine when someone does it back. Go back a few years. I never verbally attacked you until you started lying and twisting my posts. That I found very offensive and unnecessary. I have asked you many times to support your claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that a cold object cannot cause a hotter powered object to reach higher equilibrium temperature. You have never supported this claim once.
Your personal opinions and declarations are not science.
When posters give good arguments that the Moon does indeed rotate on its own axis, you do not provide evidence against the claim. You just make your declaration or pretend they are stupid and don’t know the difference between orbiting an rotation. Then you declare the Moon does not rotate on its axis. That is NOT science. I already have given you the valid definition. You ignored it.
g*e*r*a*n
Since you ignored it my original post I will try to link the post here. It gives the definition of science. You are not using science.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-286966
Con-man, to help you live with your obsession, I have a special commemorative T-shirt, now available.
Be the first to own one.
Order now.
Bart says:
“Standard spin with wobble due to nutation and precession”.
You are right Bart, there’s a lot on lunar libration at Google scholar, and it’s much to do with the lunar rotation.
For example https://tinyurl.com/yd484zv9 :
Another one https://tinyurl.com/ybb7t3us
LLR is Lunar laser ranging.
Svante, sorry to wobble your pseudoscience, but Moon’s libration has NOTHING to do with the fact that the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis.
Keep learning.
It has everything to do with it, and you have no idea what you are talking about.
Bart, “orbiting”, not “rotating on its axis”.
Moon only orbits.
See how simple that is?
Very simple, and very wrong.
This isn’t a negotiation.
Bart, it isn’t “negotiation”. It is supposed to be “learning”.
But, you’re not doing any.
bart…”Over the course of each month, it librates significantly, i.e., it wobbles”.
It has three types of libration and they are all related to it’s orbit not a rotation on an axis. It’s the same with Mercury, where relative motion makes it appear as if Mercury is moving backwards from its normal orbital direction. The same occurs with the Moon where we are seeing it from slightly different angles due to orbital motion and relative motion.
Another form is similar to the Earths tilted axis. As the Earth orbits the Sun, the side leaning toward the Sun becomes the side leaning away from the Sun and a different part of the orbit. Same with Moon.
The third is due to the Earth’s rotation. As we approach the Moom from one side we tends to see a little more of one’s side of the Moon and as we pass under it we tend to see a little bit of the other side facing us.
Why can’t you guys just admit g*r is right?…the Moon does not turn on an axis. Libration has nothing to do with that but with the Moon’s orbit.
Interesting that lunar rotation implies a molten core though.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-288243
You don’t get libration without spin.
Some components are based on orbital inclination etc., but many require rotation, eg :
“the lunar axis of rotation is out of plane, in which the axis of ecliptic and the lunar equator lie, for a constant of 0.26 arc seconds”.
Bart states: “You don’t get libration without spin.”
Bart, you may AGAIN be confusing “spin” with “orbiting”. The Moon is orbiting, not “rotating on its axis”.
It can be confusing, that’s why I’m here to help.
No, without spin, you don’t get libration. You get varied rotation, in which the orientation of the body wanders about with no preference. You don’t get libration.
Bart, now you’re mixing up “spin” with “rotation” with a body “wandering”!
Your lack of understanding, combined with your closed-mind, makes for great humor.
(It’s only February, and already this is a GREAT year in climate comedy.)
You are a very stupid person.
g*e*r*a*n
Bart is much above you in logic, reasoning and scientific knowledge. He would be in the class of intelligent skeptic. You are not such a person. Bart is so correct.
Bart: “You are a very stupid person.”
You will never reach even the low level of scientific knowledge and you really do not possess free or open thought. You are just programmed by crackpots who come up with delusional thoughts (Postma and Claes Johnson) and think by accepting their stupid and distorted reality you have this “open mind” and think for yourself. You do neither, you are not able to think at all. You just declare what the masters programmed you to state and repeat it endlessly. That is what you consider thinking. Declare, do not support, repeat. Declare, do not support, repeat. You can’t even read 50 word posts, how could you hope to study a science textbook. You are a dunce!
Perfect, nothing of substance from either of the clowns.
g*e*r*a*n
You are the poster who has no substance. You can’t understand logical arguments. You can read posts 10 words long. Whoops too long.
Con-man, there’s still time to get a T-shirt before the price goes up, again. Better hurry.
G: Why cant you guys just admit g*r is right?
J: Im guessing its just a question of ego, for some. Those that *have* finally got it, and who are now choosing not to respond, should be ashamed of themselves. Those that do understand, and have understood all along, but are here simply to prevent others from understanding (if there are any of those even in existence) belong in prison, IMO. Safest place they could be, for the rest of us. Those that are genuinely confused, but who refuse to help themselves; what can you do?
G: Why cant you guys just admit g*r is right?
Could be a simpler reason, requiring much less psychobabble to understand.
Shocking as it may seem, we agree with NASA and all astronomers who don’t agree with a proven idiot on a blog.
Translation: “Since we love pseudoscience, and can’t think for ourselves, we’ll swallow anything “institutionalized science” puts out.”
I know, what has mainstream science ever done right? Next time you need surgery, G*, please DIY. Maybe consult a blog first.
Now you made it too obvious again, everything you say is a prank!
I looked at the skies running my hands over my eyes
And I fell out of bed hurting my head from things that I said
‘Till I finally died which started the whole world living
Oh if I’d only seen that the joke was on me
Halp, so who started the joke?
You or g*? Is Gordon in in it also?
If so we fell , hook line and sinker for your impersonations of idiots with delusions of grandeur. You guys are so convincing.
G: Translation: Since we love pseudoscience, and cant think for ourselves, well swallow anything institutionalized science puts out.
J: Too true. To them, everything they see, is confirmation of what they already wanted to believe!
Can I please get a genuine answer to this question:
Why (or how) is it that some commenters can seemingly post wherever they wish, i.e out of chronological order in a sub-thread? I have only ever seen it with certain commenters. Perhaps it is just an error in WordPress, but if so, why does it only ever affect the same few people?
i think the time stamp comes from the time zone of commenter..
actually time zone of time stamp seems to be central time.
Thanks Nate.
Never mind, on my phone i can reply out of order, on the web (PC) I cannot.
g*
des, I missed your explanation of the Moons rotation.
And, since I love your humor, could you link to it?
Thanks.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-287644
I assume you will be able to highlight the precise step in the logic that you believe is incorrect, and not continue with your proof by assertion.
Okay des, I did see that.
It just did not pass the first level of review.
Please review “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
You are encouraged to resubmit, after corrections.
So you can’t find the first faulty step in my logic. Got it.
You STILL can’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
Hahaha – you CAN’T find a faulty step.
Thanks for letting me know.
Des, the way your mind seems to work is (judging only by your comments):
If someone doesnt respond to you, that means you are correct.
If someone does respond to you, that means you are correct.
You just cant stop des-eiving yourself!
Take two Spirograph wheels, both of equal size and with the same number of teeth.
Fix the first one firmly through its centre to your drawing board so that it can’t rotate.
Stick your pencil through the centre of the second wheel, and drag this wheel around the first to draw a circle.
Not only did this wheel complete one rotation about the centre of the first wheel, it also completed one revolution about its own axis. How can I tell this? Because the pencil IS its axis. And throughout the revolution, there was constant friction between the pencil and the rim of the hole as this rim completed one revolution about the pencil.
Only a lame brain would claim I achieved this by rotating the pencil about its axis.
Only a lame brain could continue to confuse “orbiting” with “rotating on it axis”.
You really have no idea how to engage with logic do you.
Yes, he does.
No, he doesn’t.
Powerful stuff.
JH
Just keep defending yourself in the 3rd person.
What a load of old des-dicles, Des.
Des, with your pencil stuck through the centre of the second wheel, and with the teeth of that wheel interlocking those of your first fixed wheel, dont move the pencil. Now, try to rotate the second wheel with your fingers. Is the second wheel free to *rotate on its axis*?
How stupid is that?? The second wheel won’t rotate AT ALL. What you are saying is “if the moon is frozen in space, it won’t rotate on its axis”. Well DUH.
D: What you are saying is if the moon is frozen in space, it wont rotate on its axis. Well DUH.
J: Well DUH, indeed, Des. Thats not what Im saying, but that is an obviously true statement.
Good – then let’s talk about the REAL problem.
Instead of asking inane questions, how about actually trying to counter what I have said with factual statements.
Des, is the second wheel free to *rotate on its axis*?
Hmmmm … “another” person who thinks asterisks can be used as quotes. Interesting.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-288162
OK Des, in order to counter what you have said with factual statements, I will answer for you:
Q1: With your pencil stuck through the centre of the second wheel, and with the teeth of that wheel interlocking those of your first fixed wheel, dont move the pencil. Now, try to rotate the second wheel with your fingers. Is the second wheel free to *rotate on its axis*?
A: No.
Next question:
Q2: Given that the second wheel is not free to *rotate on its axis*, can it be *rotating on its axis* when it *orbits* the first wheel (i.e: when you move the pencil)?
Why do you keep changing to a scenario that doesn’t all the wheel to move at all??
The question is … “IF the second wheel rotates around the first, must it also rotate on it’s own axis?”.
D: Why do you keep changing to a scenario that doesnt all the wheel to move at all??
J: Im not. And the answer to *my* 2nd question is: No.
A1: No.
A2: No.
P.S: Dont worry, Des, I will correct you again:
D: Why do you keep changing to a scenario that doesnt all[ow] the wheel to move at all??
J: Im not. And the answer to *my* 2nd question is: No.
A1: No.
A2: No.
Your “logic” applied to another scenario: If a body is restrained, it can’t move. Therefore, when the restraint is removed, the body can move only East-West, but cannot possibly move North-South.
Des, you created the analogy. I asked two straightforward questions, with two straightforward answers. You now wish to change the analogy.
Halp,
I am sorry to intrude, but your colleague appears to be in distress and keeps repeating the same thing over and over, interspersed with demands for pictorial depictions of his delusions, see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-288239
I think he really requires your help. In particular with regards to decision regarding the ABC as I think that might have set him off.
He doesn’t appear to listen to anyone else. Can you help him with regards to the A,B or C decision before he implodes with another of his hilarious emissions?
You know he doesn’t like to be ignored so there is some urgency in the matter.
D: Your logic applied to another scenario: If a body is restrained, it cant move. Therefore, when the restraint is removed, the body can move only East-West, but cannot possibly move North-South
J: Des, you created the analogy. I asked two straightforward questions, with two straightforward answers. You now wish to change the analogy.
Also, this may help you, for future reference:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Your questions have nothing to do with my analogy.
Thats a des-idedly des-honest response, Des.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-288134
Lets try a simple statement of truth:
Des, in your analogy, made in the linked comment (and discussed above): once the teeth of the second Spirograph wheel interlock with the first wheel, it is no longer free to rotate on its axis, because the first Spirograph wheel is fixed so that it cannot rotate on its axis. However, it *is* still able to move, in a manner in which teeth of both wheels remain interlocking at all times. This movement can therefore NOT involve the second Spirograph wheel rotating on its axis.
Halp,
I think the gig is up.
You have steadfastly ignored my requests to help out g*. Maybe you could indicate your response to the question I posed as G* is not sure how to answer.
So Halp, for the following gif
https://s20.postimg.org/4ezriaj71/energy_of_rotation.gif
Which of the orbiting and rotating/non-rotating dumbbells A,B or C has the least kinetic energy ? Hint the answer is not C.
On current form I expect Halp to head for the hills because he may have run out of his almost inexhaustible avoidance mechanisms.
If he doesnt head for the exits, Halp could also take this an opportunity to show that the is capable of independent thought and is a distinct entity from the afore mentioned gentleman or woman (or the appropriate gender neutral term).
p.s. I am sorry Halp to be so insistent but the gif simply demonstrates why you need to refer to an inertial frame of reference if you are going to calculate physical properties such as energies and angular momentum and of course whether an object is rotating on its axis or not.
If g* can’t answer it, the Halp can’t answer it either. It is not as though they are separate identities.
miker and des, I answered upthread, some time ago.
Maybe you’re rotating on your axes too fast to find it?
Really?? I can’t find where you referred to a spirograph or to a dumbbell.
You are allowing yourself to be des-tracted, Des. Please concentrate.
Hahaha – the unfunny g*e*r*a*n Des “puns”.
You don’t even try to hide it.
Des, Ive already explained. I encourage it.
Glad to see Halp is alive and well and posting regularly.
However he seems to have gone missing in action with regard to the question concerning the kinetic energy of the dumbbells.
As predicted not even a peep or even a wild guess. I suspect he maybe clean out of evasions?
Also no answers from either Halp or g* for why the lunar cartographic co-ordinates are always referred to the rotation axis of the moon.
Yes the gig is really up.
miker, if you want to remain brain-dead, that’s okay with me. If you can’t think for yourself, that’s okay with me. If you’re afraid to question obvious flaws in “institutionalized science”, that’s okay with me.
It’s fun to watch.
G*
Tut tut, your display of bad temper is revealing. It must be hard when even your most die hard devotees will not come to your aid.
As they say success has many parents but failure is an orphan.
miker, one more, if you want to remain delusional, that’s okay with me.
Glad to help.
Poor g*
He must wonder why he is alone. Is it just his delusions or is it his personality or both?
I will go with the latter.
G*, Is this your answer upthread or somewhere else?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-288231 .
If this indeed is your answer, does Halp agree?
I can sense Halp not wanting to also go down with the ship. The first wise move he has made.
Very good, miker. You found that I had answered, just like I indicated.
Progress is one small baby step at a time.
G*, talking about baby steps, you are in desperate need of remedial education, because you keep falling flat on your face. Accordingly you can try and rectify your shortcomings at home.
The following instructional material is aimed at grade 3 to grade 5 school children. It includes instructions on how to use common materials to make models that explain the properties of moon including its orbit and rotation.
https://tinyurl.com/y9gunosl
If it is too arduous for you, try and get some help from a child of the relevant age I am sure after making the model they will be able to explain it to you.
Sorry g*
The tinyURL link above doesn’t seem to work. The following does
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/common/content/activities/orbit_and_spin.pdf
Also a very good explanation of why due to libration we can see more than 50% of the Moon from earth, and its relation to the rotation of the Moon is given here
https://youtu.be/VGnIuqYKnTE
Again if you need help in understanding thid please consult a child of the relevant age.
Again a minor correction to the above. A slight misspelling,
“thid” is the sound an idiot makes when he falls flat on his face.
miker, when you get all of your bad-links, mis-spellings, and “cute” out of your system, get back to me, if you have a responsible question.
G*,
I thought I heard a loud ‘thid”. It was just you.
As to engaging with you in a scientific sense It has clearly been a pointless exercise but I will satisfy your request for a very responsible question.
How would you calculate the total kinetic energy of an orbiting object that is also rotating (or non rotating) on its axis? Consider the cases for no rotation, same rotation speed as the orbit and a rotations speed twice that of the orbit (corresponding to A, B and C).
G*, is that question responsible enough for you?
Can g* answer this question? It requires some basic knowledge of physics and a bit of math. I suspect this will be a bridge too far for g*. Perhaps Halp and Gordon can assist him.
Easy–the total KE would be the arithmetic sum of the orbital KE and the rotational KE.
If there is no rotational KE, then the “sum” would just be the orbital KE.
You do understand arithmetic, don’t you?
Please do that KE calculation g*e*r*a*n.
Svante, there is really no “calculation”, without values.
Maybe you are curious about “how to do the calculation”.
Kinetic energy (KE) is mv2/2.
If there were rotational KE, the formula is Iω2/2
HTML failed. Let’s try again.
mv2 should be mv^2.
ω2 should be &omega^2.
now for a test:
KE = mv2/2
KE = ω2/2
superscript not working.
I’m relentless!
Superscript only:
x squared = x^2 = x2
Modern technology–what would we do without it?
Hilarious.
G* let us do the calculation of Kinetic energy in two parts. You said you wanted concrete numbers.
First Part.
Let take as an example a 10 kg dumbbell with weights of 5 kg each separated at a distance of 20 cm by a rod (sufficiently light that its contribution is negligible) . Calculate the moment of inertia around its centre of mass.
Use the calculated moment of inertia to calculate the kinetic energy of rotation in Joules for the three cases as shown in the gif below.
The dumbbell , when it is rotating , is rotating at a frequency of 1/5th of a rotation per second.
https://s20.postimg.org/7p84zcrm5/Inertial_frame_KE1.gif .
Second Part to follow but g* can show (or not show) his capabilities by performing the above calculation.
miker states: “You said you wanted concrete numbers.”
miker, I did NOT say that. You are, AGAIN, mis-representing my words. I will have to implement new rules for clowns.
Rule 1: If you mis-represent my words, I will NOT respond to your comment, until I get a sincere retraction.
Your stupid humor is appreciated, but there is no excuse for being so desperate you have to resort to falsehoods.
G*,
How else was anyone to interpret g*’s comment to Svante?
“Svante, there is really no calculation, without values” .
See-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-288845.
However I do apologise and sincerely retract if I have misinterpreted your words, but I did give you examples with values. Did the word “concrete” upset you? The dumbbells can be made up of any material.
One would get the distinct impression that g* is desperate to avoid doing the calculations but I would be extremely happy to be proved wrong.
So g* again, show us your abilities and see if you can do the calculations.
miker, I already provided the formulas. Are you saying you are unable to solve the simple algebra? Do you not understand the formulas?
Does someone always do your homework for you? Is that why you can’t think for yourself?
And, what if I did the calculations? Would you just come up with more problems for me to solve. Anything to avoid admitting you’re wrong, huh?
Just confuse, distract, throw red herrings, pound on that keyboard–anything to avoid learning.
It’s fun to watch.
Oh, and your “retraction” is NOT sincere. It was an attempt to cover for yourself. You tried to defend your deception. You tried to spin it around to appear as if it were my fault. That is NOT sincere. That is cowardice.
Better luck next time.
Ok g*,
As the calculations seem to be too onerous, then I will just make it very easy for you. I am a nice guy really.
How about if I frame the task in terms of the conventional IQ test where you have to identify “the odd man out”, normally from a choice from four.
I have made it easier, which of the 3 depictions in the following gif is the “odd man out”?
Here it is again
https://s20.postimg.org/7p84zcrm5/Inertial_frame_KE1.gif.
Rule 1: If you mis-represent my words, I will NOT respond to your comment, until I get a sincere retraction.
Your stupid humor is appreciated, but there is no excuse for being so desperate you have to resort to falsehoods.
G* “Rule 1: If you mis-represent my words, I will NOT respond to your comment, until I get a sincere retraction.”
G* Please specify which words in particular led to offence. I need to know so I can rectify the situation.
However , do I have your assurance that, once these have been identified and I have repeated my apology, you will answer the simple A,B or C question?
If not, it will be just another confirmation of g*’s inability to answer this question.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-289193
G*, the idea of argumentum ad nausea via self referential links is passe.
It now seems you think your whole world view will come crumbling down if you explicitly select either A, B or C.
In reality it is just as simple as ABC.
Go on, I am sure you can do it. I have faith.
g*e*r*a*n,
I just thought it would be more precise if you expressed your physics in numbers.
Like your yo-yo temperature calculation:
https://tinyurl.com/y8reh5kc
Svante, you just don’t get it. Just like you didn’t get the trap Tim fell in. Tim got it, and left the thread, but you don’t get it.
You have nothing of substance. Your pseudoscience fails you every time, but you fail to learn. Just like miker can not learn I will not respond to him until he cleans up his act.
It’s fun to watch.
To help everyone understand your argument, perhaps MikeR can help you create a hand-waving gif.
Svante, you’ve got it turned around, AGAIN. It’s usually me that has to help poor miker with his gifs.
But regardless, you gave me a good idea. Clowns cannot understand such simple examples as the toy train. So, how can they understand physics?
So, Rule 2 will now require that they understand that a toy train, on a circular track, is orbiting, not “rotating on its axis”.
Thanks for the idea. It’s so necessary to have strict rules for children.
Goodness gracious, G* is upset with me because I had the the temerity to ask him a simple question. I didnt realize we had such as delicate flower in our midst.
I had got a distinctly different impression of g* from his comments. Particularly his incessant abd provocative use of climate clowns, hilarious, yelping chihuahua terminology to describe others.
So mock outrage (actually a better term would be schmuck outrage) is another pathetic attempt by g* to mask his inability to answer the question as to whether A, B or C is the odd man out.
So in the end g*, true to form, has chickened out. I would be amazed if anyone else is surprised. I certainly am not.
Hence the need for rules for kiddos.
What more can you say about a chicken who refuses to reply to a very simple question? I guess the take home message says just about his inability to face the reality that his thesis is a heap of chicken shit.
The example of A, B and C for the calculation of kinetic energy for an inertial frame just made this conclusion so obvious.
MikeR, you are a strange one, but I wish you all the best anyway. Try to stay under the radar of that ever closing police investigation. They arent idiots. Be careful (they will get you in the end).
I hope you arent a computer program. If you are, let me say that you almost had me convinced. I hope the climate robots (Decepti-cons) that you associate with eventually find some sort of peace within their…code. People will always think for themselves, and that is that.
Halp,
If you want to distinguish yourself from your alternate persona, this would be a great opportunity to show your bravery.
So why don’t you answer the A, B or C question i posed to g* above that sent him into meltdown.
To avoid the same fate for yourself, I promise you that the four horsemen of the acopalyse will not arrive at your doorstep and whisk you off to Hades if you choose unwisely. So give it a go. The only thing you could lose is your credibility which is devaluing faster than the Zimbabwean dollar.
So Halp you have nothing to lose and we can move on to Part B of the calculation of the kinetic energy, if necessary.
And yet it DOES rotate about the pencil. So either the second wheel or the pencil must be rotating. Which one is it?
Re the statements made in this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-288380
The correct answer is: when there is the friction you described, the pencil is rotating on its axis.
Why?? Please explain why friction makes a difference. Remember – I am holding the pencil firmly so that it can’t slide in my fingers. And as I draw the circle, my hand keeps pointing in the same direction – it is not rotating.
Des, it is besides the point; but if you wish, think about what you would need to do (what you would need to do to the pencil) to reduce that friction.
OK, following on from the comment here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-288248
And with that in mind, let us move on to make some more factual statements:
When moving, such that teeth of both wheels are always interlocking, the second Spirograph wheel is not rotating on its axis. A pencil, stuck through the centre of the second wheel, and used to move the second Spirograph wheel, has its own axis. Any friction, between the pencil, and the rim of the hole, is real. The pencil, unlike the second Spirograph wheel, is free to rotate on its axis.
OK, so where did we get to? Oh yes:
In the Spirograph analogy, once the teeth of the second wheel interlock with the first, it is no longer free to rotate on its axis. It is still able to move, though, in a manner in which teeth of both wheels remain interlocking at all times (meaning at no point on its journey around the first wheel is the second wheel free to rotate on its axis). So, this circular movement, or *orbit* if you will, does NOT involve the second wheel rotating on its axis at any point. The motion of the second wheel would look like this (the one on the left):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Hi,
I write here instead of above to try to make a little more order in this discussion which is spread along the thread.
-Nate
Thank you for entering the discussion, as I will explain below to Bart now I agree with you.
But I dont think your suggested experiment is better then my hammer throw that I wrote above. That because (as Bart evidenced) it is much a question of aerodynamics than gravitational orbiting, and because in both cases the dominant gravitational force is almost homogeneously distributed along your orbiting path perpendicularly to it, so IMHO (as per my hammer throw example) it doesnt help so much to the Moon question.
-Bart.
First of all thank you for your patience, as said Im almost completely ignorant about this argument.
Maybe I introduced a non pertinent issue to what g*e*r*a*n was arguing indeed.
In fact I argued about how the Moon should have reached the condition of orbiting and not rotating, which it was not pertinent to what he was arguing.
I did some thoughts about that and I finally concluded that you are right and I was completely wrong.
But I still have some doubts about what a pure orbiting system it is.
AFIK the minimum setup for referencing to an orbiting system we must have:
1) a much massive body (A), which mass allow it to be considered the spatial reference of the system
2) a less massive body (B), which orbits around A because of the gravitational interactions
3) nothing else, that is IMHO the inertial space is something not considered for defining a pure orbiting system
In this case (always IMHO of course), the current Moon movement is the one of an orbiting object around the Earth without no rotation on its own axis, and Mr. Perigal gave a brilliant explanation about it.
About your However, if you are not rotating with respect to the orbit, then you are rotating with respect to inertial space.
Following your argument my example of the orbiting man who stands up at the equator (valid even if he was standing up anywhere on the Earth indeed) should apply and he should be rotating on one of his axes, but the only points where he really rotates on one of his axes are where he stands up at one of the real geographic poles, in all the other position he is rotating around the Earth N-S axis.
But it could be that you wrote that just because I misled you to think that I was arguing to a generic rotation while I was always implying a rotation of the B body on its own axis.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hoops!
I don’t know why but the message above lost all the quotation marks and apostrophes!
Hi Massimo
My guess: you edited it e.g. with Winword, Open Office or whatever else.
These tools often choose, e.g. for quotation marks and apostrophes, UTF-8 characters outside of ASCII which are entered here but not displayed. Even paragraph signs disappear.
Hi La Pangolina,
yes, you should be right because I used the text editor of a microcontroller design suite which has multi-format capability and it had the ANSI flag disabled. I probably clicked on that by mistake.
Thank you.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo –
“… and he should be rotating on one of his axes, but the only points where he really rotates on one of his axes are where he stands up at one of the real geographic poles, in all the other position he is rotating around the Earth N-S axis.”
You are talking about his axis of symmetry. Actually, a particular axis of symmetry. But, rotations are not confined to axes of symmetry. You can rotate about any line.
For any given body, there are three axes of symmetry, as far as mass distribution goes. If you stand straight with arms at sides, assuming your body is very symmetrical, your three axes are: 1) head to feet, 2) back to chest, 3) shoulder to shoulder. Head to feet is the minor axis – this has the least distance squared between your center of mass and every other part of your body. Back to chest is the major axis, as it has the most. Shoulder to shoulder is intermediate.
Free rotation about a fixed axis is only possible for major and minor axes. However, constrained rotation, e.g. by having your feet planted on the ground, is possible about any axis.
Hi Bart,
yes, I agree.
I was arguing about a rotation on one of the axes which passed through the man body, not necessarily one of his symmetry axes.
It’s probably not the right way to argument about that, but I really don’t know as to name it to differentiate between an axis of rotation which passes through the body and one that it doesn’t.
As said I’m an EE and the only studies I did about this field back in time many years ago and they were not so detailed.
“Free rotation about a fixed axis is only possible for major and minor axes. However, constrained rotation, e.g. by having your feet planted on the ground, is possible about any axis.”
Yes of course. By the way, the man was with his feet on the ground and intended just to give a geometrical idea of his rotational behaviour and the one of the Moon, it wasn’t really “orbiting” at the equator.
Have a great day.
Massimo
No Pause:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hew-GAVbq-wQd21q8Pq0GtD3I-LSFMTA/view?usp=sharing
Well I live far away from CONUS, but Tamino’s most recent thread concerning this country is interesting.
He computed trends out of all NOAA station subcountry bulks within CONUS:
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/usarate.jpg?w=768&h=510
and this is the best hint we could imagine to explain the difference between weather and climate.
That CONUS subregion namely which recently experienced a harsh winter down to -40 C and lower in fact is also is the one with many of the highest trends for the period 1895-2018.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/us-warmhole/
Tamino is completely unreliable.
But you and those sources you prefer of course are.
Bart says:
“Tamino is completely unreliable.”
Why?
Does it ever occur to you that you have to prove your claims, and not just make them haphazardly??
And for those who claim the 1930s were warmer, here is the comparison between the 2010s and the 1930s:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OTVzUrss11vVIjkYFTUCDfWca2RAsEIx/view?usp=sharing
2017 is not yet included in the 2010s average.
Red means warmer in the 2010s, blue is warmer in the 1930s.
The shading is done on the same climate divisions> as in your trend map.
Thanks Des, very interesting.
I think my friend J.-P. alias Bindidon has found similar things when averaging CONUS’ 1900 GHCN stations into a 2.5 deg grid for 1880-2017 (about 170 grid cells).
Where do graph and underlying data come from?
It’s my graph base on data from the “Climate at a Glance” page.
If an object is not free to rotate on its axis whilst it moves, and that object is moving, then that object is not rotating on its axis as it moves (orbits).
Tidal *locking*.
So, Q3: Does the moon rotate on its axis?
No substance, but I will take your answer as a yes. Next?
J Halp-less
I don’t know where you came up with your concept of “Tidal Locking” but it is wrong. You should read up on how it works!
Tidal Locking in no way prevents the Moon from rotating on its axis, held in place like by a solid rod. You and g*e*r*a*n do not understand the concept at all and will not listen to any explanation of it other than your own distorted view.
No known real science can infiltrate that bubble mind you dwell in.
Your husband, g*e*r*a*n, has strong negative feelings about actual valid science. He calls it “institutionalized” as it that is supposed to mean something. Maybe the two of you can take an actual physics course together. Since g*e*r*a*n suffers from reading disability you could do the reading and tell him verbally about the fantastic material you should be able to read.
Norman I wouldn’t be too concerned about g*and Halp now
that Halp has finally let the cat out of the bag. It seems that he, presumably like g*, have been successfully masquerading as total idiots as part of a joke
See Halp’s recent comment –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-288519
I think it I might be now time to end the joke as I was getting fed up with the tedium of thevariation of the whack a mole game called “whack an idiot”.
I did at one stage have a sneaking suspicion that these two were part of a Mike Flynn like false flag conspiracy to damage the climate change skepticism movement. Those who would normally be their allies such SkepticGoneWild and Bart were clearly embarrassed and frustrated by their overt displays of stupidity. It is so easy to be tarred by the same brush so they wisely avoided being victims of guilt by association with these two.
Personally I think I should have twigged onto the joke as soon as g*e*r*a*n revealed his grandiose claim that the entire astronomical community, NASA and a range of scientific institutions were staffed by incompetents who believed in pseudo-science. This was in contrast to himself (and one or two other whack jobs ) who were actually the only unrecognised geniuses that really understood the science.
The avoidance of even glancing at, let alone reading, by g* (and Halp) the vast array of material at his disposal on the internet was another sure sign that we were being played for fools.
Finally the repetitive use by g* of aggravating catch phrases and the inordinate over use of expressions such as “hilarious” and “yelping” made the case watertight.
So while I have to acknowledge their undoubted talents as actors who could play the fool perfectly, these two have had their fun and it’s time to move on and try their “look at me, I’m a drooling idiot” routines elsewhere.
MikeR
Thanks for the info. There little game did not accomplish its goal. All the skeptics rejected their stupidity and would not go along with it so they stood out with only the other nut (Gordon Robertson) agreeing with them.
At least the other skeptics have good backgrounds in valid science. I am somewhat skeptical of extreme bad events from Global Warming. I would rather the effects be debated in scientific fashion using established science rather than the made up physics of the extremists.
I think it is obvious that neither g*e*r*a*n or J Halp-less have more than a bit of High School science in their background. From their posts it is sometimes hard to think they have even that much.
miker and con-man, excellent examples of your comedy.
You can’t get anything right, but you just keep pounding on your keyboards!
It’s fun to watch.
I might suggest a friendly competition. Have a contest to see which of you can generate the longest comment, with the least truth. That would be hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
It is painfully obvious that you have not scientific background at all. You just make stuff up and pretend you have knowledge.
Your antiscientific mentality is strange. You are against “institutionalized science” which just means established science based upon years of research, logical thought process, established math principles, reasoned thinking.
A lot of inaccuracies, but it’s not really long enough to count for much humor.
More please.
Whack-a-mole-MikeR:
https://tinyurl.com/kd72kfp
7th grade classes must be over for the day. ..
Sorry g*e*r*a*n, it’s hard to stay serious here.
How well I know. …
Yes, it’s your celestial comedy.
Hilarious!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-288679
^^ I left my automatic reply on, today. As predicted, the few remaining (still somehow confused) rotators had nothing of substance to say.
The flawed thinking of J Halp-less and g*e*r*a*n on rotation is becoming more obvious. They do not understand the concept of axis of rotation. After some thought, a person standing on a merry-go-round only has a potential axis of rotation. They can rotate on their axis but if they are not doing so, no real axis of rotation exists.
If a part of an object (like a section of a solid sphere) is not free to rotate then it has no individual axis of rotation, its axis of rotation is the same as all the other parts. An object must be separated to have its own axis of rotation.
Go to g*e*r*a*n’s toy train. The body of the engine and cars is connected to the wheels and not free to rotate. But if you would take the engine body and each car body and now put it on bearings so it is free to rotate, now the engine body has an actual axis of rotation. If you don not induce rotation with the engine body, It will always face the same direction as the wheels move around the track center. In the middle you will see all sides of the engine body. In order for one to see only one side of the train engine, a rotation must be applied equal to the rate of moving around the track.
Poor Norm argues with himself, AGAIN!
And he STILL can’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
Hilarious.
Rigid bodies have six degrees of freedom for motion, three of translation, and three of rotation.
An orbit is a translational motion. It is not intrinsically coupled with rotation. You have no idea what you are talking about, but there is obviously no use in schooling you.
Bart, how many times have I tried to school you on the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”?
Do you know “Bart” is awfully close to “Bark”?
Hilarious.
B: An orbit is a translational motion. It is not intrinsically coupled with rotation
J: Yes, exactly…so why dont you get it?
g*e*r*a*n
It is not me that does not understand the difference between orbiting and rotating on axis. I gave you an easy to read situation using your own toy train. I do not possess miracle power to give you thinking and logic abilities. You don’t have them. Sorry no one can help you.
You are wrong but far too stupid to see how stupid you are. Rather than think of the possibility that you are an unthinking idiot, you assume all established scientists are wrong. You are so beyond delusional that no one will be able to help you. Sorry about that. Wish I could help.
con-man, you are slightly ahead of miker. (He’s probably pounding out mega-lines of “cute”, right now.)
But, your quality of humor is dropping. I recommend you pound on your keyboard longer. Also throw in a lot more impotent insults. That’s always hilarious.
(I have no preference in this contest. I will offer tips to miker also. It’s all about making 2018 the greatest year in climate comedy.)
Glad to help.
Poor G* (aka turnip boy) does not understand orbiting or rotation on an axis.
So let’s educate him by going over some lecture notes from MIT:
“Chapter 20 Rigid Body: Translation and Rotational Motion Kinematics for Fixed Axis Rotation”:
https://tinyurl.com/y8xf55d9
Refer to Figure 20.1. This shows the center of mass of a thrown rigid rod follows a parabolic trajectory while the rod rotates about the center of mass. This is very similar to the toy train on a track, since orbit is simply the path or trajectory of the object, which is circular for the train, instead of parabolic in case shown in Figure 20.1.
See if you can keep up G*. Go to Appendix A on page 20-19. They will prove that the general motion of ANY rigid body of mass m consists of a translation of the center of mass with velocity Vcm and a rotation about the center of mass with all elements of the rigid body rotating with the same angular velocity Phi-cm.
Now look at Section 20A.1. Translation of the Center of Mass. I explained about “translation” earlier in some posts but you failed to respond. In this proof there are two points (1 and 2) on the outer ends of the rigid object. Got it? This section talks about the special case of pure translation where the displacement of each object (points 1 and 2) is equal to the displacement of the center of mass. And remember, these motions are all in reference to a fixed non-rotating Cartesian coordinate system.
Are you following G*?? Now go on to 20A.2 Rotation about the Center of Mass. Look at Figure 20 A.3 which shows the two points (1 and 2) on the rigid body undergoing infinitesimal angular displacements in the center of mass reference frame.
The conclusion states: “We have shown that the displacement of a rigid body is the vector sum of the displacement of the center of mass (translation of the center of mass) and an infinitesimal rotation about the center of mass.
This is exactly what is happening with the toy train on a circular track. The center of mass of the train is translating along the orbital path, and at the same time the train itself is performing a rotation about its center of mass, all with respect to the fixed non-rotating Cartesian coordinate system.
Get back to us when you understand this. (this will be never)
G*,
So in the case I described earlier where you hold a toy train and make it point north while performing an orbit? The train is NOT rotating per the definition of pure translation per the MIT course notes (and the definition I stated earlier). There would be NO ROTATION. The train’s center of mass would simply be translating along the orbital path JUST AS I STATED EARLIER.
Your lack of education in simple kinematics is obvious for all to see.
SGW, a “thrown rigid rod” is NOT the same as the simple toy train.
So, I’m assuming you want to be entered into the contest between Norm and miker.
Consequently, you are now in the lead!
(This is going to be a GREAT year in climate comedy!)
miker and con-man, better pick it up. SGW has the lead. He even mis-interpreted “lecture notes from MIT”!
Hilarious.
G*,
Way over your head I see.
The PROOF was for ANY RIGID BODY MOTION, you idiot. You did not even read it.
“We now return to our description of the translating and rotating rod that we first considered when we began our discussion of rigid bodies.”
Great comedy, SGW!
More please.
Turnip Boy sweats and relentlessly pounds his keyboard, hoping for something intelligent to appear.
“Translation” and “rotation”…… he can’t figure it out.
He frantically pounds his keyboard more…………hoping for miracle.
Combining your confusion with your delusion is great comedy.
More please.
Turnip Boy,
You are out of your league here. The proof stated:
“We shall now show that the motion of any rigid body consists of a translation of the center of mass and rotation about the center of mass.”
Oh, did you fail to grasp the concept of “ANY RIGID BODY”???
Quit clowning around. Oh. Wait. Clowning is your occupation.
When you can comprehend to content of these MIT course notes, let us know.
“and rotation about the center of mass’
SGW continues to be confused that there are TWO distinct, different, independent motions being discussed.
His closed-mind only contributes to the hilarity.
(miker and con-man, are you taking notes. Your competition is WAY ahead of you.)
Turmip Boy,
Now everyone can see you for what you are: a physics bullsh*tter. When confronted with actual proofs for rigid body motion, he fails to comprehend, and just repeats his dumbass manrta without ANY backup whatsoever.
Over and over I have supplied simple repeatable observational experiments that are apparently WAY over his head. And now I have supplied actual kinematic proofs which describe the tranlational and rotational motion of ANY rigid body, and he freezes like a deer caught in the headlights of a car.
Go away and don’t come back until you have something intelligent to say.
Nothing rational–check.
Desperate attempts to insult–check.
Meaningless claims–check.
It all contributes to great climate comedy.
Per the MIT course notes, the motion of ANY rigid body, like a train on a circular track, can be described as the vector sum of the
displacement of the center of mass (translation of the center of mass) and an infinitesimal rotation about the center of mass.
Turnip Boy fails to understand this. Per the section entitled Translation of the Center of Mass, the object per the definition of pure translation motion, is NOT experiencing pure translational motion.
The train experiences a rotational displacement per the diagrams shown in the proof. So its motion can be described as two things happening simultaneously. The center of the train’s mass is translating along the orbital path, along with a rotation about its center of mass as per Figure 20A.3. I cannot help you in your ignorance. You are just plain ignorant.
Turnip Boy continues to pound nonsense on his keyboard, offering nothing to counter the information contained in the MIT course notes.
SGW, the MIT notes get it right.
You just can’t understand.
It’s fun to watch.
“SGW, the MIT notes get it right.”
Too funny. Nice try for a save, but no cigar.
For example, an object that always points north as it follows an orbital path would be exhibiting pure translational motion, and would not be rotating on its axis per Section 20A.1.
You said the complete opposite: “By holding the train facing north, as you make an orbit, you are forcing both an orbit and rotation on it axis.”[G*] Completely wrong. When an object always faces in one direction throughout its orbit, the displacement of the two outer points of the object (see Figure 20A.2) is equal to the displacement of the center of mass, which means that the body is undergoing pure translation, and rotation about its center of mass is not occurring.
SGW, you can’t think for yourself, so reading MIT notes only confuses you more.
The simple toy train can NOT “rotate on its axis”. It is constrained by the tracks. It always moves along the track. That is called “orbital motion”. An object that is only orbiting does NOT “rotate on its axis”.
This has been explained to you numerous times. The MIT notes mention it. But, you can NOT understand. You can NOT process facts and logic.
It’s fun to watch.
Poor Turnip boy fails to understand the MIT kinematic notes. The rotation is in reference to the fixed Cartesian coordinate system that is not rotating. So when the train’s center of mass translates from one point to the next along the orbit path, the train is performing incremental angular displacements (Figure 20A.3) about its center of mass. Your faulty analysis results from rotating the Cartesian coordinate system along with the train’s rotation. Then of course the train would not exhibit rotation. But the Cartesian coordinate system is fixed, and generally we assume the y axis to point north.
As I have continually tried to explain, pure translational motion of a rigid body per Section 20A.1 occurs when any line of the body remains parallel to itself throughout the motion. So if the object points west at the commencement of the orbit path, it will remain facing west throughout a complete orbit. With pure translational motion, there is NO rotation of the body about its center of mass. THEREFORE, since the train IS changing the direction it points along its orbit path, it HAS to be rotating about its center of mass for the obvious reason that it is NOT exhibiting pure translational motion. That is just plain logic. Plus the train DOES perform angular displacements as noted in the first paragraph.
You just need to shut up. You are simply way out of your league here.
You are just basically saying that you *cannot* free your mind from relating everything to this imaginary *fixed reference frame*…which does not actually exist in reality. It is just a mental construct. In reality, there is: is something free to move, or isnt it? Is something free to rotate on its axis, or isnt it?
Are you free to think freely, or not?
SGW, your “MIT notes” are really very clear, but they have confused you even more.
MIT notes: “..the two components to describe rigid body motion.
1. Translation of the objects center of mass.
2. Rotation of object about its center of mass.
You STILL are unable to differentiate between the two motions.
You believe that an object can orbit, WITHOUT also “rotating on its axis”, yet still face “north”! You have claimed you can do that at your desk!
You just don’t understand “orbiting”. The simple little toy train is too advanced for you.
It’s fun to watch.
(This will be my standard reply, until it is clear your understanding has improved.)
You clowns are just too stupid to understand.
Seeya dumbaasses.
J: Are you free to think freely, or not?
SGW: You clowns are just too stupid to understand. Seeya dumbaasses.
J: A simple *no* would have sufficed.
Halp: “Are you free to think freely, or not?”
Translation: Are you going to let facts, reality, logic stop you from believing in my crap?
Nate: Shhhhh. Stop being a Nate.
As usual, Turnip Boy has no response, because he can’t comprehend simple kinematics. He’s just left with pounding nonsense on the keyboard.
Hilarious!
SGW, I respond as quickly as I can, after I stop laughing.
Everyone is laughing at YOUR stupidity, Turnip Boy. When confronted with REAL kinematic proofs, you have no intelligent response. Just pounding on keyboard with much yelping.
Delusion makes for great comedy.
More please.
How much more stupid do you want to appear?
Go for it, clown.
When confronted with the actual proofs of kinematic motion for rigid bodies, Turnip Boy freezes, and spouts gibberish.
OMG. Classic!
SGW, you are way ahead in the “Climate Clown” competition.
But, don’t get cocky. Both miker and con-man are fierce competitors.
Keep pounding that keyboard Turnip Boy. Something intelligent will happen by chance in perhaps a billion years.
What if it happened before you saw it?
(Hilarious.)
Look:
https://postimg.org/image/ilfidiu21/
A: is rotating once on its axis, CW, per completion of an orbit.
B: is not rotating on its axis, it is just orbiting.
C: is rotating once on its axis, CCW, per completion of an orbit.
Maybe that will help.
J Halp-less
You are as gone as your delusional husband. Have you considered counseling together to find out why you have a God-Complex. You think if you declare something it is true reality. “And God said let their be light!”
You and your husband seem to have this delusion. How far gone are you? It is sad.
C: does not rotate CCW on its axis. It does not rotate at all. You can’t even understand things when you observe them. Deep in a bubble universe of your own delusion.
Really sad!
N: You think if you declare something it is true reality…
N: C does not rotate CCW on its axis. It does not rotate at all.
J: Lol!
J Halp-less
Your stupid Lol! Means nothing. Tell how you believe or see that C: in the animation you posted to, is rotating CCW on its axis. What are you seeing to suggest such an absurd thing.
The two of you tagging up to make fun of people that can reason and use logic only makes your delusion deeper and harder for you to recover. Nothing funny about delusion. It is a sad thing to see. You can see with your own eyes and you delude yourself into seeing something that is not there. C is not rotating on its axis. It is moving around a central point with no rotation.
When you are that wrong and insist you are correct it is really really sad. And your tag team with your husband will not make things better. Seek help.
My lol! was at the hypocrisy you displayed in your previous comment.
My lol! now is at your last response.
The con-man is trying to make a comeback. SGW still leads, with his hilarious mis-interpretation of the MIT notes. miker is nowhere to be seen, yet.
The race to “King of Climate Comedy” continues.
I have noticed a lot of this, too, from a number of people:
N: Tell [me] how you believe or see that C: in the animation you posted to, is rotating CCW on its axis. What are you seeing to suggest such an absurd thing.
J: They will write a comment which indicates they do not understand, and even ask you (more usually, demand) that you do their thinking for them. They ask for your help, to understand, but do it couched within reams of derogatory remarks. Do you think this is a tactic that gets them far in life? Here, Norman is asking for help seeing something which has been explained in great detail in numerous comments, right from the very beginning! They are just so lazy!
Well, Im off, for now. Have fun!
No problem J. You cover for me when I’m gone, as does Gordon, and others. It’s not like we all have to be here to handle 6-7 clowns.
Bring it on.
J-Clueless,
Please refer to my post above in regards to MIT course notes for “Translation and Rotational Motion Kinematics for Fixed Axis Rotation”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-288776
Get back to us when you understand the concept of rigid body motion.
2nd Spirograph wheel. 🙂
Way over your head I see. Not surprising.
Conclude whatever you wish.
J, apparently Norm, miker, and now SGW have entered the contest for the best “Climate Clown of 2018”.
If you, and other rational commenters, agree, we can rate them thoughout the year.
Personally, I think SGW has done an excellent job of hilariously subverting material from MIT.
miker and the con-man have their work cut out for them.
J-Clueless,
You are not doing yourself any favors here. You obviously cannot comprehend the MIT course notes for rigid body kinematic motion, since your response was, well, non-responsive. Just more dumbass insult hurling.
At what point do you stop making yourself look SO stupid? It’s up to you.
SGW, you earn extra points here.
You project your own failings onto others: You obviously cannot comprehend the MIT course notes for rigid body kinematic motion”
(miker and con-man, you may have to stay up all night to catch up with SGW. He’s way ahead.)
Turnip Boy,
You are only fooling yourself. It’s obvious to all that you do not comprehend the subject matter in the MIT course notes.
That’s OK. Don’t take it personal. But yelping and pounding nonsense on the keyboard are not helping matters.
SGW, seriously are you really con-man?
SGW: Just more dumbass insult hurling.
J: SGW, is everything you say just *pure* projection? What was insulting to you about my saying *2nd Spirograph wheel*? Look at the times you and I posted comments. At the time you wrote *just more dumbass insult hurling* (5:10pm) the only comments I had made to you, or about you, were *2nd Spirograph wheel* and *conclude whatever you wish*. At 5:13pm I wrote a comment in which I made the observation that you *shriek hyper-aggressively for no reason*. If you find that insulting, fine, I understand, but it also appears to be a valid observation.
I was worried for Norman for a while until I realised how deluded they *all* were, so Im back to laughing at the rambles again. MikeR is at his best when he thinks he is onto something…the less I respond to him, the funnier he gets. I definitely get a sort of Bond-villain vibe from his comments too, like when he starts going on about how *your friends have all abandoned you, you are all alone and vulnerable, bwah ha ha ha*…as he vigorously rubs that red herring. SGW just shrieks hyper-aggressively for no reason, which is pretty funny. But he could try harder. Ive noticed he likes to hang around a lot way upthread, where no-one will notice him, and then start to talk about tumbleweed. Its a close call but Im going to back Norman for the win, currently.
Norm will be hard to beat. miker and SGW seem to show up erratically. It takes discipline to prevail in competition. Of course, the con-man has the advantage, being able to compete during work hours.
It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy. I expect new records will be set.
I did particularly enjoy the contradiction between the comments, first from Bart:
B: An orbit is a translational motion. It is not intrinsically coupled with rotation
J: Being immediately followed by the impassioned arguments from SGW for the complete opposite, e.g:
SGW: This is exactly what is happening with the toy train on a circular track. The center of mass of the train is translating along the orbital path, and at the same time the train itself is performing a rotation about its center of mass
J: And of course, all the fellow rotators (whoever is left) will support them both!
All they ever needed to do was to be able to distinguish *orbiting* from *rotating on its axis*!
When confronted with actual kinematic proofs for rigid body motion, J-Dumbass freaks and just babbles incessantly like an infant.
So painful to watch. Yet hilarious as well.
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself *why* this is making you *so* upset?
They probably never got a toy train, before their minds closed.
J-Dipsh*t,
Here is a quiz. This is open book, so you can refer to the MIT course notes.
If a toy car points north at all times on a circular track while performing an orbit, how can its rigid motion be described? Pure translational? Or combination translation of its center of mass along with rotation about its center of mass? Explain your answers with references to Appendix 20A of the course notes.
[Jeopardy theme plays continuously]
J-Brainless,
No cheating with help from Turnip Boy.
Oh wait, he’s more clueless than you.
As I said before SGW, the theme tune to The Magic Roundabout would be more appropriate to the music playing in your head. I dont respond to demands, or gotcha attempts, and I hope when I come back later I will see you have jumped to conclusions because of that. Have a good rage.
SGW, that is going to get you even more points.
If a toy car points north at all times on a circular track while performing an orbit, how can its rigid motion be described?
You describe an impossible action because you STILL don’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
G*s*t*u*p*i*d,
Impossible? I performed the maneuver on my desk.
You keep regurgitating your mantra. Now read the MIT course notes. It explains all you need to know about describing the motion of a rigid body.
It is YOU who does not comprehend.
Clown hits his head with a hammer.
Someone tells him, “Clown, don’t do that. It will hurt.”
Clown hits his head with a hammer AGAIN, even harder.
The clown is carried to the emergency room, yelping: “It is YOU who does not comprehend.”
It’s fun to watch.
Let it go, SGW. They either have a mental block that does not allow them to understand, or they are feigning stupidity on purpose just to bug you. Either way, we’ve wasted enough pixels on them.
The rest of us just have to declare that they are not representative of skeptics in general, and let it go.
Hint:
the two components to describe rigid body motion.
1. Translation of the object’s center of mass.
2. Rotation of object about its center of mass.
The above are diagrammed and explained in the MIT course notes Appendix 20A.
Sorry you just don’t get it. Well….that was a lie.
Bart,
You are probably right.
But the MIT course notes,”Rigid Body: Translation and Rotational Motion Kinematics for Fixed Axis Rotation” really shines the light on their stupidity.
SGW, how many times have I explained that there are TWO motions?
Now, you find a link that confirms what I’ve been explaining.
the two components to describe rigid body motion.
1. Translation of the objects center of mass.
2. Rotation of object about its center of mass.
And, you think it’s me that doesn’t “get it”!
Hilarious.
(More please.)
Bark, you are not a skeptic. You’re a clown. You’re not yet at the level of several of the other clowns, but your lack of backbone makes you a future contender.
Best of luck.
No G*,
Stop with the lies. You said the train on a track was not rotating on its axis, when per the MIT notes and all my earlier comments, the train IS both translating and rotating about its axis at its center of mass. The ONLY possibility of the train not rotating on its axis was if it was performing a pure translational motion per per Section 20A.1 of the MIT notes, which means it would have to point in the same direction throughout its path of orbit. Because if the object is not making pure translational motion, then it has to perform angular rotations per Figure 20 A.3
The center of mass of the train is following the orbital path, AND at the same time rotating about its own axis at the center of mass. Just like MikeR’s object B in his gif. You don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
J-Brainless has left the building, last seen heavily drooling and babbling incessantly.
J Halp-less @ February 22, 2018 at 6:08 PM
“Have you ever stopped to ask yourself *why* this is making you *so* upset?”
Because it’s really, really dumb, J. And, you guys are polluting a board on which others of us try to make serious points.
Bark believes he is involved in making “serious points”.
“..others of us try to make serious points.”
See Bark, I knew you had the talent for climate comedy!
The poor brain-dead SGW does not understand his own source:
“The ONLY possibility of the train not rotating on its axis was if it was performing a pure translational motion per per Section 20A.1 of the MIT notes, which means it would have to point in the same direction throughout its path of orbit. Because if the object is not making pure translational motion, then it has to perform angular rotations per Figure 20 A.3″
Hilarious!
(SGW is so far ahead in comedy points the others will have to work through the weekend to catch up.)
Turnip Boy once again does not make any counter argument.
The reader is left to guess what his point was.
Let me translate his comment. “Hey everybody, SGW said so and so, and I’m clueless, so I don’t have any argument, so I’ll just pound my keyboard and look stupid”.
The farce continues. I am totally bewildered by the two pranksters. I would never have thought that anyone existed like these two (other than perhaps Gordon) that have personalities so disordered that they are well over the border between reality and delusion and have ventured into Fantasy Land? Maybe I need to visit the relevant medical facilities where these type of individuals are more common.
The prognosis for G* who has such a finely tuned combination of grandiosity and idiocy with a touch of Tourettes thrown in for good measure is not good without medical assistance.
However in my role as a Bond villain (Dr Maybe) that was assigned to me by Halp, I have learnt that even the most improbably stupid will plough on, digging holes so deep that they are incapable of distinguishing, up from down, and rotating from non rotating. It also allows me to recognise a fellow evil genius and his subordinate Mini-Me.
I do still feel sympathy for those, like SkepticGoneWild and Bart whose views diverge from mine on some matters but have been put in the same boat as these two characters.
If the boat is taking on water, then having the two of them in charge of navigation and consequently going around in circles as they attempt to navigate by sextant would he challenging. Additionally turning the bilge pumps around , because they dispute the consensus opinion on how they work, could be intensely frustrating.
B: Because its really, really dumb, J. And, you guys are polluting a board on which others of us try to make serious points.
J: Surely you can wrap your head around this logic, Bart:
How can it be only *us guys* who are *polluting a board* when there is NEVER a requirement for anyone to reply to anyone else, and we are far from the only guys discussing the moon? You know, you may have *polluted the board* with a few comments on the matter yourself! If you are happy that you are correct, stop commenting about it. I continue commenting because my aim is to open as many minds as possible. Why you continue commenting, I can only assume, is because actually somewhere (deep, deep down, beneath all the layers of pomposity) you are worried that you might not be correct!
SGW claims: [g*e*r*a*n] once again does not make any counter argument.
February 23, 2018 at 7:20 AM
J Halp-less @ February 23, 2018 at 3:25 AM
“…you are worried that you might not be correct…”
Not even a fraction of zero.
Bye then.
MikeR,
Good comment. While I am still skeptical of the GHE, I’ll leave it at that.
But I will not associate with these two idiots. They have proved repeatedly their inability to grasp simple concepts. They are PLAIN STUPID. Hucksters. Like carnies in a bad circus act.
They have this mental block, especially G*, that since the train is fixed to the tracks, it cannot rotate on its axis. In the simplest of terms, rotation is just a turning, which is what the train is performing. And the rotation is in reference to a non-rotating FIXED Cartesian coordinate system. If they just graphed a short segment of the movement, they would see their error.
The train’s center of mass is translating along the orbital path (performing an orbit) while the train itself rotates about its center of mass, all in perfect accordance with the kinematic concepts contained in the MIT lecture notes.
Poor SGW, he STILL can’t understand the little toy train:
“In the simplest of terms, rotation is just a turning, which is what the train is performing.”
SGW, the issue is “rotating on its axis”. You STILL can’t understand basic dynamics. There are TWO different, distinct, independent motions–“orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”. A toy train, a race car, and a race horse, all on an oval track, only have the ONE motion–“orbiting”. Just as the Moon. They do NOT rotate on their axes!
SGW, the con-man, miker, Bart, and several others can NOT get it because they are unable to process facts and logic.
It’s fun to watch.
Smells like the circus is in town. The hucksters, carnies and clowns are out in full force.
And we are here to enjoy the show!
They ARE the show, and are too stupid to realize it. Their ignorance is breathtaking.
Yes, its hilarious g*e*r*a*n…oh, sorry, its SGW.
SGW was unable to find anymore links to confuse himself, so he is reduced to babbling and doodling.
It’s fun to watch.
Halp,
I notice that you have been relatively prolific in the number of comments you have generated in the last 24 hours.
For some reason you have been in contrast, reticent to answer my question regarding the kinetic energy of rotation. This is the question that sent g* into orbit (I am not sure whether g* id also spinning out of control).
see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-289040
I don’t take your reticence as a personal slight but more of an indication that you cannot deal with questions that might upset your apple cart.
However prove me wrong and also help contain g*’s anxiety. It would also allow you to distinguish yourself from your mentor and demonstrate that you are capable of independent thought.
I see g* is also currently on the loose.
Now that I have humbly apologised for using the term “concrete numbers”, would he like to attempt the kinetic energy question? He can think of the numbers in less concrete terms if he likes.
G: Its fun to watch.
J: It really is!
G: Its fun to watch.
J: It really is
M: I see that J is writing both scripts. Neither of his personalities is likely to answer the question of course.
G*/”Halp, I know it is prime time for both of your personalities and don’t want to distract you from your onerous task, but when you get a moment maybe you could consult
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder
You should check whether you have any, or all, of the associated co-morbidities, other than grandiose delusions.
Perhaps there is a third intelligent persona lurking? We could only hope.
SGW, if this helps, it is important not to confuse *orbiting* with certain types of curvilinear translation.
Halp finally ,
I missed your response I have been busy at work but extracting a response has been like pulling teeth.
Now using this response, have a go at part 1 of the kinetic energy problem I set g*.
see
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-289040 .
Part 2 maybe unnecessary, but you never know with these two.
g*e*r*a*n and J Halp-less
No competition. You are just both very stupid. I am getting to the point concluding you are as dense as Mike Flynn or now C*o*t*t*o*n who popped on the next thread. Not funny, boring, repetitive and getting easier to ignore with each stupid post.
I guess the real competition is who will be the most boring repetitive poster.
Currently Mike Flynn leads hands down
Then the Australian, who was banned, but keeps coming back
Between g*e*r*a*n and his wife J Halp-less (or both g*e*r*a*n…it is hard to tell for sure) they are both boring. Goal of g*e*r*a*n is to see how many times people will respond to his posts before they ignore him.
If g*e*r*a*n wants to be really ignored he needs to learn from the Master, Mike Flynn. So far no one is as repetitive and boring as this poster. But don’t worry G* you are very close.
Con-man, you’re just rambling, AGAIN. You’ve got some stiff competition from SGW. He actually found a MIT site that he can hilariously mis-understand and mis-represent. What have you done today to top that?
You need to ramp it up. The competition for “King of the Climate Clowns, 2018”, is going to be tough.
Best of luck.
OK, so where did we get to? Oh yes:
In the Spirograph analogy, once the teeth of the second wheel interlock with the first, it is no longer free to rotate on its axis. It is still able to move, though, in a manner in which teeth of both wheels remain interlocking at all times (meaning at no point on its journey around the first wheel is the second wheel free to rotate on its axis). So, this circular movement, or *orbit* if you will, does NOT involve the second wheel rotating on its axis at any point. So, this circular movement, or *orbit*, if you will, ONLY involves purely translational motion. The motion of the second wheel would look like this (the one on the left):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Correct, it is not free to rotate at any rate. It is constrained to rotate at a specific rate proportional to the translational motion.
It is not free to rotate on its axis whilst it moves, so it doesnt.
Bart,
They cannot grasp simple concepts. Just leave them in their stupidity.
It’s easy to visualize the train’s rotation if one places a second coordinate system that is identical to the fixed Cartesian coordinate system in every respect, except you purely translate its ordinate to follow the center of mass for the train. You will then see the arrow for the train’s direction of travel, rotate about the center of mass for the train.
So simple, except for simpletons.
NO! You STILL can’t get it. The train is “orbiting”, NOT “rotating on its axis”.
So simple, except for simpletons.
So, this circular movement, or *orbit*, if you will, ONLY involves purely translational motion.
Which would be the:
1. Translation of the objects center of mass.
To develop the analogy a bit further, if you were to put another pencil through an additional hole in the 2nd wheel, away from the central hole where you already have your first pencil, when you moved the 2nd wheel around the first such that teeth of both wheels always interlocked, you would end up with 2 concentric circles drawn on the page. No violation of orbital motion.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285770
If an object is not free to rotate on its axis whilst it moves, and that object is moving, then that object is not rotating on its axis as it moves.
1) A train is not free to rotate on its axis whilst it moves around a circular track, because of the tracks.
2) The second Spirograph wheel is not free to rotate on its axis whilst it moves around the first fixed wheel, because of the interlocking teeth.
3) The moon is not free to rotate on its axis whilst it moves around the Earth, because it is *tidally locked*.
1) It is not free, it is constrained to rotate about the vertical axis
2) ibid
3) ibid
1) It is not free to rotate on its axis whilst it moves, so it cant be rotating on its axis whilst it moves.
2) ibid
3) ibid
Hey Bark, where are those “serious points” you have?
Don’t hold back the humor.
If an object is not free to rotate randomly on its axis whilst it moves, and that object is moving, then that object is not freely rotating on its axis as it moves because it is constrained:
1) A train is not free to rotate on its axis more than or less than once whilst it moves around a circular track, because of the tracks constraining it to rotate once on its axis.
2) The second Spirograph wheel is not free to rotate on its axis more than or less than once whilst it moves around the first fixed wheel, because of the interlocking teeth.
3) The moon is not free to rotate on its axis more than or less than once whilst it moves around the Earth, because it is tidally locked.
Funny what sophist Halp-less leaves out; entertaining that unserious anger follows suit. More please, the 2018 climate & rotational physics nonsense comedy & entertainment just keeps on coming from these two commenters. Don’t hold back the humor, don’t ever get serious, that would spoil the fun Halp-less and anger serve up routinely around here instead of mundane science as in the top post.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-289125
tricky trick, aka “Cabbage Head”, aka “Ball4, argues with himself, AGAIN.
He claims that the train can NOT rotate on its axis, but it rotates on its axis.
He STILL does NOT understand the TWO separate motions.
Hilarious.
Ahhh yes, the true sophist reaction posting comments of words (links) not action. By asserting omnipotence in comments, Halp-less and anger completely miss the natural limits of human knowledge as did the ancient Greek sophists.
The original sophists (here truly copied by Halp-less and anger) were so good at overestimating the power of speech that they could charge admission for their rhetorical comedic entertainment.
I prefer the Socratic method in science but the entertainment of the sophists here is quite good. I repeat, don’t hold back the humor, don’t ever get serious, that would spoil the very funny & mostly witless Halp-less and anger comments like this one from anger:
“The train is still not “rotating on its axis”, but it appears to be, due to its “orbiting” motion.”
Amusing. More sophist comments please. I’ll pay the price of admission for such comedy.
As usual from tricky, all tricks, no substance.
The comedy continues.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-289259
Laughter from the crowd & then applause, good work guys. Way to stay on the train track. More humor please & continue to avoid mundane science experiments & Socratic method in all responses.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-289299
http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/007230491x/student_view0/chapter15/chapter_overview.html
Quote: Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation. For example, the plate shown in Fig. 15.4a is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles, while the plate shown in Fig. 15.4b is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles. In the first case, any given straight line drawn on the plate will maintain the same direction, whereas in the second case, point O remains fixed: Unquote
J: The *rotation* of the rectangle about point O (Fig. 15.4b) is the *orbital motion* of the train around a point off the track (in the center, as seen from above), it is the *orbital motion* of the 2nd Spirograph wheel around the fixed axis in the middle of the 1st wheel, and it is the orbital motion of the moon around the Earth. Concentric circles, not parallel circles, for the motion of the particles making up the rectangle. The rectangle shown in 15.4b is not free to rotate on *its* axis (center of mass). Instead, the rectangle *orbits* around point O.
The rectangle shown in 15.4a cannot be analogous to an orbiting object because it is orbiting around two axes; resulting in parallel circles, instead of concentric circles, for the motion of the particles making up the rectangle.
You nailed it, J. That should be another “final” nail in the coffin for Moon/axis hoax.
But the kiddos will not be able to process facts and logic, as usual.
The comedy continues.
After all this time, a decent citation, well done!
You are right, fig. 15.4b moves exactly like the moon.
But the label says rotation and nothing else.
Svante, fig. 15.4b exactly models the Moon motion. It is “rotating about a fixed axis”, AKA, “orbiting” about the Earth/Moon barycenter. It is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
You clowns can’t process facts and logic. You can’t understand “decent citations”. That’s why I usually only provide sources to your “tribe”, for humor. You basically just tear out the “pages” and eat them!
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“It is NOT rotating on its axis”.
J Halp-less document says:
“the plate shown in Fig. 15.4b is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
“It is NOT rotating on its axis”.
“Its” means its axis of rotation. It is rotating about a “fixed” axis, that is not the center of “its” mass. That means it is “orbiting”, not “rotating on its axis”.
You, and your tribe, are amazingly thick-headed!
Someday these losers will tire of looking like fools.
SGW, there’s no evidence that you are ready to quit. You appear to love being confused.
This is classic Halp. Find a source. It disagrees with him. So he just makes his own definitions. Here something ‘rotating’ as defined in the source, becomes something ‘orbiting’, as defined by Halp/G*.
So according to Halp, the tire on my car is not rotating, its orbiting?
Cmon guys, can’t just change the names of things to suit your beliefs!
Back to definition of synchronous rotation, as the moon is doing.
“A tidally locked body in synchronous rotation takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.”
Can you guys find a definition anywhere of synchronous rotation, that doesent explicitly state that the orbiting body is ‘rotating around its own axis’as it does here??
If not, then why are we discussing this at all?
The fact the the Moon is supposedly “tidally locked” is just further proof it is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Poor J-Helpless fails to read further on in his link:
The remaining part of the chapter is devoted to the general motion of a rigid body.
Here is a link to the Chapter 15 review and summary:
https://tinyurl.com/ybkwovfz
In here it states:
It was shown in Section 13.15 that the most general motion of a rigid body in space is equivalent, at any give instant, to the sum of a translation and rotation
This is the same concept found in the MIT lecture notes which state:
We shall now show that the motion of any rigid body consists of a translation of the center of mass and rotation about the center of mass.
They go through a rigorous proof of this theorem.
With respect to the train, the center of mass is translating along the orbital path, and at the same time rotating about its center of mass as well, in agreement with the kinematic concepts expressed in the MIT lecture notes. (translation + rotation)
When a rigid body experiences pure translational motion on an orbital path, by the exacting definition of pure translational motion, the object does NOT rotate about its center of mass. The angular displacement and angular velocity about its center of mass are zero. This is totally contrary to the maniacal shrieks of Turnip Boy.
We know for a fact that a train orbiting a circular track does NOT experience pure translational motion, THEREFORE BY DEFAULT, the train HAS TO experience rotational motion about its center mass. Angular displacements and velocities ARE occurring per Figure 20A.3 of the MIT kinematic course notes. POOR TURNIP BOY DOES NOT GET THIS. Logic PREVAILS and Turnip Boy FAILS. HE CANNOT DISPUTE THIS. He’ll just repeat the same erroneous mantra over and over when the facts prove him wrong.
Yet goofball Turnip Boy and his sidekick just continues to shriek their mantra hoping repetition of their fallacies will somehow make them come true.
None of the formatting went through. Let’s try again:
_________________________________________________________
Poor J-Helpless fails to read further on in his link:
“The remaining part of the chapter is devoted to the general motion of a rigid body.”
Here is a link to the Chapter 15 review and summary:
https://tinyurl.com/ybkwovfz
In here it states:
“It was shown in Section 13.15 that the most general motion of a rigid body in space is equivalent, at any give instant, to the sum of a translation and rotation”
This is the same concept found in the MIT lecture notes which state:
“We shall now show that the motion of any rigid body consists of a translation of the center of mass and rotation about the center of mass.”
[the rest of the post is the same]
Halp,
You cited a perfectly good description of translation and rotation.
“A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
Top view of Earth and moon, moon is to the right. Translate the moon up, now translate it left, now translate it down, now translate the moon right, finally translate up back to its starting point. The moon has formed a square path around the Earth, always translating according to the Definition.
At no time did a straight line on the moon change its direction. Thus in in order to translate in a path around the Earth, the moon does not turn.
If the moon does turn to always face the Earth as it goes around, then its motion is not just translation. It is both translation plus rotation, according to your source.
Sorry Nate, you’re getting the definition of “translation” wrong, AGAIN.
Use the simple example of the toy train. The train moves down a straight track. That is “translation”. It is NOT rotating on its axis.
Now, bend the track into a large circle. The train’s motion is STILL “translation”. It is NOT rotating on its axis.
Hope that helps.
g*e*r*a*n says:
Correct, the same as line A-B in fig. 15.2 moving in parallel.
It’s just amazing how the little toy train confuses you so much.
The motion is shown in 15.1. The curved track does NOT cause rotation on an axis. The train instantaneously moves tangentially. Think if the track were an infinite circle.
Now, for your next effort to further confuse yourself. ..
So “The curved track does NOT cause rotation on an axis”.
Because “The train instantaneously moves tangentially.”
“Think if the track were an infinite circle.”
Yes, infinite circle, i.e. a straight line, i.e another prank from you!
Svante 4:41pm, anger gives a very good rendition of Sophism at 4:04pm. Consider a train axle as A1-B1.
Here’s what anger writes: “The motion is shown in 15.1.”
What Sophist anger doesnt write: The straight track motion is shown in 15.1.
This is a similar rhetorical technique to that used by Sophist Halp-less above.
The curved track is textually shown in Fig. 15.4 (b) Rotation. Again, Sophist anger doesnt include the figure number when anger writes: “The curved track..” because this practicing Sophist wants to avoid the connection of the curved track to textual rotation.
When Sophist anger writes: “The train instantaneously moves tangentially” this really means Fig. 15.2 as the practicing sophist will leave out the figure ref.
This amusement was trademarked in ancient Greece & was considered such hilarious! entertainment the practicing Sophists could charge admission to the public. Here we can enjoy Sophists anger, Flynn and Halp-less comedic amusement for free. Add Flynn because Sophists reveal themselves as omnipotent.
Svante, it seems you understand “infinite circle”. Great. Now consider lessening the track size so that it is not infinite, but very, very big. The train is still NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Now, reduce the circle down to the room size. The train is still NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Same motion as the Moon, orbiting but NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Your train has wheel axis.
Do they turn with the track?
Like 15.4 b)?
Yes Svante, the wheel sets are the mechanisms that allow the train to replicate orbital motion. In an actual orbit, gravitational forces are the “tracks and wheel sets”.
Whenever you get confused, just remember that there are TWO distinct, independent motions being discussed. The train, race car, and Moon are only doing ONE of the TWO motions–orbiting.
Why is it called rotation in 15.4b?
It is called “rotation about a fixed axis”. With planets and moons, the same motion is called “orbiting”. This is the motion our moon does. (Or a toy train.)
The difference occurs when the “fixed axis” is off the body. “Rotating on its axis” requires the “fixed axis” to be the center of mass of the body.
Some people just are unable to understand the simple concept.
It’s fun to watch.
Your reference does not say any of that.
It says:
Svante, you must apply the text to the implied figure. Figure 15.4b represents our “tidally locked” moon. It rotates about the Earth/Moon barycenter (fixed axis), just as if it were attached, as in Figure 15.4b.
If Figure 3 were a sphere, and the axis were through the center of mass, then it would represent “rotating on its axis”, as Earth does.
TWO distinct motions–“orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”. People without much technical training tend to confuse the two motions.
OK, I can agree to that:
“Figure 15.4b represents our ‘tidally locked’ moon. It rotates about the Earth/Moon barycenter …”.
Which “is equivalent […] to the sum of a translation and rotation”.
Section 13.15, https://tinyurl.com/y99gnws2.
All settled!
Poor G* fails again. Per J-Clueless’s earlier link, Translation is defined:
“A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion. It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the body move along parallel paths.”
When the train veers from going straight, it’s not going the same direction, you idiot. And all particles are then not moving along parallel paths. So if it’s not translating, it’s rotating about its center of mass per the definitions explained in the MIT course notes.
Sorry SGW, but the definition has you confused. Consider the sides of the train engine. They remain parallel to the direction of motion.
Don’t try to understand technical definitions by yourself. I’m here to help.
What a marooooooooon!
What part of “if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion” don’t you get?
Hello! McFly! “keeps the same direction”. If a line through the train’s direction of travel points north, it will ALWAYS point north when translating.
Turnip Boy states:
“Consider the sides of the train engine. They remain parallel to the direction of motion.
LMAO. Well, duh! But that is not what the definition is stating. It says all points of the object move along parallel paths, NOT remain parallel to the direction of travel.
Another translation definition: motion of a rigid body in such a way that any line which is imagined rigidly attached to the body remains parallel to its original direction.
Please stop. You are just confirming your ignorance for everyone to see.
SGW, I know it can be frustrating when you don’t have a talent for understanding science. There are TWO different motions being discussed. They are independent. That means an object can be orbiting WITHOUT “rotating on its axis”.
So, you have to understand the orbiting motion. The train replicates orbiting, because it is always facing in the direction of its instantaneous motion. That motion is called “orbiting”. That motion is distinct from “rotating on its axis”.
It’s really hard to understand, if you don’t have the talent.
You might be really good at washing dishes, however. ..
G
F
Y
Reality can be sooooo frustrating.
You are either a troll or the dumbest person I’ve met on a science blog. Probably a combo.
You can’t understand simple definitions, do not understand kinematics, and are too stupid to realize your stupidity.
Don’t you have any sense of shame? I mean your posts make it clear to everyone reading them that you are a complete and utter moron, and an ***hole to boot.
Does Joseph Postma know you are making a fool of yourself here? Please go to his site an post your stupidity. Hopefully he’ll ban you there.
SGW, did you get bitten by a rabid chihuahua?
G* clearly has a fixation with chihuahuas, probably from some unfortunate traumatic experience.
These cute little animals are notorious for leaping, yelping and biting. A bite that locks onto and removes a vital component of one’s undercarriage can leave you scarred for life. From what I have heard it’s a bit like swimming naked in a pool of piranha.
This might explain the g*’s total lack of cojones. He is scared sh….ss to answer a simple question which has only three options see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-289524 .
G*, I did call you a spinning headless chicken at one stage. I forgot to say an orbiting and spinning chicken and additionally that the chicken is also spineless.
miker, you’ve mentioned my “private parts” before. It’s like another obsession of yours. Like your obsession with “cute”.
Maybe there’s a connection. ..
Who are you calling cute? Maybe acute possibly.
If I mentioned your lack of testicular fortitude, I don’t recall, but it is a definite possibility.
It may also have been a neuro-anatomical reference.
Anyway g* there are the possibilities of implants.
A pair of brass balls might do the trick. However be careful, because of their inertial mass, they may rotate on their axes as you orbit on your train. You may then end up with a painful torsion which could require medical intervention.
This is called learning physics the hard way. It would be a lot more painful than answering the ABC question.
G*e*r*a*n, the reactions will never stop being funny. Thanks for opening my eyes, and for putting all the time and effort in that you do, to do what is right.
They
are
hilarious!
P.S: Thank Dr Roy Spencer for his kindness in allowing any discussion that anyone wants to happen, to take place. A great blog for all people to come together and speak freely,
Thanks for letting these two clowns freely make fools of themselves.
“These two”?? They are clearly the same person.
LMAO.
These two imbeciles pat themselves on the back for being fools.
Classic!
Sorry you were wrong.
See? The back-slapping continues. Hilarious.
J, thanks to YOU for having a clear mind. You not only understand the Moon/axis topic, but you also understand the blue/green plate. Of course, there are others that also understand.
And, I agree that we need to appreciate Dr. Spencer. He has to deal with the rabid commenters, just as we do, but even more so. He’s a hero for standing his ground.
SGW has definitely “gone wild”. He can’t even understand his own quotes. Here is one that he used above, that clearly makes OUR case for us. But, poor SGW can’t understand.
When a rigid body experiences pure translational motion on an orbital path, by the exacting definition of pure translational motion, the object does NOT rotate about its center of mass. The angular displacement and angular velocity about its center of mass are zero.
That’s exactly what we’ve been saying!
It’s fun to watch.
“When a rigid body experiences pure translational motion on an orbital path, by the exacting definition of pure translational motion, the object does NOT rotate about its center of mass. The angular displacement and angular velocity about its center of mass are zero”
Thats exactly what weve been saying!”
No. You have been saying the COMPLETE opposite. STOP THE LYING. An object displaying pure translational motion will ALWAYS face one direction as its center of mass follows an orbital path. This motion can be shown by holding a toy car in your hand on your desk, making it point north always, while performing an orbit. An object exhibiting pure translational motion does NOT rotate about its center of mass. That is inherent in the definition. You can’t even understand plain English. Is the car rotating about its center of mass in your hand? No. Put some glasses on.
This is what you said:
“By holding the train facing north, as you make an orbit, you are forcing both an orbit and rotation on it axis.
WRONG.
This is what happens when ignorant rank amateurs try to dabble in physics.
Take a toy car in your hand on your desk, and start at the 12:00 noon position. Perform a CCW quarter orbit making the left side of the car face the center of orbit.
This is what you will observe. You HAVE to rotate the car about its center of mass in your hand as you perform the quarter orbit to keep the left side of the car facing the center. Per the theorem proven in the MIT kinematic notes, the car’s general motion can be described as: the car’s center of mass is translating along the orbital path, and the car is rotating about its center of mass (90 degrees in this case).
So simple. But not for the simpletons.
Halp, G*
Every kindergartner knows that in order to draw a circle on a piece of paper, they simply need to translate their hand and the crayon in a circular path on the page. They know that as they draw they should keep their hand’s and crayon’s orientation to the paper the same as they move their hand.
They intuitively understand that to make a circular path they only need to translate. Im not sure why you guys forgot what you learned in kindergarten.
It’s really simple.
If the toy train is moving down a straight track, it is NOT rotating on its axis.
If the track is curved into a large circle, the train is still NOT rotating on its axis.
It’s amazing how some can not understand something so simple. Their confusion causes them to foam at the mouth.
It’s fun to watch.
Poor G* still does not get the concept of translation, and pure translation.
An object that always points north when on any type of path is purely translating. Any time it changes it’s orientation, it is no longer purely translating per the strict definition. It has to be rotating about its center of mass per kinematic principles (as shown in MIT course notes) These principles are not up for debate. It’s just the way it is.
G* we’ve heard about your toy trains dozens of times, and its still not convincing. Maybe a few more dozen will make a difference. Probably not. There are no tracks in space.
Nate, that’s the way I see it also. I probably can’t help you, so my example of the toy train is just for those that can think for themselves.
G*/Halp,
Thank goodness both of you are still alive.
Your lack of response to such simple a IQ question that was posed earlier, and might tax only someone in preschool, suggested that both of you could have died of embarrassment.
But as you appear to be alive, you can redeem yourself/ves and avoid the accusation of having the intellectual capacity of a chicken and courage to match by by attempting an answer either A, B or C. Which is the odd man out? Alternatively you could demonstrate that you are able to calculate the energies based upon the specifications of the dumbbell provided earlier.
Again I provide you with the link to the puzzle-
https://s20.postimg.org/7p84zcrm5/Inertial_frame_KE1.gif
So take a break from being eviscerated by SkepticGoneWild, Nate and others and have a go.
Your unwillingness to do so, up till now, speaks volumes about your own lack of faith in your thesis. I guess this could be considered to be a sign of progress.
It’s hard to be more hilariously pathetic than the con-man, but nat, miker, tricky, and sgw are really trying.
They’ve already shown they have no concept of science. Now they verify they can’t process facts and logic.
It’s fun to watch.
And, the foaming at the mouth, that’s adds even more hilarity. It appears the simple little toy train set them off. Possibly it was a reminder of their deprived childhood.
Probably I shouldn’t be laughing at them, so I’ll stopsomeday.
Ok I will have to be direct, so g* stop avoiding,
A,B or C?
“Probably I shouldn’t be laughing at them, so I’ll stop someday.”
Please don’t stop anger, that would imply anger actually dropping the entertaining Sophistry and crossing over to the Socratic method with A,B,C choices discussion. The amusing anger antics (toy trains, moons) would stop and we’d be discussing nothing but the mundane atm. science as in the top post. More anger antics please. They’re fun to watch.
Now you know better than that, tricky. If you weren’t trying to confuse yourself with orbital motions, you’d be trying to claim that your cabbages glow in the dark.
G*,
How are you going with the ABC problem? As you are having so much trouble, maybe just do it by pairs.
Comparing A and B ,which one of the two is rotating on its axis? Perhaps neither or both? Do the similar exercise comparing A with C and then B and with C.
Hopefully this exercise will clear up your confusion.
miker, either you are having a bad day, or you have run out of new comedy material. Your comments seem lame and unoriginal. You’ve apparently lost your passion for silliness.
Let me see if I can inspire you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-289193
Glad to help.
G* is unable to answer a direct question of course, and just repeats links to a previous comment where he gave the text book answer as to how kinetic energy is calculated.
However g* clearly has no effn clue as how to apply it practically, otherwise he should have been able to calculate an answer to the ABC problem. It is a trivial calculation with the information I provided.
I even simplified matters by framing the question as a simple “odd man out” IQ test. Still no answer from g*. What an epic failure he is.
As the end of the month approaches and thankfully the comments section will be then be terminated by the moderator, it is time to summarise.
Like Groucho, I never used to believe in sanity clause, but if if there was ever a time for it be invoked then g* makes a great case.
A case like this is open and shut when someone argues with
1. the entire astronomical and physics community and ,
2. every relevant source of information in reference books and the Internet and thereby
3. grandiosely claims to be ultimate authority on orbital mechanics and then compounds matters by
4. steadfastly refusing to answer a question my 7 year old niece answered successfully,
In my humble opinion g* needs to go off somewhere, preferably anywhere beyond arm’s reach of a computer, and play with his train set. Maybe Halp can join him and hopefully there won’t be too many arguments as to who gets to push the train.
This would be, by far, the best outcome for all concerned.
I also recognise that, like others, I have been sucked into this vortex of stupidity and wasted way too much time on this nonsense.
Great job, miker! A long ramblingly confession that you are unable to understand facts and logic, then admitting that youre a sucker.
Hilarious.
G*, If that is the way you choose to interpret my comments then good work.
I think this sums it up.
https://goo.gl/images/FM4uSY
Here’s a better shot of G*:
https://tinyurl.com/yca7aqd9
G*, I guess your only other choice is to plead the 5th amendment.
However another non-answer is even more self- incriminatory.
It demonstrates that you actually know the answer and it will just confirms that you are just another bullsh*t artist. Same goes for Halp.
I am afraid the joke is over.
Poor miker! Not one sentence is true.
At least he’s consistent.
Spinning around like a headless chicken but still no answer.
What a surprise.
My February UAH guesstimate … +0.21
Des, your guesstimate is very close to the number derived from correlation with channel 6 of the Aqua satellite, which is currently running at 0.22 C.
Hopefully this will be closer than my bad miss last month.
Digital image processing, What is Image Enhancement and Image Restoration
In computer science, digital image processing is the use of a digital computer to process
digital images through an algorithm. As a subcategory or field of digital signal processing,
digital image processing has many advantages over analog image processing.
dating app seniors
http://actuallydating.phytolite.eu/
dating app seniors
dating app seniors
most popular dating sites canada
http://precisedating.nutzwert.eu/
most popular dating sites canada
speed dating bloomington il
Since 1953 Darson has been at the forefront of manufacturing industrial rubber products. Darson’s manufacturing facilities comprise a completely integrated plant to manufacture the products right from compounding, calendaring, extrusion, fabric,braiding,knitting,spiral reinforcement,molding, testing and on to the finishing stage.
With the advent of automobile manufacturing era in Pakistan, Darson diversified to add to its line a range of automotive hoses, and since then has become the most preferred source for preformed molded hoses. With addition in its manufacturing capacity Darson is now selling automotive hoses across the globe.
The growth of automobile industry alongside has developed many supporting industries, off which wiring harness and air conditioning have become prime customers for Darson.
Hi, the post was excellent and good. Thank you
Hi, the post was excellent and good. Thank you
thank, I thoroughly enjoyed scaning your article. I really appreciate your wonderful knowledge and the time you put into educating the rest of us.
Nice response in return of this query with firm arguments
and explaining everything regarding that.
Hello there! This post could not be written any
better! Reading this post reminds me of my
previous room mate! He always kept chatting about this.
I will forward this post to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read.
Thank you for sharing!
Today, I went to the beach with my children. I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She put the shell to her ear and screamed.
There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear.
She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is totally off topic but I had
to tell someone!