Home/BlogGlobally, the coolest September in the last 10 years.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2018 was +0.14 deg. C, down a little from +0.19 deg. C in August:
Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed, and so has the distinction between calendar months.
This was the coolest September in the last 10 years in the global average.
Some regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 21 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 01 +0.33 +0.32 +0.34 +0.10 +0.28 +0.95 +1.22
2017 02 +0.39 +0.58 +0.20 +0.08 +2.16 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.37 +0.09 +0.06 +1.21 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.28 +0.29 +0.26 +0.22 +0.90 +0.23 +0.40
2017 05 +0.45 +0.40 +0.49 +0.41 +0.11 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.22 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39 +0.51 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.31 +0.28 +0.51 +0.61 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46 -0.54 +0.49 +0.78
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54 +0.29 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47 +1.21 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.34 +0.38 +0.27 +1.35 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.42 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.45 +1.37 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.59 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.25 +0.16 +0.03 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.07 -0.32 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.11 -0.12 0.00 +1.02 +0.69
2018 05 +0.18 +0.41 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.40
2018 06 +0.21 +0.38 +0.04 +0.12 +1.19 +0.83 -0.55
2018 07 +0.32 +0.42 +0.21 +0.29 +0.51 +0.29 +1.37
2018 08 +0.19 +0.21 +0.17 +0.12 +0.06 +0.09 +0.25
2018 09 +0.14 +0.15 +0.14 +0.24 +0.88 +0.21 +0.18
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through September 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for September, 2018 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated at that time, 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
Feels like 1988 to me
You mean 1988 which had an annual average of +0.04 vs 2018 which is so far averaging +0.22 ?
No, he means feels like the Dodgers going to win the World Series…
Nearly 1/3 of a degree F in thirty years! Wow!!! Since the trend “so far” this year has been down, one might expect the full year to be even lower than +0.22 anomaly. What will it end up being? 1/4 Deg F warmer than 1988? A tenth of a degree F? I had better sell my beach front property!
Scott,
UAH shows 0.5 C of warming in 40 years. That’s 0.9 F.
RSS, calculating the same thing, shows about 50% more warming in the same time period.
That’s a frightening amount of warming! I moved 200 miles south for warmer weather. Perhaps I has better move back north to prevent over-heating.
0.5C of warming in 40 years. That’s a rate of 1.3C of warming per 100 years. Whoopee-do.
You should be using the kelvin scale when expressing percentage changes. The Celsius scale is a relative temperature scale
Phil says:
October 9, 2018 at 10:14 PM
You should be using the kelvin scale when expressing percentage changes. The Celsius scale is a relative temperature scale
___________________________________________
It makes no difference.
Change of 1.5 kelvin is also 50 percent higher than change of 1.0 kelvin.
Same as 1.5 celsius compared to 1.0 celsius.
Even translating to Fahrenheit makes no difference.
The “Greenhouse Effect” must be taking a break.
Oceans take up 92% of the warming. Has anyone got the global value, this is only the Pacific Ocean:
https://tinyurl.com/yb9o3s79
So if the surface temperature goes down the OHC goes up.
“Measured OHC was warmer than any other year since observations began in the early 1940s.”
https://tinyurl.com/ybsc2p3a
Significantly higher than my guesstimate.
des, the IPCC should have used your technique: Guess real low, then the actual will appear as “warming”.
Tricky.
There was no “guessing”. I was using the data from the old satellite that UAH no longer uses. It is sometimes high, sometimes low, but averages out about right.
bob…”There was no guessing. I was using the data from the old satellite that UAH no longer uses. It is sometimes high, sometimes low, but averages out about right”.
So, even though the abandoned sat and all the others tell us there has been no warming from CO2, as predicted by alarmists, you still support the alarmists?
Please explain HOW these data sets “tell us there has been no warming from CO2”.
It seems Gordon has no answer for that one.
bob…”Significantly higher than my guesstimate”.
Now I see your pathetic alarmist ploy. Guestimate 0.05C and push 0.15C as warming.
Don’t you have some sheep to tend?
So you pretended not to read my previous comment. That is YOUR pathetic denier ploy.
Gordon NEVER replies to comments that prove him wrong.
And there are a lot of them.
Bobdesbond was just mouthing off, David. He is pretty much always having a bad day, that one [anger management issues].
And I guess Gordon was not mouthing off?
Uh-oh…
Another monthly temperature update has arrived,
so it’s time to fill the comment section with hundreds of insightful
comments about climate and science!
I wrote a little shell script to strip out just who is posting and how often. Since Jan. 2018, there had been 19,248 comments when only counting those for the
monthly temperature updates (I used the second July article since it had more comments). That is about 70 per day on average, or about 1 every 3 minutes. Remember, I am not counting any comments from other articles posted by Dr. Roy.
I then sorted the comments by author and here is the “400 club” by search keyword
Appell 2142
Gordon 1560
—– 1248
Nate 1025
Flynn 991
barry 941
Norman 849
Snape 720
Prete 704
Huffm 703
Bart 566
ren 438
Svante 423
Pango 419
The third place author on the list can’t be named (more on that below) and achieved the total in only four months. This author also holds the unofficial high monthly total of 602 (from February). Counting the other articles from Feb., this author averaged more than 1 per hour 24/7 for Feb.
Out of 19,248 comments 3,702 (almost 20%) were from Appell and Gordon alone.
The top ten posters accounted for about half the total comments, and the top twenty posters over 75 percent.
This info is not perfect because at times people make a mistake with their own name, or change it slightly or completely. For example
==========================================================
—- Huffm Team Des Bond Bobdesbond
January 178 0 0 25 0 0
Feb 602 0 0 143 0 0
March 273 0 0 85 0 0
April 195 0 0 77 0 0
May 0 0 0 0 150 0
June 0 42 59 0 39 82
July 0 264 81 0 0 5
August 0 336 139 0 0 68
Sept 0 61 118 0 0 110
=======================================================
Hence what will be appear below is largely the product of a dozen or so obsessive compulsive individuals who meet here daily to say the same things to each other over and over.
Mark, thank you for this. I use to love this site. It has been destroyed by these listed individuals. Agenda driven fools who are too stubborn; these are not qualities which should be found in those looking for truth. One troll feeds the other(s), and suddenly it’s “comment Armageddon”.
Mark, Jake: if you don’t like the comments that appear here, write your own that you approve of and start a discussion in that direction.
Or, you could just please stop trolling.
You label anyone who presents science here as a “troll.”
How about less labeling, and more science from you ?
How about ANY science from you?
I tried science, but people called me a troll. What can you do?
Interesting analysis. Journalist Appell must be working on a LOT of news articles. Or, he has a lot of leisure time. Unless, of course, he’s paid….
Roy, I’m not paid by Peabody Energy for anything, or anybody else.
I learn a lot by commenting here — by thinking about presenting or defending ideas with science and reasoning. I guess that bothers some people here.
“I learn a lot by commenting here by thinking about presenting or defending ideas with science and reasoning”
Interesting way of learning David. Most of us learn by having an open mind that allows for things that we didn’t know to enter our heads.
Your method starts with the assumption that you already know more than others and you just need to be more creative at finding stuff to “defend” your settled science.
Mike, you didn’t understand my comment at all.
I’m not surprised about that.
Think about me whatever you want. Please.
We think you’re a troll David.
PS: Not everything a freelance writer does gets a byline, some projects take a long time, and sometimes people have health problems.
Fair enough.
You can always tell the paid ones, they offer nothing except trolling.
…. used to love …. and as always, thank you to Dr. Spencer for his time and effort.
Excellent. You are correct, they say the same thing over and over again to each other attempting to change hearts and minds but it’s a narcissistic activity to be sure. And they don’t care because each is smarter than the other.
I’d comment more but am well entertained the way things are. And I don’t have the belief anyone is attempting to change minds, just arguing for the fun of it. (Mostly)
Thank you to Dr. Spencer for keeping us up to date.
Good to know.
And you’re welcome for the entertainment.
Interesting, but this site would very quiet without those posters.
We do repeat but many of us believe in what we are saying. I see no harm in the give and take.
Salvatore,
It would be different, but not necessary quiet. I’m guessing many people don’t post on here because it is always tied up in the same old argument with the same old people. And there aren’t a lot of people that want to get in the middle of David A’s job of finding obscure research papers to back up his argument.
Michael, if you want different conservations, then start them.
Whining about existing comments has never gotten anyone anywhere.
So here’s a new one for one. I tried to guess this figure in advance using the daily channel 6 and monthly LT ones provided – sometimes that works exactly – arrived at 0.07 for this September, yes, realizing channel 6 is not LT exactly.
Thanks Mark. Very interesting.
It’s too bad there’s no way to compare content, especially ad homs, debate tricks, false accusations, etc.
Also, I think you have a math error:
“That is about 70 per day on average, or about 1 every 3 minutes.?
Someone here has to stand up for science and truth against all the misinformation and junk science written here by commenters.
lol
You need to sum G*e*r* and JD.
G*e*r was still here in April. JD didnt arrive til after that.
I think that is what he was getting at with the table that didn’t tab correctly (at least on my browser). The *, JD, and the Team should all be summed.
JW
How about summing La Pangolina and Bindidon?
No problem,
Pango+Bindidon=634 => #10
*+JDHuffman+Team=2348 => #1
So actually about 31.4% of the comments are from 3 individuals.
About 62% of the comments are from the top 10 individuals.
Svante, will “Mark Mannion” be your new name now, or will you go back and forth?
Mark, why are you combining my numbers with JD Huffman?
Can you do total word count for posters?
Kristian might move up the list.
Could you sum all the comments from the GHE Defense Team avatars?
GHE defense is by definition trolling isn’t it..
Well, Neighayt, I’ve been told the GHE needs no defense. So although I wouldn’t go so far as to say GHE defense is trolling (that’s just you putting words in my mouth because it’s what you do, you are unable to debate honestly), it does make you wonder why the majority of comments under a typical article here are from a team of people working various avatars specifically to defend it, who have been operating for years over various blogs using the exact same methods and debate tricks.<
It would take a very devout believer in conspiracies to think that the “team of people” supportive of GHE, are in any way organized.
BTW, pretty much all meteorologists and atmospheric scientists would have to be part of the organized “team of people” who believe in the GHE.
“exact same methods and debate tricks.”
You mean those evil tricks like quoting facts and laws of physics or citing publications, showing graphs, or using logic or worse, math?
Well they are probably are exactly the same methods used by science oriented people everywhere.
No, because I am not talking about “all meteorologists and atmospheric scientists”. N8 twists again, like he did last summer…
I am talking about the very small group of people, who all purport to have relevant training in those sciences, who devote an inordinate amount of their time in defending the GHE on blogs. You see the same people (with either the exact same handles, e.g. Tim Folkerts, or those with different names but who are recognizable from their commenting style, e.g. Trick/Ball4) popping up all over the Internet, and they’ve been doing it for years.
A conspiracy in plain sight, perhaps.
…and no Nayt, I mean tricks, like the ones you have demonstrated for everybody so far.
Ha!
Dr. Tim Folkerts, is a real person at Barton College, so unless he also has some impersonators…
I didn’t say he wasn’t real! Oh, you’re just doing your thing…<
Nate says:
He does seem to be the opposite of succinct, but only made it to tenth place here (Mike won the stupid contest again):
~/drroy/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c.org
Total: 1593 , new: 0 , latest: 2018-10-01 07:49:00
No. Words Avg Unique% Stupid Name
224 6513 29 22.5 2 David Appell
142 12426 87 17.7 3 barry
118 2594 21 27.3 0 Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
113 10798 95 18.3 59 Mike Flynn
110 2537 23 32.4 0 Bobdesbond
95 4492 47 22.2 0 Salvatore Del Prete
79 7319 92 20.3 3 Bindidon
74 11063 149 20.5 2 Gordon Robertson
61 1853 30 33.2 7 JDHuffman
56 5182 92 20.5 0 MrZ
54 8183 151 18.6 0 gbaikie
49 7076 144 16.9 10 Norman
46 2513 54 32.5 0 Nate
40 1876 46 38.2 2 Snape
34 2971 87 27.7 1 Kristian
31 2883 93 32.0 2 gallopingcamel
30 2415 80 28.4 0 phi
27 711 26 41.8 0 ren
26 2177 83 32.1 0 Bart
21 914 43 37.3 0 Richard M
19 2337 123 30.7 2 E. Swanson
15 510 34 52.9 0 Svante
13 352 27 44.6 0 Dan Pangburn
11 393 35 53.4 2 Eben
10 689 68 49.5 1 wert
“A conspiracy in plain sight, perhaps.”
Well, what you have so far is evidence of real people, trained in science, Tim, David, Swanson, Eli etc. who are posting at various sites in support of GHE and its enhancement.
I assume their motivations are similar to mine-they are trained in science, believe in it, and want to defend it.
Thats a conspiracy?
No Nait. I dont think its a conspiracy. You said that, not me. Lol.
“I dont think its a conspiracy.” Glad to hear it.
But you did say “a team of people working various avatars”.
What is ‘Unique %’?
“Unique %” is the number of unique words divided by the total.
It was meant as a measure of repetitiveness, but it doesn’t really work because it is too highly correlated to the number of words.
If anyone has both more words and more unique words it means higher lexical richness.
Trend analysis can tell you more, but not much.
I hope to add more quality measures in the future:
https://tinyurl.com/y9ytxymt
Semantic quality after that, I think you’re a winner there.
Hmmmm. Seems to me that with a finite lexicon, the more words the lower the unique word ratio. Loquacity would then be incondign to generating a high lexical richness score. (Just upping my score here)
Hmmm, I think you may have made the same point in a different way…
Yes, Nayt. Thats what I said.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
Send a thief to catch a thief…
Interesting work Mark.
You could also compare the frequency of comments from certain individuals depending on whether the temperature has risen or fallen – i.e. certain regular warmunist commenters seem rather quiet compared to their usual rantings when faced with the latest data for some reason.
I don’t know any climate scientists or commentators who advocate for communism. How about naming 3 for us.
I think you just volunteered, DA!
All environmental activists are communists David, you should know that – take a look in the mirror.
Your eyesight is failing you, Mr Magoo.
BS, Magoo.
I don’t think you know what “communism” means.
Exactly! With the climate change ones, it’s more like fascism.
Magoo:
I am only stripping the raw html for the “says:” tag. I don’t actually read the entries.
Like Jake said above, years ago I enjoyed coming here, now it is a trolling wasteland. I check the monthly update out of curiosity, but that’s all.
Huffman:
I am not Svante nor anybody else. These are my first posts of the year. This is my last, so any further word from Mark Mannion is another sock puppet.
For anyone who knows bash:
This will get you most of the way to doing it yourself:
grep “>says: $MONTH.grep
sort $MONTH.grep | uniq -c | sort -gr | cat -n > $MONTH.out
echo -en $PERSON ‘\t’ ;grep -F $PERSON *.grep | wc -l
Wrap these in loops over months and people and you can get what you want. It isn’t pretty, but I have a job and hobbies.
Apologies, not all the special characters in the script show up, but if you know bash you can figure it out. Takes about 10 lines of bash, and probably fewer if you really know how to use the mighty grep.
I often quote people with the full name and “says:”, will that first grep count those?
Not a problem, you’re searching the html.
Svante answered as “Svante”, but should have answered as “Mark Mannion”.
Clowns are so funny!
And you should have answered as Ger*an.
You are too afraid to comment using your real name.
Desperate to get him banned, aren’t you?
It would have been “I” instead of “you” if I got the name wrong.
Well if you’re really not Svante, you could be his twin–attitude, agenda, techniques, and bad math.
A very good impersonation!
As usual, “one of” the trolls gave you a reply with no substance.
Mr Spencer should do something about this – but then, all the trolls are on his side.
Dr Spencer tried hard but has given up:
“Please stop the ‘no greenhouse effect’ stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
“So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer still…as evidenced by putting your clothes on.”
I remembered that statement, but I couldn’t remember where.
Very funny.
Thanks Svante (Mark).
And Bobdesbond has a total of 784, putting him between Snape and Norman, when taking the different sock puppets into account.
I’m not Mark Mannion but my program is also not pretty.
I only count per blog post but I do have a word count.
Caveat: the lexical analyzer may be a bit off the mark.
~/drroy/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen.org
Total: 1914 , new: 22 , latest: 2018-10-03 10:05:00
No. Words Avg Unique% Stupid Name
383 12995 33 17.8 4 David Appell
228 7132 31 18.0 1 Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
210 7013 33 20.2 3 JDHuffman
116 14114 121 15.2 45 Mike Flynn
112 19389 173 13.4 3 Gordon Robertson
94 15098 160 15.3 2 gbaikie
80 10608 132 13.1 14 Norman
79 6227 78 19.5 0 Ball4
74 4916 66 24.2 1 Nate
68 5585 82 26.7 0 gallopingcamel
57 2048 35 30.9 0 Svante
45 2017 44 32.6 1 Snape
38 1746 45 33.7 2 bobdroege
37 720 19 39.6 0 ren
29 3256 112 28.2 0 E. Swanson
29 780 26 48.2 0 DavidAppell
26 3804 146 20.7 2 Sheldon Walker
25 527 21 48.0 0 Bobdesbond
17 1777 104 26.5 1 ClimateChange4realz
12 285 23 66.0 0 DavidA
12 1137 94 47.2 2 La Pangolina
11 255 23 66.7 0 Robert W Turner
11 445 40 50.6 0 Bart
Cool. Ren wins, Gordon loses on being concise.
Yes, and Mike Flynn wins the “Stupid” category.
nate….below
Mark…”These are my first posts of the year. This is my last,…”
It would be interesting to see your take on science. I have a hunch you are another wannabee who feels distraught over your inability to discuss physics in-depth with us obsessive-compulsives, as you have labeled us. So, you took your ball and went home.
Mark…”Out of 19,248 comments 3,702 (almost 20%) were from Appell and Gordon alone”.
The amazing part is that you have this much time on your hands, to be applying statistical methods to opinions.
Wait a minute, that’s what the IPCC does.
MY totals are up there with Appell because I have to reply to his many inane alarmist rebuttals to the scientifically-based posts I offer. I don’t care what Appell posts I just want to inform the average reader of his posts, re how much pseudo-science he is spreading.
Appell fancies himself as a journalist but he only ever interviews alarmists, extreme alarmists at that. Talk about fake news.
The reason I don’t equal Appell in posts is that many of his posts are so pathetic it’s not worth the bother. Even a pre-schooler could see through his nonsense.
examples:
-heat is transferred both ways between the Earth and the Sun, causing the Sun to warm.
-heat travels through space from the Sun to warm us directly.
-I don’t understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics even though I quoted it verbatim from Clausius, the scientist who wrote it.
-the Moon spins on its axis even though the same side is always pointing to the Earth.
Gordon, I’m right on all the four points you listed, and you’re wrong.
OMG Gordon. Not you too! You will have to take up your confusion with NASA, which states:
“The Moon does spin on its axis, completing a rotation once every 27.3 days; the confusion is caused because it also takes the same period to orbit the Earth, so that it keeps the same side facing us.”
So only you and a couple of other nutcases here must see all sides of the moon when everyone else sees the same side. Wow! How special!
This topic has been discussed endlessly here. David is right on this one.
skeptic….”The Moon does spin on its axis, completing a rotation once every 27.3 days; the confusion is caused because it also takes the same period to orbit the Earth, so that it keeps the same side facing us.”
That nonsense must have come from NASA GISS, not the real NASA.
The Moon is tidally locked to the earth, meaning it does not turn on it’s axis via natural angular momentum. It appears to turn on an axis relative to an observer viewing the Earth-Moon system from a different perspective outside the system.
Closer observation reveals clearly that the Moon is not rotating around an internal axis.
Being tidally-locked is the same thing as having a rigid member running from the Earth’s surface and connected to the Moon. There would have to be a track on which the member could run on the surface while allowing the Earth to turn underneath. The rigid member would not allow the Moon to rotate.
In that manner, the Moon is tidally-locked, preventing it from turning, and the same face will always face the Earth. It is absurd to think that a celestial body like the Moon would be captured in orbit while having an exact rotational period matching one revolution around the Earth.
Apply vectors for cripes sake. Have one vector from the Moon centre pointed to Earth and another perpendicular vector at right angles. How can that vector system rotate around an axis on the Moon while one member is pointed at the Earth?
From an external perspective, the vector system will rotate but not around the Moon’s axis.
I used an example in the past of a person sitting on a park bench watching a woman swinging her child in circles by his/her arms while the observer observes. From the observer’s POV, the child is rotating. At one point the child’s head is toward the observer then 180 degrees later the feet are facing the observer.
However, the child is not rotating about the child’s centre of gravity. Neither is the Moon.
Gordon,
You are totally confused. No, it was not NASA GISS that I obtained the quote from. It was NASA:
https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/
Some people just don’t have ability to understand this simple concept. You are one of them.
Your argument is not with me, but with NASA and just about every science organization on the planet. NASA knows crap about climate change, but they are experts in the field of astrophysics.
SGW, you are really having trouble with this.
Two motions: “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
Orbiting can be modeled by pulling a child’s wagon in a large circle. The wagon, from outside the circle, would appear to be rotating on its own axis. But, in reality, it is just being pulled in an orbital path, ONE motion. It is NOT rotating on its own axis.
Study the two motions, and try to cleanse your mind that everything you see from “institutionalized pseudoscience” is reality.
Translation defined:
Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration [http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
“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.
Draw a line through two points on your wagon. The line does not remain parallel throughout its motion. That is not pure translational motion. Therefore, per the strict definitions of kinematic motion, the object’s center of mass is translating along the orbital path while the object rotates about its center of mass.
You just don’t have the background to understand this stuff. Don’t worry, we got you covered.
There are only two options when describing the general motion of a rigid body. It’s either exhibiting pure translation, or it exhibits a translation plus a rotation about its center of mass. These definitions have been established for almost 200 years.
SGW, you don’t understand the definition. For the lines they are referring to, use the sides of the wagon. As you pull the wagon, the sides remain parallel to the line of motion. It is “translational” motion.
Like Norman, and several others, you appear to have a learning disability. But you can hurl insults quite readily. I wonder if there’s a connection….
JDHuffman
Quit whining about people insulting you. You insult people in many of your posts. You use very offensive language. Call people clowns etc. If you post clean good posts you will find insults decline. Your own insulting taunting posts are why people will respond to you in kind. Many times (when you were g.e.r.a.n) my initial attempt with you was to stick to reason and logical posts. You would then twist, distort and insult and then pretend as if you are innocent and people go out of their way to attack you with insults. Time to get over yourself and your phony nature. Stop insulting and you will find others will not insult you back. Support your declarations or don’t tell anyone ever that they don’t know physics. Many times posters have asked you to support your wild and crazy ideas and you go off on tangents and distractions. You do this very often, it is a pattern to your posting. When someone asks you a direct question you don’t answer and go off on some unrelated point.
JD,
No. You don’t understand.
The line have to “remain parallel to its original position” throughout its motion to experience pure translational motion.
Look at page one of the following:
http://www.physics.wisc.edu/undergrads/courses/fall2017/201/phy201_lect17_handout.pdf
Translational motion requires the orientation of the object to not change during the motion. Your wagon’s orientation is constantly changing.
Every university kinematic reference I have given you is telling you the same thing. Your toy wagon or car experiences a translation of its center of mass + rotation about its center of mass.
You are way out of your league here. You don’t have the goods to understand this stuff.
Yes the wagon is changing direction, because it is moving in a circular motion. At each incremental position, the motion is translational. The next incremental portion, the motion is still translational, but in a different direction. It is exactly the motion of the Moon about the Earth.
Let’s try one more example before giving up.
Securely attach a tennis ball to one end of a yardstick, so that it cannot move. Draw a face on the tennis ball so that it faces you. Now move the yardstick so that the tennis ball orbits you.
If you were able to follow the simple instructions, then you noticed:
1) During a 360° motion, an observer outside the tennis ball orbit would see the face “rotating”.
2) Standing inside the orbit, you would always see the face on the tennis ball.
This is an exact model of the Moon orbiting.
But, the tennis ball can NOT “rotate on its own axis”. It is securely attached to the yardstick.
If you can weasel your way out of this, your get the “Pseudoscience Clown” award of the day!
Norman, you need to seek counseling.
JD,
Give it up. You don’t get it.
At each incremental position, your line through the wagon is pointing in a different direction. To be translational motion, the line has to remain parallel throughout its movement. The object CANNOT change its orientation! How many references must I give? How many pictures before you understand? If your wagon starts out facing east, it must remain facing east throughout its orbit to be considered translational motion. Translational motion just changes the position of the object without changing its orientation. Get it through your thick skull!
SGW, you can not understand orbital motion. You refused the clear explanation in the MIT example problem. You refuse the simple explanation using the tennis ball on the yardstick.
I can’t teach physics to a rock. Enjoy your self-delusion.
So many beat-downs that Just Dumb resorts to his usual, “Oh look, a squirrel!”, response. Quite sad. But hilarious too.
Mark…”Hence what will be appear below is largely the product of a dozen or so obsessive compulsive individuals….”
Nothing like a study performed by a biased researcher. My g/f would laugh hysterically if you told her I was obsessive-compulsive. She is having trouble trying to get me to be ambitious and to stop taking it so easy in life.
She would agree that I spend more time on blog’s like Roy’s than she’d like.
If science is an obsession, then I guess I’m obsessed. However, I’d consider someone who tracks posts on blogs as being far more guilty of such obsession.
Thanks, Mark, for this humorous quantification of insanity.
Dr. Spencer, can you explain why your LT v6 shows a cooling trend over the Arctic for the MSU data, compared to that from the other research groups?
See my 2017 AGU presentation and my previous paper for background.
The Arctic has a warming trend greater than any other region on Earth, so I have no idea what you are referring to.
Dr. Spencer, Yes, the Arctic is warming more rapidly than the rest of the Earth. That’s not my question.
If you will look at my paper figures 6a-6c, and the previous JTECH paper, you will see that your data, after filtering, exhibits a cooling trend from 1980 until about 2004, as compared to the other two data sets in my analysis. Your v6 data also exhibits a similar cooling trend versus your previous v5.6 series, as shown in my figure 6c. This period would appear to correspond to your processing of the MSU data, which, as I understand your paper, uses a somewhat different technique than that for the later AMSU data. As a result of these differences, your analysis over the Arctic produces a lower warming trend compared with that from RSS and NOAA STAR.
I just plotted up our data and the only period you might be able to say there was a very slight cooling trend was 1979-1993/94, and that looks like it was because of Pinatubo cooling 1992-94, which is the endpoint of that period. Otherwise, I see warming.
I suspect the current difference is because only we use the new method of getting a lower tropospheric temperature. NOAA STAR uses some of the RSS adjustments in their processing of LT (the old way), so those 2 datasets are not independent. Specifically, diurnal drift in the LT is especially problematic in the Arctic when you compute LT in the old way (a strongly weighted difference [4* – 3*] between view angles) because a single instrument scan spans many local times. Then, these drift as the satellite orbit drifts through the diurnal cycle.
This is one of the reasons why we switched to the Version 6 way of computing LT, which reduces errors in the diurnal drift adjustment. The diurnal drift adjustments were not well behaved, especially around 60-70 deg. N, as I recall.
Dr. Spencer, Of course, all three sets of data show both the cooling after Mt. Pinatubo and the warm spikes with the 1996 and 2016 El Ninos. By taking the difference between the individual sets, one can visualize the effects of different processing. The cooling trend I refer to is the negative slope in my figures 6a and 6b, not the trend over some period of the individual series. Your data is warmest at the beginning, compared to each of the other series, thus, your time series presents less warming overall then either alternative.
From memory, without going back to read the background reports again, RSS and NOAA STAR use different approaches to harmonize the data between each satellite. Without a more detailed analysis, I suggest that the diurnal adjustments would show up as more broken differences, yet my figure 6a and 6b indicate a nearly monotonic decline vs UAH v6 between 1980 and about 2004. And, my figure 6d shows shows the “NOAA 9” negative blip at 1985 in your earlier v5.6, which appears to be reduced in your v6 results.
While we are at it, I’ve another question. In earlier work, I think you all removed those scans which were anomalously cold resulting from the presence of precipitable ice (hydrometeors) within intense storms. Are you still doing this processing step with your UAH v6?
swannie…”Dr. Spencer, Of course, all three sets of data show both the cooling after Mt. Pinatubo and the warm spikes with the 1996 and 2016 El Ninos”.
Give it up swannie, Roy has explained it in far more detail than he normally allows in responses to amateur number crunchers. The man is an expert.
Besides, your reputation as a scientific researcher took a major hit when you refuted the 2nd law based on an experiment performed on your kitchen stove. You demonstrated an abject ignorance of heat dissipation and the effect a blockage of convection has in causing a heated source to warm.
Even when you turned to an evacuated enclosure, you drew an erroneous conclusion that back-radiation from a cooler object was warming a hotter object. It is plain that the warming of the heat source was due to lifting a cooler plate directly in front of the radiating heat source plate hence blocking its ability to cool via radiation.
Now you are examining UAH data and arguing with the professional who is an expert on the matter.
Gordon Robertson
I have asked you a couple of times now. I know you want to ignore me.
YOU: “It is plain that the warming of the heat source was due to lifting a cooler plate directly in front of the radiating heat source plate hence blocking its ability to cool via radiation.”
How does the green plate block the ability of the blue plate to cool via radiation. You have yet to propose a mechanism for you declaration. There is no physics that supports your idea and it is easily proven erroneous by actual experimentation (which you will never perform as E. Swanson has done).
If you ever quit being a lazy poster and get out and do some real science work you can prove yourself wrong easily.
Don’t alter the position of the green plate that you claim blocks the ability of the blue plate to cool by radiation. Just do tests by changing the green plate temperature. It will prove E. Swanson is right and you are terribly confused about radiant energy and wrong. You will find as you change the temperature of the green plate, if you increase its temperature the blue plate temperature goes up and if you decrease it the blue plate temperature goes down.
The reason is obvious and simple but your biased mind will not accept the most obvious explanation for what you will see. The most obvious explanation is the green plate is radiating energy to the blue plate. The higher the green plate temperature the more energy it sends to the blue plated causing the temperature of the blue plate to go up. You can even calculate how much energy the green plate is sending to the blue plate by measuring the temperature increase and if you know the surface area and the material makeup of your plates you can get a good calculation for the actual amount of radiant energy the blue plate is absorbing from the green plate. Do the test and you will see you are in error. You won’t do the experiment because it will destroy the false reality you live in.
Gordo asserts, once again:
As usual, Gordo has nothing to offer from his deviant version of physics with which to support this assertion. He can’t explain how his so-called “blocking” actually works, so he just repeats his assertion over and over, as if doing so makes it true, a classic propaganda technique.
Of course, Gordo isn’t interested in science, else he would have read my peer reviewed paper in JTECH, which references my earlier analysis of Spencer & Christy’s work 15 years ago. And, of course, he doesn’t want to read other reports, such as Santer et al. (2016), which presents an analysis similar to my paper.
Norman, I edited out all of the personal attacks, false accusations, and irrelevant nonsense. All that was left of your long rambling comment was your question, where you omitted the question mark:
“How does the green plate block the ability of the blue plate to cool via radiation.”
To see the folly of your ways, you and ES should start with the plates in full contact. After equilibrium is reached, slightly move the green plate away. You will see the blue plate does not have a temperature increase.
Of course, the ones conducting the experiment have to know what they are doing.
HuffingMan wrote:
Of course, if HuffingMan had any understanding of heat transfer, it would have been obvious that my Green Plate Demo did that exact same process. Having both plates in contact would have the same result as a Blue plate which was twice as thick, as there would only be two radiating surfaces in the combination. Separating said plates would produce two plates each of which providing two radiating surfaces. The results would be the same as in my demo, except that the Green plate would then cool as the Blue plate warmed in order to achieve a new steady state.
Sorry ES, but you can’t substitute imagination for reality.
Unless you want to remain a clown.
HuffingMan, Science is about experimental results, not your unsubstantiated claims of mythological prescience. You are the challenger, so it’s up to you to provide the proof, not me. If you want to verify your claims, you should build your own test rig, run it, then provide the full information so obtained for all to critique.
ES admits: “Science is about experimental results…”
Exactly ES. So when you show your results, including all temps before/after and fluxes before/after, I will be happy to indicate where you’re wrong, if you still believe you can violate 2LoT.
HuffingMan again proves that he isn’t willing to doing real work. You are the one claiming I’m wrong, so you are the one who must prove your claim, not me. Put up or shut up, as they say.
“when you refuted the 2nd law based on an experiment..”
The experiment worked just fine, and agreed with predictions of radiative heat transfer physics.
When did he refute 2LOT? I don’t recall that.
ES, “hand-waving” is NOT acceptable as evidence. But, you’re probably used to pseudoscience, where anything goes.
JDHuffman
You need to prove your false misleading physics. E. Swanson knows you are complete phony (and lazy as well).
You make the false claim: “To see the folly of your ways, you and ES should start with the plates in full contact. After equilibrium is reached, slightly move the green plate away. You will see the blue plate does not have a temperature increase.”
You are completely wrong. The green plate will decrease temperature once disconnected and the blue plate will increase in temperature. The setup he has is already proving this. The steady state temperature reached is the result of the green plate away from the blue plate. Blue plate hotter than before. Your made up physics gets real old. Have you figured out yet that you are clueless about Wien’s Law or are you still only concerned with the spelling and not the content? Surface distractions.
Norman, I edited out all the false accusations, ad homonyms, and misrepresentations.
Here’s what was left: “”
(Where do I send the bill?)
JDHuffman
You like to distract. The fact remains. You gab and make up stuff. You are too afraid to actually prove that you don’t know what you are talking about. You could set up your two plate test in a vacuum similar to what E. Swanson did. You won’t do it so you play around like a drunk fool with nonsense distraction comments avoiding the reality that everyone on this blog knows about you. YOU ARE A PHONY!
If you do the experiment you will prove you were wrong. So it is easy for you to avoid doing the experiment and continue to gab.
JDHuffman
So will you admit you are a lazy phony that doesn’t have a clue?
Why not follow E. Swanson advice? Or will you just ignore him and pretend you are intelligent.
E. Swanson: “HuffingMan again proves that he isnt willing to doing real work. You are the one claiming Im wrong, so you are the one who must prove your claim, not me. Put up or shut up, as they say.”
I totally agree, “PUT UP OR SHUT UP!”
You and lazy Gordon Robertson both need to follow this advice. Neither of you will attempt any actual science experiment but you will keep posting your stupid nonsense daily. Why do you do this?
Here’s what was left: “”
JDHuffman
A post you can’t edit. Why not do your own experiment?
In a vacuum have two plates in contact with each other. Have a heat lamp adding energy to one plate but not the other. Move the non-heated plate a little away from the heated plate. Results?
Dang Norman, a mature, responsible comment! See, that wasn’t hard was it?
I don’t have to do an experiment I already know the results for. If done perfectly, with no losses, the results would look like this:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
JDHuffman
Please do the experiment yourself. You will find your graphic you linked is not correct. Until you perform the required testing you will not believe any results from others.
Norman, you and ES don’t have any “results”. You just believe you do. All you have are your beliefs. It’s your “religion”. That’s why you get so emotional when people tell you the “experiment” is wrong.
If you two wanted to behave scientifically, you would admit you do not have any results. You do not have flux values. ES was able to arrange the experiment to get the temps he wanted, and then you both ASSUME the temperatures are due to the impossible heating of the blue plate by the green plate. That’s NOT science!
Here’s your big problem. In the perfect scenario, with both plates in full contact, hopefully you will agree the blue side is emitting 200 Watts/m^2, as is the green side, and both are at 244 K.
Now, you are believing that slightly separating the plates will force the blue to a higher temperature (262 K). But the only way that could happen is if the green plate were no longer a black body. Now it was some kind of half insulator/half emitter. You have changed the problem to fit your religion!
If the green plate remains a black body, then this is the correct solution:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
HuffingMan, Your tortured graphic ignores the basics of IR EM radiation. The radiation from the blue plate must be the same from each side, since the areas of each side are the same. Your graphic shows 200 w/m^2 going toward the left, while 200 + 200 = 400 w/m^2 going toward the right, which is physically impossible. This is so obviously incorrect that your acceptance of it just proves, yet again, that you don’t know what you are talking about. Troll on.
Along with your other deficiencies, ES, you cannot handle arithmetic.
Left side of blue plate >>> +400 – 200 = +200
Right side of blue plate >>> +200 -200 +200 = +200
Both sides are emitting 200 Watts/m^2
After you learn arithmetic, learn some physics.
JD, there is a problem with your “correct diagram”
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
The blue plate is receiving 600 watts/meter^2 and emitting 600 watts/meter^2, so that’s good, energy in equals energy out.
And the green plate is receiving 400 watts/meter^2 and emitting 400 watts/meter^2, so that’s also good, energy in equals energy out.
But and here’s the big BUTT
If they are receiving different amounts of energy, they can’t be at the same temperature, the blue plate needs to be at a higher temperature since it is receiving more energy.
We should replace the Blue plate with a Blue rock and the Green Plate with a Green Tree.
bob, the arrows are color-coded. Blue arrows are emitted by blue plate. Green arrows are emitted by green plate.
I’ve already explained the arithmetic to ES, but I’ll go another route, to make it even clearer.
Blue plate absorbs 400 Watts’/m^2 (red arrow). Blue plate emits 200 from each side (blue arrows). Blue plate reflects green arrow because net energy flow (200) is from blue to green.
Green plate absorbs 200 (blue arrow), and emits 200 in both directions. But since blue plate reflects back, all energy must be emitted from right side of green plate. That’s why it has the same temperature as the blue plate.
System receives 400 and emits 400. 1LoT and 2LoT satisfied.
Then you are not doing the same experiment as Eli
The plates are blackbodies, and do not reflect.
Think again young wabikimosabisan
“..2LoT satisfied.”
Nonsense. “Blue plate reflects green arrow” is not a real process as that process does not increase universe entropy thus 2LOT is NOT satisfied in JD’s humorous cartoon. This is why there are no black bodies.
Curiously, though, black body radiation exists. Could be black bodies are just invisible like the nonsense process JD describes. Perhaps JD’s diagram shows the existence of black bodies because JD’s green plate arrow being reflected by JD’s blue plate means JD’s humorous version green plate feels something’s there (the background SW radiation has disappeared) but can’t quite observe JD’s blue plate.
Too, could be JD’s blue plate has a version of the Romulan cloaking device engaged as JD has discovered their physics.
bob, it’s the same as Eli’s, but here, the solution is correct.
In the incorrect solution, the green plate somehow converts from a black body to a combination insulator/reflector/absorber???
“but here, the solution is correct.”
Funny, more please. If JD’s solution really is correct, JD will have to find a test where a blue plate can be made purely reflecting & doesn’t even scatter light. Not going to happen JD, keep up the entertainment making yourself look silly, you know like Bozo who also had a long career doing so.
JD,
As a former mechanic at a Nuclear Power Station, I am familiar with reflective insulation, which would be like stacking a dozen or more plates and the end result is something you could put your hand on and four inches away is something at a temperature of 500 F.
If you are right, such a thing would not be possible.
Sorry, practical experience trumps your pseudo-scientific ramblings.
I also wanted to say that what you are doing with the plate experiment is the same thing Captain Kirk did with the Kobayashi Maru test.
bob, you got confused about black bodies. I tried to explain that the incorrect version had a black body plate transforming into some kind of nonsensical reflector/absorber.
Then you rambled off trying to burn your hand on 500F surfaces?
Come back when you can make some sense.
HuffingMan continues to prove he has no clue about IR EM radiation. The energy radiated by a body is a function of the temperature to the fourth power, not the quantity of energy flowing in via absorp_tion. Your mythological physics which assumes all one needs to do is balance the energy flows on each side doesn’t work. Learn some real world physics.
ES, your lame attempts to discredit reality are easy “ducks” to shoot down. I will start counting. The first was when you were unable to do the arithmetic. This is now #2.
At equilibrium, the energy absorbed by a plate is the energy emitted. So, if you know the emission, you can calculate the temperature. So yes, the energy balance must indeed be considered.
Duck #1: ES Learns Arithmetic.
Duck #2: ES Learns how temperatures are determined.
I’ll be waiting for Duck #3. I hope it’s as funny as the first two.
Nope JD AKA Captain Kirk of the Kobayashi Maru, you are the one who changed a black-body problem into a reflecting problem.
You changed the conditions of the thought experiment and thus got the wrong answer.
It’s common sense, if you add more layers or more plates the temperature at the last plate or layer farthest from a heat source goes down, it doesn’t stay at the same temperature as it shows in your diagram.
You say learn some real science, not pseudo-science, but whom does one learn science from?
In the US anyway, you get it from PhDs, say thermodynamics, a branch of physics or chemistry.
So it would seem proper to learn thermodynamics from, say to describle a small set of instructors, someone who has a PhD in Physics who is department chair in the Chemistry Department of a liberal arts college.
Anybunny can guess who I am talking about?
Hint, math, physics and chemistry are liberal arts.
No bob, I didn’t change the conditions of the thought experiment. I just didn’t allow 2LoT to be violated. It is not a legitimate experiment if 2LoT is violated.
In the thought experiment, there are no losses. So you could add as many plates as you wanted. They would all be at the same temperature.
Now, try some more of your…..
“In the thought experiment, there are no losses.”
Which is a violation of 2LOT for a real process. Very easy to understand JD doesn’t know what JD is writing about. JD will not perform an experiment demonstrating JD’s solution as JD’s cartoon is impossible.
Now it’s my turn to invoke Feynman, if your theory doesn’t agree with the data, your theory is wrong.
Reflective insulation is merely a number of layers of plates between a heat source (500 degree water pipe under pressure) and my hand.
The surface of the reflective insulation is at room temperature, cool enough to touch, and the inside is at 500 F, instant burns.
Another example from my work history, super conducting magnets that needed to be cooled with liquid helium for the inner part, and with liquid nitrogen for the outer part. They were insulated with successive layers of aluminum foil. 20 layers for the helium core and 40 layers for the outer part.
These things would not have worked if the thermodynamic properties were in accordance with your lively imagination.
Just give it up.
Study a modern thermodynamics text.
If you have one at hand, post the title and author, I can obtain the same and we can continue to discuss.
bob, you seem to be rambling. Did you you have a specific point?
yeah, JD, I had a point
You are using the pseudoscience version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Try using the real world one.
Find the nearest Thermodynamics Professor and ask him.
bob, where do you believe I have anything wrong about thermodynamics?
Or are you just making another false accusation?
(I will ignore any irresponsible rambling.)
JD, I don’t believe you are wrong, I know you are wrong about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Where did you study thermodynamics?
I studied Thermodynamics at the University of Illinois which has a top 10 in the US rated Chemistry Department.
Not some crackerjack institution.
No credentials means no cred.
Your chart is wrong.
The blue plate receives more energy than the green plate hence must be at a higher temperature.
HuffingMan’s cartoon revision of Eli’s Green Plate Effect presentation is so obviously wrong that HuffingMan has tried in vain to change the subject, switching to bluster and character assignation of those who point out his errors. Of course, HuffingMan isn’t interested in science, else he would respond to his critics’ refutation of his denialist “physics”. His latest effort is to hark back to the science of 1850 by incorrectly referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as if nothing has been learned since.
HuffingMan is just another troll spreading FUD to discredit the scientific underpinning of the problem of Global Warming.
E Swanson, please stop trolling.
bob, thanks for your response. It’s easier to help if I know where you are confused.
The blue plate receives 400, but emits 200 from 2 sides, The green plate receives 200, but can only effectively emit from one side. So, before equilibrium, you are correct. The blue plate would be at a higher temperature. The green plate would be gaining. At equilibrium, both would have the same temperature.
Again, an easy way to understand is to consider both plates exactly in full contact. They would have the same temperature. In our “perfect” scenario, moving them slightly apart would not change temperatures (no losses).
(Since you asked, my classroom thermo was in physics and engineering. But, I added to my knowledge significantly in the “school of hard knocks”.)
ES is moving into full clown status.
His science fails him, so he resorts to misrepresentations and false accusations.
It’s a recurring strategy among clowns.
ES, please accept my apology.
I forgot to count your last duck!
Duck #1: ES Learns Arithmetic.
Duck #2: ES Learns how temperatures are determined.
Duck #3: ES practices bluster.
I’ll try not to let it happen again.
JD, me I had plenty of time wearing a hardhat.
But let me explain where you are going wrong.
It will be easy to explain.
“The blue plate receives 400, but emits 200 from 2 sides, The green plate receives 200, but can only effectively emit from one side. So, before equilibrium, you are correct. The blue plate would be at a higher temperature. The green plate would be gaining. At equilibrium, both would have the same temperature.”
Now explain why the green plate can only effectively emit from one side, it’s a blackbody, so it emits from both sides, it’s a plate of non-zero thickness.
Secondly, the blue plate also receives some from the green plate, in your diagram, 200 from the green plate.
The temperature you have in the diagram is for the Blue plate before the green plate is added, and since the Blue plate is now receiving more than 400 because it is receiving some from the Green.
To find the temperatures and heat flows at equilibrium requires as shown in the Rabbet patch that you solve a system of simultaneous equations. looks like you haven’t done that. You have homework.
“Again, an easy way to understand is to consider both plates exactly in full contact. They would have the same temperature. In our “perfect” scenario, moving them slightly apart would not change temperatures (no losses).”
See Captain Kirk of the Kobyashu Maru, this is where you are changing the conditions of the problem, the plates are not in contact.
Finally a last thought, it’s 40 below outside, and according to your diagram it makes no difference if you go outside in your negligee or dressed in several layers, long underwear, wool pants and shirt and finally a parka.
So what are you wearing?
bob, before I take the time to answer all of your comment, let’s see how you respond to just the first item.
bob says: “Now explain why the green plate can only effectively emit from one side, it’s a blackbody, so it emits from both sides, it’s a plate of non-zero thickness.”
bob, the graphic is very clear, and I have even explained it to you. There is NO evidence that you are trying to understand. It appears you are trying NOT to understand.
The graphic clearly indicates the green plate is emitting from BOTH sides. But, no energy can move to the blue plate (2LoT). The only way the green plate can get rid of the 200 Watts/m^2 incoming is to radiate from its right side. And the only way it can radiate 200 Watts/m^2 is to have a temperature of 242 K.
Now, before continuing with the rest of your comment, let’s see if you can respond in a manner that indicates you are sincerely trying to understand, rather than just trying to avoid reality.
Just stick to this one item, until it is resolved.
That the rub, you incorrect interpretation of the 2nd law, which does not prohibit the transfer of heat energy from a cold body to a hot body.
To be clear the transfer of heat from the green plate (colder to hotter) to the blue plate is allowed because there is a simultaneous transfer of heat from the blue plate to the green plate (hotter to colder)
Those who teach thermodynamics, like the Rabett know this is true.
Where did you study physics?
I took 3 semesters of physics for physics majors at the University of Illinois.
As well as two semesters of physical chemistry which covers thermodynamics and the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
Did you take physics from an accredited college institution.
Names please
Try looking up the 2nd law again.
“no energy can move to the blue plate (2LoT)”
Whoops, no 2LOT violation as according to the cartoon the plates are the same temperature. They simply exchange photon energy of all frequencies. Even if they were different temperatures, they would still exchange photons as that process creates entropy and has been proven by experiment. The cartoon green arrow process produces no entropy so cannot be real (2LOT).
“rather than just trying to avoid reality.”
JD is the commenter avoiding reality as JD produces no test confirmation of JD’s cartoon. And will not ever do so as clearly the cartoon is not in compliance with 2LOT; the cartoon is a nice perpetual motion machine though with “no losses” due “perfect” green arrow reflection not of this world. As bob states, JD should run over to the Rabbet patch and learn some 2LOT physics.
“Just stick to this one item, until it is resolved.”
Experiment has already resolved this item. JD has produced no experiment just jawboning, handwaving, bluster – call it what you will.
bob, as I mentioned, only the first item, until it is resolved. Otherwise it just looks like you’re throwing out anything you can conjure up to see if it “sticks”.
Again, the first item is: “Now explain why the green plate can only effectively emit from one side, it’s a blackbody, so it emits from both sides, it’s a plate of non-zero thickness.”
Do you now understand that the green plate is indeed emitting from BOTH sides?
If so, we can move on to the next item.
bob 1:52pm already agreed to that JD: “so (the green plate) emits from both sides”
Trick, remember how you used to write comments of some value, all those years ago? Shame how you have utterly debased yourself on this blog over the last few years.
Yes, JD, the green plate emits from both sides and the blue plate emits from both sides.
To be clear, when I said the green plate only effectively emits from one side I was quoting you JD.
“The green plate receives 200, but can only effectively emit from one side.”
See these little things “””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
They mean what is inside them is someone else’s words
bob has not reported in. As is typical, reality is so hard on clowns that they cannot handle the facts.
If he does return, he will need a note from his mommy….
Nevertheless, I couldn’t help but notice his attempt to present his “credentials”, rather than substance:
“I took 3 semesters of physics for physics majors at the University of Illinois.
As well as two semesters of physical chemistry which covers thermodynamics and the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.”
For someone that claims to have studied physics and thermodynamics, bob sure has a hard time understanding the simple graphic! But, especially funny was “…the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.”
bob was apparently indoctrinated with the GHE pseudoscience at an early age. No wonder he can’t understand the relevant physics!
Well, bob did show up after all!
Welcome back bob, and thanks for acknowledging that there are emissions from both sides of the green plate.
Continuing on with item2:
There are really two related items here, both easily resolved. Let’s call them 2a and 2b.
2a: “Secondly, the blue plate also receives some from the green plate, in your diagram, 200 from the green plate.”
No, the blue plate reflects the 200 from green. That’s indicated by the green arrow pointing back to the green plate.
2b: “The temperature you have in the diagram is for the Blue plate before the green plate is added, and since the Blue plate is now receiving more than 400 because it is receiving some from the Green.”
No, the graphic shows conditions at equilibrium. And, as explained in 2a, blue does not receive any energy from green.
Please indicate your understanding of 2a and 2b, and we can move to the next item.
bob, I forgot to mention that I will be away from the internet until Sunday evening.
Just do you won’t believe I have deserted you….
“Do you believe in magic in a young girl’s heart
How the music can free her, whenever it starts”
There, another musical quote, which I will explain.
“No, the blue plate reflects the 200 from green. Thats indicated by the green arrow pointing back to the green plate.”
This is where you are changing the thought experiment, reflection is not allowed, it’s a three black-body experiment.
Here’s where the magic happens, lets envision a slightly different set of conditions. Say we have electric heater inside the green plate and are able to change the temperature of the green plate. We increase the temperature of the green plate until it is higher than the blue plate, which changes the Blue plate from a reflector to a black-body.
That’s magic!
When you say the Blue plate can’t receive energy from the Green plate due to 2nd law, there are other physical laws that have to be violated to get that effect, one is that a photon can only carry 3 pieces of information, it’s energy(1 piece) and it’s direction (2 pieces), it does not carry any information related to the temperature of it’s source.
Or an effect that has never been observed, so you believe that changing the temperature of one item can change the emissivity of another object.
ME: 2b: The temperature you have in the diagram is for the Blue plate before the green plate is added, and since the Blue plate is now receiving more than 400 because it is receiving some from the Green.
YOU: No, the graphic shows conditions at equilibrium. And, as explained in 2a, blue does not receive any energy from green.
YOU: Please indicate your understanding of 2a and 2b, and we can move to the next item.
My understanding is that I have 2a correct, the blue plate does receive energy from the green plate.
As for 2b, you have to calculate the temperatures at equilibrium, which you have not done. Get cracking on your homework.
When you are sleeping, are you warmer with one blanket or with two blankets?
I have a bet with my sister who’s a little bit dumb, that all of this will go over your head and you will understand none of it.
JD, when you get back read this
https://web.stanford.edu/~ajlucas/143aSection3SOLN.pdf
Problem 3
“No, the blue plate reflects the 200 from green. Thats indicated by the green arrow pointing back to the green plate.”
This is just too funny to pass by.
We discussed this many rotating moons ago. JD thinks a black body can transform into a mirror, just with a little change in temperature.
I asked him if he ever saw his reflection in a piece of charcoal. He never answers.
He went on to argue that BB are not real, so I guess they can behave magically as he wishes them to.
Good luck in getting a reality-based answer from him, Bobdroege!
bob, it looks like we’re still stuck on 2a and 2b. Let’s consider only 2a, until we get it resolved.
bob said: “Secondly, the blue plate also receives some from the green plate, in your diagram, 200 from the green plate.”
JD said: “No, the blue plate reflects the 200 from green. That’s indicated by the green arrow pointing back to the green plate.”
bob said: “My understanding is that I have 2a correct, the blue plate does receive energy from the green plate.”
No bob, that is incorrect. You may be referring to the incorrect graphic. The correct graphic clearly indicates the green plant is NOT transferring any energy to the blue plate.
Here’s the correct graphic, again.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
You may want to believe the correct graphic is wrong, but you have to be able to demonstrate you even understand it. Do you clearly understand that the blue plate is NOT receiving any energy from the green plate, as shown in the correct graphic?
No JD, the problem is not that I don’t understand your diagram, the problem is that you are not using real physics or real thermodynamics or the real 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The blue plate can’t tell what the temperature of the source of the radiation that is hitting it is, so it can not decide to reflect one source and absorb another.
Since it is a black-body thought experiment, the rules are that each plate absorbs all the radiation that hits it. So the blue plate absorbs the red arrow as well as the green arrow for a total of 600 W/m^2, which is more than the green plate gets, so it must be at a higher temperature, period *********** paragraph.
You can’t change the conditions of the thought experiment and claim you have evaluated the conditions and calculated the correct solution.
It’s a common real world application, if you are cold you add blankets, and the addition of colder blankets does indeed raise the temperature of the body beneath the blanket.
bob, you did pretty good with the first item, but you have bogged down since. You seem more interested in throwing out irrelevant and erroneous nonsense than having a serious discussion. You seemed proud of your technical education, but it was clearly incomplete, and often tainted. I’m willing to help you, but not if you have a closed mind. I’ve been through this too many times.
For example, you keep throwing out “blankets”. Your attempted point is that the green plate is a “blanket”. So, you are changing the green plate into an insulator! And, you do this while accusing me of changing the properties of the blue plate. But, I’m only following 2LoT. I’m not changing the blue plate. You just don’t understand the relevant physics.
So, we can just “agree to disagree”, if you like. I’m willing to help, but you have to have an open mind.
JD, in order to have further discussions, you need to read up on the 2nd law of thermodynamics because you are just flat out wrong.
This is not an accurate 2nd law
Heat can never transfer from cold to hot.
Be my guest and remain ignorant.
Insinuations with incoherent rambling–like I haven’t seen that before….
JD, your lack of understanding doesn’t make something incoherent.
You just make yourself look ignorant.
You can say that again.
Svante reveals he has been lurking here. He’s been following the discussion. Of course, he cannot refute any of the real physics I’ve mentioned. But, he hopes to get in a sniper-shot, once in awhile.
It just indicates I’m getting to him….
JD “No, the blue plate reflects the 200 from green. Thats indicated by the green arrow pointing back to the green plate.”
Bob:”Since it is a black-body thought experiment, the rules are that each plate absorbs all the radiation that hits it. So the blue plate absorbs the red arrow as well as the green arrow”
JD “you do this while accusing me of changing the properties of the blue plate.”
Wiki:
Black body: “A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.”
Hilarious.
JD, we have refuted all of your lame, incorrect, not real, pseudo physics.
Crack open a book, learn some real science.
I recommend an introductory Astronomy text as thermodynamics is obviously well beyond your science skills.
Not that Astronomy is easy, but it starts out that way.
Maybe you can start with memorizing the order of the planets starting with Mercury.
Maybe this mnemonic device will help
My Very Excellent Mother Just Served Us Nachos
JDHuffman says:
“Of course, he cannot refute any of the real physics Ive mentioned.”
Everyone has except Gordon and Dr Roy’s Emergency Trolling Team.
I don’t think you believe any of it yourself, nobody can have so many outlandish ideas (except Gordon). Sometimes you reveal real insight, and sometimes you go too far, for example saying that you know better than NASA and all Universities.
I think its all a prank, you are just here to upset people.
That’s why you get banned so often.
Wrong Svante. My points have NOT been refuted. You just BELIEVE they have. Your beliefs keep you out of reality.
The “plates” are a perfect example. If they are both considered as black bodies, then moving them slightly apart would not cause one to increase in temperature. The only way that would happen is if the green plate suddenly became an insulator, not allowing the previous 200 Watts/m^2 emission, but restricting it to 133.33.
Your pseudoscience changes the conditions to make it appear as “cold” warming “hot”.
I just throw buckets of water on your false religions. And, if you haven’t notice, I enjoy all of your misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults. That tells me I’m effective!
(This sub-thread is too long, so I won’t come back here. Enjoy talking amongst yourselves about how smart your are.)
Ha!
“(This sub-thread is too long, so I wont come back here. Enjoy talking amongst yourselves about how smart your are.”
As much as he wishes it were so, he cannot make a nature do what it cannot do. And he cannot ever admit error.
So he sheepishly retreats, hoping all will be forgotten by the time he comes back and repeats the same nonsense all over again.
N, JKRATM.
I’ve never seen him quit like that.
I guess I hit the nail on the head.
“N, JKRATM”
I am not insulted because this is in a foreign language.
But when you see JD, could you tell him the jig is up.
Nate, just keep ranting at the mirror.
I suggest that “cooling in comparison to …” (comparable subset of other datasets) is a poor choice of words about a dataset subset (Arctic or N-polar) with a warming trend that exceeds the warming trend of the whole (warming) dataset on topic here, and that “warming less in comparison to (Arctic or N-polar subsets of competing datasets)” is more appropriate, on a busy day of the month for such discussion here.
Thanks for the report, Roy.
+1
0.14 over baseline, Volcanoes and Volcanic Eruptions everywhere. Upper atmosphere cooling that much NASA has to recognise. Sun shut down which is the Elephant in the room, not C02. Dread to see how cold this winter is going to be and how much the UAH drops. No plans for crop production in a cooling world.
I am with you Tim, but it is frustrating to not see a more definitive drop in temperatures not to have taken place, although I still think it is going to happen sooner rather then later.
If it does not cool now -next few years it is not going to happen in my opinion given the natural factors which influence the climate now in a cold mode.
Then again where is al the AGW?
Salvatore…”….it is frustrating to not see a more definitive drop in temperatures not to have taken place….”
With a system as complex as our atmosphere, with it’s complex ocean interface, it may be months, if not years to see a response. I think the present response and the cooler September are significant.
Of course, it could always be nothing more than a weather anomaly.
Tim…”No plans for crop production in a cooling world”.
Excellent point. Or for any major disaster.
The state of the climate is ESSENTIALLY NEUTRAL, AND BORING.
Trends have been down this year but the recent rise in overall oceanic sea surface temperatures is something that has to be watched . If this rise is just a blip in a other wise down trend then the cooling trend is intact. On the other hand if this rise in overall oceanic sea surface temperatures persist the cooling trend will not continue.
I think the recent rise to +.31c for average oceanic sea surface temperatures is a blip , but what do I know. I thought as recently as a month ago that the overall oceanic sea surface temperatures would be on a continuing down trend.
On the other hand those supporting AGW have nothing to cheer about as the global temperatures and for that matter overall oceanic sea surface temperatures are failing to make any additional progress on the upside.
So it is just more wait and see, but with that said I think many answers will be answered from now – next few years.
Hunger Stones and Tree Ring evidence suggests solar cycle influence on climate
by Francis Tucker Manns Ph.D., P.Geo (Ontario) Artesian Geological Research
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/30/hunger-stones-and-tree-ring-evidence-suggests-solar-cycle-influence-on-climate/
Salvatore, there’s no need to cheer. AGW is proceeding on pace. CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, there is still a greenhouse effect, and natural factors are happening as they have been happening forever. (We just came out of mild La Nina.) Decades have been getting warmer by 0.10-0.15 C/decades (UAH LT v6 data; higher with RSS), and this will continue, because physics.
on pace? On what pace?
I hope you’re right Dave. But the NH is far more variable than many people like to admit and a reversion to mean of the past 1,2,3, or 400yrs or so could be very bad news. We’ve been very lucky to live in this century.
Show me the data…..
“The state of the climate is ESSENTIALLY NEUTRAL, AND BORING.”
An el nino could spice things up:
http://www.atmos.albany.edu/student/ventrice/real_time/timeLon/u.anom.30.5S-5N.gif
Thank you Dr. Spencer for your work.
I am curious whether you have an opinion how (or if) a record cold thermosphere and shrinking mesopause will affect the troposphere?
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/
No effect whatsoever. The amount of mass up there is almost non-existent…it’s the edge of space.
I think he is referring to the hypothesis that space weather could affect circulation patterns in the troposphere. The most popular being weakening of the polar vortex and resulting wavy jet stream causing arctic blasts in the NH and blocking patterns that cause flooding and heatwaves.
Not so much short term global average temperature.
I think what we need is an up to date chart of those 97 computer models versus real temperature , The old ones are now 5 years old
John Christy updates that every year. I guess I don’t necessarily post it here.
The average temperature this year is roughly the same as it was 17 years ago. The hiatus continues.
If you go all the way back to Sept 1979 you only end up with .3 C of warming. At that time people were telling us it has cooled .2-.5 C from the 1940s. Arguably, there’s been no warming in the last 80 years.
Now that’s a real hiatus.
Richard…”Now thats a real hiatus”.
On those words, I am taking a hiatus myself. Off to the kitchen to summon up a snack.
Richard: UAH LT has 0.5 C of warming since 1979. RSS LT has 0.8 C.
Since 1979 would be right smack dab at the end of a long period of cooling that would suggest much of the warming since then may be natural.
Lets look at from the standpoint of the government objective to hold warming under 2 deg C. .5 in another 60 years would be 1.25C assuming of course there isn’t another natural cooling period which has tended to occur about once every 4 decades.
Besides that fact a little bit of warming is probably a good thing. Most of the people in the world live close to the equator and far far away from the poles. Even polar bears don’t live that close to the pole. Seems the last thing many want is for the world to be more ideal for humans.
Sorry David, but it only looks like a lot of warming because of the noise. You are confusing noise with signal. Naturally, we know you won’t accept reality.
Here’s another view based on averaging the spring and summer months to limit ENSO effects and ignoring years with large ENSO and’or volcanic effects.
1980-81 -.06C
1990… .01C
1995-96 .08C
2001-02 .18C
2007… .15C
2014… .18C
2018… .20C
Same answer. A total warming of .3 C or less.
PS. And, as I showed you elsewhere, we are now exactly the same as Sept. 1996. That is, no warming at all for 22 years.
No, Richard, you are the one relying on noise to give you your results. You’re basically going off the difference between very short-term averages at the beginning and end of the record.
To avoid letting noise (interannual weather effects) dominate the result, use ALL DATA – by running a linear regression.
For UAH 6.0, the trend from 1979 to Dec 2017 is 0.013 C per annum, or a total rise of 0.507 (+/- 0.06) over 39 years of the satellite record.
That’s a best estimate of the overall change so far. It’s not the truth (TM), but it’s a much better estimate than joining two dots at either end of the time series. THAT’s letting the noise confuse the signal.
barry, don’t forget to mention:
1) The “0.013” is well within the expected range of “natural variability”.
2) The “0.013” is well below the average of expected range of IPCC models.
IOW, after nearly 40 years of satellite data, there still is NO statistically meaningful “global warming”.
Sorry Barry but I’m not buying it. It is noise that is driving the linear trend due to the amplitude of the noise. Now, if you had thousands of years of data this would be fine, but we don’t. The period is far too short.
Hence, if you want to really understand what is happening you need to eliminate the noise as best you can. That is what I did.
You don’t like the result because it goes against what you want to believe. You really didn’t refute what I did. To do that you would have to specify what noise I was relying on. The fact you couldn’t actually come up with anything is more than telling.
That only works if you believe that ENSO is responsible for all the noise in the data.
It is noise that is driving the linear trend due to the amplitude of the noise.
Ok, let’s see what effect a big el Nino has if we look at all the data from the beginning of the record – nearly 40 years.
Jan 1979 – Dec 2017: 0.129 C/decade
Jan 1979 – Dec 2016: 0.125 C/decade
Jan 1979 – Dec 2015: 0.114 C/decade [el Nino removed]
The decadal trend went up by 1 hundredth of a degree C thanks to the 2016 el Nino.
Did the 2016 el Nino make a difference to the overall trend? Is 0.1 C/century significant, to your mind?
The positive trend is stable for multidecadal periods. Furthermore, all those trends are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Not so for trends with less than 2 decades worth of monthly data.
How does removing the 2016 el Nino affect the overall change? Let’s extend the trend to 40 years straight using the trend immediately before and after the 2016 el Nino.
0.0114/yr x 40 = 0.456
0.0125/yr x 40 = 0.500
About as expected 0.04C difference over 2/5ths of a century.
The presumption that non-ENSO years contain no effect from noise (internal variability) is countered just by looking at the data and seeing how large the monthly changes can be in non-ENSO years.
You dont like the result because it goes against what you want to believe.
In this paragraph you elected to speak about my motivations etc. Just for the record, it was you that went there first, not me.
Good try Barry but you get an F. Only removing one El Nino does not remove all the noise. In fact, it does nothing to remove the affects of volcanoes and the AMO. That is why you have to dig deeper as I did. Think of where you are if you get a .1 change for each one of dozens of factors.
My technique attempts to limit the PDO, AMO, ENSO and volcanoes. You aren’t going to see that by avoiding one El Nino.
I think following graph shows exactly the problem.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1996.66/to:2014.66/plot/uah6/from:1996.66/to:2014.66/trend/plot/uah6/from:2014.66/to:2018.75
Now look at what we see, no warming at all for 22 years when you skip just the one El Nino and start after the AMO flipped and after both the volcanic eruptions.
22 years? The trend line only goes for 18 years.
But let’s look at short-term trends, just like you’re doing.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2017/trend
One year of data changes the trend radically. ENSO (and other short term variability) has a significant impact on the trend if the time period you use is short.
Let’s see the same thing but now with twice as much data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/to:2017/trend
It’s not a fluke that the difference is greatly reduced. The power of using a larger set of data points is that the trend is much less affected by noise. That was a large el Nino we just added at the end.
That’s why you should use more data.
Someone wrote downthread:
How bout 2004 and 2018. Both ENSO neutral years. Both close to solar min (2004 a bit above)
July 2004 -0.23
July 2018 0.32
So we warmed 0.55 C in 14 years.
You can get all sorts of answers you want just by making choices. We can play this game ad nauseum, each getting opposite results.
The best method is to avoid making choices, or make as few as possible. If you must make choices you have to justify them objectively. You haven’t done that. You haven’t even properly explained your methods. All I can work out is that you seem to think that there is little to no variability outside ENSO and volcanos, and that averaging Spring and Summer months removes interannual variability.
If Winter and Autumn have warmed faster than the other seasons (God’s eye view), then you’ve effectively reduced the overall warming by excising them. In fact, Winters have warmed more than Summers over the whole record, so that’s exactly what you’ve done.
You haven’t responded to any of my points. You’ve made separate points.
My technique attempts to limit the PDO, AMO, ENSO and volcanoes
Is your technique described anywhere, such as a formal paper, or even a blog post with details?
How did you ascertain that AMO is not merely aliasing global temps?
Barry claims: “One year of data changes the trend radically. ENSO (and other short term variability) has a significant impact on the trend”
Thank you.
Now you are starting to catch on. There is no period of data in the satellite period which is long enough to avoid this problem. The full data set is just as noise compromised as pretty much anything else.
This is why I used multiple years with minimum noise to see if my choices were at least a little better. They supported my view that much of the trend is created by noise. However, they do show there is a warming trend. You should be pleased.
While there is warming, my choices also show no change over the past 20+ years. This really puts a damper on the idea that increased CO2 is a strong warming agent.
Barry asks: “Is your technique described anywhere, such as a formal paper, or even a blog post with details?”
I described it last month but I did modify it a little. Results did not change.
– Avoid major volcanic eruptions (year of eruption + 3)
– Avoid full year ENSO events
– Use summer/spring months to limit other ENSO influences and AMO (Used April-Sept. throwing away high and low months)
What you find is it is very hard to find years where there are no influences. But it is possible to find pairs of years where the influence averages out. These are the years that looked the best.
1980-81 14.4 C (58.0F) -.06C
1990….. 14.5 C (58.1F) .01C
1995-96 14.6 C (58.2F) .08C
2001-02 14.7 C (58.4F) .18C
2007….. 14.7 C (58.3F) .15C
2014….. 14.7 C (58.4F) .18C
2018….. 14.7 C (58.4F) .20C
Barry next discovers that you have to be very careful in the selection of years:
“How bout 2004 and 2018. Both ENSO neutral years. Both close to solar min (2004 a bit above)
July 2004 -0.23
July 2018 0.32
So we warmed 0.55 C in 14 years.”
Or, …
March 2004 .35
March 2018 .25
So, we cooled .10 in 14 years.
Now you know why I didn’t select 2004. Way too big of swings within the year.
I didn’t say this was easy.
Ok, so the same method I commented on previously. No need to repeat those criticisms.
Now you know why I didn’t select 2004. Way too big of swings within the year.
0.58C variability within a year is “way too big” to include in your analysis?
Is there an actual numerical limit here? Would a swing of 0.3 throughout a year be too large? That would eliminate nearly half of your selection (1980, 1990, 2001 2007).
You’ve included 2018 even though it begins with a la Nina which extends to the FMA quarter. So your final year includes cooling noise.
Your choice of 2007 also includes a la Nina which begins in the JJA quarter, thereby introducing cooling noise.
So now I wonder about your selections at the beginning of the record….
The first year – 1980 – begins with an el Nino up to the JFM quarter, and as you know those effects persist for a few months.
So your selections are influenced by warm noise at the beginning of the series and cool noise at the end. Seems designed to reduce the overall difference.
“The average temperature this year is roughly the same as it was 17 years ago. The hiatus continues.”
Different ways of looking at the very wiggly data. Can look at the low values for example.
We certainly have reached a low month for the year, 0.14. Lowest in about 3 years.
Interestingly, every year prior to 2016, had months lower than 0.14.
This years low month (of the last 12 mo), is the 3rd highest on record.
“This years low month (of the last 12 mo), is the 3rd highest on record.”
That deserves a big SO WHAT?
The past 17 years are the highest on record, correct? So it makes sense that there will be many ways to say “… highest on record.” But the record is what percentage of anthropological time, let alone the full geological time since Earth formed?
The fact is no one knows whether tropospheric temperatures will go up or down from where they are now.
Chic Bowdrie says:
The past 17 years are the highest on record, correct?
Yes. Thanks.
I don’t get you, Chic. You brought up the issue of how low temps are this month and this year compared to 17 y ago. Now all of sudden geologic time comes in??
Nate, while many focus on trends, I’m just pointing out that temperatures are creeping down to where they were 17 years ago. Yet we really don’t know whether we are in store for more cooling or warming.
With regard to geological time, global temperatures have been all over the place. Only in the last couple centuries have we had anything close to a reliable record of temperature. So to say “highest on record” isn’t really saying much if you consider how likely it is that global temperatures have been this warm many times in the past.
Well, then in that context, your original post “deserves a big SO WHAT?”
I agree that we don’t what the future holds. But given the recent ENSO behavior, plus the tendency of summers to have lowest anomalies, I will predict the near future.
The next 3 month average I predict will be warmer than this months value.
If one is predisposed to see global temperatures on an upward course, then he/she should take note that they are back to where they were some time ago regardless of the trend.
If one sees global temperatures as oscillating between historically normal values, then “so what” would be an appropriate response.
I am trained as a scientist, and am predisposed to the idea that science generally works. Its track record is excellent.
The science behind the GHE and its enhancement is well-developed, physics-based, and its basic mechanisms tested.
Its predictions from 40 y ago for accelerated warming and other details have been born out-for the most part.
AGW COULD turn out to be wrong. But I see no reason to be predisposed to the idea that it MUST be wrong. Have a hard time understanding why some people are.
Maybe you can enlighten me.
Nate,
To quote a baseball legend as the US playoffs begin, “It ain’t over till it’s over.”
The science behind the GHE is that CO2 causes global warming. That is a hypothesis. There is no definite evidence that CO2 causes any warming, well-developed, physics-based models and predictions not withstanding.
I am curious about the “basic mechanisms tested.” Please enlighten me.
I am not just trained as a scientist, it is my livelihood.
“basic mechanisms tested”
Co2 absor*ption lines vs. pressure in the laboratory.
The spectrum of IR leaving Earth as measured in space.
The spectrum of DWIR as observed on Earth.
Increased radiative forcing in the atmosphere over a decade observed-in the CO2 part of the spectrum, both from space and on surface, consistent with increased CO2 over the period.
Stratospheric cooling observed.
Not to mention weather models incorporating the GHE. They work very well.
Simulations, similar to weather models, incorporating all we know about atmospheric physics, show warming with addition of CO2.
etc.
“It aint over till its over.” explains why we should keep up the research. All science is provisional, really.
Doesn’t explain your predisposition.
Increased radiative forcing in the atmosphere over a decade observed-in the CO2 part of the spectrum…
radiative forcing : unknown notion in thermodynamics, based on the arbitrary hypothesis of no dependence of the vertical temperature gradient on radiative phenomena. It has been known from the beginning that this assumption is false and has never been shown to be an acceptable simplification.
Simulations, similar to weather models, incorporating all we know about atmospheric physics, show warming with addition of CO2.
https://www.mwenb.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Christy-fig-2.jpg
Failed modeling.
-> A normal science would abandon the founding hypothesis.
-> Climatology does not do it.
-> Climatology is a pseudoscience.
At this rate, we can put everything into question, everything.
No, this particular graph is to be put in relation with two perfectly identified and recognized problems: the absence of hot spot and the overvaluation of the warming by models.
In such a case, the normal scientific behavior would be to rework the basic hypothesis of which one is perfectly aware that they are only arbitrary simplifying assumptions. They have never been subject to any verification.
Otherwise :
1. So, better play dice.
2. Right, TS is obviously inconsistent with the other data.
And, I can not imagine how weather balloons data could be corrupted by the temperatures of the stratosphere.
“radiative forcing : unknown notion in thermodynamics”
Radiative forcing is simply a statement that at TOA, there is a NET input of power. And as a result, there must be warming of the system below the TOA.
IOW, it is a statement of the First law of Thermodynamics. Hardly an unknown.
As to how that warming of the system gets distributed, that is another question. Evidence indicates that most of it ends up in the ocean.
Radiative forcing is defined at TOA as an imbalance between the amount of input energy and the amount of outgoing energy. Considering this imbalance as a forcing, thus equating heating with insulation, is incompatible with thermodynamics.
Once again, this notion of radiative forcing is a specialty of climatology based on the hypothesis of invariance of the thermal gradient. It leaves the climate system with only one way to restore equilibrium: translation of the thermal profile.
That such nonsense is still accepted in the scientific world is just a demonstration of its state of disrepair.
“Considering this imbalance as a forcing, thus equating heating with insulation, is incompatible with thermodynamics.”
Forcing is just another name for imbalance – get over it.
Again it is non other than 1LOT, a key PART of thermo.
“the hypothesis of invariance of the thermal gradient. It leaves the climate system with only one way to restore equilibrium: translation of the thermal profile.”
A simple and solvable model, often the first thing done in science.
Professionals understand the real world is more complex. Hence simulations are useful.
“And, I can not imagine how weather balloons data could be corrupted by the temperatures of the stratosphere.”
I can’t either, since it does no averaging over altitude, as microwave measurements from orbit do.
Forcing is just another name for imbalance
Not at all. Radiative imbalance may be due to different causes having different effects on the system. The concept of radiative forcing equates the imbalance with an increase in heating and therefore with a particular cause. Hence all the foolishness about backradiations.
A simple and solvable model, often the first thing done in science.
Professionals understand the real world is more complex. Hence simulations are useful.
Oui mais ce n’est qu’un outil de travail et ne vaut que ce que vaut une théorie non vértifiée.
I can’t either, since it does no averaging over altitude, as microwave measurements from orbit do.
So your argument is not valid in this case. Sorry for not specifying it, but the data in Christy’s graph are those of the weather balloons (https://www.mwenb.nl/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot).
If one paper should overturn a theory that has lots of other other support
But what in the case of anthropogenic global warming?
There is nothing, absolutely nothing.
– the glaciers have been melting since the mid-19th century,
– the sea level is rising since the same peridode,
– temperature proxies reveal no particular behavior in the 20th century,
– Station temperatures are inconsistent with all proxies and therefore do not allow to say that the warming of the twentieth century is exceptional.
The only thing that is clear and demonstrated is the failure of the theory.
Oups.
A simple and solvable model, often the first thing done in science.
Professionals understand the real world is more complex. Hence simulations are useful.
Yes, but it is only a working tool and is only worth what a non-verified theory is worth.
“The concept of radiative forcing equates the imbalance with an increase in heating and therefore with a particular cause.”
Making no sense, Phi.
A positive imbalance MUST lead to heating, again by 1LOT.
And forcing can be caused by many things, the sun, the GHE, volcanoes, etc
“Station temperatures are inconsistent with all proxies and therefore do not allow to say that the warming of the twentieth century is exceptional.”
There is no reason to give more weight, as you do, to proxies over direct temperature measurements.
That makes no sense. Proxies are used when there is no other choice.
Making no sense, Phi.
I acknowledge that my sentence was unclear.
The concept of radiative forcing poses the equality between an increase of the incoming energy and a decrease of the outgoing energy.
These two causes do not have the same effects on the system.
As increasing the power of a heater does not have the same effect as adding insulation.
It is a little strange to have to insist on these basic notions.
There is no reason to give more weight, as you do, to proxies over direct temperature measurements.
The weight to give depends on the consistency of the data. It turns out that the good, high-frequency proxies are consistent among them at low frequencies, they are consistent with the TLTs, with melting glaciers, with sea level and so on. Station temperatures are consistent only between them.
I add that to know whether the twentieth century has experienced or not an exceptional warming, proxies are essential. As they are not consistent with the temperatures of the stations, this exceptional character can obviously not be demonstrated. We can just remark that validated proxies do not detect anything particular in modern times.
“We can just remark that validated proxies do not detect anything particular in modern times.”
How do you know they are valid, other than by comparing them to thermometers?
C’mon, proxies are, by definition, imperfect at measuring temperature. Many assumptions must be made. In some cases they mix up temperature and precipitation.
Phi’
“As increasing the power of a heater does not have the same effect as adding insulation.
It is a little strange to have to insist on these basic notions.”
What is strange is how often you make assertions without providing explanation or evidence.
AFIK, increasing heater power or increasing insulation could have the same effect on my house.
How do you know they are valid, other than by comparing them to thermometers?
I said, validation by correlations of high frequencies, so using the thermometers.
” increasing heater power or increasing insulation could have the same effect on my house.”
The temperature distribution is generally very different, the thermal contents are not identical and the thermal flows are quite different.
The thermometer in your living room can not account for that.
You know, thermodynamics is not completely useless in real life.
“The temperature distribution is generally very different, the thermal contents are not identical and the thermal flows are quite different.
The thermometer in your living room can not account for that.”
OK. Good point.
So for Earth, these distributions of heat maybe different for solar forcing vs GHG vs Volcano. I think that has been studied.
But is the evidence about distribution of heat ruling out GHG?
It has been noted that the tropical ‘HOT SPOT’ should be there whatever the warming mechanism.
So for Earth, these distributions of heat maybe different for solar forcing vs GHG vs Volcano. I think that has been studied.
It is unfortunately impossible to quantify and even to evaluate. It would be necessary to be able to calculate and model convection for that.
But is the evidence about distribution of heat ruling out GHG?
No. it’s just that we can not quantify the effect of an atmospheric CO2 increase.
It has been noted that the tropical HOT SPOT should be there whatever the warming mechanism.
The hot spot, or, rather the tropospheric amplification in low and mid-latitudes is only related to the variation of temperature and not to the origin of this variation.
“Failed modeling.
-> A normal science would abandon the founding hypothesis.
-> Climatology does not do it.
-> Climatology is a pseudoscience.”
Well in the Christy plot, the model and the data don’t match. You assume that means the “founding hypothesis” is wrong.
We can’t conclude that yet, because:
1. the model may have some wrong assumptions or errors. Clearly you see big differences in the model results.
2.The data, which had to be analyzed and massaged could be corrupted.
3. Both the models and the data could be cherry-picked to maximize the differences.
4. Analysis done by others could disagree.
5. There could be some confounding variables.
In fact #2, 3, 4 are likely. Christy excluded RSS and RATPAC which have much stronger warming. The cooling stratosphere may have corrupted the upper troposphere data that is shown.
” A normal science would abandon the founding hypothesis.”
If one paper should overturn a theory that has lots of other other support, then Relativity should have been overturned in 2011, when an experiment found faster than light particles.
Of course it wasn’t, and the error in the experiment was found in 2012.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17560379
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_temperature
Average annual temperature of NYC is 55.3 degrees Fahrenheit
Average annual temperature of Boston is 51.7 degrees Fahrenheit
NYC is 3.6 degrees warmer than Boston on average.
According to NASA satellite measurements, the earth is warming at the rate of 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade, or 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/
Divide 3.6 by 0.23 and you learn that Boston is projected to be as warm as NYC in 15.7 decades, or 157 years.
No one knows if temperatures will continue as they are going, but if they do, in 157 years Boston will be as warm as NYC is currently. Would that be a sky-falling catastrophe?
Have I done this right, you professionals?
Taking a 40 year trend and projecting it straight 150 years into the future as some kind of temperature prediction is a complete nonsense , don’t even go there
Will it be a catastrophe when, in 157 years, Boston and New Year have 5 feet of sea level rise?
Also, Eben is right.
“Will it be a catastrophe when, in 157 years, Boston and New Year have 5 feet of sea level rise?”
Yes, probably would be catastrophic. Though that would require a sea level rise 300% faster than is currently occuring.
Would it be a catastrophe if in New York and Boston there was a 5 foot sea level rise in 450 years?
“450 years”
Its a good question. But civilization and its major cities and agricultural regions, and water supplies, have had hundreds of years of climate and sea level stability to develop and flourish.
The legacy of what people decided hundreds of years ago is still affecting us today, formation of Parliament, acceptance of slavery, the American Revolution, the writing of the constitution.
What we decide to do today may well be cursed or praised by people in a coupled hundred years.
“cursed or praised”
The smart money is on both.
Have I done this right, you professionals?
The .13 C degrees is global temperature.
The tropics [40% of surface surface] doesn’t warm very much and all ocean surfaces [tropics is about 80% ocean, btw] has not and should not warm as much as land areas, and oceans cover 70% of earth’s surface area. Global ocean average temperature is 17 C [62.6 F] and global land surface is about 10 C [50 F]. And combined it is global average temperature of 15 C [59 F].
Our globally warming should have higher increase in Arctic regions- and we call Boston is close enough to arctic regions.
As wild guess Boston could warm by say 5 times as much- or it could also cool faster, so if imagine the trend continues, about 30 years rather 157 years.
And large part of such warming is nights becoming warmer.
And one have warmer days, on average, but doesn’t mean highest temperature days become hotter.
You also could get some increase due to Urban Heat island effect- growing cities with larger urban areas.
Willliam,
Land in NH has already warmed > 2 deg F in 40 y. So its happening way faster than you calculated.
https://tinyurl.com/yan8q6e4
The blockade of circulation over the Atlantic will draw air from the north over Europe.
https://tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png
Just a wild guess but I think we’re going to see below average anomalies again by 2020.
Wild guess or wishful thinking?
Has anyone run control charts on the absolute temperature data and the anomaly data for the entire period of time?
Use 3 standard deviations for the upper and lower control limits.
This will allow one to see how much of the data falls within the the control limits which will be common cause variation and those points that fall outside the control limits which will be special cause variation. Maybe a cause could be applied to these or maybe not.
Would also identify how much of the data is or is not statistically different from the average for the entire period.
Greg, I have looked at applying control charts a bit. The problem is that the data is highly auto-correlated. For example, the rule “7 or more consecutive points on one side of the average” gets broken regularly. Thus it is clear that MUCH of the change is “special cause”.
Greg…”Has anyone run control charts on the absolute temperature data and the anomaly data for the entire period of time?”
The historical temperature record has been seriously fudged by NOAA. They have gone back in the record and adjusted it to what they think would represent a better past interpretation.
Arrogance is the new science.
GHCN belong to NOAA and NASA GISS and Had-crut rely on the GHCN record. GHCN has gone through mammoth changes over the past 2 decades and even before that, the record was piecemeal. According to chiefio (Google the name) 90% of the reporting data stations used by GHCN have been slashed. NOAA has admitted directly to slashing over 75% of them and they are using less than 1500 stations globally.
The Australian BOM fail to recognize temperatures before 1900, claiming they are not reliable.
How can the record be reliable much before the 1960s? In the first part of the 20th century, we had two major wars with Russia and China on lock down. Besides all that, very few people traveled to remote parts of the globe till modern times.
It’s a joke to talk about a historical record seriously.
“GHCN-M version 4 contains monthly mean temperature for over 25,000 stations….”
https://tinyurl.com/yc9unksy
See also:
Menne, M.J., C.N. Williams, B.E. Gleason, J.J. Rennie, and J.H. Lawrimore, 0: The Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Dataset, Version 4. J. Climate, 0, (2018) https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0094.1
Another update.
https://tinyurl.com/yc9vx6q7
Explanations:
1. Globally, tropospheric amplification is expected. It is well observed in high frequencies but not in tendencies.
2. Stations readings are expected to be affected by anthropogenic perturbations. The bias could be linear.
-> TLT amplitude is reduced by a factor of 0.6 to match high frequencies of surface.
-> T surface are reduced by a linear factor of 0.1 C per decade.
This is most likely a good evaluation of the UHI effect.
Mr Spencer,
You turned on italics in your opening post and forgot to turn it off. Apparently that causes every post in this thread to be in italics. Do you have the ability to edit your original comment?
You are correct! I was wondering why everything was in italics.
Thanks for fixing it, Dr. Spencer.
David,
Why? Roy himself doesn’t even bother anymore.
Thank you. Zealotry is ignored not followed except by fellow zealots.
Here is RSS agreeing showing models are off AND claiming they aren’t.
http://www.remss.com/research/climate/
Joe…”Here is RSS agreeing showing models are off AND claiming they arent”.
UAH are the only organization with integrity these days when it comes to gathering data and examining it without bias.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“UAH are the only organization with integrity these days when it comes to gathering data and examining it without bias.”
In this context how is RSS failing, in your opinion?
DA…”In this context how is RSS failing, in your opinion?”
They have sold out to the status quo, like NOAA, GISS, Had-crut and the IPCC.
What do you mean by “sold out?”
DA, what do you mean by “mean”?
Here is RSS agreeing showing models are off AND claiming they arent.
I read the linked page and you have completely misrepresented it.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
This is what Global Warming looks like.
Warning – may cause nightmares.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/this-is-what-global-warming-looks-like
sheldon…”This is what Global Warming looks like.
Warning may cause nightmares.”
************
Propaganda, Sheldon.
January 1979:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/Global_Temp_Maps(new)/1979/JANUARY%201979.png
August 2018:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/august2018/201808_map.png
Note the large swaths of white.
No red anywhere.
2018 clearly looks warmer.
And the data show it was, by 0.52 C according to UAH.
Anyway this is nothing but a cherry pick, and warming (or cooling) cannot be deduced from comparing two individual months. Talk about fudging.
David, what if the months are completely alike? For example, let’s compare Sept. 2018 and Sept. 1996:
Both are ENSO neutral coming off of La Nina winters.
Both are near solar minimums.
Both are during +PDO conditions and +AMO conditions.
Seem quite similar, don’t they. So, how much warming has 40% of all human CO2 emissions caused over that time? 0.00
Yup, both have exactly the same anomaly. No warming at all in 22 years. How do you explain it?
+2
Some people have this strange idea that the only thing affecting annual temps for surface or lower troposphere is ENSO.
Wanting to win points makes people stupid.
Richard, no two months are “completely alike.” Not at all. See what Barry wrote just above me.
Barry and David,
You are both nitpicking. If you ignore the effects of ENSO etc. and compare clusters of temperatures instead of a single month, then you could say that the past eight month’s temperatures are the same as or less than those in 2014, 2012, 2011, 2007, 2005, 2002, 1995, 1991, and 1988.
A trend does not necessarily mean an increase. We are now at the same tropospheric temperature as we were at least 17 years ago.
It’s pretty simple – if you rely on a tiny number of data points then you will be emphasizing the noise over the signal. Stats 101.
It is easy to find a week’s worth of daily temps in Spring that are cooler than some other week in Winter.
Those who rely on such fluctuations to tell themselves stories might well espouse that Winter is warmer than Spring.
But if one uses all the Spring/Winter data, one will not be fooling oneself.
Even in ENSO neutral years UAH temps can swing by 0.3C over a few months. This means that if the overall change is definitely 0.5C over 4 decades (God-s eye view), then it is statistically possible one could find a cluster of several months late in the record at similar temps to the beginning. Does this indicate anything about overall change? No. All it tells us is the comparative temps for precisely those clusters, and absolutely nothing about the whole record.
That’s why we use all the data, and don’t cherry-pick. We deceive ourselves very easily if we arbitrarily remove data – and especially so if we deliberately look for selections that match our preferences. This is the epitome of bad practice. Winter actually is cooler than Spring, despite you having found in many years a week’s Spring temps cooler than another week in Winter of the same year. That’s weather, not climate.
A trend does not necessarily mean an increase.
I completely agree – it can also mean a decrease. And if the trend isn’t statistically significant, then we don’t necessarily have a trend at all. Nor does the lack of a statistically significant trend tell us that there isn’t one. So we do more work – with all the data – to get the best estimate on what is happening.
We don’t make claims based on highly selected data. Unless we want to mislead.
Notice that neither David nor Barry can actually define anything that would make my comparison invalid. Their comments are essentially nothing but denial. I suspect they don’t even want to look.
In reality, finding very similar points and comparing them is probably much superior to a short trend based on an extremely noisy data.
Barry,
“Its pretty simple….”
Yet you make it as obscure as possible by including such nonsense as comparing weeks in spring with weeks in winter, which I didn’t do. Take your advice, do more work, and look more closely at the clusters of months in the years I identified. Are they not all about the same temperature as the past few months of this year?
Imagine a starting point on the equator and travel back and forth across the equator but spend the vast majority of time north of the equator. When you arrive back at the equator, are you still north of the equator based on the fact that you spent more time there?
Richard M,
“In reality, finding very similar points and comparing them is probably much superior to a short trend based on an extremely noisy data.”
Comparing actual points now with the past is what you do if you want to know where you are now. Looking at a trend is what you do if you want to bet on where you will be in the future. Both techniques are valuable and I would not say one is superior to the other as they serve different purposes.
Comparing actual points now with the past is what you do if you want to know where you are now.
Comparing points can easily mislead you.
Me seasonal argument is sound. There are often days and whole weeks in Spring that are colder than certain days or weeks in Winter.
If you discovered a week in Spring that was colder than an average Winter, would you then “know where you are,” and conclude it was the Winter season?
No, because of variability, comparing points may mislead you as to general conditions of “where you are now.”
If you have more data, use it. You’ll almost always get a better estimate. If you average all the Spring data and average all the Winter data, what are the odds you will be confused about which period is cooler than the other?
BTW, trend analysis does not necessarily have to be used for predicting the future. I never consider that when analysing observed data. I just want to know if there has been change, how much, and how uncertain the change is. That comprises the interest for 99% of trend discussion on this blog. Not predicting the future from linear regression.
Your seasonal argument may have been sound and Richard may or may not have obscured meaning by ignoring it. You can out-box all you want comparing seasons and calculating trends, but I won’t throw in the towel. I repeat: An increasing temperature trend does not necessarily mean a net increase in temperature.
If temperatures continue to drop, the “equivalent temperature clusters” will go back farther in time, if not grow in number. Of course if temps go the other way, it will be more likely that any pause is over or, on centurial time scales, never occurred.
Catching up on a point, Chic.
A trend does not necessarily mean an increase.
That’s right.
We are now at the same tropospheric temperature as we were at least 17 years ago.
That doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been an increase in general global temperature. that is, the background temp may be warmer, obscured because of intrinsic variability.
A proper estimate would test in multiple ways – and incorporate the physical world behind the statistics.
OK, let me try.
How bout 2004 and 2018. Both ENSO neutral years. Both close to solar min (2004 a bit above)
July 2004 -0.23
July 2018 0.32
So we warmed 0.55 C in 14 years.
I can play this game all day. And it proves what exactly?
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
I’m not calling you a liar, just emphasizing how your analysis shows temperature variability over the short term and ignores the longer term perspective.
just emphasizing how your analysis shows temperature variability over the short term and ignores the longer term perspective.
That is exactly the point I am making to Richard M.
It’s not nit-picking.
Insinuating I compared weeks in spring with weeks in winter is something obtuse, if not nitpicking.
Furthermore, you were not making exactly the same point to Richard, because you were arguing using all the data points to, I assume, find trends amidst noise. We were both using only the most recent data to point out that temperatures are back to where they were decades ago.
Although you stayed north of the equator most of the time, you are back at the equator now.
Insinuating I compared weeks in spring with weeks in winter is something obtuse
Huh? I never said you discussed seasons. This is my argument on the pitfalls of comparing points or small clusters of them.
And yes, my point to Richard could be paraphrased:
just emphasizing how your analysis shows temperature variability over the short term and ignores the longer term perspective.
Richard relied on short-term variability (a few months), and compared those short-term points. He ignored 80% of the data in between.
He states that he has removed the variability. He simply hasn’t. He has only emphasised it by getting rid of so much other data. He is committing the error I described with seasonal comparison sing only a day or a week of data.
Statistical analysis – such as linear regression – is how one attempts to find out “where we are” in the most robust fashion.
I know of no formal technique for statistical analysis where the majority of discrete data in a time series is simply discarded. If it is contended that noise should be removed, then subtract the noise from the data points, but don’t throw out the vast majority of data.
“Winter actually is cooler than Spring, despite you having found in many years a weeks Spring temps cooler than another week in Winter of the same year.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323144
Changing from weeks to seasons doesn’t absolve you of obtuse behavior.
“Richard relied on short-term variability (a few months), and compared those short-term points.”
Well, yes that is what we are trying to show. If you strip away the noise that creates a trend, you are left with the same temperature at both ends of the trendline. And yes, it’s cherry-picking for the purpose of pointing out that between such and such a time, there has been no warming.
You are in the weeds. Come out and enjoy the flowers.
“If you strip away the noise that creates a trend….”
Make that “If you strip away the noise embedded in a trendline….”
“If you strip away the noise embedded in a trendline”
That has not been done. Richard has simply assumed that his choices strip away noise.
Every single data point is noise. Every single one of them.
I don’t know how to put my point more succinctly than with the seasonal example. There are weeks in Spring that are cooler than certain weeks in Winter. It’s a regular occurrence every year.
Using the assumption Richard goes on – that a little bit of data can tell you “where you are,” you could easily mistake Spring for Winter in a cold week.
[BTW, where I’ve written ‘you’ as you quoted me, it’s colloquial usage, not personal. Just replace with ‘one’, same as I said further up that post. That’s what I meant. The argument was “as if” someone was comparing seasons. You could also change the ‘you’ for ‘one’ in the previous paragraph. I’m not referring to you personally, just as you are not referring to me personally when you say “tell you where you are.”]
Here are some peer-reviewed efforts to reduce the noise – without deleting any data.
Subtracting ENSO and other oceanic effects from data:
https://tinyurl.com/yc8ab2b5
Subtracting ENSO, volcanic and solar variation:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta
I’ve never seen an attempt in the scientific literature to reduce noise simply by removing the majority of data. Is there any precedence? Is there an example anywhere in the scientific literature you could point to? Seems like a fatally poor method to me, on the basis of what one learns in the first couple of classes on statistical analysis.
Here is a question for Richard – what is the statistical uncertainty in his result?
Barry,
I’m beginning to think that no matter how I say it, it won’t be understood. So this will be my last comment on trends: Are you warmer now than in 2002, because the trend says you should be?
I believe I understand what you are saying, and have been arguing what I think is wrong with it. To whit:
You are saying that some period of monthly temps in the past, averaged, is equivalent to some average of monthly temps recently.
And you are saying that this the soundest way of determining whether general conditions now are warmer than some time in the past or not.
If this is not the argument you are making, could you please clarify?
Barry,
Yes that is correct. It is the best, if not only, way to compare temperatures now to the past assuming the measurement devices are consistent.
Nathan, the problem is 2004 was a very erratic year. For example:
March 2004 0.35
March 2018 0.25
So we cooled .10 C in 14 years. That is why I didn’t use it in my monthly analysis. It really isn’t ENSO neutral. It was during a period of high ENSO activity even though there were periods that didn’t make the official ENSO list.
What you found is that the ENSO index in and of itself is not often a perfect tool to try and determine climate effects. Several papers have tried to minimize ENSO effects but often just blindly using some index.
In my full analysis I average 1996 with 1995 because I thought that was a better overall representation. 1996 was generally dominated by La Nina effects except possibly for July. It could be that was the only month that truly represented the climate signal for the entire year.
So I DO understand your argument, thank you Chic.
Do you understand my responses to it and will you reply to them directly?
Richard,
You have stated that you believe the change over the satellite period is about 0.3C.
What is the uncertainty on this figure? Obviously it’s not exact, so what’s the upper and lower bound?
And how did you work that out?
Gordon,
the UAH map that you reference (August 2018), shows the temperature anomaly from the baseline period 1981-2010. So it is showing about 23 years of warming.
I am showing warming since 1880. About 138 years of warming.
The UAH map doesn’t go “red” until the temperature anomaly is +7.5 degrees Celsius. Would you even be alive at this temperature? The scale used makes it look as if there is not much temperature change happening. Change the scale, and things would look different.
My map goes “red” when the temperature anomaly is greater than +2.0 degrees Celsius. The limit that the IPCC decided on.
You need to compare apples with apples.
I agree with everything you are saying.
EXCEPT … “Would you even be alive at this temperature?”
Sheldon…”I am showing warming since 1880. About 138 years of warming”.
Sorry, I misread your dates.
Still, have you taken into account the Little Ice Age, that ended around 1850? It featured 400 years of global temps up to 2C below normal.
When your graphics began in 1880, how much was re-warming?
Below which normal? What baseline are you using for that figure?
Gordon,
my map does not show the “cause” of the warming. Only the “theoretical” amount of warming.
So I agree with your comments about the Little Ice Age. In my opinion, the “cause” of the warming is still open for debate. For example, the warming from 1910 to 1940.
I am a skeptic, NOT an alarmist. The map is based on GISTEMP, but I still question whether GISTEMP is “correct”. I have to base the map on something, and it was convenient to use GISTEMP.
I show people the map to promote discussion. Not to try and force people to believe a particular view.
One of the ideas that I am suggesting, is that the +1.5 and +2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limits, are not reasonable. A lot of the world has already warmed by over +1.5 and +2.0, but I don’t see evidence that this has caused a terrible disaster. Most of the “extreme” warming is in cold areas. It might have even made these areas “better”, in some ways. Note that “better” is a subjective term.
Bobdesbond,
I calculated the warming rates (degrees Celsius per century), and multiplied it by the number of centuries, giving a temperature increase (degrees Celsius), since 1880.
So my baseline is 1880, but the temperature increase is “theoretical”, because many places didn’t measure temperatures starting in 1880.
So my temperature increases are a “guess”, but based on the temperature data available. Nobody can give you an “exact” temperature increase, and you shouldn’t believe anybody who says that they can.
Sheldon wrote:
“A lot of the world has already warmed by over +1.5 and +2.0….”
The 1.5 C and 2.0 C refer to the global average, not regional temperatures. The average temperature on land will be about 50% higher (as it is so far).
Sheldon also wrote:
“but I dont see evidence that this has caused a terrible disaster.”
Either you aren’t looking, or a bias is getting in your way.
PS: Define “terrible.”
GR says:
“Still, have you taken into account the Little Ice Age, that ended around 1850? It featured 400 years of global temps up to 2C below normal.”
No it didn’t, and you’ve never presented any evidence of that, even though you’ve been asked several times.
Hi – what’s the base period on those anomaly maps. Thanks.
If you mean those of UAH: 1981-2010.
If you mean what SW produced, it is originating from GISS: 1951-1980, and thus are anomalies then 0.42 C higher than if they had been generated wrt 1981-2010.
Great work as always, Roy.
Like that you have Australia separately.
Would be interesting if you could somehow separate out some other regions —
say Europe, SE Asia, Africa etc
cheers
And the SURFACE
Satellites can’t measure surface temperatures. They don’t even measure atmospheric temperatures.
That was kind of the point I was making.
.. but they do a knock-up job of measuring global sea level.
Yes, the do. It’s really very impressive.
… and ice concentration, be it extent, area or volume!
Yes (but the volume is modeled).
Amazing we can go onto our computer every day and get the daily values values for sea ice extent & area, both poles.
You seem to be suggesting that the surface is warming quicker than the atmosphere. 😉
Are you saying the lapse rate has changed or something? 😉
The surface station series is mostly measured at urban heat islands and is sparse over large tracts of variable land. The so called “global surface temperature” is a highly biased fabrication, not fit for anything except propaganda.
The satellite record is far more likely to be a more correct estimate of the REALITY of global temperatures than that load of GIGO !!
From the Earth’s frame of reference, the Earth doesn’t rotate either. If you view either of them from the Sun they will both look like bodies with an orbit of about 365 days and both will appear to rotate on their axis.
Or ask it a different way, is there sunrise and sunset on the moon?
“From the Earth’s frame of reference, the Earth doesn’t rotate either.”
From the definition of “rotating on its own axis”, the Earth rotates on its axis, in ANY frame of reference.
“If you view either of them from the Sun they will both look like bodies with an orbit of about 365 days and both will appear to rotate on their axis.”
No! The Earth will appear to have an orbit around the Sun of about 365 days, but the Moon will appear to have an orbit around the Earth of about 27 days.
“Or ask it a different way, is there sunrise and sunset on the moon?”
Yes, there is sunrise and sunset, if you’re on the Moon. But, it takes about 27 days to see it all. (This causes the different phases of the Moon, as viewed from Earth. There is NO “Earthrise”, as the Moon does not rotate on its axis, relative to Earth.
I think that it is difficult to determine what is rotation of a body like the Earth around its axis and its orbit around the Sun, its orbit around the sun is equivalent to one extra rotation around its axis every year relative to an outside observer , it could be that rotation and orbit have to be seen as circular motion one round a fixed axis in space and the orbit round a moving axis in space.
It would be difficult, without an understanding of the relevant physics–orbital motions, Newton’s Laws of Motion, and gravity.
donald, the Moon is rotating around a fixed axis, and also orbiting around a fixed axis.
The animation here on the left shows the Moon both orbiting and rotating. The animation on the right shows the Moon orbiting but NOT rotating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
DA has the descriptions reversed.
Nothing new.
Weird — now that animation is suddenly gone.
Taken out of Wikipedia just this afternoon.
Did you remove it, Ger*an?
Anyway, here’s Google’s cache of the animation:
https://goo.gl/images/aq9Stf
I was right; the left one is orbiting+rotation. The right one is orbiting without rotation.
Nope, you’ve still got them reversed. The one on the left, which represents the actual Moon motion, only has ONE motion–orbiting. It is “NOT rotating on its own axis”. That’s why Earth only sees one side of it.
You don’t understand the two motions. Just add that to your list of things to study, if you ever decide to study physics.
Wikipedia kept a version of the animation here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The animation on the left is certainly rotating — the black splotch on it faces in every direction as it goes around.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
That animation on the right shows the Moon not rotating — its black splotch always faces the same direction.
David, your first link is working just fine. No need for conspiracy theories.
The animation is there again because someone re-edited the page again and put it back.
Here’s the pages history, showing two revisions today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tidal_locking&action=history
Theyre doing it just to mess with you, David…
JD,
Haven’t you had enough humiliation? Back for more embarrassment I see. LMAO. Every time you post this moon non-rotation nonsense, you get owned with your lack of physics and kinematic knowledge. Quite hilarious.
Nice to know that when I swing a weight around it is rotating about its axis. 😉
Interesting concept.
And no the moon IS NOT rotating about its axis because that axis is rotating about the Earth
at the same rate that the Moon is rotating about the Earth
Relative to its axis, the moon is not rotating.
If you had an arrow fixed at right angles at the pole of the moon, that arrow would always point to the same direction on the surface of the moon.
AndyG55 gets it. There’s little hope for DA and SGW.
Andy,
NASA and the rest of mainstream science disagrees with you:
https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/
The moon does rotate about its own axis.
Do this simple experiment. Take a green grape, pierce it with a round toothpick. Mark a red dot on one side of the grape. Sit at a table and pick an orbit point. Now orbit the grape around the center of orbit, keeping the red mark pointing towards the center of orbit. You have to slowly spin the toothpick between your fingers to keep the red mark always facing the center of orbit. The grape is rotating about its axis while making the orbit.
SGW says:“You have to slowly spin the toothpick between your fingers to keep the red mark always facing the center of orbit.”
SGW, that is because you are modeling orbiting. Your “model” requires a force. In a real situation, the force is supplied by gravity. So, you are “gravity”, in your “model”.
The Moon does NOT rotate on its own axis.
JD,
These are kinematic concepts, which is the branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces which cause the motion.
Once again, you are way out of your league here.
Wrong again, SGW!
Orbiting motion requires force.
If you don’t know that, then all of your bluster and bluff fades into the sunset.
JD,
No. Not wrong again. Once again, kinematics does not concern itself with forces that cause the motion. Kinematics deals with the motion itself. You are not getting it as usual.
Incroyable!
I think that the point here is that while the moon does rotate around its axis that axis is not fixed in space and it would be the same if an object was traveling in a straight line because the speed of rotation of the object would slow down as the object accelerated.
donald, it would be difficult, without an understanding of the relevant physics–orbital motions, Newton’s Laws of Motion, and gravity.
Start with these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
JDHuffman says:
From the definition of rotating on its own axis, the Earth rotates on its axis, in ANY frame of reference.
No. In a reference frame rotating at the same rate as the Earth with its axis of rotation in the same direction, the Earth is not rotating. Of course.
Reality, DA.
Learn it, love it, live it.
Again, no rebuttal. Just insults.
You insult when you have no rebuttal, know you have no rebuttal, but can’t admit you’re wrong.
DA, when you try to twist and spin reality, you insult yourself.
Quit whining. Learn to face reality.
Ger*an: See, you just did it again — insults instead of a rational rebuttal.
ibid.
Stand up. Stand in one spot. Rotate your body through 360 degrees.
Does your nose stay in place, with respect to your eyes?
Stand up. Stand in one spot. Face reality.
Is your head screwed on?
If a body is not rotating, does it have an axis?
We would have to first, find a body that is not rotating.
But seriously, you could draw any axis through the body you want.
You can imagine a line through a body, but it isn’t an axis if the body doesn’t rotate around that line. IOW, every axis is collinear with a line, but not all lines are collinear with an axis.
You skipped my first sentence!
First you have to find something that isn’t spinning.
Got any candidates?
There are mesons, but they don’t last too long.
I didn’t understand your first sentence. Now I know why.
Gordon, it what way did they sell out.
I’ve heard that before. I would like to know in what way did they see out.
The level of galactic cosmic rays is the highest since 2009.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
You mean … it was higher during the last solar minimum?
What’s the difference between the maxima?
Dave, RSS is consistent with the lowest 5 to 10 percent of climate model predictions. Even they are considering the lack of warming unexpected and inconsistent with the mean warming scenario.
Hopefully my comment will attach as a reply.
It’s fluctuation, and still within the 2-sigma uncertainty band.
Two years ago it was right in the middle of the band.
AGW isn’t going to rise or fall based on a couple of years.
The Southeast Pacific is still cold.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.10.1.2018.gif
https://tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png
Not so fast, Ren. Predicted El Nino is arriving.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Nope
Ren. Very cool information about GCR. Thanks for sharing.
“NASA’s Parker Solar Probe is swinging by Venus on its unprecedented journey to the sun.
Launched in August, the spacecraft gets a gravity assist Wednesday as it passes within 1,500 miles (2,400 kilometers) of Venus. The flyby is the first of seven that will draw Parker ever closer to the sun.”
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-nasa-parker-solar-probe-venus.html#jCp
It seems there some uncertainly about how much gravity assist is gained by encounter with Venus tomorrow.
Generally speaking, the closer to planet, the more orbital energy can be gained or lost- Parker will losing it to Venus [the probe will increase Venus orbital velocity {by tiny amount}].
Or they say pass within 1500 miles. 1500 miles away is quite far
” These speed and distance estimates could change after Parker Solar Probe performs its Venus gravity assist on Oct. 3.”
https://blogs.nasa.gov/parkersolarprobe/
Or seem idea is to get within 1500 miles- and if they get closer they get more of gravity assist. And I guess we will know how close it got tomorrow. Back to first link:
“By the end of October, Parker will shatter the current record for close solar encounters, set by a NASA spacecraft in 1976 from 27 million miles (43 million kilometers) out. Parker will get within 15 million miles (25 million kilometers) of the sun’s surface in November. Twenty-four such orbits—dipping into the sun’s upper atmosphere, or corona—are planned over the next seven years. The gap will eventually shrink to 3.8 million miles (6 million kilometers).”
Thank you Dr Spencer for your report which is always informative.
I’ve also developed a reasonable skill at “troll post skipping” for which I thank your resident trolls.
David Guy-whatever…”Ive also developed a reasonable skill at troll post skipping for which I thank your resident trolls”.
You are a different kind of troll, the hit-and-run type. Such trolls stop by, make an inaccurate and myopic observation, then leave a nasty note.
Why don’t you stick around and engage in the conversations? I have never seen anything from you, either positive or negative.
You leave a thank you note for Roy, which is cool, but you cannot resist taking a general shot at the posters here.
One thing I have learned about the posters is that they are passionate about their participation. I have yet to see one poster who is trolling, in that they are not here to intentionally disrupt the blog. We refer to each other as trolls at times, but that’s par for the course on blogs.
The good news is cooling is the trend now for the next few years but will it continue?
It should not only continue but accelerate.
Salvatore never learns.
cor – cooling is the current trend but will it continue?
“cooling is the current trend”
When you use the word “trend” in this context you are in the statistical world and statistical rules apply.
There is no current cooling trend. Unless you make up your own statistical rules. Or, if you have no rules and just like to say stuff….
barry, in your world, with your statistical rules, are trends within trends allowed?
Yes, if those trends are statistically significant.
barry…”There is no current cooling trend”.
What do you call that 2 1/2 year negative trend from January 2016 till present?
You need to go back and relearn your statistical methods. You don’t apply a linear trend to a range of 39 years without examining the various context of the data. A linear trend from 1979 – 2018 means nothing in particular.
The 2 1/2 year negative trend above is recovery from an extreme EN. Does your statistical methods allow for such extreme anomalies? Or do you just normalize the data to see what you want to see?
For that period the null hypothesis (“no trend”) is not disproved, statistically.
Therefore no positive statement about a trend for that period can be made. At all.
That is both basic science and basic stats. How come you don’t know this stuff?
The problem here is that trend has a statistical definition, and you and Sal are either ignorant of it or uninterested in it.
When one day is a different temperature than the next that does not indicate a trend. When one year is a different temperature to the next, that does not indicate a trend. Rather, this is the normal fluctuation that occurs and is observed to occur. To use the word ‘trend’ for these short-term fluctuations is to render the word indistinguishable from ‘change.’
A “trend” arises when there is persistent change surpassing that which can be explained by normal variability.
barry…”The problem here is that trend has a statistical definition, and you and Sal are either ignorant of it or uninterested in it”.
You forgot the term ‘range’. You seem to be hung up on a range from 1979 – present whereas I have specified a range of January 2016 – present.
Are you trying to tell me I cannot apply a trend to that data that falls within the definition of a trend?
This is typically you, barry. When presented with fact that counters an argument you have presented you resort to obfuscation and legalese.
The issue is not that temps are cooler now than Jan 2016. The problem is that you use the word “trend” for any change at all. This renders the word indistinguishable from the word “change.”
There is no doubt that global temps are cooler now than 2016. And we all know why.
But when you use the word “trend”, you are in the statistical realm. We’re not talking fashion trends here – the term has special meaning WRT science and statistics.
So here is the statistically derived trend with uncertainty from January 2016.
-0.152 (+/-2.287) C/decade
Do you see the uncertainty? It’s 15 times larger than the trend.
A perceivable trend is defined as persistent change over time that is distinct from changes due to ordinary variability. That’s what statistical analysis can assess.
So for the period you are talking about there is a clear change in temperature from Jan 2016 to now. It is fluctuation. It is variability.
Does it indicate a trend? Impossible to say. Not enough data.
Unless you define the word “trend” in a non-scientific sense. In which case you are conversing in a different language to people taking a rigorous look at data.
barry…”For that period the null hypothesis (no trend) is not disproved, statistically”.
Hopefully you are not as stupid as you come across and that you’re just bring obtuse. The data plotted on the UAH graph from January 2016 till present shows a marked negative trend.
Use all the double-speak and misdirection you like, it is a negative trend. We are several tenths of a degree cooler today than we were in 2016.
I am not trying to pull a fast one. I am fully aware that the 2016 high is the apex of a strong EN. Still, we have been lingering around the average temperature of the hiatus now for several months.
The issue is not that temps are cooler now than Jan 2016. The problem is that you use the word “trend” for any change at all. This renders the word indistinguishable from the word “change.”
There is no doubt that global temps are cooler now than 2016. And we all know why.
But when you use the word “trend”, you are in the statistical realm. We’re not talking fashion trends here – the term has special meaning WRT science and statistics.
So here is the statistically derived trend with uncertainty from January 2016.
-0.152 (+/-2.287) C/decade
Do you see the uncertainty? It’s 15 times larger than the trend.
A perceivable trend is defined as persistent change over time that is distinct from changes due to ordinary variability. That’s what statistical analysis can assess.
So for the period you are talking about there is a clear change in temperature from Jan 2016 to now. It is fluctuation. It is variability.
Does it indicate a trend? Impossible to say. Not enough data.
Unless you define the word “trend” in a non-scientific, colloquial sense. In which case you are conversing in a different language to people taking a rigorous look at data.
Hey Mark Mannion,
Did your shell script strip away mentions of authors’ names that were written by other posters? So it was only users actually posting a post that were counted?
Yes, he searches html and includes a couple of control characters (“>).
I’m glad you’re back by the way.
I was reckoning on my output. 4 posts a day in the update threads doesn’t seem excessive.
Poor barry, still in denial that he is a troll.
Update for Salvatore:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
I have already talked about it Barry, but Barry it is just where it was and not making any progress to the up side’
I only mention that to give the full picture and I think this will be relatively short lived. Overall the climate is cooling not warming.
Winter is in the southern hemisphere. Ice extent in the Antarctic is growing.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00972/436azc0nrn68.png
Absolute sea ice extent is always growing in each hemisphere’s winter time, ren, just like absolute temperatures reach their maximum in the hemisphere’s summer time.
In my native language, we call your sentence a ‘lapalissade’.
The ice rises in Antarctica in October. Is it winter time in the southern hemisphere?
Descending sort of the absolute values in Mkm2 for Antarctica’s sea ice exent till Jun 18, from
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/S_seaice_extent_daily_v3.0.csv
2014 | 9 | 19.76
2013 | 9 | 19.39
2012 | 9 | 19.21
2006 | 9 | 19.09
2013 | 10 | 19.02
2014 | 10 | 19.00
2009 | 9 | 18.96
2004 | 9 | 18.92
2014 | 8 | 18.91
1998 | 9 | 18.90
2000 | 9 | 18.89
2007 | 9 | 18.86
1980 | 9 | 18.82
2005 | 9 | 18.80
2010 | 9 | 18.80
2011 | 9 | 18.74
2006 | 10 | 18.73
1985 | 9 | 18.70
1999 | 9 | 18.70
1998 | 10 | 18.66
2013 | 8 | 18.66
2010 | 10 | 18.65
1996 | 9 | 18.63
1994 | 9 | 18.61
2010 | 8 | 18.61
1981 | 9 | 18.60
1997 | 9 | 18.60
1983 | 9 | 18.59
2012 | 10 | 18.59
1980 | 10 | 18.57
1993 | 9 | 18.54
2007 | 10 | 18.51
2005 | 10 | 18.48
2004 | 10 | 18.46
2015 | 9 | 18.44
2015 | 10 | 18.41
1995 | 9 | 18.37
1988 | 10 | 18.36
1982 | 9 | 18.35
1999 | 10 | 18.35
1988 | 9 | 18.31
1991 | 9 | 18.31
2003 | 9 | 18.30
2009 | 10 | 18.30
1981 | 10 | 18.29
1987 | 9 | 18.25
2011 | 10 | 18.22
2000 | 8 | 18.21
1979 | 9 | 18.20
1985 | 10 | 18.20
September: 29 of 50
October: 17 of 50
August: 4 of 50
What is your point, ren?
ren: Antarctic sea ice is usually rising in October.
binny…”Descending sort of the absolute values in Mkm2 for Antarcticas sea ice exent till Jun 18, from….”
Yet another biased report from the algorithms of binny’s alarmist mind.
As usual, Robertson, you are the person trying to discredit instead of providing for real facts and useful contradiction.
But that you never and never have been able to.
You are no more than a gullible follower of nonsense pseudoskepticism a la E P Smith or Novak.
Bindidolina, please stop trolling.
binny…”You are no more than a gullible follower of nonsense pseudoskepticism a la E P Smith or Novak”.
I welcome any scientific studies from any source that make sense.
The difference between you and E.P.Smith (Chiefio) is that he meticulously backs his claims with an exhaustive supply of data straight from GHCN, NOAA, and GISS. And you cannot refute any of it because you are a lightweight compared to him.
Novak makes excellent points about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It is being misused in application to AGW. Not only that, modern climatologist have completely misinterpreted its meaning.
Physicist Stefan Rahmstorf, a groupie at realclimate, infers it can be used to add GHG back-radiation to incoming solar to super-warm the surface to a temperature higher than it is warmed by solar alone.
That is the source of the nonsense that the 2nd law can be satisfied by a mysterious positive net energy balance. It is a flagrant misinterpretation of S-B.
Stefan and Boltzmann made an error in presuming heat could be radiated through space directly. They had no idea that EM existed in those days other than the electric and magnetic fields of Faraday surrounding an electromagnetic.
Therefore, S-B gave the radiation units of w/m^2 and many modernists have not caught on yet. They still think EM and heat are one and the same, hence the confusion about back-radiation warming the surface.
Hey Ren,
Though October usually has decreases in Antarctic ice extent (about 75% on the daily record), growth does occur nearly 25% of the time. Not an unusual event, but will continue to watch.
Hello bilybob, nice to see you are here again.
A nice info about sea (ant)arctic ice extent is this:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/pages/latest/Ice/polview.html
If you are interested, we could continue our little discussion about warming before and after the 1970’s, inbetween I completed my ‘amateurish’ work on GHCN daily.
Hey Bindindon,
Interesting chart, prefer the traditional line graph it is easier to visualize the data for me.
Still come by from time to time, it the busy time of the year for me. Will probably be able to contribute more later in the month.
Take care,
” but Barry it is just where it was and not making any progress to the up side”
It’s warmer more recently.
You have been showing this chart and commenting that things are heading “in the right direction” when things were looking cooler left to right.
How come you’re not saying things are heading in the “wrong direction” when the chart shows the opposite profile – warmer left to right?
Great question.
barry…”How come youre not saying things are heading in the wrong direction when the chart shows the opposite profile warmer left to right?”
Once again, you are looking at numbers and not at the reality. Since January 2016, the Earth’s average temperature has been on a steady but irregular negative trend.
That’s 2 1/2 years of negative trend, leaving us back at the hiatus level. If CO2 was having an effect, one might expect the current level to be significantly higher over 2 1/2 years with an overall positive trend since 1998.
That +ve trend since 1998 is still there due to the extreme EN of 2016 and we are waiting to see what develops. It looks to me, however, like CO2 is playing no part whatsoever, that the temperature and weather are being controlled by natural forces.
barry
We see here once again how Robertson’s firmware ‘works’:
“Once again, you are looking at numbers and not at the reality. Since January 2016, the Earths average temperature has been on a steady but irregular negative trend.”
—
Well, the reality still is best shown by looking at numbers!
And because for Robertson, Earth’s temperature is exactly identical to what UAH publishes for the lower troposphere, we therefore will have a look at… UAH’s numbers (rev 6.0, évidemment).
Indeed, the linear estimate for January 2016 till August 2018 is, as a consequence of the huge El Niño 2015/16:
-1.92 ± 0.44 °C / decade
But… the linear estimate for January 1998 till August 2000 is, as a consequence of the huge El Niño 1997/98:
-2.41 ± 0.55 °C / decade
« Tel est pris qui croyait prendre », dira-t-on ‘chez nous’.
“Once again, you are looking at numbers and not at the reality.”
Once again I am using precisely the metrics that Salvatore consistently uses, and once again you are overlooking that.
Too much to hope that you will be consistent with your criticism irrespective of the person posting. Otherwise you would have taken Salvatore to task for “looking at numbers and not at the reality.”
barry…”Its warmer more recently”.
Did you read Roy’s article above? This September was the coldest in 10 years.
This is the chart that Salvatore keeps posting and saying things about. He got excited a couple of months ago when it was showing cooler temps recently.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
So I am asking him what he thinks about this now that temps are going up. It’s his preferred source, not mine. And my interest is to see how consistent Sal is when data run counter to what he likes.
If you can’t follow the conversation, Gordon, may I suggest you start your own?
Huffy
Let’s team up and pretend we are a horse running around a track. I’ll be the horses head, you can be the horses ass.
When I’m facing North, you will be facing south. When I’m turning towards the northeast, you’ll be turning towards the southwest.
Somewhere between the two of us, there’s an imaginary, vertical line that’s not turning either way……neither towards the northeast or southwest. That’s called a fixed axis of rotation.
Silly Ms Snape! Never a clue, but always a comment.
There are two distinct motions, Snape. The horse is only doing ONE. If he stops in the track, you do not see any “rotating on its own axis”. If he were doing two motions, he could stop one and continue the other.
But, keep distorting reality, if it makes you fell smart.
Imagine a man (or horse) running along a rope in a straight line. But as he runs, he twists around, going through one complete cycle by the time he reaches the end of the rope.
The man/horse is clearly rotating.
Now imagine one end of the rope brought around to meet the beginning of the rope, to form a circle.
The manhorse now runs in a circle, but he also rotates, once per time around the circle.
That’s what the Moon is doing — orbiting and rotating at the same time, with the period of each the same.
DA, you would see the horse rotating from inside the track.
Learn to think for yourself. Learn to think, period!
No you wouldn’t, if the rotational period of the horse was the same as the rotational period of one loop around the track.
DA, if you had any cognitive skills at all, you could work this out on the floor of your apartment, with a sting and a pencil.
But, you don’t.
That’s one of the reasons you get so many laughs.
I can easily work it out in my head.
It’s no different than the left side of this animation:
https://goo.gl/images/aq9Stf
Uh, better try the string and pencil….
Using a string and pencil shows the Moon/horse rotating.
It’s no different than the left side of this animation:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
On the left Moon, the black splotch faces in all 360 deg directions are it goes around the Earth in its plain.
When an object in a plain faces in all of 360 degrees, it is rotating.
*plane
You’re still confused.
See if this explanation helps:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-322859
DA….”I can easily work it out in my head.
Its no different than the left side of this animation:”
In that left image, If the Moon was turning a full 360 on it’s axis, with the Earth turning under it at 30 revolutions per month, we would be able to see every facet of every face of the Moon.
We can’t, all we see is one face.
Note in the image that the Moon is not turning on it’s axis. It’s being held by the fluid force of gravity, which allows the Earth to rotate under the Moon.
That dark spot on the Moon should turn through 360 wrt to the Moon’s axis, and it’s not.
No, we don’t see all sides of the rotating Moon, BECAUSE IT’S TIDALLY LOCKED. The rotational periods are equal.
Position yourself any other place but the Earth’s surface. From there, the Moon will be seen as rotating.
Ger*an – You’ve given that link already. You misinterpreted the situation there.
If an object faces through all 360 degrees in turn, is it rotating?
Orbital motion, DA.
Study orbital motion.
JD and Gordon,
Don’t worry if you don’t get the moon rotation stuff. NASA scientists and scientists in general all over the world have got it covered so you don’t have to.
SGW, NASA has been on a 40-year downslide. Anything to do with REAL science is about 5th or 6th on the list. First priority is funding. Then, all of the political correctness!
The great engineers from the Glory days have long retired. With any money they don’t waste, they spend on contractors.
But, worship them if you must.
Ha! What a nice circus!
*
1. JDHuffman says:
October 3, 2018 at 11:55 AM
DA, you would see the horse rotating from inside the track.
Learn to think for yourself. Learn to think, period!
*
2. Gordon Robertson says:
October 3, 2018 at 5:40 PM
In that left image, If the Moon was turning a full 360 on its axis, with the Earth turning under it at 30 revolutions per month, we would be able to see every facet of every face of the Moon.
*
3. SkepticGoneWild says:
October 3, 2018 at 6:51 PM
JD and Gordon,
Dont worry if you dont get the moon rotation stuff. NASA scientists and scientists in general all over the world have got it covered so you dont have to.
*
Hmmmmmh! I am very, very impressed by all these pseudo-skeptics who offend anyone having an opinion of GHE differing from theirs, but suddenly contradict each other about the spin of the Moon’s axis.
I remember similar discussions between ex(c)ited ge*r*an and other people. In German we say: “The insults flew deep”.
*
Recently, senior commenter galloping camel alias Peter Morcombe gave us a link to an interesting paper:
Lunar equatorial surface temperatures and regolith properties from the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment
Ashwin R. Vasavada & al. (2012)
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/lunar-equatorial-surface-temperature_2012.pdf
The introduction begins in its very first paragraph with
The Moon experiences extremes in surface temperature
due to ITS SLOW ROTATION, lack of atmosphere, and the
near-ubiquitous presence of a highly insulating regolith
layer.
*
Na dann streitet Euch mal ordentlich weiter, Jungs!
Bindidolina, please stop trolling.
Your wagon example is incorrect.
Stand up. Stand in one spot. Now rotation by one turn. You faced in all 360 degrees.
Similarly, the Moon or horse or wagon faces in all 360 degrees in its motion. Because it’s rotating.
TWO motions, DA.
Just try to fully understand one at a time. Then work your way up to the big time.
Who knows, maybe 10, 15, 20 years, you will get it?
Then we can work on thermodynamics….
Two separate motions.
You seem to think that an object that faces through 360 degrees is not rotating.
That’s what happens with the child’s wagon. The motion is called “orbiting”. It’s what the Moon is doing.
Poor JD, always behind the curve.
An orbit is just a path. “Orbiting” does not tell us the status of the object as far as its rotation. The orbiting object could be exhibiting pure translational motion (facing one direction throughout its orbit), or the orbiting object could be rotating on its own axis.
Our brilliant physicist JD informs us the moon is orbiting. Wow! Please publish this amazing discovery in a physics journal, Einstein. Be sure to include the quote, “Its what the Moon is doing.”.
Hilarious!
DA…”The man/horse is clearly rotating”.
The original claim was that the Moon is not turning about its own axis. The horse’s axis would be it’s centre of gravity and it is clearly not turning about it’s centre of gravity.
In essence, the horse is traveling in a series of short tangential lines. If there was no friction to enable the horse to gradually turn from that tangential line to the next one….if it was on ice….the horse would slide off the track on that straight line.
As it slide off, it might then begin spinning around its centre of gravity.
The horse *is* rotating about its axis — first it runs north (say), then west, then south, then east, then north again. Through all 360 degrees of the compass.
Like Ger*an, you seem to think something that faces through all 360 degrees is not rotating.
It’s certainly rotating with respect to all other points in the Universe except the surface of the Earth. Because it’s rotating.
DA, obviously you do not understand orbital motion. An orbiting object, if it is NOT “rotating on its own axis, will appear to rotate on its own axis, to an observer outside the orbit. This is what happens with a race horse runs a race track. The horse appears to be rotating on its own axis, to someone in the stands. But the REALITY is the horse is NOT rotating on its own axis.
Say I am on the Goodyear blimp with a camera focused on the lead horse in the Kentucky Derby, zoomed in so you can only see the horse and jockey in the field of view.
What would you see.
I went to the Carousel and picked a horse to ride, he looked like a good one and away I did ride. Now relative to the Carousel, the horse is stationary, but I have a movie camera and a replay sure looks like something is spinning.
Maybe the Carousel is spinning and so is the horse I am riding on it, which is making the same kind of orbit as a horse on a racetrack.
And is also spinning.
How about trying to make some sense, bob?
I don’t think they have playgrounds like when I was a kid, but if you got on a merry go round and faced the center and was spun round and round for a while.
Now I think this motion is a fair representation of the earth moon system with you as the moon orbiting the center of the merry go round.
Then you get off, and you are dizzy, why?
Because you were spinning, that’s why.
I’m so dizzy my head is spinning like a whirlpool it never ends
Waiter, more wine at bob’s table.
And now you want to date me.
Waiter, shut off the wine to bob’s table, quick!
Here is what Phil Plait otherwise known as the owner of the Bad Astronomy blog has to say
“Seen from the surface of the Earth, the Moon does not appear to rotate. This is because from an outside frame of reference, the Moon rotates once for every time it goes around the Earth. So from our vantage point, the Moon is naturally divided into two halves: the hemisphere we always see, called the nearside, and the hemisphere we do not see, the farside. The farside has only been seen by probes or astronauts that have actually orbited (or at least passed by) the Moon.”
He has a PhD in Astronomy, so he is correct and you are wrong.
Or there is an Alanis Morissette quote wine me dine me ****** me.
To get the truth you need to find the appropriate reference point or a place to stand with your lever.
bob, you don’t have to use some obscure blogger to support your pseudoscience. NASA and many universities have webpages devoted to it. It is well-established pseudoscience.
That’s the point. Most people cannot think for themselves. It’s not that hard to figure out, but many people have lost the ability to reason.
Upthread, I presented this simple explanation to someone. He was unable to reason it out. See if you can:
Securely attach a tennis ball to one end of a yardstick, so that it cannot move. Draw a face on the tennis ball so that it faces you. Now move the yardstick so that the tennis ball orbits you.
If you were able to follow the simple instructions, then you noticed:
1) During a 360° motion, an observer outside the tennis ball orbit would see the face “rotating”.
2) Standing inside the orbit, you would always see the face on the tennis ball.
This is an exact model of the Moon orbiting.
But, the tennis ball can NOT “rotate on its own axis” It is securely attached to the yardstick.!
So I have attached the tennis ball to the yardstick and am turning it around and noticing that the face on the tennis ball Wilson 1 allways faces me, not Penn 1 or those Dunlop 1 rocks, but my daughter is perched on a ladder and grabs ahold of the tennis ball as it revolves around me.
And the yardstick snaps into two pieces.
Why?
Another experiment you can try.
Buy a little toy train with a circular track, such that the toy train goes around the track in a circular path.
Glue a dowel rod to the train and push an apple on to the dowel rod.
Now when the toy train goes around the track the apple alway faces the same half towards the center, draw a face on it if you must.
Then grab the apple and hold it as it goes around the track, it will twist relative to the dowel rod proving with out a doubt that the apple is rotating.
Another fine specimen!
Rock collecting is so much fun….
Yes, smart as a rock and quick as a tree.
Next you will be telling us the moon landing was a hoax.
Or would it be Bigfoot or the Aquatic Ape?
The Earth is flat, maybe?
Vaccinations?
You don’t like facts, do you?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Dr. Roys Emergency Moderating Team
You are not really an authorized moderator of this blog, are you?
You are just another of the posters here lacking in a basic science education.
The question of whether the moon rotates or not is basic 8th grade science.
So, basically a 12 year old can come to the right answer that a couple or more adults are having trouble with.
“But, the tennis ball can NOT rotate on its own axis It is securely attached to the yardstick.!”
This is where you and Gordon have a mental block. It does not matter if you have a yardstick attached to the tennis ball. The ball is still rotating 360 degrees on its own axis for every one revolution of the yardstick. It is being forced to make the turn. You are looking at the wrong reference frame.
If the ball was not rotating on its axis, i.e. exhibiting pure translational motion, it would snap off the yardstick.
Like I said, us experts have this covered. You don’t have to worry about it if you don’t get it.
You spouted this garbage way back in February, and are still spouting the same nonsense. Pointless to continue.
Recently reactivated GHE Defense Team avatar “bobdroege”, please stop trolling.
SGW says: “It does not matter if you have a yardstick attached to the tennis ball. The ball is still rotating 360 degrees on its own axis for every one revolution of the yardstick.”
This is so amazing! SGW understands that the tennis ball is securely attached to the end of the yardstick. It can NOT move. But, in the next sentence, he believes the tennis ball “is still rotating 360 degrees on its own axis”!
And, SGW is not alone. There’s no way to reason with such illogical, uneducated people.
“This is so amazing! SGW understands that the tennis ball is securely attached to the end of the yardstick.”
Clearly the person holding the yardstick is rotating, yes?
The yardstick is acting just like the spoke on a wagon wheel as the wheel rotates. Yes? The person is like the hub of the wagon wheel, yes?
So I think you agree that the person is rotating, that the hub on the wagon wheel is rotating, and that the wagon wheel is rotating. But you seem to think that a spoke on the wagon wheel is NOT rotating.
The spoke is part of the wheel that is rotating, but the spoke is not rotating???
I think it would help everyone to know, JD, how you DEFINE rotation? How do you define it, mathematically in such a way that an object (wheel) can rotate and some parts of it DO rotate but other parts DO NOT?
(No need to respond here. Nate is not attempting to alter reality. He’s just acknowledging his confusion about it.)
DA…”Imagine a man (or horse) running along a rope in a straight line. But as he runs, he twists around, going through one complete cycle by the time he reaches the end of the rope”.
How the heck does he do that?
a)Does he have a saddle with a swivel so he can spin around HIS axis?
b)Is the horse on roller skates so the rider can pull him around in a circle as he follows the straight rope? The horse would have to deftly lift his skates so as not to become entangled in the rope.
c)does he come to the end of the rope and turn the horse 180 degrees?
The only way the horse could rotate about his own axis is by being on a roundabout, or carousel, that was rotating as the carousel ran on a track around the course.
From the lunar surface, Earth is always in same portion of the sky and the Earth goes sunlit phases [as Moon does as seen from Earth].
If near north pole of Moon, Earth will due south in sky and near south pole of moon, Earth will always be due north. If Earth is not in the sky, you are on the far side of the Moon [and Earth from that region of the Moon will never be in the sky].
If on nearside of Moon, if travel in direction of Earth, evenually you reach point where Moon is directly overhead and you would then be at the equator of the Moon.
reach point where Moon…
Should be: reach point where Earth is directly overhead…
snape…”When Im facing North, you will be facing south. When Im turning towards the northeast, youll be turning towards the southwest.
Somewhere between the two of us, theres an imaginary, vertical line….”
We are not talking about imaginary axes, we are talking about an axis through the Moon’s body about which the Moon is allegedly rotating, with angular momentum.
In the Earth-Moon system there is such an axis, called a barycentre. The Moon tries to pull the Earth out of orbit and the Earth tries to pull the Moon out of orbit. Both bodies are rotating around that axis which is located between the Earth’s axis and its surface but closer to the axis.
If you want to created something like a barycentre then you have left the initial premise that the Moon is not turning around an axis through the Moon.
The first major snowstorm in the Rocky Mountains is approaching.
https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/ea9cd8c/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%2F08%2Fbb%2Fd0b5b49742c2902044d9825ad80a%2Fstatic-us-next-week.jpeg
40 years means it start at the end of a long cooling period.
Good point actually, there was a thirty year decline ending in the mid seventies.
Here’s the long term CO2 prediction in bold:
http://tinyurl.com/yck2o849
Not much of a decline.
The 30-yr trend ending in June 1975 (which I’ll take as the mid-point of the ’70s) was +0.03 C/decade, using GISS data.
I meant a 1998 type decline, that’s when you put your ruler on a peak y-value and see how far it takes you along the x-axis.
It didn’t:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html
Seriously? This is still going on???
Imagine a large platform that can rotate — like this.
http://www.bspengineeringsas.it/contents/14/04/plugin_gallery_02/20170202-144427.jpg
Imagine putting a smaller platform like this on top out near the edge:
http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~jmil/physics/demos/misc/img/rotating_platform_metal2.jpg
Assume no friction in the bearings. Assume for the sake of discussion that initially the small platform is near the north edge of the larger platform. Assume the stripe on the smaller platform is aligned north-south.
Initially both are stationary. Then the bottom platform starts to rotate. The top platform will move in a large circle (it will ‘orbit’ the center of the large platform; it will ‘revolve’). But the line on the smaller platform will continue to point N-S. The top platform will not rotate on its axis. No torque has been applied to give it angular momentum.
If you want the line on the top platform to always point toward the center (like the moon) you will have to give the top platform a spin until it is rotating at the same rate as the bottom platform.
Conversely suppose the top and bottom platforms are rotating at the same rate (say 6 RPM for both) so that the line stays pointed toward the center. If the bottom platform is stopped, the top platform will continue to spin at 6 RPM.
Yes, my young padawan, there are to separate motions. There is both rotation and revolution.
[ That was in reference to the inane discussions about the moon upthread. ]
Don’t worry, I almost have JDH/Ger*an cornered.
DA, remember our talk about “reality”?
tim…”Yes, my young padawan, there are to separate motions. There is both rotation and revolution”.
You arrived at the correct conclusion initially then arrived at the wrong conclusion in your summary.
If the Moon is tidally-locked, there is rotation…but it’s the Earth’s rotation only. Due to the fluid nature of gravity, the Earth can turn under the Moon while maintaining a locking force on it. The Moon remains stationary wrt it’s own axis.
Yes…the Moon revolves around the Earth but it has no angular momentum because it is locked with one face permanently facing the Earth.
The logic in the NASA statement is missing. While the Moon is allegedly turning once per month, the Earth rotates 30 times. Surely someone would have a view of the back side of the Moon.
The mistake in the NASA statement is obvious. They seem to claim that the same side of the Earth is looking at the same side of the Moon, which is nonsense. If the Moon was rotating on its axis, we would be able to see every part of the Moon due to our 30:1 rotational advantage.
Gordon Robertson says:
If the Moon is tidally-locked, there is rotationbut its the Earths rotation only.
No.
Look at this animation, on the left side:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Focus only on the Moon, and look at its central axis. IGNORE THE EARTH.
Do you see the dark splotch on the Moon rotating around the Moon’s central axis?
That’s rotation. Of the Moon.
NO DA, that is “orbiting”. There is NO “rotating on its own axis”, in the left graphic.
Don’t you have some new pseudoscience to try? You’ve linked to that same pathetic graphic about 10 times!
Just Dumb,
For the 1000th time. An “orbit” is just a path. “Orbiting” does not tell us any information as to whether the object orbiting is rotating on its axis or not.
In DA’s graphic, the moon on the right is exhibiting pure translational motion throughout its orbit. In the graphic on the left, the moon’s center of mass is translating along the orbital path while the moon rotates about it’s center of mass, all per the standard kinematic definitions which govern general plane motion of rigid bodies.
Now time for your nappy, JD.
SGW, for the 1001st time, pure orbital motion is translational. Pure orbital motion involves no “rotating on its own axis”.
Dear Stupid,
Orbital motion means some object is following an orbital path. That’s it, you idiot. Orbiting says nothing about the state of the object in orbit, whether is is exhibiting pure translation or rotating on its axis.
You cannot even get the definition of “orbiting” correct. How can you even function in life being so dumb?
SGW, orbital motion is translational. Even if the object is also rotating on its own axis, the orbiting motion remains. There are two different motions.
Also, don’t overlook this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323246
Just look at the Moon, ignore the Earth.
It’s rotating.
Nope.
skeptic…”For the 1000th time. An orbit is just a path”.
You have left a lot out. It is a path but a special kind of path. In the context of which we are discussing the Moon, an orbit is a gravity-induced path which can produce a permanent elliptical or circular orbit around a mass, or a temporary parabolic or hyperbolic orbit as a mass veers past another mass.
Remaining in that context, the rotation of the Moon implies an angular momentum around an axis internal to the Moon’s body. Since the Moon is tidally-locked, with th same face always pointed to the Earth, it is obviously not turning on an interior axis.
DA…”Focus only on the Moon, and look at its central axis. IGNORE THE EARTH.
Do you see the dark splotch on the Moon rotating around the Moons central axis?”
Yes, I have watched the dark splotch many time.
Imagine the Earth as turning at the same rate as the Moon is orbiting, once a month. If you are in Portland, Oregon and that dark splotch was facing you, you’d see it every night. You might as well drive a large stake through the centre of the Earth out through the centre of the Moon.
That would stop the Moon from turning and keep the dark splotch always facing the Earth. It would appear from space exactly as in the left gif, yet the Moon would not be turning on it’s own axis because the stake would not allow it to turn.
BTW…this wiki article is wrong. In the gif on the right, the Moon is not tidally-locked. Tidal locking means the force of gravity from the Earth is holding the Moon in place by the surface facing us. There is a force holding the Moon in place in the same manner a stake through the Earth and the Moon would hold it in place.
If a humungous chunk of space debris struck the Moon with enough energy to overcome the tidal locking, and caused it to turn around an axis with the dark splotch facing us, we would get different facets of the Moon every time we saw it.
The notion that the Moon has an orbital period so slow that it presents the same face to us every night is bs.
Look at this one. The ‘a’ vector represents a tidal locking vector. If the Moon was turning on its axis, that vector combo of ‘a’ and ‘v’ would rotate around it. It’s plain that the ‘a’ vector is tied in place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics#/media/File:Orbital_motion.gif
“The notion that the Moon has an orbital period so slow that it presents the same face to us every night is bs”
Go howl at NASA Gordon.
In your graphic, the moon has rotated 360 degrees on its axis for each orbit. If it did not rotate, it would be exhibiting pure translational motion, and all sides would be visible from an observer on the earth.
SGW, you keep getting confused about “translational motion”. The Moon’s motion is translational. It appears to turn because of the resultant forces. It’s orbit is somewhat circular, duh!
The simplest model is pulling a child’s wagon in a large circle (orbit). In one complete lap, to an observer outside the orbit, the wagon appears to “rotate on its own axis”. But, it is only being pulled around its orbit.
I know its hard to think for yourself, but the rewards are worth the effort.
You’ll thank me later….
JD,
You are the stupidest person on this planet. I gave you MULTIPLE references regarding translation. An object translating does NOT change is orientation. It always faces the same direction, It just changes position.
Now go away you ignorant troll. You obviously do not have the mental capabliity to understand simple kinematics.
skeptic….”In your graphic, the moon has rotated 360 degrees on its axis for each orbit. If it did not rotate, it would be exhibiting pure translational motion, and all sides would be visible from an observer on the earth”.
Rotation about an axis requires angular momentum about the axis. In that case, people on Earth could see all aspects of the Moon’s surface through 360 degrees, but they can’t.
What you are talking about is a rotational translation of axes taking place while one axis is attached to a turning body. In effect, you can call that a rotation of axis wrt the Moon but that is not the initial premise, which was that the Moon is not turning on it’s axis.
If you draw a coordinate axis trough the Moon on the left gif, and attach one end to the Earth to represent tidal locking, the Moon will rotate once as it orbits the Earth, but not wrt it’s own axis.
However, that is a purely technical argument to get around the original premise that the Moon is not turning on its axis. The black spot on the Moon in the left gif remains in the same spot wrt the Earth therefore it is impossible for the Moon to turn on it’s own axis.
[“If you draw a coordinate axis trough the Moon on the left gif, and attach one end to the Earth to represent tidal locking, the Moon will rotate once as it orbits the Earth, but not wrt its own axis.”]
Wrong. The moon’s rotation about its own axis can be clearly seen if you place a north arrow through the origin of the coordinate system. You will observe the moon spinning around the north arrow.
[“The black spot on the Moon in the left gif remains in the same spot wrt the Earth therefore it is impossible for the Moon to turn on its own axis.”]
Wrong. Completely backwards. The black spot remains in the same spot wrt the earth because the moon constantly rotates so the black spot DOES point towards earth. Get some glasses. The gif on the left clearly shows the moon rotating about its axis. You have everything backwards. You don’t accept the definition of translation either, just as JD.
In the gif on the right, that moon is exhibiting pure translational motion per the strict kinematic definition. That moon just changes its position when orbiting. If you place an arrow pointing north through that moon, that arrow remains pointing in the same direction throughout the orbit, which is the definition of translational motion:
“Translation: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position.”
[http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
Gordon, you seem deeply confused. The larger platform does not represent the earth! The earth does not “turn under the Moon” (in real life or in this analogy).
The earth would be represented by a second small platform sitting at the center of the larger platform. This ‘earth platform’ could rotate at 0 RPM or 1 RPM or 6 RPM or 30 RPM and never see the back of the ‘moon platform’ (assuming the moon platform indeed rotates at the same rate it revolves).
No Tim, you’ve got yourself so confused with all your rotating platforms that don’t rotate. You can’t even model “orbiting” motion. A simple child’s wagon pulled in a large circle correctly models “orbiting”.
Learn some physics.
The moon has phases, it goes from a completely illuminated full moon to a completely dark new moon.
So it is spinning relative to the sun.
Therefore it is rotating on its axis.
If it wasn’t spinning we would be able to see the whole surface of the moon, not just the half we do see.
Now I will have to listen to some Floyd “Dark Side of the Moon”
How many science subjects can you flunk on one blog?
bob, the orbit of the Moon exposes all sides to the Sun. It is NOT rotating on its own axis.
That’s why we only see one side from Earth.
Nope JD,
The fact that the Moon is rotating on its axis is what exposes all of its sides to the Sun.
Keep on holding on to being wrong with the Kung-Fu death grip.
I admire your stubbornness but not your critical thinking skills.
Go buy an introductory astronomy text and send me the bill.
Just your me your credit card info–much faster!
2493 0987 2539 2465 exp 08 34 secret code 454
VISA, or MC?
bob…”The fact that the Moon is rotating on its axis is what exposes all of its sides to the Sun”.
This is about your lack of comprehension. The initial premise posed was not a rotation wrt the Sun but a rotation wrt the Moon’s axis.
The Sun sees all sides because the Earth is turning with the Moon tidally-locked, however, the Moon is not turning on its axis. If it was, it could not be tidally-locked, then observers from Earth could also see all sides of the Moon.
American Express, never leave home without it.
Gordon, the moon is of course rotating with respect to its own axis, that’s why it turns and exposes all of its surface to the sun.
If it wasn’t spinning it couldn’t do that.
bobd…”So it is spinning relative to the sun.
Therefore it is rotating on its axis”.
Not so. The Moon is being held with one face to a rotating body as it orbits the body. That’s why the Sun sees a different perspective.
The Moon is not spinning, it is being held with one face to the Earth. As it orbits the Earth with the same face pointed to the Earth, the Sun sees different aspects of the Moon’s surface but not because the Moon is turning around its own axis.
tim…”The earth does not turn under the Moon (in real life or in this analogy)”.
In one month, the Moon orbits the Earth once. In the same time period, the Earth turns 30 times. If you want to be more concise we can agree that the Earth is turning within the orbit of the Moon.
If the Moon was rotating on its axis, just once in that 30 days, we’d be able to see every surface on the Moon around it’s entire circumference.
Wrong again, Tim.
Your mistake is not correctly modeling the orbital motion. You have unnecessary complicated the issue to help with your spin. (It’s amazing how pseudoscience has to always go to some “ideal” device, like frictionless bearings, or black bodies.)
The simple example of pulling a child’s wagon in a large circle is “orbiting”. There is NO “rotating on its own axis”. The wagon is orbiting, just as is the Moon.
The simple action of orbiting APPEARS as “rotating on its own axis”, but it is an illusion. To test, just stop pulling the wagon. The ONE action stops, and there is not other motion.
It’s amazing how hard it is for people to think for themselves.
JD, I think I said this once before. You are welcome to create and promote your own definition of “orbit” relative to various rates of rotation and revolution. With your definition, neither the moon nor the wagon need to ‘rotate’ to keep the same side facing inward.
Just don’t expect others to accept your definition. Your simplistic definition has some visceral appeal to be sure. But ultimately it is much less useful than the way that NASA (along with all of physics and all of engineering) chooses to define ‘orbit”. It is much more useful to say the moon both rotates and revolves.
Tim, how is it “useful” to misrepresent reality?
tim…”But ultimately it is much less useful than the way that NASA (along with all of physics and all of engineering) chooses to define orbit. It is much more useful to say the moon both rotates and revolves”.
I studied the related physics in engineering and you are wrong, JD is right.
It’s not at all useful to claim the Moon rotates about its axis when it doesn’t. On this page on orbital mechanics, you can clearly see that the Moon is not rotating about it’s axis. If it was the acceleration and velocity vectors would be rotating through 360 degrees as the Moon orbited the Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics#/media/File:Orbital_motion.gif
Of course, those vectors would apply if the Moon was rotating about its axis, due to the fluid nature of gravitational force. However, we know the Moon is tidally-locked and that would be represented by the acceleration vector as in the gif.
Gordon, this Moon/axis issue is a great example of what pseudoscience has done to people’s ability to think for themselves. It really doesn’t take much knowledge of physics to figure it out, but people are intimidated by those magic 4 letters–N, A, S, and A!
It’s the Moon, so NASA must know, right?
That was the “old” NASA. All this NASA knows is how to wangle for funding.
” studied the related physics in engineering and you are wrong, JD is right.”
Gordon, just go back to the university where you learned physics and ask ANY professor of physics or engineering. All will agree that the moon rotates. ; none will agree with you.
***************************************
One more simple demo.
1) put a quarter on a tabletop.
2) put a penny a few inches away on the tabletop.
3) put your finger on the penny
4) move the penny in a circle clockwise around the quarter.
The penny is
a) rotating clockwise on its own axis.
b) rotating anticlockwise on its own axis.
c) not rotating on its own axis.
Tim, it depends on the force you apply with your finger. You still don’t get it.
Study the link Gordon provided above on “Orbital mechanics”.
And your point about asking a “university” professor is a non-starter. The possibility of finding a modern professor that actually understood physics would be about a one in 10 chance!
“And your point about asking a university professor is a non-starter. The possibility of finding a modern professor that actually understood physics would be about a one in 10 chance!”
Yeah, and “The possibility of finding a modern professor that actually understood my Made Up Physics would be about a one in 10 chance!”
and “The possibility of finding a modern professor that actually understood the Flat Earth would be about a one in 10 chance!”
and “”The possibility of finding a modern professor that actually understood the Sasquatch would be about a one in 10 chance!”
Nate, please stop trolling.
Looking at your gif, the acceleration vector is clearly rotating.
And the wiki page on orbital mechanics is not discussion rotation.
discussing rotation
JDHuffman and Gordon,
The link to “orbital mechanics” explains only why the moon doesn’t fly off to space or fall to Earth. It doesn’t take into account that the Earth is rotating 27 or so times during one cycle of the moon’s orbit. For each rotation of the earth, the moon moves 1/27 of its orbital cycle. To keep its near side facing Earth it has to rotate once every 27 days or so. This is called synchronous rotation caused by tidal locking as people have been trying to explain to you.
JD, the moon is not tethered to the Earth like a tennis ball on a yardstick or the nose on your face. You do discredit yourself as knowledgeable on any other subject by continuing to argue the moon doesn’t rotate. Look up “synchronous rotation” and admit you were mistaken.
Gordon, I would do the same if I were you.
Chic, like everyone else, you are just regurgitating the “institutionalized pseudoscience”. There is NO “synchronous rotation”. It’s an illusion.
The link to “orbital mechanics” explains the forces on a body in orbit. It is clear that such forces do NOT cause rotation about its own axis.
Do your homework, and think for yourself.
Thinking for myself. Wow, what a concept! /sarc off.
Picture a carousel (at a good distance from either pole) and imagine yourself walking around it while continuing to face north. Imagine you are using a compass to make sure you don’t rotate off course. Anyone on the carousel will see all sides of you as long as the carousel is rotating at least as fast as you are orbiting. Now walk around the carousel keeping one side facing the carousel. Your compass will go through 360 degrees and return to due north as you complete one orbit. If you still think you haven’t rotated, imagine the carousel gone and keep orbiting around the axis that the carousel was rotating around. Keep your left side toward the axis and continue orbiting closer and closer to the axis. When you get to the axis, notice that you are rotating on it.
Chic, there are two different motions involved, “orbiting”, and “rotating on its own axis”.
If you walk around a tree, that is a model of “orbiting”. You were NOT rotating around your center of gravity. You were walking in a circle.
Most of the folks that are having trouble with this cannot understand the basic motions.
And many don’t want to go against the “institutionalized pseudoscience”.
That’s why the issue is so fascinating. It parallels with the IPCC/AGW nonsense, as well as other pseudoscience.
“If you walk around a tree, that is a model of “orbiting”. You were NOT rotating around your center of gravity. You were walking in a circle.”
I can see from this response that it is you not understanding the basic motions.
As I tried to point out with my carousel example, there are two ways to walk around a tree. You can walk around with the same arm facing the tree at all times or you can walk around awkwardly, but without rotating, by remaining oriented in one direction. The moon doesn’t do the latter, because if it did we would see its dark side as often as the near side. We see only the near side of the moon, because the moon is slowly rotating once each orbit just like walking once around the tree.
You do believe in a moon landing, don’t you?
Chic, you see, but you don’t see.
Walking around the tree, same arm always facing the tree, is “orbiting”, as I indicated. That is the motion of the Moon.
You seem to understand that simple motion, but cannot accept it.
Just Dumb does not even know what “orbiting” means. LMAO.
Definition of “orbit”:
“The path of a celestial body or an artificial satellite as it revolves around another body.”
It’s just the path, you moron. “Orbiting” means some object is following an orbital path. “Orbiting” supplies no information on whether the object exhibits pure translation while orbiting, or whether is rotates on its axis while orbiting.
You cannot even get the simple basics.
SGW, you must believe words like “dumb” and “moron” will make up for your lack of knowledge of physics.
How’s that working?
tim…”Just dont expect others to accept your definition”.
JD is using the correct definition of orbit for this context. This is an orbit induced by a gravitational force which draws the Moon to the Earth. The Moon’s angular momentum keep it in orbit with the orbit being the resultant between gravitational acceleration and the Moon’s angular momentum.
The child on the wagon is a reasobale example of the situation absent a centripetal acceleration with the momentum being supplied directly by the force from the person puling the wagon.
However, as JD pointed out, stop the wagon and see if it is turning in circles.
As you pointed out, the same side always points in. Furthermore, the wagon is not rotating about a centre of gravity. Same with the Moon.
You and others are getting far too carried away with technical arguments and abstractions.
Stick to the original premise, that the Moon is not turning on its axis.
Hammer throw illustrates object rotating on its axis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWmpwiHCFaM
Ball at end of cable is attached to the cable. JD says ball cannot rotate on its axis. But when the guy releases the cable, the hammer (or ball) spins around because it was spinning on its own axis before being released.
Very creative, SGW. But your physics is wrong, as usual. The tether is being pulled by the ball, so it has to contend with the energy at release.
In fact, the hammer throw is a perfect example that orbital motion is NOT capable of producing “rotating on its own axis”.
More examples to prove me right, please.
Pointless to respond to your rubbish.
SGW, don’t forget:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323246
skeptic…”Ball at end of cable is attached to the cable. JD says ball cannot rotate on its axis”.
This represent a lever action where the thrower imparts moments to the ball due to leverage from the handle or chain.
Why don’t you answer the initial question? Is the Moon rotating about a central axis while one side is tidally locked to the Earth’s surface? If so, how can it rotate with an angular momentum if one side is tidally-locked?
Gordon,
You cannot transmit moments down a chain or cable. Sheesh. Ever try jacking up a car using a chain or cable as the lever arm? And you claim to have taken engineering courses? Between the handle and the cable there is a metal loop as well. So there is no way moments can be transmitted down the cable.
If this guy was throwing the hammer in outer space, the ball would keep rotating until some equal and opposite inertial force reduced or stopped the rotation. Newtons law.
If someone switched off gravity, the Moon would continue in a straight line, still “not rotating on its own axis”.
“If someone switched off gravity, the Moon would continue in a straight line, still ‘not rotating on its own axis’.”
Thinking about that carefully is worthwhile, JD. How do you know that?
As has been mentioned many times (and I think you agreed?), someone standing on the North pole of the moon sees the stars circling around over 27 days.
So they should conclude that either the stars or the moon is spinning.
Now if gravity were turned off, and the moon continued in a straight line path, what would the person see?
The stars would suddenly stop going around? You would be saying that either the Moon or the stars have suddenly stopped spinning. But that would cause a BIG PROBLEM for conserving angular momentum.
Nate still can not understand the two basic motions: “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
In a lunar day, the stars would appear to rotate, as viewed from the Moon. That APPARENT movement is due to the Moon’s orbital path. The Moon does NOT “rotate on its own axis”.
That’s why, if gravity were turned off, the Moon would travel off in only translation motion. That’s the only motion it has.
(Nate is an anonymous super-clown, that adds no value to a discussion. I now have a policy of ignoring such behavior. I only respond when he tries to alter reality, as here.)
But then, that would cause a BIG PROBLEM for conserving angular momentum.
Just as, if you are holding a long pole with some weight out horizontally, and you try to spin. You will find that the pole will initially resist that motion. It will require torque to get it going.
Same thing if you now stop spinning, the pole will resist stopping its rotation. Its got angular momentum.
Now while spinning with the pole, let it go. Does it stop its rotation as it flies through the air?
No it won’t, because of its angular momentum.
But this is another idea from mainstream science, like reference frames, or rigid body dynamics, or astronomy. So you will likely dismiss it.
Nate, don’t try to act nice, just so you can get me to respond. Like Norman, you have NO credibility. If I spend time, trying to explain, you will just end up misrepresenting my words and making false accusations. You’ve done it too many times.
Before I will waste anytime with you, on this subject, you must admit that a horse running an oval track is NOT rotating on its own axis.
If you cannot embrace that reality, then you’re not worth responding to.
JD,
Lets face it, it’s hard to rebut mainstream physics. Easier just to blame it on the messenger.
Let’s face REALITY, Nate, not “it”.
The reality is that you cannot admit the horse is not rotating on it axis. You can’t admit it because you know it would squash your pseudoscience.
Reality ALWAYS squashes pseudoscience.
JD…”Nate still can not understand the two basic motions: “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis””.
All the alarmists have this problem, the inability to see issues clearly. When you corner them with absolute evidence, like the times I have cornered Barry with direct evidence from NOAA and the IPCC, they come back with obfuscations and red herring arguments.
Not one alarmist can see the obvious, that a tidally-locked Moon cannot turn on it’s own axis. They are using obfuscations related to imaginary axes elsewhere. That’s what they do with their AGW claims as well.
skeptic…”You cannot transmit moments down a chain or cable. Sheesh. Ever try jacking up a car using a chain or cable as the lever arm? ”
If you have a cable or chain of significant mass attached to a ball of significant weight, and you swing it around your head and release it, the mass of the cable or chain, with the handle at the end of either, will act as a mass rotating around the ball and give it torque.
Unless, of course, you can release the combo so the chain or cable is trailing behind the ball, which is unlikely. When you swing a hammer/chain assy, you impart torque to the entire system and when released, the chain will tend to turn around the ball.
It depends on the mass of the chain/cable. If you swung a 10 lb fishing weight using a strong leader line, the leader would likely drag behind the weight. However, the hammers used in sports have either a chain with significant mass or a rigid handle with significant mass. In either case, the chain/handle will cause the ball to turn in flight.
“Before I will waste anytime with you, on this subject, you must admit that a horse running an oval track is NOT rotating on its own axis.”
So that captures the essence of your argument. Just look at it (the horse, the toy train, the moon). It just IS NOT rotating. It is only orbiting.
That’s it. Just an assertion. Just belief. No science at all. Really it is just you labeling something the way you see it
Nothing to rebut the science-based arguments that people have brought up many times:
Reference frames. YOU: They don’t matter.
Laws of rigid body dynamics. YOU: Don’t trust mainstream science.
Conservation of angular momentum. YOU: Nada. Or its more mainstream science so safe to ignore.
To summarize. Science based arguments don’t matter to you.
Your belief trumps science.
Thats ok. There is no real consequence for your belief. Enjoy your delusions.
G: “When you swing a hammer/chain assy, you impart torque to the entire system and when released, the chain will tend to turn around the ball.”
At least Gordon recognizes the reality of an experiment and tries to explain it.
Try to explain this experiment Gordon.
“If you are holding a long pole with some weight out horizontally, and you try to spin. You will find that the pole will initially resist that motion. It will require torque to get it going.
Same thing if you now stop spinning, the pole will resist stopping its rotation. Its got angular momentum.
Now while spinning with the pole, let it go. Does it stop its rotation as it flies through the air?
No it wont, because of its angular momentum.”
It’s funny when clowns like Nate get tangled up in their own pseudoscience.
“Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.”
https://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking/
nate…”So that captures the essence of your argument. Just look at it (the horse, the toy train, the moon). It just IS NOT rotating. It is only orbiting.
That’s it. Just an assertion. Just belief. No science at all. Really it is just you labeling something the way you see it”
Could you try being less obtuse? In science, a rotating body about a central axis MUST have angular momentum about that axis. The Moon has no angular momentum about its central axis.
Case closed.
Gordon,
“In science, a rotating body about a central axis MUST have angular momentum about that axis. The Moon has no angular momentum about its central axis.
Case closed.”
Stating ‘Moon has no angular momentum’ is just like JD saying ‘look at the horse, it is NOT rotating’
Again, experiments show otherwise. Hold a broom out sideways and spin. When the broom is pointing North, let go.
When the broom has landed on the ground, is it still pointing North?
Result: No it is not.
It has continued to rotate as it flew thru the air because it did have angular momentum, just like the Moon does.
Of course this makes perfect sense. Clearly the far end of the broom was moving faster than the near end in my hand. When I let go, this difference in speed is maintained, thus the broom MUST spin.
“Over time, the Earths gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.”
Written by a publisher-who is not himself a scientist. He can be forgiven for not being precise.
“Stopped” in this case clearly means stopped relative to a rotating frame of reference, rotating with the moon around the Earth.
But JD, you think reference frames don’t matter. They do.
Nate tries to use throwing a broom as meaningful “evidence” that the Moon is rotating on its own axis.
Obviously he’s never heard of spears and javelins.
Next, he tries to debunk his own pseudoscience. That’s always funny.
skeptic….”Ball at end of cable is attached to the cable. JD says ball cannot rotate on its axis. But when the guy releases the cable, the hammer (or ball) spins around because it was spinning on its own axis before being released”.
No it wasn’t, and you can see that clearly in this hammer throw. The guy releases the ball while it is perpendicular to his rotation, which is a path tangential to the curve of the ball. If he released the ball before that point, or after it, the ball would veer off right or left.
You can see his finger are extended at that point with his grip released.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WooCZNY6pE
When the ball is released it is moving tangential to its path and moving straight down it’s path. It is the mass of the chain and the handle that gives it torque and causes it to turn once through its flight.
As the thrower turns, the ball cannot turn about it’s own axis because it is attached by the chain. When it is released it is not turning either and the thrower releases it before he can add any torque.
Note that when the ball hits the ground that it does not spin at all, it rolls forward. That indicates it’s momentum is in that direction, exactly the same momentum as when it was released.
Gordon tells us: “When the ball is released..causes (the ball) to turn once”
Then Gordon tells us: “When (the ball) is released it is not turning either”
Gordon’s fantasy physics is revealed whenever Gordon can’t keep consistent the imaginary facts in a comment.
skeptic….here’s the explanation.
As the ball is released, the chain is on the thrower’s side of the ball. Look closely, and you can see the ball going dead straight. As it moves, it pulls the chain straight but the chain gains an angular momentum as it is pulled in an arc from the thrower’s side to straight behind the ball.
Due to it’s angular momentum, the chain cannot follow the ball in a straight line so it keeps moving CCW past a straight line. That momentum turns the ball.
Again, follow the ball by using the pause button as it is released. It goes dead straight with no spin. It does not spin till the chain swings around behind it CCW and carries on CCW.
ball4…”Gordon tells us: When the ball is released..causes (the ball) to turn once
Then Gordon tells us: When (the ball) is released it is not turning either”
Nice cherry-pick.
I said the ball is traveling straight along it’s tangential path when released and is not rotating. You can see the chain slip in behind it in a straight line as the ball pulls on it. Then the momentum of the chain, and handle, carry on CCW, causing the ball to rotate once over its flight.
Gordon,
We would not be having this conversation if you really had taken the engineering and physics courses you claim to have taken.
There is only tension in the cable. No torque. An object cannot just start spinning on its own. The ball was rotating on its axis prior to release. Tension in the cable cannot cause the ball to spin. That tension force is acting right through the center of the ball.
If the guy took 1 second to make one rotation of the hammer, and assuming the rotation is constant, then the angular velocity of the ball would be 2pi radians per second. And that would be the angular velocity of the ball when released, which is why it continues to spin on its own axis when released.
Gordon,
You ever watch dirt track racing:
https://tinyurl.com/y7lwrl
Why do you think the rear end of the car is spinning out CCW on a CCW turn. And why does the car completely spin out CCW when it loses complete traction? It was rotating on its own axis prior to spinning out. This is simple kinematics/mechanics. You should know better.
SGW says: “It was rotating on its own axis prior to spinning out.”
NOPE! It was in translational motion before the tires lost traction, changing the dynamics.
But, SGW stumbles into another trap of his own making. A car in “spinout’ is NOW “rotating on its axis”. Which means the car would appear as spinning to viewers both outside the track and inside the track. That is how true “rotating on its own axis” would appear. Before the spinout, it was clearly NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
SGW steps in his own pseudoscience, again.
“Before the spinout, it was clearly NOT “rotating on its own axis”.”
In the straightaway. Then the car started to turn in the turn moving both in translation & rotation.
Humorously JD steps in his own pseudoscience, again, and again and again..
Just out of curiosity, Ball4, what drugs are you on?
You can tell us, after all, you’re an anonymous addict.
nate…”Cool. Ren wins, Gordon loses on being concise”.
Anyone who can discuss a complex physics concept in a few words does not understand the concept and does not have the ability to convey meaning.
ren’s first language is Polish, as far as I know, so you would not expect him to write verbose comments.
Besides, I don’t see any signs on Roy’s blog limiting us to 25 words or less. In the old days of the BBS and early Internet, disk storage was pricey and hard to come by in volume. That’s not an issue today.
Einstein:
“You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
DA…”Einstein:
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
That means Einstein screwed up with relativity. His presumption that the human invention of time, coupled with the delusive human mind is a basis for observing relative motion was clearly wrong.
Einstein did not invent relativity, it was well established in Newtonian physics. With bodies in relative motion at terrestrial speeds, anyone can calculate the motion of a body on a separate reference frame using translating axes and common math. Einstein tried to extend that to bodies traveling near the speed of light, which included atomic processes.
I am not arguing about his basic math in GRT, I am arguing against the stupid conclusions reached via thought experiments that time can dilate, lengths can change, and that time represents a 4th dimension in space-time.
The notion of space-time has reached the stage of the ridiculous. We now have nimrod professors teaching in universities that gravity is not a force, rather it is related to space-time.
That comes directly from Einstein regarding acceleration as an independent phenomenon and ignoring the forces that drive acceleration. Such is the milieu of thought-experimenters. Sometimes they cannot see the forest for the trees.
The fact that lengths can change with speed pre-dates Einstein.
Lorentz, Michelson-Morley, and Fitzgerald if you are into googling the shoulders Einstein stood on.
Einstein did fully explain it as part of the Special Theory of Relativity.
bobd…”Lorentz, Michelson-Morley, and Fitzgerald if you are into googling the shoulders Einstein stood on”.
Lorentz, in particular, put out a formula for relative motion based on the presumption that time dilated and lengths changed as speeds neared the SOL.
Has it occurred to you that the equation of Lorentz was wrong, hence Einstein was wrong by relying on it?
Show me a significant use of GRT that can be applied at the SOL. It’s big claim to fame was the explanation of the retro motion of Mercury, which seemed to stop in it’s orbit, move back a ways, then carry on.
That could have easily been done using Newtonian relativity equations. The retro motion is an illusion of the human mind as we move on Earth and observe Mercury in relative motion.
Why did no one notice that the human mind is faulty in that regard, especially Einstein, when he presumed time, a human invention based on the rotational period of the Earth, could change with velocity?
Can you not see that yourself? The second is a sub-division of a period measured from Sun up one day till Sun up the next day. That period was divided by 86,400 to get one second.
That means time is absolute since it is based on an angular velocity that is absolute. If time dilates, the angular velocity of the planet must change.
Since time as 1/86400 of the Earth’s rotational period is also the distance turned on the Equator during the second, it means if length can change with velocity, then the measure of the Earth’s circumference must change.
The kilometre is defined as a fraction of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator. If length can change with velocity then the distance from the NP to the Equator must change.
I am sorry, Einstein proved himself to be a great man but this has to be treated as his greatest blunder. He gave time physical properties that enabled it to affect real physical properties and he relied on the distorted human mind, prone to illusions, to determine motion on a separate frame, using time as an independent variable.
Why should one of two identical clocks run at a different rate in another frame if both are synchronized to the rotation of the Earth?
Why should one of a human set of twins age faster than another because he is traveling on another reference frame? Humans age due to cellular changes which have nothing to do with time as a causal factor.
I am afraid GRT is a thought-experiment running out of control based on stupid assumptions.
It’s not “thought experiments”.
GPS satellites incorporate relativity to produce accurate results.
Mercury’s orbit can be calculated accurately with relativity, but not with classical mechanics.
Particle accelerators confirm relativity daily.
The list goes on and on.
Gordon Robertson does not accept any experimental data that contradicts his opinions.
I have linked him to many but he makes fun of the videos without having the slightest ability to understand them.
gallopingcamel gave Gordon Robertson first hand example of mass increase as electrons approach light speed. The people building and designing particle accelerators must take relativity into account for the machine to work. No amount of real evidence can convince Gordon. He is immune. You can try but you will find you are wasting time.
Gordon is not the least bit interested in any science. He comes here to peddle his religion. I don’t think he has a clue of what science is or how it works. Both JDHuffman and Gordon Robertson make declarations (which go against experimental physics and real world observations) and think people on this blog will believe them. They have a couple converts here and there, mostly people that have zero science background.
tim…”GPS satellites incorporate relativity to produce accurate results”.
There is no GRT used in GPS systems. There’s no need for it. Communications between the sats and the ground stations is done via several electronic signals which serve to synchronize the atomic clocks on the sats and the clocks on the surface.
The sats use their own time based system and the ground stations are synced to Greenwich. All that’s required to keep sat clocks and ground clocks synced is the information transmitted/received by each via the electronic signals.
We have excellent electronic devices these days to do all that automatically then output an error signal which is beamed back to the sats.
Remember, electron signals travel at the speed of light.
Sorry, Gordon, but you are several steps behind in your understanding of the details of GPS.
“To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy. ”
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
“A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects that would render the system useless if uncorrected.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity
Tim and Gordon are both correct here, but for different reasons.
Tim is correct that “corrections” are made to the GPS system for relativistic effects.
Gordon is correct that those “corrections” are not “proof” of either GR or SR.
The final GPS calculation contains enough errors that the “corrections” for relativity are lost in the “soup”.
tim…”Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth’s mass is less than it is at the Earth’s surface”.
You linked to an astronomer who provides us with this gem:
“Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth’s mass is less than it is at the Earth’s surface”.
Curvature of spacetime???? What is curving, other than an illusion in the mind of the believer? There is no substance to curve. This is bs of the highest order.
We know for a fact that time is based on the rotation of the Earth. The second is 1/86400 of the period of rotation. That is 60 sec/min x 60 min/hour x 24 hours/day = 86400 seconds/day.
TIME IS FIXED. TIME IS ABSOLUTE. Einstein and ridiculous assumptions based on GRT, like spacetime, are wrong.
It’s absolute bs that spacetime exists let alone that it varies with altitude above the Earth. Gravity is a force, obviously related to the charges in atoms, or some atomic force of which we are not aware. Gravitational force travels much faster than light. It takes 8 minutes for light to reach the Earth from the Sun but the gravitational force is instantaneous.
There is no proof whatsoever that clocks are affected by gravitational force. Maybe with a rusty old spring-based alarm, gravity may have an effect on it’s action but I highly doubt that gravity would affect the atoms in an atomic clock to affect their vibration.
If it does happen, so what? Time as we know it is fixed to the rotational period of the planet.
I have expertise in the electronics used in communications and I can tell you right now that no electronic equipment can measure a dilation of time. As I told you, such bogus theories are not required.
Sats use an atomic clock as the base of a time system used on sats. It is a different time system than the system used on the surface, which must comply with Greenwich time. Yes, there will be errors between the two due to internal errors in the clocks as well as relativity considerations but none of those errors is related to this bs about time dilation.
The sats are constantly streaming several data signals packed with info on altitude, speed, time, etc. The ground stations as well as GPS receivers are receiving this data but the ground stations are streaming data back at the sats.
The signals are locked to each other through phase-locked loops or whatever they use and errors signals are sent both ways. There is electronics on each end to process the error signals and make corrections.
That’s all you need.
Airliners use a similar system. The airliner has a transponder that transmits data regarding its altitude, location, time, etc. Ground radar receives that data on a separate antenna on the radar sail and processes it along with the radar’s position detection to give a blip on the radar screen along with the ID of the airliner.
JD…”Tim is correct that corrections are made to the GPS system for relativistic effects”.
I have stated that in the past and I agree with it. With two bodies in motion there has to be adjustments for relative speed. With today’s electronics, however, there is no problem tracking signals sent from satellites and locking onto them.
That’s been going on since WWII when radar was developed. Planes would send out a signal which ground stations received and the ground radar would lock onto them. That’s done with servo mechanisms.
For bobdroege, Tim Folkerts
The most incredible thing is that this ignorant boaster recently was also brazenly enough to insult and discredit the people who made the work described here:
Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed
Benjamin Botermann & al. 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.7951.pdf
The peon at the anti-matter factory says thanks, I’ll take a look at the paper.
binny…”The most incredible thing is that this ignorant boaster recently was also brazenly enough to insult and discredit the people who made the work described here:”
I have only pointed out the obvious. They are not measuring time dilation they are measuring something else which they have mistaken for time dilation.
Again, time is derived from the orbital period of the Earth. If time dilates it means the planet must change its angular velocity.
Take Newton II for example, which is written f = ma. It means that a mass will accelerate from rest when a force is applied provided the force is great enough to move the mass from rest and there are no opposing forces to counter the motion.
If we write the equation as a = f/m with a = d^2s/d^2t then we can theoretically manipulate the equation so it is in terms of t = whatever.
That is absolute nonsense, t does not even exist and it is fixed by the Earth’s rotational period. Both Einstein and Lorentz argued that time is not absolute, that it can vary, but neither offered an experiment to prove that.
The paper at the link you posed claims to prove that, making them incredibly naive. There are obviously forces and masses involved that change, but not time.
That’s what happens when you kiss butt to thought-experiments that become paradigms. You start talking nonsense.
DA…”In a reference frame rotating at the same rate as the Earth with its axis of rotation in the same direction, the Earth is not rotating. Of course”.
Are you serious? That’s the same mistake made by Einstein in his relativity theory.
Reality should not be observed from the perspective of a human observer unless the observer is fully aware of the imperfections of the human mind. The human mind is too full of garbage and bias, not to mention that it’s prone to illusion. The human observer must remove himself/herself from the observation and view reality as a machine might see it.
That would require sitting down at a table and drawing out the correct perspective. Had Einstein done that with relativity he would have seen immediately that Newton was right and that time is not only absolute, it does not exist.
If I was a machine, which I regret to tell you I’m not, and I was rotating around a local axis while another machine was rotating around a different axis, are you trying to tell me neither machine could detect that it is turning?
What you are describing is a distortion in the human observer’s mind which prevents him/her observing relative motion correctly.
Einstein somehow began with the wrong assumption that time is measured by the hands on a clock. Rather, a period of time is constrained due to its definition based on the constant rotational period of the Earth upon which it is defined. Einstein thought time could expand and contract which would require the Earth’s angular velocity to speed up and slow down.
In the same manner, you as the observer turning on Earth while observing another rotation on a separate reference frame may have the illusion that the Earth is not turning.
We suffer that illusion every day. We think the Sun is rising and setting between which extremes it is orbiting the Earth. With such a mind making observations of relative motion, is it any wonder Einstein screwed up by basing his observations on time?
Replace the human observer in your example with a machine capable of detecting angular velocity in both reference frames and you will see that both bodies are turning. Put a similar machine on the Moon and it will detect no angular velocity wrt it’s own axis.
Gordo wrote more nonsense:
How about placing a camera at the pole, pointed up. Take a long time exposure photograph. On Earth, this will show the stars appearing to move in a circular path, which indicates the rotation of the Earth in an inertial reference frame. Do the same on the Moon and won would expect to see a similar photo, though a longer exposure time would be required.
“Orbiting” versus “rotating on its own axis”, ES.
Orbital motions are hard to fathom, for some….
swannie…”Take a long time exposure photograph. On Earth, this will show the stars appearing to move in a circular path, which indicates the rotation of the Earth in an inertial reference frame. Do the same on the Moon and won would expect to see a similar photo, though a longer exposure time would be required”.
The Earth actually is turning and a person lacking awareness might be deluded into thinking the heavens were turning. I have been doing a lot of this lately and it’s mind bending to stand on a tangential frame on Earth at Vancouver Canada and figure out what is what.
If you put the same camera on the Moon it would trace out an arc around the heavens as the Earth turned, with the Moon tidally-locked to it. On Earth, you would point the camera at the Polar Star and the Earth’s rotation would view the heavens around it. With the Moon on a similar orbital plane to the planets, you’d see an entirely different part of the sky but it would not appear to be circling the Moon’s north pole.
Gordo, Photographic evidence of the Earth’s rotation in the celestial inertial reference frame is widely available. For example, HERE’s a nice YOUTUBE video, shot in the Southern Hemisphere. Photographing the sky from the Moon would also show similar evidence of rotation, except that the time lapse period would need to be longer to include the Moon’s slower rate of rotation. The fact that the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth does not change the fact that the Moon rotates WRT the stars. Orbiting is the path of the center of mass, not rotation of the body.
ES, the Moon would “see” the stars appear to be rotating, due to its orbital motion. The Moon definitely has an orbital motion. But, it does NOT “rotate on its own axis”.
Two distinct motions, you’re encouraged to learn about them.
HuffingMan, When I worked (briefly) building satellites, I took a course in Dynamics, which was a graduate level course at University. As we were working on attitude control systems, we had to understand the meaning of an “inertial reference frame”. Orbital motion describes the translation of the center of mass of a body as it moves around a larger mass under the influence of gravity. Rotation has nothing to do with translation of the C.G. of the body.
As you note, “the Moon would “see” the stars appear to be rotating…”, which is proof of the Moon’s rotation in the inertial reference frame defined by the field of distant stars.
ES, you seem to be trying to agree with me, while not agreeing with me.
So, just so you can be clear:
Yes or no, “Is the Moon rotating on its own axis”?
Every astronomer in the world knows the Moon rotates.
But somehow Ger*an* thinks he’s smarter than all of the.
I don’t really consider myself smart, DA.
I just have an appreciation for reality.
You dont need a complex machine. A Foucault pendulum would suffice.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
Its plane of oscillation would rotate at high lunar latitudes, as it does on Earth.
???? Of course Einstein realized that time is relative.
pochas…”???? Of course Einstein realized that time is relative”.
And he was wrong. Time is derived from the period of the Earth’s rotation and the second, being a small fraction of that period, is fixed. Newton was right.
Gordon thinks he can say Einstein is wrong.
Even though Einstein’s physics agrees with every experiment and observation ever conducted.
And Gordon’s physis are so stupid even a beginning physics student can see through him.
Gordon is too dumb to know even how dumb he is.
Is there a word for this dumb, stupid state?
DA…”Gordon thinks he can say Einstein is wrong”.
Are you disagreeing that the second is based on the rotation of the Earth. Einstein declared in his GRT that time is the hands on a clock.
He should have looked past that to see what it really is, then he would have gotten it, like Newton, that time is absolute.
I say that Einstein was wrong and Newton was right. In fact, as scientific researchers go, Newton was light years ahead of Einstein, who was solely a thought-experimenter.
One critique of Einstein by an expert in time was that Einstein did not understand measurement techniques. That’s plain when you consider that the second is a fraction of a period determined by a constant velocity, which can also be measured as an equivalent distance around the Earth’s circumference.
Therefore, if distance can change due to relativity, and time can dilate, the angular velocity of the Earth must change.
“The second has been defined as exactly 9,192,631,770 times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom”.
Some call it, “Appell-itis”.
MODTRAN6 http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot is a computer program developed for the Airforce Research Laboratory which (besides other things) can calculate the radiation flux in the atmosphere for specified constituents and conditions. It contains default values for several environments including the 1976 Standard Atmosphere. Radiation profiles at several altitudes, as calculated by MODTRAN6, are shown at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dku9fr1V4AUVdU_.jpg
However, this figure is misleading; especially below about 10 km. Approximately 161 W/m2 of solar energy reaches the solid and liquid surfaces of the planet. A few meters above the surface, the energy leaving the surface includes about 71 W/m2 from heat of vaporization of water (annual rainfall averages about a meter and what comes down had to have gone up). Another 17 W/m2 has been added by convective heat transfer, leaving 161 – 71 – 17 = 73 W/m2 in thermal radiation of which about 40 leaves through the ‘atmospheric window’ leaving only 33 W/m2 instead of the 229 W/m2 (which excludes that thru the window) assumed at all altitudes by MODTRAN6.
More on this is at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com.
Your analysis is correct, Dan. The water “heat pipe” is in control of near-surface temperatures in non-desert areas, totally obviating any effect from that “monster” gas CO2. Congratulations!
And, I might add, a little extra water in marginal areas can have a big effect on global surface temperatures.
Dan you seem to have a few significant misconceptions going on.
Here’s one of the most obvious I notice. The graphs you show are not the net IR flux. All of your graphs are the UPWARD IR when looking DOWN at the surface. Go back to MODTRAN and try looking UP to get the calculated downward IR flux. Then subtract the two. This is the number you want to compare to the 73 W/m^2 you estimate.
Yeahbut, latent heat in convective columns doesn’t count as radiant flux.
Tim,, Thanks for the comment. Unfortunately the freebee MODTRAN6 gives both up and down radiance only at zero altitude. Subtracting down from up results in74.6 W/m2 compared to the 73 W/m2 from my simple calc. This resolves the conflict and explains that the graphs are for the total energy flux, not just the radiation part. Of course at TOA, all of the energy flux is by radiation. I will update my blog/analysis accordingly.
Another version of MODTRAN (no 6) at http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/ gives both up and down radiance graphs but does not give the needed numerical data.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
Is Tamino dishonest?
Tamino doesn’t want me to participate in the discussion about slowdowns.
He won’t publish my comment on his website.
Luckily I have my own website, where I can say whatever I like.
Here is the comment which Tamino didn’t want people to see.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/is-tamino-dishonest
Sheldon,
Don’t understand your post on agree-to-disagree.
For example you add noise to signal with a slowdown, then
“Does that mean that there is no longer a slowdown there? We know that the slowdown is there, because it was in the original signal. Alarmists will now tell you that there is no slowdown. But there IS a slowdown there, it is just hidden by the noise.
In general we do not know what is the signal and what is the noise as in your example. So it is not as easy as you make it out to be.
Also, you imply that statistical significance of trends is pointless, even over long periods? Certainly one can ask whether a flat trend over one decade period is a significantly better fit than the long-term trend line.
Using Cowtan’s Trend calculator, the GISS trend since 1970 is 0.18 pm 0.03 C/dec
The trend during the ‘pause’ 2002-2012 was 0.013 pm 0.242 C/dec
Looks like a flat trend, but not stat significant, since the long-term trend of 0.18 is well inside the error bar on trend.
Now FYI the trend after the ‘pause’ 2008-18 is 0.438 pm 0.283 C/dec, again the long term trend of 0.18 is inside the error bar.
How long do we need to get the error well below the long term trend 0.18, to say 0.1? 20 years.
But over 20 y, there is no pause apparent.
So my point is we CAN say if a flat trend (or any other) is sig. better than the long-term trend. But more than a decade is required to do so.
The bottom line is the climate is neutral with a slight biased toward a down trend over the last few years but still much warmer then it was, say in contrast to the 1960-1990 climatic baseline.
Until the climate starts to approach that territory it is essentially neutral.
For the AGW enthusiast until the climate shows further warmth beyond what is has accomplished before the current lower trend over the last few years the climate is also in a state of being essentially neutral.
One big problem for my theory which I do not know the answer to, is what are the threshold levels and duration of time for the things I think control the climate to have more of a major effect upon the climate? I know they are out there. I am hoping to find out.
Next few years have a good chance to shed more light on this I hope.
It’s been long wait, but now all the criteria for cooling are in place. 2020 will be the transition year, and AGW enthusiasts will be proved wrong.
I might be a bit early very possible.
“I am sticking with it which is global temperatures by summer of 2018 will be at or below 30 year means.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-256283
Snapleton Del Prune
Wow! Pretty good.
You say 2020 I still think 2018.
You’ve already committed to 2018, and to 2017 before that. Why not throw in a third transition year for good measure.
Rotate a tennis ball 360 degrees. Now do the same with a yardstick attached. It is no longer rotating!
Swannie
“How about placing a camera at the pole, pointed up. Take a long time exposure photograph. On Earth, this will show the stars appearing to move in a circular path, which indicates the rotation of the Earth in an inertial reference frame.”
No. When a body spins in a circle WRT the stars, that’s an ORBITAL motion, not rotation. Learn some physics.
JDHuffman
If you want to do a simple experiment that demonstrates the Moon using a tennis ball and a yardstick, your example is not comparable to the Earth/Moon system.
If you want to use this simple device to show what is really going on with the Moon you would have to have the tennis ball rotational motion completely separate from the yardstick. You could build it with a rod through the tennis ball that connects to the yardstick with a bearing so it is free to spin. Next have a motor to spin the tennis ball. Set a slow rotation so that as the tennis ball rotates on its axis and you move the ball around in an orbital path around you with the yardstick, orbit the ball at the same rate it is spinning. If you do it correctly you will see the same face on the tennis ball but it is rotating on its axis and it is also keeping the same face toward you. This is what is going on with the Earth/Moon. Earth’s gravity is not a tractor beam that holds the moon so it can’t spin. Tidal locking does not mean holding the Moon in place like in your yardstick tennis ball sample.
Norman, this is just ONE of the many reasons you have NO credibility.
You have responded to a comment by child Snape, attempting to be cute by corrupting my name. You were unable to figure it out, as you are unable to figure out a lot of things.
And your comment was just more of your meaningless rambling.
Now, you can get belligerent and try to blame your mistakes and indecencies on me.
That’s when it really gets funny!
JDHuffman
Really??
Is this your post or is it Snape impersonating your?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-322966
This is the post I am responding to.
In this post you make the unsupported declaration: “This is an exact model of the Moon orbiting.
But, the tennis ball can NOT rotate on its own axis. It is securely attached to the yardstick.”
I am countering this declaration. It is NOT an exact model of the Moon orbiting. The Moon is free to rotate on its axis, and it does. It rotates once very slowly. You really don’t know what the heck you are talking about but you will gab on this topic for many posts. Wrong on every one and not willing to even entertain the possibility you are the one wrong and not all the brilliant astronomers and scientists out there. I think the odds greatly favor you are confused, mixed up and are holding on to a fantasy.
Yup, really!
Child Snape sets a trap, and you fall in, head first!
Just as predicted. You won’t own up to your mistake, but you’ll attack me.
Your only credibility is as a clown.
JDHuffman
Is the post I linked to yours or not?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-322966
JDHuffman
This one seems to be Snape making fun of you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323039
This is not the comment I am posting about. Look at the link in the post above.
Norman, you will have to ask child snape which times she corrupted the names. She will probably answer. She thinks you are a great science-guy.
That just makes it even funnier!
JDHuffman
Maybe this will help you answer the question: Is this your post?
“JDHuffman says:
October 3, 2018 at 9:30 PM
Yes the wagon is changing direction, because it is moving in a circular motion. At each incremental position, the motion is translational. The next incremental portion, the motion is still translational, but in a different direction. It is exactly the motion of the Moon about the Earth.
Let’s try one more example before giving up.
Securely attach a tennis ball to one end of a yardstick, so that it cannot move. Draw a face on the tennis ball so that it faces you. Now move the yardstick so that the tennis ball orbits you.
If you were able to follow the simple instructions, then you noticed:
1) During a 360° motion, an observer outside the tennis ball orbit would see the face “rotating”.
2) Standing inside the orbit, you would always see the face on the tennis ball.
This is an exact model of the Moon orbiting.
But, the tennis ball can NOT “rotate on its own axis”. It is securely attached to the yardstick.
If you can weasel your way out of this, your get the “Pseudoscience Clown” award of the day!”
Can’t you tell who posted?
Take it up with child Snape.
JDHuffman
Sounds a lot like your posts, also I have seen zero evidence that Snape directly posts as JDHuffman. He/she may use a funny similar name but I have not seen them every use an already used name with a phony post.
So that is not your post?
Norman, no matter which comment you responded to in terms of content, you actually clicked ‘reply’ on a comment written by a “JDHuffnpuff”. That you didn’t notice that is not anybody else’s fault. Please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Back to your unwavering support of g.e.r.a.n I see.
Content is what matters. Your buddy failed completely to address the content of my post and will continue to do so. Your silly pretend moderation (which is really trolling and blind support for g.e.r.a.n) gives him support and allows his distractions.
Your really good pal makes up stuff and when someone tries to get him to validate it he starts on distractions and avoids the issue completely. You enable this negative behavior. Why you do this only you know.
Criticizing you is not supporting someone else. And no, the point was that you clicked ‘reply’ to a comment by “JDHuffnpuff” without noticing. Time to just admit you were thick, wrong and a troll.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
In the context of your criticism it is actually supporting JDHuffman’s distractions.
The Huffpuff post was not important to the post and I was not addressing the content of the post but rather than post it far above it was a good place to post it. I read that post and scrolled up to find the JDHuffman actual source, which is what I was responding to. The post contained no insult, nothing negative. It was just making a point that to compare the Moon system to a tennis ball and a yardstick, it would be necessary to have the tennis ball disconnected from the yardstick on a rotational basis. The tennis ball needs to be free to rotate independent of the yardstick motion.
Why do you feel it is your duty and responsibility to protect and support your good buddy JDHuffman? You should criticize him for making unsupported declarations.
“Not criticizing someone” is not the same thing as “supporting someone”. And no, the point was that you clicked ‘reply’ to a comment by “JDHuffnpuff” without noticing. Time to just admit you were thick, wrong and a troll.
Woaaaaah!
Look, the Globe is COOLING, look at the graph’s right end:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18wH0gYDGtpfbuezk6beQUv5oTI7O94q-/view
I’m horrified. Salvatore is right.
Sauve qui peut!
A funny detail: this is since mid 2016 the first time I let Excel plot the graph again, out of the actual sources at ‘colorado.edu’.
I had to move the graph’s bottom from -3 Mkm2 down to -5 Mkm2 in order to see the most recent negative peak.
Ha ha.
I see no further global warming of late. That is my answer.
Salvatore: why do you think anyone cares what you think? You’ve become a laughingstock.
“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
Sal
2019 will be interesting. On one side, a really bothersome el nino (they need to be outlawed!) On the other, the deep freeze power of a grand solar minimum.
The fate of AGW hangs in the balance.
It’s time to go to bed at UTC+2…
Before shutting down, here is a chart showing GHCN V3 / daily with UAH land:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TA_173lO4-emhJbcMA__8M_1XlwTPfZA/view
All GHCN time series were generated as anomalies wrt 1981-2010 out of their absolute data for the comparison with UAH.
We all know: surface and lower troposphere at about 4-5 km altitude are very different places, but the correlation nevertheless is amazing, especially when comparing GHCN daily and UAH land.
Bonne nuit!
Bin,
How did you calculate the values for the 35-month running means at the end of the series? The smooths seem to go up to 2018, but there is not 35 months to centre on at those ends. Are you using 35-month means looking back in time, rather than centred (IE, Jan 1990 is av of the previous 35 months)?
barry
I never calculate these running means: they are computed by Excel as one of some trend procedure possibilities (linear, polynomial, running mean). You click on a time series plot drawn by Excel and tell the guy which kind of trend you want.
Secondly, these running means are NOT centred. So yes: they look back in time, you see that because they start exactly as many months later on the graph than you specified.
And apo for a little mistake: the running means in fact are based upon 36 months. The 35 in the title is a typo.
Yes, that seemed the likeliest explanation.
Because of the strange numbering of the X axis I was not sure how many months into the record the smooth started.
Here is a similar graph, this time encompassing the 20th century (1895 because it is the start of most US temp graphs):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I3-xFeN9euFkWXID7NrevPq-HZEAXqOy/view?usp=sharing
As you can see, all running means (60 months) nearly land in a nutshell.
All 4 time series have their own reference period:
– GISS land 1951-1980
– CRUTEM4 1961-1990
– NOAA land 1971-2000
– GHCN daily (own choice here) 1981-2010
The first three time series were displaced by their mean for 1981-2010.
Here is another displacement example where I generated two GHCN daily time series, one with reference period 1971-2000, one with reference period 1981-2010:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S5P-h7g6ZILtWpkPXTghVz-mHCnW_2Bc/view
Of course the two are
– a bit different due to slightly different station subsets fulfilling baseline requirements for 2 different time periods;
– displaced due to different average temperatures for these periods.
You see the differences when the blue 1971-2000 plot is displaced by its 1981-2010 mean (red) so you can compare it with the green 1981-2010 plot.
But the differences are really tiny for us laypersons, we are no professionals here after all. On a yearly average, you probably wouldn’t see them anymore.
ATTENTION PEOPLE OF EARTH!
In a major new scientific find, eminent physicist JD Huffman has discovered the moon is orbiting!
NASA to come out with a news conference heralding this exciting major find.
When reached by CNN, JD Huffman stated authoritatively, “Its what the Moon is doing.”
Film at eleven.
Someone has ran out of meds.
JDHuffman
I thought is showed a creative humor streak. I found it amusing.
Norman, here’s some more pseudoscience you will like.
Just ignore the one sentence: “Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.”
The rest you should really enjoy–pure pseudoscience.
https://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking/
What about this one
“Its always turning, showing us exactly the same face. Whats it hiding?”
Through every season turn turn turn
Yes bob, orbital motion is hard to understand, for some. There are even those that believe a racehorse is “rotating on its own axis”, as it runs the track.
Funny, huh?
Stare at the real Moon, on the left:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
See it rotate?
Moon on the left is “orbiting”. It is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
How many times are you going to link to that useless graphic? Don’t you have any new pseudoscience?
Both objects are orbiting, you IDIOT.
Yes SGW, both are orbiting. Very good.
But only one is rotating on its own axis. And, you don’t know which one it is.
50-50% chance, if you guess right.
Here’s some more pseudoscience you can gulp down, SGW.
Over time, the Earths gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.
https://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking/
“The one on the left, which represents the actual Moon motion, only has ONE motion–orbiting.”
JD keeps making up stuff. He said only the one on the left was orbiting. Now he says both are.
Link to where I said that, SGW, please.
Look it up for yourself. It’s called the “find” feature.
The quote is from you. Just shows how confused and clueless you are.
Translation: You can’t produce it.
Nothing new.
LMAO. The idiot can’f find the find feature.
I can use the find feature:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-322855
barry apparently shares this inability to understand the English language.
For the thick:
As there are two motions being discussed, “orbiting” and “rotation of an object on its own axis”, and a person stresses that in the diagram on the left there is only one motion present, “orbiting” – and they place the emphasis on the word “ONE” – then you should infer from this that in the diagram on the right they think “BOTH” motions are present.
Just thought I’d pop in real quick. Looks like temperature anomaly still following decline from 2016 El Nino, indicating pause never went away.
In other news, people still arguing the Moon doesn’t rotate. OK. Gotta’ run.
Pause was never there – not statistically.
And the trend since 1998 is still positive, and still not statistically significant with UAH data.
How do you statistically show that a “pause” doesn’t exist?
If the trend since 1998 is not significant, how is that not a pause?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-322982
“How do you statistically show that a pause doesn’t exist?”
Read for example
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2064100/
or look in Google for links found by searching “Statistical Issues Regarding Trends” or the like…
Please have a look at
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
and at the difference between
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1he1TNC6sw3bsQT1SicwnWWI5uwwdtEiu/view?usp=sharing
and
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QjKPiB2FcHvXhNeDvFFg-g46RbH2XjrV/view?usp=sharing
When I use LINEST in Excel, I don’t see such a difference.
Simply because LINEST is a general purpose estimate, which does not account for issues related to time series.
What issues related to time series? LINEST just provides statistics in addition to what the usual SLOPE and INTERCEPT functions provide. LINEST, SLOPE, and TREND use least squares methodology. If time is the only independent variable, there should be no issues related to a time series.
Please enlighten me.
Chic doesn’t understand simple, 12th grade linear regression.
Chic, go put your nose in a book for awhile, and this time try to learn what you should have learned in high school.
Chic,
Let’s work through this together.
Define ‘pause’ in this context, and I ask you very specifically to describe what the pause is in relation to. A pause from what?
When we have a concrete definition, we can test for pause or not.
Barry,
Working together. What a pleasant invitation.
Off the top of my head (which is bare), I refer to a pause in the context of global temperatures as an apparent, if not significant, change in a trend over at least a few decades. According to this definition, there was an increasing trend through at least two decades from 1979 on. From now backwards, the significance of the trend depends how far back you go and on what level you pick for the confidence interval of the trend.
Before replying, please see my recent comment on a new thread.
This has already been done, barry.
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/how-the-world-really-warmed-between-the-70s-and-the-00s-part-i/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/how-the-world-really-warmed-part-ii-step-1/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/how-the-world-really-warmed-part-iii-steps-2-3/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/modern-global-warming-in-three-steps-the-fairly-short-version/
Chic,
“The Pause” is only the last one in a string of “pauses” going all the way back to the 60s (and surely further back as well, but by then the data becomes sketchy). This simply appears to be how the Earth’s climate operates – through (abrupt) regime changes separating different (and much more protracted) regime states, the global climate thus multi-decadally fluctuating around a secular solar-controlled mean balance level. There is simply more solar heat to the Earth now than a few decades ago (hence, our planet warms), and likely even more so than a century ago …
“The Pause” in global temps is seen relative to the SSTa of the tropical East Pacific, basically the NINO region. It’s not like you can just “see” it by looking at the global temps themselves. You need to understand the processes BEHIND the global temperature data we collect. barry doesn’t want to go there at all. He doesn’t seem to harbour any kind of curiosity when it comes to this particular subject. He just wants to look at statistical trends and play around with them. He’s not really interested in HOW the data behind those trend lines actually progresses in time. Why is there a peak here? Why a trough there? Why is not much happening along this stretch? They’re all because of the truly global influence of the ENSO process. And so you compare global temps with (properly scaled) NINO SSTa, which is far and away the biggest player with respect to Earth’s annual and interannual ‘climate’ variability, and discover in what way the two curves diverge. You will soon notice it doesn’t happen gradually; it very much happens IN STEPS.
Explained and described here:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/how-the-world-really-warmed-between-the-70s-and-the-00s-part-i/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/how-the-world-really-warmed-part-ii-step-1/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/how-the-world-really-warmed-part-iii-steps-2-3/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/modern-global-warming-in-three-steps-the-fairly-short-version/
Thanks, Kristian.
Bullsh!t, Kristian.
You are only cherrypicking.
Because the facts are not on your side.
Kristian thinks people are too stupid to see through his games.
Deniers like Kristian cannot offer a serious argument if their lives depend on it.
Tired of liars.
Chic,
I refer to a pause in the context of global temperatures as an apparent, if not significant, change in a trend over at least a few decades. According to this definition, there was an increasing trend through at least two decades from 1979 on. From now backwards, the significance of the trend depends how far back you go and on what level you pick for the confidence interval of the trend.
Thank you. I read your new-thread post further down, BTW.
I agree more or less with that definition. I would say that there is a fairly linear trend from 1975 to 1998. I’d prefer to use that period for the first part, because the trend is statistically significant with that much data using surface records (though I’m happy to extend farther back). This isn’t the case for the trend 1979 – 1997 using satellite data. Not quite enough information for the trend to be larger than the uncertainty. However, I’ll also work with the sat data to be even-handed.
I’d like to treat this question of pause or not with the ‘null hypothesis’ method.
Does that sound ok?
David erupts with some more fireworks, to keep the crowd entertained.
Barry,
Of course it’s OK. However, just two things. I’m only comfortable analyzing the UAH data. And having run some regressions on the data already, I found the slope of the “pause” section of the data not much less than the earlier period. So how the significance of the data is calculated is crucial. Let me know your methodology.
I use the autoregression on moving averages statistical model to account for autocorrelation and calculate uncertainty. One could do it with an AR1 model and get similar results.
Here’s an online app that uses the ARMA(1,1) model for calculating linear regression.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
You can check my work against it.
My definition of a statistically verifiable ‘pause’ is where the trend and uncertainty are statistically distinct from what came before. IOW, if there is overlap in the uncertainty, then any change in trend, such as a ‘pause’, is not statistically distinct from the previous trend. This is a logical extension of statistical significance WRT linear trends (all calculated at the 95% confidence level).
Let’s set up our ‘null’, which is warming at a certain rate
+ uncertainty, and then let’s try to disprove the null with data from 1998 to 2012, 2015, and to 2017.
I’m going to use the Met Office surface data first, just because it seems the least objectionable to most parties (it has the lowest warming trends), and because the warming trend is statistically significant from 1975 to 1997. It’s good to have a ‘null’ that has a statistically significant trend. Also, the data present as fairly linear, which is also better for the comparison.
I will also do this for UAH data in a follow-up post, as you prefer.
Trend + uncertainty Jan 1976 to Dec 1997:
0.174 C/decade (+/- 0.077)
At the 95% confidence level the trend is anywhere between
0.097 and 0.251 C/decade.
Now:
Trend + uncertainty Jan 1998 to Dec 2012:
0.052 C/decade (+/- 0.140)
At the 95% confidence level the trend is anywhere between
-0.088 and 0.192 C/decade
The uncertainty in the post 1998-trend overlaps – very strongly – with the prior warming trend.
IE, the alleged trend change post 1998 is not statistically distinct from the prior warming trend.
This is the case also for 1998 to 2015, and 1998 to 2017. In fact, there is no period from 1998 that is statistically distinct from the prior warming period.
I can show this in a slightly different way visually. I will show the (ordinary least squares) trend 1979 to 1998 and include 2 sigma error bars (roughly).
1975-1998 obs and trend
I’ve extended the error bars out to Dec 2017, as the expected envelope of possible temperature anomalies if warming were to continue. Now let’s see what happened with temps up to Dec 2012. These were the latest temps when IPCC commented on the supposed pause in 2013.
1975-2012 obs
The temps still fall within the 2 sigma range under a continued warming scenario. Now up to Dec 2015, just before the big el Nino.
1975-2015 obs
While the temps seem to have stalled from 1998, anomalies are still within the 2-sigma envelope assuming continued warming. I don’t think there has been a deviation for long enough to show a statistically significant deviation from the prior trend. And the trend estimates above bear out what we’re seeing visually here.
Here’s what things look like up to Dec 2017.
1975-2017 obs
If there was a pause, it’s gone. But there was never a statistical pause in the first place, as I hope I’ve demonstrated.
Now for UAH data and a few further comments.
Now for UAH data:
Trend + uncertainty Jan 1979 to Dec 1997
0.091 C/decade (+/- 0.161)
At the 95% confidence level the trend is anywhere between
-0.070 and 0.252 C/decade
That’s our ‘null’.
Trend + uncertainty Jan 1998 to Dec 2012
-0.068 C/decade (+/- 0.247)
At the 95% confidence level the trend is anywhere between
-0.315 and 0.179 C/decade
This uncertainty falls within the previous warming rate. The null is not disproved.
There are some important caveats with stat sig and nulls.
Failing to disprove the null does not in any way prove the null. The null is always an assumption or a given – albeit oftentimes an assumption with strong statistical backing.
Just because the null is not disproved, that doesn’t mean that there has not been a change, only that it cannot be claimed to have definitely occurred – not statistically, at least.
Which was the point you first picked up on, Chic in this subthread. You replied to me saying:
“Pause was never there not statistically.”
Dis-satisfyingly, in the UAH data there is too much variability to get a statistically significant trend for periods less than 20 years. So our ‘null’ is not statistically significant. However, the point remains the same – the uncertanties overlap. There is no statistical ‘pause’ from an assumed prior warming.
Here are the graphical demonstrations of UAH trend and 2-sigma envelope. The ‘predictor’ is the ordinary least squares trend from Jan 1979 to Dec 1998:
1979 to 1998 obs + trend
1979 to 2012 obs
1979 to 2015 obs
1979 to 2017 obs
I recommend putting them in tabs side by side and clicking one to the other. Approximates a blink chart.
Me (to Chic):
“You need to understand the processes BEHIND the global temperature data we collect. barry doesn’t want to go there at all. He doesn’t seem to harbour any kind of curiosity when it comes to this particular subject. He just wants to look at statistical trends and play around with them. He’s not really interested in HOW the data behind those trend lines actually progresses in time.”
And barry of course ignores and just go on: trends, trends, trends, statistical significance, trends, trends, trends …
Hahaha! Q.E.D. No curiosity about the data whatosoever. Why it progresses the way it does. What natural processes and mechanisms lie behind.
barry:
*Facepalm*
That’s because the statistically generated TREND LINE that you draw ACROSS the actual data covering that period is LINEAR, barry. The temperature data itself doesn’t progress in a linear fashion. Only YOUR TREND LINE does.
Look at the DATA! Not at the trend line.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/trend.png
Oooh, look at that ‘fairly linear trend’.
No, Kristian, I think the period is linear in character because of statistical testing for the goodness of fit done by expert statisticians, Grant Foster, for one.
Are you familiar with, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaike_information_criterion
Don’t lie about me ignoring stuff when we’ve discussed it previously and I found your arguments unconvincing.
As you consistently misrepresent what I think, don’t bother speaking for me.
Some stoopids even think they are so genial that they can argue Einstein is wrong with relativity.
C’est la vie, dit-on ‘chez nous’.
Oh Bindidolina, sock puppeteer extraordinaire, I know how much you hate people calling each other stupid. The best thing you can do here is to call other people stupid yourself.
To your attention, immoderate pseudomoderator
1. Despite yours and Robertson’s conviction (which doesn’t disturb me at all, I know how people like you two get ‘convinced’), we are here two persons sharing over 30 years of life, a little house, an old computer, the browsers, and… the same Internet provider and thus even the same dynamic IP addresses!
2. You must be very new here. Otherwise you would have detected that Rose and I we call ‘stupid’, ‘ignorant’ etc only those people having previously called us (and others) ‘idiot’, ‘stupid’, ‘ignorant’ or even ‘dumbass’.
*
These latter people all are ‘by accident’ exactly those you carefully avoid to ask for ‘please stop trolling’, even when they pretend ‘Einstein had it wrong’ or the like.
That strange, partial silence tells everything about… you.
Sure, “he started it”. That’s the most mature way to proceed.
Good to see you are really married to this sock puppetry idea.
[ Does “global warming” cause tornadoes? No. Thunderstorms do. The harder question may be, “How will climate change influence tornado occurrence?” The best answer is: We don’t know. According to the National Science and Technology Council’s Scientific Assessment on Climate Change, “Trends in other extreme weather events that occur at small spatial scales–such as tornadoes, hail, lightning, and dust storms–cannot be determined at the present time due to insufficient evidence.” This is because tornadoes are short-fused weather, on the time scale of seconds and minutes, and a space scale of fractions of a mile across. In contrast, climate trends take many years, decades, or millennia, spanning vast areas of the globe. The numerous unknowns dwell in the vast gap between those time and space scales. Climate models cannot resolve tornadoes or individual thunderstorms. ]
This is from the NOAA too…
Norman
You’re right. I may on occasion use a silly moniker (i.e. Artemis Dimwitty), but would never steal someone’s identity.
******
It looks like Huffy is embarrassed by the comment you referenced:
“If you were able to follow the simple instructions, then you noticed…..”
and is trying to pass it off onto me.
It looks like you are trolling. Always has, always will.
snape commented as “JDHuffnpuff”, clearly confusing Norman.
snape then went on with false accusations (above).
Both activities hurt a blog.
“JDHuffman” = Ger*an.
Why isn’t Roy blocking this dude again?
DA wants censorship because he cannot defend his pseudoscience.
What’s next DA, concentration camps?
David Appell: a thick, fat, ugly, wrong, obnoxious fascist.
An ideal thermally conductive blackbody which reflects 30% sunlight at 1 AU distance from the Sun has uniform temperature of about -18 C
An ideal thermally conductive blackbody at 1.19 AU has uniform temperature about -18 C.
When sunlight is about 1360 Watts per square meter at 1 AU, at distance of 1.19 AU sunlight is about 960 Watts per square meters and the Ideal thermally conductive blackbody would uniformly absorb 240 watts per square of a sphere and would emit uniformly 240 watts per square meter [and would not reflect any sunlight- human eyes could not see it].
Mars Semimajor axis distance [or average distance from sun] is 1.524 AU.
Mars average global temperature is somewhere around -60 C and has sunlit ground surface temperatures of 20 C or warmer. And average sunlight when at zenith at the surface is about 600 watts per square meter. Mars reflects sunlight and can appear like a bright star from Earth.
If Mars was at 1.19 AU rather than 1.524 AU, what would it’s global average temperature, be?
The best source for a reliable info certainly is commenter galloping camel alias Peter Morcombe.
From a little, somewhat simple-minded Excel spreadsheet I obtain 307 K with an albedo at 0.15, and 297 K with one at 0.25.
The reality is certainly more complex, see galloping camel’s comments in Roy Spencer’s previous head post.
Sorry, wrong data, I’m unconcentrated. The supposed temperatures at Mars’ original distance were 217 resp. 210 K.
At Earth’s distance: 268 resp. 259 K.
But an exact computation performing spherical integration might give more accurate results.
I would guess Mars at 1.19 AU would be around -18 C [255 K].
And since about 960 watts per square meter reaches surface when sun is near zenith, the surface could warm to about 86 C [360 K].
But since Mars having 600 watts per square does not warm near 46 C rather instead it about 20 C or more, I tend to think Mars at 1.19 AU would warm to about 60 C.
Or one might wonder how much indirect sunlight is reaching the surface and Mars thin atmosphere would have some convectional heat loss- and particularly the case since Mars would have a low global average temperature of about -18 C.
In greenhouse or parked car, at 1.19 AU at surface when sun at zenith I would expect an air temperature to be about 60 C.
Now Mars at 1.524 AU could be said to be a better place to harvest solar energy as compared to Earth, and if Mars is at 1.19 AU distance it become even a better place- easily far better to harvest solar energy as compared to Earth.
Some suggest that Mars vast amount of CO2 in it’s atmosphere as compared to Earth, does do much warming due to Mars distance, and 1.19 AU is much closer, so perhaps one also get warming effect from the CO2- and increasing average temperature higher than -18 C.
And not counting the complication that Mars would have less or no frozen CO2 at it’s poles and could have more water vapor than 210 ppm that it has now.
The greenhouse effect on Mars is only about 6 C.
No, it is about -8K.
OK. Whatever. “About 6 C” = 8 C.
Apparently David missed Kristian’s minus sign. David is closer to correct.
Kristian has always made the mistake of using the annual average global mean surface temperature minus the planets effective surface temperature which computes to -8K as Kristian writes.
The correct comparison of Mars effective temperature is with the effective surface temperature which is the fourth root of the annual and globally averaged value of surface T^4. This returns about +5K Mars GHE. This may seem obvious, but the distinction is often not recognized in the literature.
This physics is especially mistaken by Kristian due to continuously self-citing. Kristian needs to cite the established literature, thank you David.
The correct statement is Mars (clear sky) effective surface temperature is ~5K warmer than Mars effective temperature. This increases with a dusty atm. and clouds to ~5.6K as expected.
David Appell says, October 5, 2018 at 5:04 PM:
No-no. MINUS 8 Kelvin. As in negative K. The (globally, annually averaged) T_s on Mars is estimated from comprehensive satellite measurements over several years to lie somewhere in the 201-205 K range, with a mean of 203K. Compare this to the Red Planet’s T_e in space, which is calculated to be ~211 K.
That’s T_s 203 – 211 = – 8 K.
The equivalent quantities on Earth would be:
T_s > T_e => 288 – 255 = + 33 K.
So, positive on Earth, negative on Mars.
Ball4 says, October 5, 2018 at 5:57 PM:
It’s not a “mistake”, troll. It is how it’s done. Same thing on Earth: The globally, annually averaged estimate of the measured surface temps (T_s: ~288K) vs. the globally, annually averaged estimate of the measured All-Sky OLR at the ToA translated via mathematical equation (the Stefan-Boltzmann) into an effective emission temp (T_e: ~255K).
That’s how the “GHE” is defined and quantified, the T_s being higher than the T_e. The “GHE” is specifically defined as a TEMPERATURE EFFECT using a RADIATIVE MECHANISM. You’re confusing the supposed mechanism with the claimed effect, troll. And the “GHE” is specifically all about averages (global and annual), not about extremes. The lunar surface sustains both far higher AND far lower temps than what Earth’s surface does, but its its annually, globally averaged temperature is MUCH, MUCH lower. And that’s what counts.
Hehe, our little house troll is once again just making things up in its little head.
No. During global Martian dust storms, the atmospheric temp rises severely, while the surface temp at the same time DROPS considerably. As expected. Less solar heat to the surface, because the atmospheric dust absorbs most of it on its way in.
https://kundoc.com/pdf-mars-surface-and-atmospheric-temperature-during-the-2001-global-dust-storm-.html
Albedo variability over different time scales is what controls the variability of global temps on a planet. That goes for Earth as well. And we can clearly read from the observational data …
“The globally, annually averaged estimate of the measured surface temps (T_s: ~288K)”
Kristian continues his nonphysical mistake of adding temperatures. This happens to work for earth as the temperature field is not so sparse as Mars, converting each temperature reading to energy & properly doing the addition results in the same Ts answer so that step is simply skipped.
On Mars, the error in adding temperatures shows up due to such a sparse temperature field & causes Kristian to repeat his ridiculous & mistaken Mars GHE of -8K. I’ve shown how to do the GHE computation right physically to come up with the actual Mars GHE of about +5K. Also, Kristian is so nonversed in meteorology, he gets the dust storm avg. surface T change wrong according to more accurate studies.
Kristian really does need to research the field to compare his results to the actual physics. Self-citing is not the way to improve Kristian.
Ball4 says, October 6, 2018 at 2:23 AM:
Ball4 says, October 6, 2018 at 2:23 AM:
Sorry to have to break this to you, troll, but I’m not the one doing the “adding of temperatures”. The Martian satellites and the science teams behind them do. They add, weight and average. They’re the ones who measure the surface brightness temperatures of the planet and then estimate an annual, global average of +/- 203 K. Not me. Don’t you trust the science teams, troll?
Hehe, I’m not “self-citing”, troll. I’m referring to the data from Mars-orbiting satellites, compiled and cited in several scientific papers that I’ve linked to on multiple occasions before on this very blog when discussing this particular topic.
“I’m not the one doing the “adding of temperatures”.”
Actually, you are Kristian with your silly self-cite of -8K for Mars GHE (you didn’t link ayone else for David). That is obviously not correct. The physically correct comparison of Mars effective temperature is with Mars effective surface temperature yielding +5K for Mars GHE which is often quoted in published studies. Where have you linked to any of those?
I didn’t read much of your 1:13am link but note sec. 5.5: “With the rapid increase in atmospheric temperature in the lower atmosphere during the initial phases of the dust storm..” That one doesn’t discuss Mars GHE that I could find.
I have a question regarding the division of areas.
Is there any reason in the division, and what is it?
Do you mean the atmospheric UAH time series?
Look e.g. at https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
There you see the entire set of them.
24 concern 8 latitudinal zones and their local subdivision in land and ocean. The rest are regional zones: CONUS (US48), USA (US49) and Australia.
Some of us have been discussing the relevance of trends, noise, and specific temperature anomalies now compared to the past. I used Excel to evaluate my hypothesis that trends are somewhat irrelevant for calculating degrees of warming.
Plot y = -sin(pi*x/c) with x from 0 to 90 and c = 45. Calculate the trendline. Now make c = 22.5 and notice the change in trendline. Continue dividing c by 2 and observe how the trendline continues to decrease as the “noise” increases.
For more fun with trends and noise, try plotting the same function with x from 8 to 98. Notice that the trend is even greater than previously, but the starting and ending y values are still equal.
Now look at the UAH data and ask yourself how meaningful any trends are even if they are statistically significant. The most reasonable things to be said are that today’s tropospheric temperatures are less than 0.5 deg C greater than in 1979, same as they have been many times since 1988.
As Bindidon wrote just below, there is a statistically significant linear trend for UAH LT v60 of +0.13 C/decade.
What science explains that?
“Natural variability”.
David,
It is sad that even a person who doesn’t understand how the moon rotates has to explain it to you.
Chic, don’t fret. Hang in there and someday you’ll understand. You’re making progress. At least you know to run off and think about it, before continuing to make a fool of yourself.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323117
Chic: do you have any scientific comments, or are you just insultnig people here because you don’t have?
Not for you. It would be a full time job countering your misinformation. Insulting people is against my religion, but I am only human and sometimes cannot resist.
Just goes to show how useless religion is.
Oops – I typed your initials as my name instead of as the intro.
You are forgiven.
Chic,
This is why the CO2 heads become so desperate each and every time someone tells people to look at the actual data instead of the statistically generated trend lines drawn across the data.
They are basically blind to the data. Whenever they look at a temperature curve, they only ever really “see” the overall trend. They don’t really pay attention to the actual data. It’s all about the trend. Because in a rising overall linear trend line, no matter what the data did between the endpoints to produce that particular trend line, what they “see” is the background warming action of increasing atmospheric CO2. That’s it. Subconsciously, an upward trend line to them IS the +CO2 warming.
They will of course furiously deny any suggestion of such deep-seated bias, but it’s pretty obvious to all outsiders (that is, to non-believers), that this is how they operate on a subconscious – and, at times, even conscious – level, and that this is why they’re so obsessed with trends and trend lines and nothing else. It’s the only argument they have and use, after all; watch how they will ALWAYS point and cling to trends and statistics alone when arguing or implying that CO2 is the ultimate driver of ‘global warming’, always seeking to dismiss (oftentimes by attempted ridicule) counterarguments that rather address the data itself.
I agree. It is obvious that trends are the best way to highlight warming, but they useless for understanding why there is warming.
That is not their role.
So, of what use are they?
We only need to look at the data itself, after all, to see that it’s warmer today than in the 70s, and in the 80s, and in the 90s, and even in the 00s. But how is this interesting to anyone, if it doesn’t ultimately leave us wondering WHY? What caused (and is causing) ‘today’ to be warmer than ‘yesterday’?
You’re right. Trend lines can’t tell us. The temperature data alone can’t tell us either.
All-Sky OLR at the ToA vs. tropospheric temps, however, CAN tell us.
The Sun is behind the warming. There are no signs to be found in the available observational data from the real Earth system of a systematic multidecadal “GHE” enhancement as a contributor to the warming.
The data clearly reveals the following causal relationship:
+ASR => +T => +OLR
We only need to look at the data itself, after all, to see that it’s warmer today than in the 70s, and in the 80s, and in the 90s, and even in the 00s. But how is this interesting to anyone
You will see how interest arise when I quote some conversation starters from upthread:
Chic: “The average temperature this year is roughly the same as it was 17 years ago. The hiatus continues.”
Richard M: “If you go all the way back to Sept 1979 you only end up with .3 C of warming. At that time people were telling us it has cooled .2-.5 C from the 1940s. Arguably, there’s been no warming in the last 80 years.
Now that’s a real hiatus.”
Richard M: “And, as I showed you elsewhere, we are now exactly the same as Sept. 1996. That is, no warming at all for 22 years.”
Would you write these off as silliness not worth engaging with, Kristian, or would you explain why you think differently?
“I used Excel to evaluate my hypothesis that trends are somewhat irrelevant for calculating degrees of warming.”
Certainly you will fail when using such artificial examples having nothing to do with time series.
“Now look at the UAH data and ask yourself how meaningful any trends are even if they are statistically significant. The most reasonable things to be said are that todays tropospheric temperatures are less than 0.5 deg C greater than in 1979, same as they have been many times since 1988.”
Aha.
1. Please let me answer as do here so often some people having no clue of the problem:
– anomaly in dec 1978: -0.36 C
– anomaly in aug 2018: 0.19 C
By accident is the difference: 0.54 C.
2. Now let us look at the trend.
Trend in C / decade for the period 1978-2018:
0.127 ± 0,01
Thus the linear estimate for 40 years is 0.127 * 4 = 0.51 C.
What is your point, Chic Bowdrie?
1. I’m not sure what problem you refer to.
-Average anomaly estimated from the first nine months of 1979: -0.28 C
-Average anomaly estimated from the first nine months of 2002: 0.24 C
-Average anomaly estimated from the first nine months of 2018: 0.20 C
It is no accident that the difference from 1979 to 2002 is an increase of about 0.52 C and that since 2002, tropospheric temperatures have decreased by 0.04 C.
2. I propose to you that calculating the temperature difference between 1979 and now using a trend serendipitously allowed you to arrive at the same temperature difference as I came up with by simply using actual temperature values.
In addition, you have obscured the biphasic information of a more significant trend from 1979 to 2002 compared to the more recent period.
My point is that a trend doesn’t necessarily mean there was a temperature change as indicated by the data since 2001/2002.
Chic Bowdrie
You write
“-Average anomaly estimated from the first nine months of 1979: -0.28 C
-Average anomaly estimated from the first nine months of 2002: 0.24 C
-Average anomaly estimated from the first nine months of 2018: 0.20 C”
That is exactly the problem with people
– arbitrarily choosing nine months in three periods of a time series,
– comparing them, and
– claiming ‘Do you see? It’s cooling’.
That makes no sense.
The story you tell looks like this, I can’t change it:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/to:2002.99/trend/plot/uah6/from:2003.01/trend/plot/uah6/trend/plot/uah6/mean:12
The trend for dec 1979 – dec 2002 is (by accident) the same as the trend for jan 2003 – sep 2018: 0.15 C / decade.
And both subtrends are higher than the trend over the entire period (0.13 C / decade).
By ‘accident’ I mean that if you had chosen another biphase separation time for UAH, or the same for another time series (GISS, RSS etc) you might have obtained completely different results.
Please send a mail to Roy Spencer and he will explain you why your view is not correct when he has some time to spend on. I don’t see how I could convince you.
Blindinon,
I did not write anywhere that it is cooling. We leave that up to Salvatore, don’t we? I claim that it is the same temperature now as in 2001/2002. That’s all.
Did you notice that starting in 2001 there were five years of the most stable temperatures in the whole UAH record? I chose the year 2002 because in the spring of that year, there was a cluster of points where it was easy to estimate their average temperature. Same as the spring of this year and the spring of 1979. Yes I am cherry picking those points on purpose to illustrate my point. Read carefully. My point is that trends do not tell you what the actual temperature differences are.
By showing the trends before and after 2002 are the same, you are emphasizing my point. In the earlier time period, the temperature at the beginning of the trendline was 0.5 C lower than at the end. 23 years of warming! At the beginning and end of the later time period, the temperatures are about the same. No warming in 17 years.
Are you warmer now than in 2002 just because the trendline predicts it?
“Are you warmer now than in 2002 just because the trendline predicts it?”
It is no prediction, just a calculation based on existing data.
I like people calling me “Blindidon” just because they think I wouldn’t understand what they say or write!
Bindidon,
My apologies. I did not intend to insert an additional l or change a d to n. Just in a hurry to reply.
Accepted of course!
The so called trend is nothing but an artifact of relatively short data set which starts at the cool period, give it few more years and it will became zero .
The question is, are the trends statistically significant?
Over the entire UAH dataset, they certainly are.
Why, based on physics, should we expect the trend to become zero?
DA, you mentioned “physics”. But you meant “pseudoscience”.
There is NO physics that indicates CO2 can raise the equilibrium temperature of Earth.
Do you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb it?
Do you think you ask silly questions because you don’t know physics, or because you want to be a clown?
Ger*an: Do you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb it?
ibid.
As usual, JDH (=Ger*an) won’t say.
(DA, your obsession with Ger*an is touching.)
Do you plan to get even stupider, or just stay at this level?
Chic
As you know, ENSO has a big influence on the yearly average, and is a cycle. That alone makes comparing one year to another meaningless. Add in volcanoes, other ocean cycles, etc. and the only metric worth looking at is the long term trend.
*******
http://cdn.economicsdiscussion.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/image200.png
You could compare the peak on the upper left to the trough on the bottom right……what does that tell you? Jack squat.
Are you warmer now than in 2002 just because the long term trend predicts it?
Snape, Chic is quite aware that ENSO and other factors have an impact. Chic seems to be convinced that the noise has been removed from the analysis by deleting selected data.
Somewhere upthread you wrote that all data is noise, IIRC. If that is the case, then where is the signal? If you use least squares linear regression, the signal is a slope. I explained that the slope doesn’t say anything about the endpoints of the data, which are the only two points in a time series that tell you exactly how much change has occurred during a given time interval. For temperature data it is either warmer, colder, or the same. In this context, removing noise is just comparing temperatures at certain time points.
IOW, you grossly misrepresented what I’m convinced about.
Somewhere upthread you wrote that all data is noise, IIRC. If that is the case, then where is the signal?
A signal may be gleaned by calculating a line running through all the data that for which the sum of the square of the distances between each data point (the noise) and the line (signal) is smallest. As in:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend
If that line was changed in position or slope, then the sum of the square of each data point would be larger. The is the best “fit” by the ordinary least squares method. It’s not “the truth”, but it at least has statistical value and doesn’t discard any data.
That was a first order polynomial. A 2nd order polynomial has a curve, a 3rd order polynomial has 2 curves and so one. These can be tested against the data to find out which model has the best “fit” to the data.
There are numerous statistical tests to estimate which model best reflects the data (and any signal therein). Here’s one of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaike_information_criterion
Another method is to smooth the data (an averaging algorithm) to reduce the noise and look for a signal. The following graph has long term data smoothed with a 13-month average, with a 5-year average (60 months), a 10-year average, and a 30-year average.
https://tinyurl.com/yauwxo4n
I offset them for ease of viewing. Note that information is lost from the ends, as the averages are centred on the year in question. One can easily see a signal in the 30-year (360 month) smooth.
The noise affects the signal (say for a linear trend) more significantly with less data. But the reverse is also true. The noise has a decreasing effect on the signal the more data is used (assuming more or less random distribution). Stats 101.
Here is how a couple of months ‘noise’ affects a (linear trend) signal when a tiny amount of data is used.
https://tinyurl.com/y9tf4dto
And the trend results are:
0.20 C/decade
-0.01 C/decade
-0.22 C/decade
In 2 months the decadal trend has changed half a degree C, from warming to cooling. That’s a very unstable result.
Now see what happens if we use lots of data. I am going to select some really big noise at the end – the 2016 el Nino, and see if the trend changes much by including it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/to:2015.68/trend/plot/uah6/to:2016.33/trend
Barely any change in trend from including one of the biggest bits of ‘noise’ in the record, right at the end of the trend estimate.
The difference?
0.11 C/decade
0.12 C/decade
One hundredth of a degree per decade.
Using lots of data reduces the impact of the noise considerably. Stats 101.
Are you warmer now than in 2002 just because the long term trend predicts it?
It is mid-Spring where I am. Yesterday was quite cold and we had many warmer days in Winter. I’m not just inventing this – this is actually the case (I follow the weather in my area – bit of a hobby).
Eg, yesterday (Friday) had a max temp of 15.6C
The warmest day in July (our mid-Winter month) was almost 10C warmer, at 25.2.
I can definitely feel that temperature difference on my skin.
What does this information tell me about “where I am” in relation to the seasons?
Too little data? The average temp of the entire month of July is currently warmer than the average of the first week of October. I will always be able to find a week’s worth of weather in Winter that is warmer than a week’s worth of Spring in the same year.
I make the comparison to seasons, because this is a “climate change” that everyone experiences and understands.
Using weeks (a cluster of days) to compare seasonal changes over 6 months is analogous to using clusters of months to compare change over 40 years. The signal to noise ratio is not that different.
Chic
Why do you ask? Has anyone implied a trend will cause warming?
Investors discuss trends every day, knowing full well that the trends themselves are not causative. Isn’t that also a given when discussing temperature trends?
Don’t be so stupid, Chic.
Please stop calling people ‘stupid’. Flynn and Robertson are really enough.
I assume there’s math and theory to suppport persistence forecasts.
If I woke up and spotted a raccoon in my backyard, I wouldn’t bet on seeing it again the next morning. If he showed up the next thousand mornings, I would bet a LOT on one more.
Aren’t trends and “persistence” similar ideas?
Is comparing small portions of data a good estimate of overall change? I don’t think so.
UAH 1979 annual av = -0.21 C
UAH 2017 annual av = 0.38 C
That’s a difference of 0.6 C between the first and last complete calendar year of the satellite record.
This despite 1979 ending on an el Nino, and 2017 beginning with a la Nina. (ENSO reference).
Do I think this represents a fair – even conservative – estimate of the overall change?
Absolutely not. Every single year, every single month of data represents the noise, or variability, in the system. Every single month and year is strongly influenced by short-term variability, known and unknown, so comparing one year with another, no matter how one tries to pick the ‘best’ representatives for non-noisy effects, is always going to be compromised by the variability.
And if you’re going to do that, then calculate and honestly include the uncertainty inherent in that estimate.
This is what a linear regression can do. It can calculate the overall change without discarding any data. And it can give you a value for the uncertainty, so you can see if the change is distinct from the usual variability, or if the change is not distinct enough from the variability to say that there has been a change, and if there is change, what the likely range of that change is.
Anyone neglecting the uncertainty – routinely – is selling something.
Of course, a linear regression assumes a linear rate of change when that might not be the case. A linear trend is not by itself a predictor of what is to follow.
But it is a much more robust method of estimating overall change than selecting a handful of data points at or near the end of the entire series, discarding 80-90% of the total data.
You couldn’t be more wrong as I illustrated here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323290
And again and again: you are wrong here, because you base your stuff on a simple(-minded) sine curve, i.e. on all but (temperature) time series.
Chic Bowdrie: please try to learn about statistics, as others try to do.
We all are lay(wo)men here, without exception, starting with those who brazenly name themselves ‘an expert’.
But that is not an excuse to persist in considering
y = -sin(pi*x/c)
a stuff comparable to
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
or the like.
But Chic, any one of us could cherry-pick a handful of months and ‘prove’ completely opposite results. Then we end up arguing about why one choice is superior to another.
All we’re doing is comparing some averaged noise from one year to another. 2002 is an el Nino year, 2018 is a la Nina year. You compared 2 years that are influenced by noise that we know about. There are clearly influences on monthly and anual temps that we don’t know the cause for, because none of the factors we do know about, or any combination of them, correlates 100% with the month to month variability.
Other stuff affects global temps besides ENSO, volcanos, solar, AMO, PDO etc…
We can try to reduce the noise, but we can’t entirely get rid of it. I’ve posted scientific papers doing just that.
But it is a statistical fact that the less data you have, the greater the error (uncertainty) in your results.
A linear trend does not give perfect results, either. Nor does it mean that any trend in the data is necessarily linear.
But the key point is:
A linear trend using all the data will have much less error (uncertainty) than an analysis that uses only 10% or less of the data.
I have declared the uncertainty for the linear trends upthread. So I ask you to reciprocate. Let’s have facts and figures.
What is the uncertainty inherent in your results? How wide are your error bars? How will you calculate that?
pochas…”Yeahbut, latent heat in convective columns doesnt count as radiant flux”.
Good point. Same applies to sensible heat, which is likely what causes what we know as the greenhouse effect.
Concerning this recurrent discussion about climatic anomalies like ENSO and volcanoes and their effect on temperatures in the troposphere, I can only repeat the same stuff.
In 2013, a group of people directed by B. Santer and Cline Bonfils performed a deep analysis of RSS LT data (rev 3.3) together with data related to ENSO and to volcanic eruptions (aerosols etc).
{ The effect of volcanic eruptions on LT temperatures you see when comparing them with the ENSO time series. }
What they found was interesting: extracting all ENSO and volcano influences gave a residual estimate of about 0.9 C per decade, out of at that time originally about 0.12 C.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O24vxFht6IHI6TnPbL9UFN4xtVN5z1jc/view
This is the residual warming we all should talk about: according to Roy Spencer, half natural, half man-made.
My bad: I forget to put the accent stuff into
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
before sending. I wanted to write ‘Céline’.
Excusez-moi, Madame…
First of all, I’m curious how natural phenomena cause 7.5 times more warming, but half that is man-made? Although Dr. Spencer’s opinion on CO2 sensitivity is about 1K, I don’t recall any time he claimed half natural, half man-made. Do you have a reference?
I have heard him say that no one knows whether we are in for more or less warming.
Also, do you have any evidence (not counting trends and models) that CO2 has any effect on global temperatures?
Or that man contributes more than 5% of the CO2 production?
“I dont recall any time he claimed half natural, half man-made. Do you have a reference?”
Oh I’m sorry, it is somewhere in one of his many many threads.
The only one I could quickly google for was
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/one-third-of-ams-members-dont-agree-with-climate-change-orthodoxy/
“Fully 33% either believe climate change is not occurring, is mostly natural, or is at most half-natural and half-manmade (I tend toward that last category)or simply think we ‘don’t know’.”
*
“Also, do you have any evidence (not counting trends and models) that CO2 has any effect on global temperatures?”
Wow Chic Bowdrie! What the heck are you boring me with that damn CO2? Did I ever mention that in any comment?
*
But… this
“Or that man contributes more than 5% of the CO2 production?”
I can’t leave without a little comment.
What do you mean with ‘production’?
Over many thousands of years, natural CO2 sources and sinks perectly compensate.
Volcanoes’ CO2 production ias about 3% of the actual Mankind contribution.
So we can only talk about the rest, can’t we?
From his high pulpit, the preacher rails against the wicked:
“They are basically blind to the data. Whenever they look at a temperature curve, they only ever really “see” the overall trend. They dont really pay attention to the actual data. Its all about the trend. Because in a rising overall linear trend line, no matter what the data did between the endpoints to produce that particular trend line, what they “see is the background”
They’re not wicked. Just confused.
And most importantly, what I’m saying is true.
Yeah!
In comparison with us simple fellows, Grand Master Okulær is a top expert.
Salvatore,
Just wondering how the global SST is going? How does it compare with your benchmark of mid 2017?
It is unbelievable the rise but not due to AGW.
Of course the rise is not due to AGW, any more than the cooler oceans temps were due to a solar influence. We are simply seeing natural variation superimposed over the much slower rise of 0.001C per month.
I wonder, when UAH anomalies rise, will you have the balls to refer to a “warming trend”?
reasonable explanation
It is the same explanation I’ve been giving you for months.
The cooling trend will not continue if overall oceanic temperatures stay above +.3c which is where they are.
It is amazing , and all the sub surface warm water has made it’s way to the surface. I did not think this would occur.
If the long term data looked like this, I would agreed with Kristian…..a trend line would be misleading. It’s clear that whatever caused the uptick initially does not apply to the rest of the period:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/
/
/
But that IS exactly how the plotted temperature data progesses, Snape – a big uptick and then nothing for give or take a decade at a time:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/total.png
(Red curve: NINO3.4 SSTa, scaled down and lagged; blue curve: Had.CRUt3 gl)
In detail:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/step-11.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/step-21.png
Continue below …
In detail continued:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/step-31.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/post-step-32.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/1.png
“The modern era of global warming” started in 1976/77, with “The Great Pacific Climate Shift”. The 35 years before that, there was no warming. There was cooling.
And between 1970 and 2013/2014, global temps ONLY rose relative to NINO3.4 SSTa at THREE separate instances – in 1979, in 1988 and in 1998. The ENTIRE rise in global temps from 1970 (1964, really) to 2013/2014, relative to the more or less flat NINO3.4 record, is to be found inside those three years ALONE.
Oops. My “graph” didn’t work. The uptick was supposed to be a smooth incline.
bilybob
“Interesting chart, prefer the traditional line graph it is easier to visualize the data for me.”
I can understand, Nick’s circular sea ice plots are a bit cryptic.
As I wanted to download SIDADS sea ice data anyway, here are some charts for Arctic and Antarctic sea ice (extent and area, i.e. pack ice).
The charts show as usual the 12 month sequence absolute value for the recent years, and the 10 year average.
I hope they look more helpful to you.
Arctic extent:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ixsv5EOHm0sTQlIv5dBtlTWYs4rwkbEh/view
Arctic area:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16aqU0jKEVmNztdnfw1wWM5UD2ygKaSe2/view
Antarctic extent:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Coyr1lA8mysh8CKQjnDGQDGybREYOy8T/view
Antarctic area:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cJM3-GTP0NNkEHVQiigm8LFSMGI0ILGj/view
And as Roy Spencer’s web site allows us to publish 5 links, here is the average of all the stuff – north and south, extent and area:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tu_1zKfb7F0B1-SA8cfRzSJ6Nn6O3qOt/view
Sources
Arctic:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
Antarctic:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/monthly/data/
Look at the site
https://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking/
and at the very beginning, you see
If you could look at the Moon orbiting the Earth from above, youd see that it orbits once on its axis exactly as long as it takes to orbit once around our planet. Its always turning, showing us exactly the same face.
The word ‘orbits’ appers bold: my emphasis. It is evident that the author should have written ‘turns’ instead.
The people who want to measure rotation relative to the earth instead of relative to the universe as a whole are stuck in the god-based “earth is the centre of the universe” paradigm. They need to emerge from the middle ages.
bob…”The people who want to measure rotation relative to the earth instead of relative to the universe as a whole are stuck in the god-based earth is the centre of the universe paradigm”.
Maybe you came to the party late. The original statement posed was that the Moon does not turn on it’s axis. That’s true whether you are looking at the Moon from Earth or from anywhere else in the Universe.
There is no angular momentum of the Moon’s circumference about it’s axis. There may be rotation of a coordinate system drawn through the Moon but the rotation is not about its axis.
The coordinate system rotates because the Moon is in orbit around the Earth. However, one end of the system is attached to the Earth via gravity and it is constrained to follow the Moon’s orbit.
“There is no angular momentum of the Moons circumference about its axis.
You claiming it doesn’t make it right. It seems you take every stance possible against established science.
des, as Gordon stated, you arrived at the party late.
The ONLY angular momentum the Moon has is rmv, where r = Earth/Moon distance, m = lunar mass, and v = instantaneous tangential speed.
As Gordon pointed out, its angular momentum about its own center of mass is ZERO.
As I noted, the author is a publisher, not a scientist. He can be forgiven for imprecision.
Whatever spin you must conjure up to keep your pseudoscience alive….
JDH
Yes, that is what Gordon has claimed. And he is WRONG.
Nope, he’s right!
binny…”The word orbits appers bold: my emphasis. It is evident that the author should have written turns instead.”
And the author is equally confused about the rest. Even from above, the Moon cannot turn with an angular velocity if it has one face locked facing the surface.
Draw a line through the Moon and the Earth centres with a perpendicular line intersecting it where the Moon’s inner face meets the line. That intercepting line, the tangent, must be turning around the Moon’s axis to have angular velocity. It’s not turning around the Moon’s axis at all, it’s turning around the earth’s axis.
That’s called an orbit…of the Earth.
Gordon,
Have you tried the broom experiment yet? Are you avoiding answering?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323588
You can also just logic it out and see that the broom does continue rotating after release. It has angular momentum, just as the moon does.
Does Nate know about spears and javelins?
Of course.
I don’t typically swing spears in a circle, you?. If you did, they would continue rotating upon release. Prove me wrong.
When you throw your spear, your arm is not “swinging”?
Learn some physics, pathetic Nate.
You are off on a red herring, as usual.
Rotation was the point of the broom experiment. One so simple, even you might be able to do it-and prove me wrong. But you won’t.
Nate, in your delusional world, no one can prove you wrong. By avoiding reality, you can always believe you’re right.
That’s the advantage you have with being an anonymous clown.
I wonder how many you actually convince….
“By avoiding reality”
By not doing an easy experiment, nor even really thinking about, much less refuting it, you are doing just that.
How bout you, Gordon? Any thoughts on the broom experiment?
Do you even know how to throw a javelin?
More pointless non-sequiturs JD.
It seems David was right about Gordon.
When he has no answers or rebuttal, he just stops responding.
I’m glad you liked that link, LP. Just make sure to read the whole thing.
“Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.”
JDHuffman or Gordon Robertson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ExFAU2los
Since the two of you both do not understand what tidal locking means. You both think it means gravity acts like a tractor beam and holds objects like a rod would and prevents them from rotating on their axis. That is NOT what it means and it has never meant that. I guess they use a word that confuses the two of your (“locking”). If you ever actually read what it means it might be helpful.
This video shows exactly what is going on in very clear and easy to see demonstrations. You could do it with real objects if you do not accept the reality your eyes can see.
In the first case orbit of the Moon around the Earth the Moon is not spinning at all. Demonstrated by the creator of the simulation.
When the Moon does not spin as it orbits the people on Earth will see all sides of the Moon. Really clear to see.
In the next simulation he has the Moon rotating at a certain rate. He then moves the spinning Moon in an orbit and if he moves the spinning Moon at the same rate he is moving it in orbit, the same side always faces the Earth. He repeats it a few times in case you can’t understand what is going on.
I suggest you view this video a few times until you can finally get what tidal locking means and why the Moon must spin as it orbits.
I think Gordon may see this. JDHuffman is not capable of comprehending the simple reality no matter how many times he is proven wrong.
I am wondering if his strongest supporter will jump in to save his drowning buddy…DREMT. I think JDHuffman has spent his last coin.
norman…”You both think it [tidal locking] means gravity acts like a tractor beam and holds objects like a rod would and prevents them from rotating on their axis”
That is correct and that is what is happening with the Moon.
Your lack of basic mechanics in physics is preventing you seeing that a body that spins about its own axis must have an angular velocity. A body like the Moon with an angular velocity would not sit with one face always to the Earth.
Fix an axis through the Moon, like an x-y axis with the -ve y-axis tied to the Earth by gravitational force. Now watch the axis as it turns around the Earth. The axes will turn but not around the Moon’s axis. They can’t, the axes are tied to the planet by gravity.
The video to which you link is a completely amateur job that is wrong. There is not a hope in Hades that a body like the Moon could be turning exactly once every time it orbits the Earth.
The Moon is tidally locked and it’s being taken for a ride around the Earth by our gravitational field holding it facing one way.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “The video to which you link is a completely amateur job that is wrong. There is not a hope in Hades that a body like the Moon could be turning exactly once every time it orbits the Earth.”
A very ignorant statement from someone unable to see with his own eyes. !h
Gordon Robertson
I pressed enter by mistake.
You don’t know what tidal locking means. The video is an excellent example of the concept. Gravity does not lock objects and prevent them from rotation. look at our own solar system. The Sun’s gravity does not lock the planets to face it. You have planets with multiple rotational speeds. You should learn some actual physics instead of assuming you know what you are talking about. Read up on tidal locking. Learn what it means, at this time you are clueless and making up false and misleading statements.
Gordon Robertson
What do you find flawed in the video? Just saying “completely amateur job that is wrong” What does that mean?
It is simple in design which is excellent for people like you. Easy to see. He has a non-rotating moon which he clearly demonstrates. He moves that in an orbit around the Earth and an Earth observer would see all sides. He then has it start to spin at a constant rate and moves it around in orbit and shows just one face to the Earth observer. Why is it wrong? You need to clarify your declaration with some evidence. You have provided zero for you declaration. Explain what is wrong with this video.
Norman, you just can’t seem to keep up with your pseudoscience.
“Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.”
https://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking/
LMAO. Turnip Boy can’t figure out what is wrong with the animation so he links to some clown who does not even have an astrophysics degree who makes an uninformed statement. Earlier in link, the guy says the moon is always turning, when explaining why we see only one face of the moon. Turning is rotating.
Well SGW, if the Moon is spinning, as your pseudoscience says, but it has stopped spinning, as your pseudoscience says, you must love your pseudoscience.
“If you love your pseudoscience, you can keep your pseudoscience!!”
JD can’t even correctly follow writing on a level for the masses, clearly the author writes: “(Moon) is always turning, showing us exactly the same face.” And “Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until (“These bulges acted like handles that the Earths gravity could grab onto, and torque it back into place” stopped, forever.”
JD is so easily confused by basic science that JD’s comments are forever entertaining. Especially when JD mistakes a black body for a mirror, that gaffe is truly historic in humor & even complete with a cartoon. More please JD. You make this blog better than SNL.
it appears Ball4 was able to score some more drugs today.
We’ll be treated to his dis-oriented, fragmented, incoherent, nonsense, before the drugs wear off.
Enjoy!
Poor Norman gets easily fooled by computer graphics. He’s probably not very good at video games…or physics…or logic…or reality.
But at least he knows how to type….
JDHuffman
Typical meaningless response from you. Not that I would ever expect you to provide some logical or intelligent ideas. Just an insult that you hope I bite on. Over and over with you. Nothing in way of substance, mostly just taunts and insults from you.
I observe that you did not address anything in the video. You think saying I was “fooled” by computer graphics means something? To you maybe. You are not really saying anything there are you. Just a bunch of babble. I agree with Ball4, you are amusing keep up the funny comments. It is all you seem able to do on this blog.
Norman, a computer simulation is not “proof” of anything. Evidently you have never done any graphic programming. Did you realize a programmer can make cartoon animals talk?
Get some credibility and learn some physics, if you want to have a meaningful debate. Otherwise, you are just howling at the gravitationally-stopped Moon, that your pseudoscience teaches.
“Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.”
https://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking/
Again, the reading challenged JD makes the mistake of what the author meant by “it”, in this case the author’s correct meaning is:
“Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until (“These bulges acted like handles that the Earth’s gravity could grab onto, and torque it back into place” stopped, forever.”
JD, who writes that blackbodies reflect and race cars don’t turn in the turns should get some credibility by learning some physics, if JD wants to have a meaningful debate. I predict: not. JD does not seek a meaningful debate.
Sorry Ball4, but “it” clearly refers to “rotation speed”.
But, your attempted spin was very creative. They say some artists do their best work under the influence of some mind-altering substance.
ball4…”and race cars dont turn in the turns should get some credibility by learning some physics”
I seriously doubt that you have studied physics given your ridiculous denial of heat as energy and now your inability to tell rotation about an axis from turning in the bend of a road or track.
Gordon, heat is only a measure of particle KE in an object as Clausius defined heat. Clausius was right, you are wrong, heat entity was proven by experiment to have no other physical existence in an object.
When the vehicle driver turns the wheel in your bend of the road, that by definition means the driver rotates the vehicle on its axis.
The moon turns in orbit of Earth, race cars and horses turn in the turns, and black bodies do not reflect any incident radiation despite what JD will have you believe.
JDHuffman
Your analysis of the computer simulation and comparing it to animals talking is not a reasonable analysis. In fact it is not an analysis at all.
Since you refuse to accept anything do the experiments yourself. Take a rod that provides and orbital path around a center. On the end of the rod have a ball attached via bearing (not solidly attached to the rod so the ball is free to spin) and have a motor manually spin the ball at a certain rate. Paint a face on one side of the ball that is facing the center. Have this spinning ball spin one time equal to the rate it takes to orbit and you will have the face always pointing toward the center.
How come Ball4 is correct about your blogging behavior?
norman…” On the end of the rod have a ball attached via bearing (not solidly attached to the rod so the ball is free to spin) and have a motor manually spin the ball at a certain rate. Paint a face on one side of the ball that is facing the center. Have this spinning ball spin one time equal to the rate it takes to orbit….”
We are talking about a moon tidally locked to a larger body not a fantasy created via thought experiment.
Many Interesting comments in this forum and difference of opinions. To me it looks like ocean surface temps are warming steadily. We will most likely have a warmer October than September globally. My guess is aprox +0.3 anomaly for October. Very unlikely this fall temp anomaly will be negative. This means bye bye to any cooling trend, at least for the short term.
Based on just the first 4 days of the month, we are looking at about +0.45. But at my age I have to be wary of premature speculation.
I would guess in next month or two, global average temperature will increase by .3 [or perhaps more]. But in 1/2 year time it will drop to about .0 C
Yeah – that’s what Salvatore said for August this year.
You guys will keep saying it WILL happen. And it will – when we get another strong La Nina or Pinatubo scale eruption. Are you prepared to state in 6 months time if/when the UAH is not near zero that you were wrong?
I would like reason or explanations as to why the entire oceanic surface has warmed so rapidly over the last month?
For the same reason it fell (not so rapidly) at the start of the year. ENSO.
Salvatore
Your problem keeps the same: you are fixated on a climate going up and down with the Sun.
That is, even if the Sun is our only one energy supplier, simply wrong.
Climate goes up and down with what the oceans do with that energy.
–Bobdesbond says:
October 7, 2018 at 1:41 AM
Yeah thats what Salvatore said for August this year.
You guys will keep saying it WILL happen.–
I didn’t say it stay below .0 C for years and years- or it’s gone well below .0 C in recent decades.
And these monthly temperatures are basically, weather and the weather goes up and down. And is largely about the temperature of global ocean surface temperature. Or say top meter of ocean water.
We live in Ice age, a icebox global climate which has average ocean temperature which stays within the range of 1 to 5 C, and currently it’s about 3.5 C and requires centuries and thousands of years to change in temperature. And the temperature of ocean is the global climate. A ocean temperature of 5 C has a high global temperature and 1 C has cold global temperature.
Within a few centuries, our ocean can not warm from 3.5 C to 5 C.
All the fuss we have been concerned about for last century is roughly been about weather.
In terms of global temperature, we have been recovering from the Little Ice Age and over last few thousands of years, global temperature appears to lowering and we had a small up tick from LIA- a warming of the ocean by hundredths of a degree and in coming centuries the ocean temperature, might warm from about 3.5 to about 4 C.
And ocean with average temperature of 4 C is big change from the thousands of years of cooling, and it not clear that this will happen. But if did, it would a change in global average temperature, rather than a mere century long type fluctuations the top tens of meters waters of the ocean waters.
Earth in the past [before our Ice Age] has had ocean temperature of 10 C or more- or Earth without polar ice caps and obviously much higher sea level. But global air temperature is not “hotter” rather earth global air temperature is more uniform.
I was wondering what Mars average temperature be if Mars was at about 1.2 AU rather it’s current position of about 1.5 AU.
And I thought that Mars average temperature at 1.2 AU should be about -18 C.
And if Mars was at same distance from the Sun as Earth [1 AU], I would think the Mars average temperature would be about 5 C.
Now what would be the effect if Mars was at 1 AU and one added ocean water to Mars?
And the scale/size of the ocean would be that if Mars was completely level, the ocean would be global and ocean would be 1000 meters deep.
With Earth, as comparison, if it was completely level the ocean would global and about 3000 meters deep.
Or Mars with this ocean, per square km, would have on average 1/3rd of Earth’s ocean depth.
Some rather old news:
“The finding suggests that ancient volcanic eruptions may have been major sources of water on early Marsand could have created habitable environments.
According to a new study, Martian meteorites contain a surprising amount of hydrated minerals, which have water incorporated in their crystalline structures.
In fact, the study authors estimate that the Martian mantle currently contains between 70 and 300 parts per million of waterenough to cover the planet in liquid 660 to 3,300 feet (200 to 1,000 meters) deep.”
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120626-mars-water-mantle-oceans-meteorites-space-science/
And wiki, Mars ocean hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_ocean_hypothesis
Which has some “maps”/illustrations of what ocean could look like.
And it should be noted that it thought that Mars axis has changed over time periods of hundreds million/ billions of years. {ie the known buried glaciers land forms in equatorial region were at one time in polar regions}.
Or instead of ocean being mostly in arctic polar region a shift in axis, could make the northern polar ocean region be centered at the equator. Or add about 65 degrees to existing axis tilt of 25 degrees.
So add 1000 meter on average depth of water to Mars, increase tilt by 65 degrees and have Mars at 1 AU distance from sun.
And kept same amount of 25 trillion tonnes of atmosphere.
But since displacing atmosphere with liquid water and now having a sea level, the air pressure at sea level will be higher than current of 6.0 mbar. Wiki:
” The atmospheric pressure on the Martian surface averages 600 pascals (0.087 psi; 6.0 mbar), about 0.6% of Earth’s mean sea level pressure of 101.3 kilopascals (14.69 psi; 1.013 bar). It ranges from a low of 30 pascals (0.0044 psi; 0.30 mbar) on Olympus Mons’s peak to over 1,155 pascals (0.1675 psi; 11.55 mbar) in the depths of Hellas Planitia. ”
Or as wild guess it could about 10.0 mbars [or more] at the ocean surface.
So what do you think Mars at 1 AU with this ocean, average temperature would be?
So, Mars at 1 AU and roughly with 1/3rd of Earth’s ocean, unlike Earth, it is not dominated by it’s ocean. Or less than 1/2 of surface area is covered by ocean waters.
And such world is more about it’s vast mountains. Some might say due to Mars low gravity, that it has vast mountains, as compared to Earth- but it’s lack of ocean is also reason it’s world with a lot mountains- but the low gravity does allow larger mountains, and in terms of it’s global climate, the low gravity would allow higher mountains of glacial ice.
So, one might ask would there be vast ice caps which could dwarf the Antarctica ice cap?
Due to large amount of ocean water, one could have huge ice caps and still have lots of ocean water.
So most of surface area of planet is near equator- say 35 degree north and south of equator, and the tropical zone is 25 degrees north and south of the equator which is more than 40% of the surface of the planet. And about 40% to 50% of mars tropics is ocean area.
The hellas Basin, Hellas Planitia is currently outside the tropics: “It is centered at WikiMiniAtlas 42.4S 70.5E” -wiki
65 – 42 is 32. Or 10 degrees closer to equator. Or one could have it centered it at equator- let’s have the latter.
So it’s small but deep isolated ocean at centered at equator- roughly 2300 km in diameter: 4.15 million square km.
And Mars tropics: 144.8 million km .4 = 58 million square- 1/12th area of Mars tropics.
And if 40% of tropics is ocean, there is 23 million square km of ocean and Hellas is about 1/5 to 1/6 of these oceans.
With Mars thin atmosphere, the ocean are prevented warming up much as water boils at lower temperature.
And with a clear day, the surface gets a lot of sunlight. Sun at zenith, ground could warm to about 120 C, whereas ocean probably can’t warm as much as 20 C.
And roughly speaking if ground in location where heats to say 60 C during day, one will not have snow, though in shaded mountain side it could be in region of getting this much sunlight and have snow.
Of course Mars has seasons like Earth- summer could ground warming to 60 C, and during winter one can get snow.
And one might ask how much snow could get in the winter, which could related to how close is region to water.
Mars is currently a cold desert, and Earth which 70% covered by ocean has 30% of land areas as desert. Mars at AU 1 with 1/3 of Earth ocean, will still be mostly desert. Lot’s of cold deserts, and deserts in tropics will have cold nights- haven’t determine how cold is cold desert nights, but generally should be colder nights than Earth’s tropical deserts at night.
Or with all that water added, Mars is still a desert planet.
barry…”At the 95% confidence level the trend is anywhere between
0.097 and 0.251 C/decade.
Now:
Trend + uncertainty Jan 1998 to Dec 2012:
0.052 C/decade (+/- 0.140)
At the 95% confidence level the trend is anywhere between”
***********
Barry gets out his amateur statistics package and finds a trend where the IPCC found none. That’s why the IPCC declared 1998 – 2012 a hiatus.
Then along came NOAA circa 2015, with their cheating and their fudging, changing the traditional method of finding the SST to a method that showed warming. Of course, now the cheaters at NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut show a warming trend during that period.
And Barry agrees with their cheating.
“Barry gets out his amateur statistics package and finds a trend where the IPCC found none.”
Quoting the IPCC
“The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998 – 2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] C per decade…”
Quoting myself:
“Trend + uncertainty Jan 1998 to Dec 2012:
0.052 C/decade (+/- 0.140)”
What were you saying, Gordon?
Then along came NOAA
I didn’t use NOAA data, I used Met Office data.
Read properly before you post and avoid spouting nonsense.
barry…”Quoting the IPCC
The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998 2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] C per decade”
Based on the error margin, the IPCC called it a warming hiatus. The error margin reveals the trend could have been cooling.
I don’t see why you can’t just use the IPCC ‘hiatus’.
Besides, a visual scan of the UAH red-running average makes it clear that no significant warming took place.
barry…”My error margin also reveals the trend could have been cooling”
Then get off your denial and admit there was a hiatus from 1998 – 2012 as the IPCC claimed. Then try to explain that flat trend within the context of your overall trend from 1979 – present.
But Gordon, the error margin also delivers a potential warming trend, which is also statistically the more likely result.
But no strong claim can be made about a trend for the period because the trend estimate statistically non-significant.
Failing to disprove the null (no trend) does not thereby prove the null.
I’ve explained what I think about the period many times, most recently here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/#comment-323501
Can you explain why, when you think the IPCC is BS, you nevertheless want everyone to bow down before their use of the word ‘hiatus’?
My error margin also reveals the trend could have been cooling. My calcs were quantitatively similar and qualitatively the same as the IPCC.
The point I was making upthread is that the ‘pause’ is not a statistically verified phenomenon. Chic defined the pause in relation to a prior warming “trend,” and that was the basis of my argument.
It’s odd to see you arguing for deference to the IPCC when you think it is illegitimate.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
Was the recent Slowdown caused by the super El Nino of 1998?
If you take the GISTEMP temperature series, and replace the 1998 temperature anomaly with a new value, that is spot on the trend line, does the Slowdown disappear.
Warning – the results of this article will be shocking, for some people.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/was-the-slowdown-caused-by-1998
Figuring the poster meant GISS global, I just worked with the land + ocean data.
1960 to 2017 trend = 0.16 C/decade
1998 – 2012 trend = 0.09 C/decade
Now with 1998 lying on the 1960 – 2017 trend line
1998 – 2012 trend = 0.13 C/decade
binny…”Some stoopids even think they are so genial that they can argue Einstein is wrong with relativity”.
I know your English comprehension may be challenged since you are a Frenchman trying to speak German and English. Would be nice if you read what was written once in a while.
I have not challenged Einstein on GTR per se, I have claimed he is wrong about time dilating and lengths changing due to observations of a human observer on one reference frame viewing motion on another.
I learned basic relativity decades ago based on a translation of axes. The GTR offered by Einstein, based on the Lorentz tranforms, is not much different with the exception of the inclusion of the speed of light. He admitted that himself.
My beef with Einstein is that he presumed time is not absolute and that it can vary. That is absurd since time is DEFINED based on the angular velocity of the Earth.
I am guessing that in the time of Einstein, time was not as formally defined. Even when I attended university, time was never discussed. It was not till I read a transcribed dialog between Jiddu Krishnamurti and physicist David Bohm that I received insight into the fact that time is an illusion on which we humans organize our memory.
We order our thoughts automatically in chronological order. Past and future exist nowhere but in human thought.
Time has no existence outside of the human mind and I cannot begin to understand how Einstein could have missed that. Mind you, in the days of Einstein, psychology was in its infancy with Freud breaking ground with the truth about the human mind. He realized that humans are driven by unconscious processes and not by ‘will’. It’s possible that Einstein was not privy to the real meaning of time and I think that applies to many scientists today.
If you read his GTR, he begins by using accelerations rather than forces to determine his thought experiment of a person floating in a box in space. From there, he based his theory on acceleration which has a time component that cannot vary. He actually defines time as the hands on a clock. No one who understood the meaning of time could have made such a statement.
He allowed it to vary and to this day there are top level scientists claiming he made a mistake my assuming that. One of them is a leading authority on time.
Time has no existence outside of the human mind
Proof please.
bob…”Time has no existence outside of the human mind
Proof please.”
*********
I have given it to you in detail. Time was defined based on the rotational period of the Earth. As such, it does not exist. The rest related to past and future exists only as memories in the human mind.
I might ask you for scientific proof that time exists as a real phenomenon.
“That is absurd since time is DEFINED based on the angular velocity of the Earth.”
This is wrong on TWO counts!
1) Any definition based on the rotation of earth has long been superseded by other definitions that are more precise and more universal.
2) You are actually describing a definition of a specific *unit* of time, not a definition of time itself. Time existed long before the earth was formed, and time will exist long after the earth not longer exists.
tim…” You are actually describing a definition of a specific *unit* of time, not a definition of time itself. Time existed long before the earth was formed, and time will exist long after the earth not longer exists”.
Where is this time, where do I find it? How do I demonstrate it and how can I prove, using the scientific method, that it exists?
What you are dealing with is a fundamental issue with awareness. That is not intended as a slight, it is basically the human condition.
If you go back to the time of Jesus, which we have marked as 0 AD and you consider what has happened in the physical universe since, do you seriously think a real phenomenon called time has changed?
We know there have been physical changes. Mountains have eroded, sea levels have altered, climates have changed, people have been born and passed on, but where is this thing called time?
Essentially, the physical environment of Jesus, 2000+ years ago, is the same environment we experience today. There is no intervening dimension called time. There is no physical dimension between the two environments.
The only reality is ‘now, the past and future are illusions peculiar to the human mind.
You are talking as if time is a dimension that changes through the years. The only thing that changes is memories in the human mind. The human memory keeps a log of events that we call time.
I would love to know how Einstein saw time. His good friend, physicist David Bohm, is on record as stating that humans invented time.
“He actually defines time as the hands on a clock.”
It would be more accurate to say Einstein defined a “clock” as a device that changes in some predictable way as time passes. So if you make an accurate clock, it measures time. That “clock” could be sand flowing through an hourglass; or a candle slowly burning down; or spring-wound set of gears moving some hands around the face of a clock; or a pendulum; or a vibrating quartz crystal running your digital watch; or oscillations of atoms in an atomic clock; or even your body aging.
Any of these could be calibrated to any standard you choose. We historically chose to calibrate time to the rotation of the earth; subdivided into hours, minutes, and seconds. Now we choose atomic clocks, since
1) the earth slows down, so we would have to continually redefine how long “1.00000000 seconds” lasts — and consequently continuously redefine things like Planck’s Constant, Coulomb’s Constant, and even the meter.
2) it is handy to be able to define any units of measure independent of a specific object (that could change or even be destroyed).
The main point is that we can build a set of accurate clocks that tick off precisely 1 second in 1 second (calibrated to the rotation of the earth if you like). In 24 hr, each clock will read 24 hr. It is possible to build a set of clocks that will remain within about a second of each other after running for a billion years (which of course, is much more consistent than the period of the earth).
And if you fly a few of those clocks around the world in one direction, and fly some around the world in the other direction, and keep a few on the ground, the three sets will read different times (but the ones within each set will be in sync with each other)! One set will be ahead of the earth’s time, the other behind earth’s time. This happens consistently — and it happens precisely in accordance with the calculations of relativity. (and they all run at the same rate once they are placed together again).
Yes, time ACTUALLY passed differently for the three sets of clocks. Time is INDEED relative to motion.
tim…”And if you fly a few of those clocks around the world in one direction, and fly some around the world in the other direction, and keep a few on the ground, the three sets will read different times (but the ones within each set will be in sync with each other)! One set will be ahead of the earths time, the other behind earths time. This happens consistently ….”
You stated clearly above that time is created by humans, whether it’s a sand-filled hourglass, a sundial, or a mechanical/electronic clock.
ALL OF THEM ARE BASED ON THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH.
There is no clock of which I am aware that is not based on the rotation of the Earth.
TIME DOES NOT EXIST INDEPENDENTLY OF THE HUMAN MIND.
In fact, over the centuries, we humans have built the regularity of day and night, due to that rotation, into our psyches, as memory. That is time to most of us, the information stored in human memory. Since our thoughts are ordered by chronological events, time and thought are inter-related.
A clock is a machine. It generates time, it does not measure it. There is no reason whatsoever why electronic clocks on the surface should ever be out of sync with clocks in terrestrial space, no matter which way they orbit the Earth.
I can see a mechanical, spring-wound clock being affected slightly by a lowered gravitational field but that has nothing to do with the inference in GRT that time can dilate due to relative motion.
Einstein claimed that a clock at the Equator would show a different time than a clock at either pole.
How???
When I claimed time is a sub-division of the Earth period, I did confuse the period with angular velocity. The period of the Earth’s rotation is the interval between two sunrises. Obviously, someone standing on the Equator is moving nearly 1000 mph whereas someone on a latitude close to the NP is moving at feet per hour.
It would take exactly the same time, based on our definition of time, for a person on the Equator to complete one rotation as it would someone standing a few feet from the NP. If a person was standing a few feet from the NP on the Greenwich Meridian, it would take 24 hours, or 86,400 seconds for that person to rotate around the pole. Same at the Equator.
I was wrong to equate time to distance without specifying the latitude. However, Einstein was wrong to infer that the much faster angular velocity at the Equator would affect time wrt to much slower angular velocity near the NP.
An observer from space, using our time would note that a person on the Equator took exactly the same time to complete one rotation as a person standing a few feet from the NP.
A person standing on the Equator on the Greenwich Meridian with a clock synced to GMT would read exactly the same time as a person standing at the NP (hopefully on ice) holding a clock synced to GMT.
There is absolutely no reason to think otherwise.
“There is no reason whatsoever why electronic clocks on the surface should ever be out of sync with clocks in terrestrial space”
Nature says you are wrong. Clocks flying around the earth DO tick at different rates. Clocks in orbit DO tick at different rates. The half-life of moving muons is different than the half-life of stationary muons.
So clearly there MIST be a reason, because it happens.
tim…”Nature says you are wrong. Clocks flying around the earth DO tick at different rates. Clocks in orbit DO tick at different rates”.
And does that change the rotational period of the Earth, upon which the second is based?
How do you explain that the clocks mentioned, based on the second, change time, yet the second upon which they are based is fixed to the Earth’s rotation?
You could probably get a spring/gear based clock to run slow by putting it in a deep freeze. You could get a digital clock to run fast by putting it in an environment that is too hot for it, or too cold for it.
Does that change the length of a second, which is a fraction of the period of the Earth’s rotation?
Clocks of any kind should not have been the basis of GRT, it should have been the absolute second. GRT would still work fine without the nonsense about time dilation, lengths changing, and the sci-fi of space-time.
Furthermore, the human mind should not have been relied upon to make observations of a separate reference frame from another. The human mind is not capable of such an observation, it distorts what is seen.
I remember as a child going on train trips in Scotland. I would wonder at the telephone poles going past and how, as the train sped up, they got closer and closer.
Anyone knows intuitively that the poles are not getting closer, it’s an illusion crated by the human mind. Apparently that illusion has not been figured out by those who support GRT.
“A person standing on the Equator on the Greenwich Meridian with a clock synced to GMT would read exactly the same time as a person standing at the NP (hopefully on ice) holding a clock synced to GMT.”
Ah! But you have missed one critical fact. Yes, you could build a clock synced to read 86,400 seconds for 1.000000000000 revolutions of the earth at the equator. You could build a clock synced to read 86,400 seconds for 1.000000000000 revolutions of the earth at the north pole.
But if you bring the clock from the pole to the equator, it will not read 86,400 seconds for 1.000000000000 revolutions of the earth. And if you bring the clock from the equator to the pole, it will not read 86,400 seconds for 1.000000000000 revolutions of the earth. One will run ever so slightly fast and the other will run ever so slightly slow. Neither will now read exactly 86,400 seconds for 1.000000000000 revolutions. Or stated another way, 1.0000000000 seconds at the poles is not the same as 1.00000000 seconds at the equator.
These are experimental facts. People have done similar experiments. People do the experiment all the time with GPS satellites.
Time really DOES run at different rates due to gravity and speed.
tim…”But if you bring the clock from the pole to the equator, it will not read 86,400 seconds for 1.000000000000 revolutions of the earth”.
Why not? It’s the period of rotation upon which time is based, which is exactly the same at the North Pole as at the Equator.
If you could find the Greenwich meridian at the NP, and you stood on it facing Greenwich, you should turn through 360 degrees in 24 hours (4 minutes less). Even though you could walk around the Pole itself in seconds, it takes the Greenwich meridian intercept at the NP a full day to rotate just as it does where the meridian intercepts the Equator.
I hope you laugh at this, I think it’s a hoot.
http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/definition-of-time/
also…
http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/
From link 1:
“Definition of Time
There is no one simple definition of time
Time is something we deal with every day, and something that everyone thinks they understand. However, a compact and robust definition of time has proved to be remarkably tricky and elusive.
Short Definitions
Among the many short, snappy definitions of time that have been put forward are:
-what clocks measure (attr. to physicists Albert Einstein, Donald Ivey, and others)
-what prevents everything from happening at once (physicist John Wheeler and others)
-a linear continuum of instants (philosopher Adolf Grnbaum)
-a certain period during which something is done (Medical Dictionary)
-a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions (Encyclopaedia Britannica)
Tim
I always enjoy your comments!
******
I would define time as the comparison of one motion to another.
But that begs the question, “what is motion?”
And that’s the rub…..motion can only be defined using time. (It takes time for an object to move from one location to another)
Very confusing.
BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors
“Just ahead of a new report from the IPCC, dubbed SR#15 about to be released today, we have this bombshell- a detailed audit shows the surface temperature data is unfit for purpose. The first ever audit of the worlds most important temperature data set has found it to be so riddled with errors and freakishly improbable data that it is effectively useless.”
https://tinyurl.com/yakrete9
And paper behind paywall- and costs $8
And Kristian from about month ago:
“Why there is no reason for you to trust the official global temperature records ”
https://tinyurl.com/ya94v6t2
Governments tend to lose billions of dollars as routine matter, governments should not be expected to keep records of anything.
Nor should one trust wordpress to post anything- try again, again .
Oh, forget a posters comment in the first link:
Greg Goodman October 7, 2018 at 6:26 am
“It is nonsense to mix land and sea data as an average , especialy if you think this may tell you something about the supposed heating effects of IR radiation.
TEMPERATURES OF DIFFERENT MEDIA ARE NOT FUNGIBLE.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/10/are-land-sea-temperature-averages-meaningful/
Land ans sea water have a heat capacity which differ by a factor of two, meaning land warms faster. Adding the two to get an average biases to result to warm faster than a proper energy based calculation.
Anyone who does not understand that should not be working on AGW.
As a crude fix, land temps should be weighted 50% less than SST.
Kudos to John McLean for doing this work and managing to get it accepted as his thesis. Well done.”
I didn’t think of that before, but also it seems the greenhouse gases “warming effect” should have some difference between ocean and land- and just because of difference heat capacity.
Or heat capacity makes a difference be even if a surface had same heat capacity difference surfaces should warm and cool at different rates from various “forcings” [including sunlight – even different kinds [intensities] of sunlight].
Hahaha. As usual the skeptics here exhibit no skepticism whatsoever when they find some news they like.
Oh no, they soberly declare “BOMBSHELL!!”
There will be hundreds of comments on WUWT about it, and less than 1% of those commenting will Have read the report (like gbakie). An even smaller fraction will subject the report to any actual scrutiny.
But some people will. So for those not willing to cough up the money to unpaywall it, we will have dueling blog reports.
The bombshell would be if they actually corrected every mistake and recomputed then found the median global near surface T to have materially changed. If the work did so, then the result would be in the title & is not.
The 3 times skeptics did that and got the work peer-reviewed they came up with results extremely similar to the official data sets.
But skeptics don’t seem to remember that this happened.
Beg pardon – only 2 of those efforts were submitted for peer-review.
barry…”Hahaha. As usual the skeptics here exhibit no skepticism whatsoever when they find some news they like”.
No, barry, it’s when someone reveals some basic physics that has been entirely missed that we skeptics enjoy the revelation.
You alarmists, on the other hand, especially you number crunchers, rush off to see if the article has been peer reviewed.
It had never occurred to me that the temperature of ocean water should not be equated to the temperature of air over land. It’s a brilliant insight and proves once again to me that I should always be skeptical of any science. All is never as it seems.
If you want to compare parcels of air then you should measure the air temperature above the ocean then find out how it affects land air temperatures. We already know that ocean air when contacting certain coastal areas makes them much warmer than air over land far from the ocean.
I have never seen the temperature of sea water related to the temperature of the air at the same height above the ocean as weather stations located above land.
No, barry, it’s when someone reveals some basic physics that has been entirely missed that we skeptics enjoy the revelation.
Rally, and what basic physics was revealed in Macleans’s paper?
You didn’t read it, did you? Your comment was just the usual grouchy waffling.
And it seems illustrious WUWT commenter Greg Goodman can’t read his own source. He says:
As a crude fix, land temps should be weighted 50% less than SST.
His source says:
These are typically derived by weighting a global land average and global SST average according to the 30:70 land-sea geographical surface area ratio.
Earth’s geographical surface is 30% land and 70% ocean.
This is unrelated to what Greg Goodman was discussing.
I like repeating that ocean area covers about 70% and land covers about 30%. And global average temperature of ocean surface is 17 C and land is about 10 C.
And also note that 15 C is cold and 10 C is colder.
That we are living in Ice Age and with no possible chance of reaching a hothouse climate- though a hothouse climate is not hot, but rather is climate in which plants and animals have thrived- globally.
Though it’s not as good for life which needs hot and dry climate- those who do best in deserts or only living on barren glaciers. Because there less percentage of land of area of barren ice fields or hot dry deserts.
Or if don’t like lots and lots of forests, or maybe perhaps one must have or one loves the vast grasslands, you could prefer the ice age. Which is good news, due to inescapable situation that we going to live in an Ice Age for many [perhaps hundreds, even thousands] of generations.
This is unrelated to what Greg Goodman was discussing.
It is exactly what he was talking about when he said:
Land ans sea water have a heat capacity which differ by a factor of two, meaning land warms faster. Adding the two to get an average biases to result to warm faster than a proper energy based calculation.
As a crude fix, land temps should be weighted 50% less than SST.
They ARE weighted at less than 50% of SST, just by factoring area.
This gives a good average of overall global surface change.
Do you understand that using monthly anomalies to a common baseline to estimate change eradicates the problems with using absolute temps? If not, you have no business commenting on this subject.
barry continues his display of total reading comprehension failure.
Heh, this gets better.
The paper is “published” in a ‘publishing house’ set up by Jo Nova, an Australian strident climate skeptic. WUWT gave the impression it came from a peer-reviewed journal, while electing to omit this interesting background.
Peer review and objectivity? From their ‘about’ section.
“Robert Boyle Publishing is not a conventional publishing house. We only publish scientific material other journals are unlikely to publish, but that we think should be published…
We are well aware of how peer review can be abused by both authors and reviewers. We solicit reviews only when necessary, and we expect reviewers to justify their comments. We regard reviews as advice that we can heed or reject, because ultimately it is the wider audience that determines the merit of a paper.”
https://robert-boyle-publishing.com/submitting-a-paper/