Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2020 was +0.54 deg. C, down slightly from the September, 2020 value of +0.57 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
For comparison, the CDAS global surface temperature anomaly for the last 30 days at Weatherbell.com was +0.33 deg. C.
With La Nina in the Pacific now officially started, it will take several months for that surface cooling to be fully realized in the tropospheric temperatures. Typically, La Nina minimum temperatures (and El Nino maximum temperatures) show up around February, March, or April.
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 22 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.14 +1.14
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.05 +0.05
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.58
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.49 +0.93 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.99 +0.38
2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35
2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.10 +0.34 +0.87
2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.23
2019 09 +0.61 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57
2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.27 +0.30 -0.03 +1.00 +0.49
2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.37
2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
2020 01 +0.56 +0.60 +0.53 +0.61 +0.73 +0.13 +0.65
2020 02 +0.76 +0.96 +0.55 +0.76 +0.38 +0.02 +0.30
2020 03 +0.48 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.09 -0.72 +0.16
2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.33 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
2020 05 +0.54 +0.60 +0.49 +0.66 +0.17 +1.16 -0.15
2020 06 +0.43 +0.45 +0.41 +0.46 +0.38 +0.80 +1.20
2020 07 +0.44 +0.45 +0.42 +0.46 +0.56 +0.40 +0.66
2020 08 +0.43 +0.47 +0.38 +0.59 +0.41 +0.47 +0.49
2020 09 +0.57 +0.58 +0.56 +0.46 +0.97 +0.48 +0.92
2020 10 +0.54 +0.71 +0.37 +0.37 +1.10 +1.23 +0.24
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for October, 2020 should be available within the next few days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Dr. Spencer, It’s well known that sea-ice exhibits a higher emissivity than water, thus one might expect that the loss of sea-ice in summer, as well as the increase in melt ponds on the surface of first year ice, would appear as colder temperatures.
Please tell us how much effect the decline in Arctic sea-ice over the satellite era will have on the MSU/AMSU trends for the Arctic, especially the LT.
swannie…”Please tell us how much effect the decline in Arctic sea-ice over the satellite era will have on the MSU/AMSU trends ”
Do you mean the loss of sea ice during the one month of summer or over the entire year where most of the year has little or no solar input. Every year there is 10 feet of ice at the North Pole in January, not exactly what I’d call a loss of ice.
Gordo, up unusually early this AM, asks:
Yes, Gordo, there’s an annual cycle in sea-ice. But, over the years of satellite measurements, there’s clear evidence of loss in Arctic sea-ice cover, which is greatest at the end of the melt season, typically during September. Even during Winter, the extent is reduced and the thickness isn’t the issue.
What’s wrong Gordo, can’t sleep because the election got you spooked?
swannie…”over the years of satellite measurements, theres clear evidence of loss in Arctic sea-ice cover…”
Too many variable in the sea ice to make an accurate estimate with a satellite. For one, the ice is always moving around, compacting and expanding. When it compacts, there are pressure ridges built up at the collision sites that are broad and over 40 feet high in places. Those ridges are everywhere and counting the volume of ice they consume would be impossible.
Also, the Transpolar Drift, which operates West to East, is constantly dumping ice into the North Atlantic. Are the satellites measuring the constant flow of icebergs out of the Arctic Ocean? They begin as broad platforms like little islands and by the time they reach the warmer North Atlantic they will have melted significantly.
The size and depth of those bergs should give an indication of how thick the ice really is.
Gordon Robertson says:
“there are pressure ridges built up at the collision sites that are broad and over 40 feet high in places. Those ridges are everywhere and counting the volume of ice they consume would be impossible.”
Wikipedia says:
CryoSat-2 has discovered 25 000 such seamounts.
Gordo wrote:
Gordo, you need to do some homework. The satellite microwave measurements are used to calculate a value called “area”. Since there’s some variation within each pixel, caused by surface variation, such open water and melt ponds, another variable called “extent” is calculated to include areas with more than 15% coverage. The resulting data over several decades indicate a clear decline in extent at the seasonal minimum. That decline also results in a major reduction in multi-year ice, that is, sea-ice which has survived one or more melt seasons.
HERE’s an animation thru 2007, a year with a sharp decline in extent. The loss of multi-year ice is quite clear and has continued in subsequent years.
BTW. “ice bergs” are the result of glaciers caving at their boundaries with the ocean, not sea-ice.
And CryoSat-2 determines the thickness by measuring the freeboard.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Every year there is 10 feet of ice at the North Pole in January”
Looks like it has dropped to six feet Gordon:
https://tinyurl.com/y3wkve9r
svante…very good, you have shown a model rendition of sea ice thickness between May and November, literally over the Arctic summer. Have you got one for November to May?
It’s from the 5th of January to 11th of January 2019.
It’s based on data from CryoSat 2, which does not provide data between May and September because there are too many melting ponds.
“CryoSat-2 was constructed by EADS Astrium, with its main instrument being built by Thales Alenia Space”, and it was launched from Baikonur.
This is what I would call a loss of ice.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png
robert…what you have managed to convey is ice loss during the Arctic summer. From an unvalidated model.
That’s for both April and September. No matter how you slice and dice it Arctic sea ice is declining and its declining faster than scientists predicted.
Another consideration…sea ice typically suppresses heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere during freeze season. The record low ice extent likely contributed to the significant rise in the Artic region on this update. The refreeze has finally begun in earnest so although we’re still at record lows I would expect a decline the Artic region in the coming months. BTW…this is the 2nd warmest October on record behind 2016 for the Arctic region.
global warming is a improvment, winters are not as cold, and summers are not any hotter, sounds good to me. dr. roy, why dont you break it down by month? the growing season is longer. why not look at the big pitcure? is there nothing good about globile warming? again i will ask why do you use fake goverment numbers?
UAH is already broken down by month. They compute their own global mean temperature. Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy do not rely on “fake government numbers” nor are they publishing data fraudulently or in bad faith. Regardless I’m not understanding the relevance of your questions regarding whether low Arctic sea ice may be contaminating UAH’s estimate of the temperature in the Arctic region. Maybe you could clarify your questions?
…winters are not as cold, and summers are not any hotter…
Yep, winter nights are not as cold, and summer afternoons are not as hot as they were years ago. At least for most of the United States that’s true. Oh, there’s more rain too. But global warming, climate change, the climate crisis or what ever climate “scientists” are calling it today is a looming existential catastrophe. I call it bullshit.
steve…”the climate crisis or what ever climate scientists are calling it today is a looming existential catastrophe. I call it bullshit”.
Same with covid theory and the tests. Medical science and alarmist climate science have a lot in common.
Swanson says:
”It’s well known that sea-ice exhibits a higher emissivity than water.”
Swanson you are all twisted up. Ice has about the same emissivity as water. Sea ice though has much lower emissivity than water because its covered with snow.
Measuring temperatures to a high degree of accuracy using IR detectors is the realm of experts not amateurs.
You do realize that Swanson is an expert right?
https://tinyurl.com/y5wb6vqp
He is. One paper? One that concludes a lot more work needs to be done. Thats fine I am all for improving our ability to monitor stuff and when you can make a compelling case you usually land a job.
I wish him luck. But to begin with and mentioned in my reply to Swanson below currently the focus of this issue is in an entirely different area of study.
I am similarly working on a paper. I haven’t yet published it yet because my conclusion is the same as his – more work needs to be done. but I am a busy guy most of the time and have limited time actually coming up with a plan of work that needs to be done.
Its one thing to identify work needs to be done and another to propose how to close the gap.
Obviously it would be nice to have all the temperature records to be converging instead of diverging with each version.
Same deal with the modeling. 30 widely diverging black box models averaged together provides a prediction that only a few of the most outlier of models actually fit anybody’s temperature records and none of some. Science is supposed to converge not diverge.
Ultimately when you can’t get that convergence to happen an honest and impartial person would instead recognize that indeed the levels of uncertainty are far higher than the political narrative suggests.
The political narrative does not say exactly what the ECS is.
Neither does the science.
b hunter wrote:
Well, the rest of the scientific community which monitors Arctic sea-ice takes advantage of the difference in emissivity to calculate their area and extent measures. Of course, during the summer melt season, there’s not much snow around and melt ponds are abundant. Here’s one report on the subject.
OK. Different frequencies have far different performance on emissivities. So as you say it makes sense you could develop algorithms to determine whether water is radiating or ice is radiating using multiple frequencies.
However, it seems from a global standpoint this is a pretty minor issue compared to extrapolating temperatures horizontally across multiple environments as do the surface station approach.
So are you suggesting actually looking at what you are assuming the temperature to be is worse than not looking because by looking there is a chance you got it wrong?
None of these datasets are perfect.
”The rest of the science community” which I guess you have to a man all pouring over ice extent maps. LMAO! Their problem is different. Water is going to emit as water and so is snow and ice whether its a melt pond, ocean, ice, or snow. That’s all good.
The problem is calling melt ponds open water.
Here they are looking at ways to fix that problem. Like using frequencies that penetrate the water some distance and emit as ice from under the melt pond.
Some papers floating around on that issue. Which perhaps you have determined to be some earth shaking issue for temperature.
I suppose UAH should be aware that they might be detecting ice under melt ponds. . . .but does it matter to UAH? I kind of doubt some faint and diluted signal of ice under melt ponds has any significant impact on estimates of temperature. But indeed it could be important in identifying whether ice is surreptitiously lurking there or not.
This is a critical problem. There is an ice extent service actually using visual satellite imagery to properly identify melt ponds from open water and measure ice extent. Its apparently a tedious process that updates far less frequently than IR satellite imaging to make critical adjustments.
So it is a critical problem. But to what?
Indeed its critical for some pointy heads agonizing over every ice cube that has its life viciously exterminated for seemingly no reason. This service provides some potential relief from that agony but not much, the pointy heads keep agonizing anyway.
But that’s obviously not a reason for it being critical.
An ice free arctic has been pre-defined as less that one million square kilometers. Melt ponds aren’t going to be a big factor in such a loosely defined concept of ice free as a 1mm/km2. So thats not the reason either.
What it is critical for is as an aid to navigation where ‘reliable’ new ice charts are needed far more frequently. After all its a race for the riches of the arctic ocean, a giant gold mine for tourism in the wilderness, and a huge safety issue for those piloting the craft to enable all that.
b hunter lots of stuff, including:
He apparently doesn’t get it. The problem I suggest is the result of surface emissivity, not hidden sea-ice below the surface. The MSU/AMSU measures over a large “foot print”, thus the emissions from sea-ice, open ocean and melt ponds is aggregated within each of the foot prints over the Arctic. Since sea-ice exhibits a greater emissivity than water, less sea-ice within any foot print will register as slightly cooler brightness temperature. My hypothesis is that over the record since 1978, the obvious decline in sea-ice would appear as a cooling trend in the data and an increase in melt ponds over the remaining sea-ice would add to that effect.
I appreciate your reply.
I got your hypothesis. I am just trying to figure out how you did some work and arrived at it.
took a look at the issue and have a hard time reconciling that your hypothesis amounts to anything worth looking at.
So we have the arctic with all the territory above the arctic circle comprising less than 3% of the entire globe. https://www.livescience.com/arctic-circle.html#:~:text=That's%20slightly%20less%20than%203,%2C%20Norway%2C%20Iceland%20and%20Greenland.
Average decline of ice extent being approximate 5.66% per decade. so 3 decades would be ~17%.
So lets just assume that the readings between ice and water is off by 40%. Which is consistent with a maximum error of your study amounting to about a .25 degree error in areas that changed from ice to water.
do the math and you come up with .0014 of one degree for 3 decades affect on global mean temperature.
Please note that potential error isn’t significant. Glad to be of service.
Bill,
Nice calculation, but you have the cart before the horse.
b hunter described a simple analysis of sea-ice, to which I am replying.
First off, the problem I see regarding the influence of reduction in sea-ice cover and an increase in melt ponding on remaining ice is a seasonal situation, which I briefly analyzed in a paper presented at the 2017 AGU meeting. The effect would be most apparent during the melt season, which is roughly April thru September, so your analysis should have included only those 6 months. Secondly, the effect would include all the sea-ice area, not that defined by the extent calculation, which exhibits less decline than the calculated area.
The passive microwave data is reduced to a variable called “concentration” for each pixel in a grid pattern because the open areas and melt ponds within each pixel can not be resolved by the instruments. The “area” variable is the result of summing the concentration over all the pixels within the entire Arctic region. The “extent” is defined as that portion of the area for which the concentration is greater than 85%. There is clear evidence that the extent is declining and the area decline is greater still.
I don’t see any connection between the extent calculation you describe and the microwave emissions from sea-ice as compared with water. And, you offer no logic supporting your wild assumption that “the readings between ice and water is off by 40%”, as we are comparing actual measurements from the passive microwave instruments. You suggest that I “do the math”, when you have presented no math based on your assumption of some error value.
As the circumference of the ice pack gets smaller melt ponding should be going down not going up. Melt ponding occurs all the way to the pole every year considering its 24/7 sunlight. Where is your reference that melt ponding would be increasing?
Further I didn’t limit the analysis to summer because the numbers of concern are of climate trends, not summer ice trends.
Your stated objective is to close the climate change slope over 3 to 4 decades. Climate has 12 months and winters. You might want to check your calendar on that fact.
And oh the final point of my analysis wasn’t to contest anything at all you said. I have no significant identified problem with any of that. What I saw missing in your study was any attempt at quantifying the potential difference.
Certainly you are welcome to produce and make a case for a different analysis, but you might start with explaining why you think summers are the only season relevant to climate trends. I didn’t see any such declaration in your paper.
Further considering the objective you state in your reply to focus on summer time effects, that has nothing to do with what UAH is doing.
UAH supplies an Arctic summation each month with an anomaly rate of climb significantly higher than the globe average. (.25degC/decade) which is considerably higher than the global mean (.14degC/decade)
The inclusion of the arctic in land surface records a few years ago increased the surface record anomaly rate at the expense of reliability on longterm analysis. the arctic was previously excluded due to the lack of observation data. Then it was manufactured via computer modeling.
Like trying to measure solar activity its important to maintain the ‘same’ observation techniques warts and all. Sunspots are still ultimately counted using the same technology used by the first guys, while some sunspot monitoring services use modern technology and tend to record more sunspots due to higher resolution technologies.
Your comparison for your issue should have been confined to differences in arctic anomalies. Once thats established then its easy to see the impact on global anomalies.
But if you had been paying attention to the arctic you would know that most of the warming has occurred in the winter months, not the summer months.
Seems the whole objective of your study is to suggest why UAH and RSS diverge on a global basis, but Roy and John have been clear they know why and its been characterized as a global issue regarding satellite drift.
Considering that and looking an impacts on global anomaly makes a summer only analysis not only unscaled to climate change but also not likely to explain any significant difference between the satellite measuring methodologies.
but one never knows for sure. Surely you can dig deeper into this topic.
UAH supplies monthly arctic anomalies, compare that to monthly arctic anomalies from the other services and then come back and discuss it further.
If you don’t have that data then you are probably talking to the wrong person here. Just an auditing tip Swanson. RSS and NOAA might be who you want to talk to if you can’t get monthly arctic information from them publicly.
b hunter, I focused on the Arctic melt season because that’s where the largest decline in sea-ice extent and area has been observed. Furthermore, the use of anomalies is not unique to UAH, as that’s necessary to different seasonal variations. Recall that the various MSU/AMSU products don’t directly measure the surface emissions, they are lumped into the adsorp_tion and emission for all pressure heights thru the entire atmosphere to TOA.
At the end, you wrote:
It would appear that you didn’t read my paper from the AGU meeting. In the first section, I utilized all three groups data. The data presented in Figures 7-8 also included data from RSS and NOAA STAR groups, though only RSS for the TLT comparison in Figure 7 because NOAA STAR doesn’t produce a TLT product, only a TMT version.
I’m well aware that there are reports or a larger positive warming trend in Winter than Summer. However, I ask the question: “Why does the satellite data indicate a cooling trend over the Arctic Ocean during the Summer melt season?”. I suggest that there isn’t actually a cooling trend, instead the loss of sea-ice has contaminated the MSU/AMSU data.
I am not criticizing what you are now saying.
I was focusing more on your conclusion:
”These data have gained considerable prominence in public discussion of Earths changing climate; thus, it is imperative that any remaining questions regarding differences between these series be resolved.”
I was just responding to that which strongly implies that the narrow little area you are looking at doesn’t do anything significant.
Bottom line in a place like the arctic I would expect winters to get warmer and summers cooler because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere both increase low times and decrease high temps because 50% of sunlight is IR. The arctic is unique in having 6 months of daylight and then 6 months of darkness.
bill hunter says:
“50% of sunlight is IR”
100% of the outgoing radiation is IR.
Check out CO2:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
b hunter, Your quote is from my JTECH paper, not my later 2017 AGU paper in which I discussed the possible influence of sea-ice on the MSU/AMSU TMT products.
You also wrote:
I took my own advice and looked at my AGU paper again. Note that my band passed calculation removes the overall trend from the result, thus the basic data used to produce my Figures 7 and 8 actually show warming during both Melt and Freeze seasons. The situation is made more complex by the fact that the surface air temperatures are constrained by the presence of the sea-ice and a relatively cold ocean, as well as the high incidence of cloud cover over both.
Svante says:
bill hunter says:
“50% of sunlight is IR”
100% of the outgoing radiation is IR.
—————————-
Yes indeed. Greenhouse elements co2, water, other junk
block 180 watts incoming and block about 356 watts outgoing
Its a bit messy because of surface emissivity being assumed by Trenberth to be 1.0 when it calcs a little less than .87.
So I am using it as all water elements doing it even though its laying on the ground.
You can fix it if you can determine the correct emissivities but as Swanson is agonizing over thats not all that easy to do. But that is one way to demonstrate the 1/2 IR in and full IR out as you specified.
So I don’t disagree.
Looks like Trenberth has emissivity 0.86, which diagram are you looking at?
.875 would be the calculation from Stefan-Boltzmann calculations from Trenberth, Kielh 2009 where the earth’s surface reflects 23w/m2 out of 184watts/m2 of incoming solar. No doubt primarily due to snow reflectivity, water and ice is around .9 and nothing is 1.0 which is Trenberth’s assumption of how much the earth’s surface actually emits. Lets see .875 times 396 gives 346.5w/m2. I guess Trenberth though that was far too close to the average insolation of 341.5 to let the public see.
That was even more true in the original 1997 work of the two. There it was 30w/m2 out of 198w/m2 mean surface insolation. Thats an emissivity of .85. Then he had surface radiation at 390w/m2 at 1.0 emissivity. But should be 331w/m2 based upon SB equations. Wow! In 2009 and 1997, Trenberth had back radiation at 333w/m2 and 324w/m2 respectively.
Of course if you actually measure sky temperature it comes up differently probably because of frequency selection. So I guess Trenberth actually believes .04% of the atmosphere with CO2 can warm the surface with hot molecules.
Start playing the figures where backradiation is Trenberth’s plug number (which he says it is) reduce 2009 to the 346.5 surface emission and you get 283.5 backradiation, much closer to what is measured.
A good number of people think the greenhouse effect is based upon surface emissivity rather than CO2. How that emissivity varies is the question that would need to be answered to explain climate variation.
Now I am aware that emissivity varies by temperature for some surfaces. That throws the whole thing into a huge bucket labeled future work and monitoring necessary to build a case. Much easier to ignore it and dream up some poorly described ”it must work that way” theory.
This whole thing on a global mean basis is very very poorly documented. In one and one communications with Trenberth he just ducks and weaves on the topic.
In TRENBERTH/FASULLO/KIEH 2009 you can read:
Water is about 70% of the surface, deserts are much less.
Their estimates are constrained by observations.
water emissivity is lower. i talked to trenberth and he gave me some references allegedy supporting his point. they didn’t.
you might get a high emissivity looking straight into water but at an angle reflectivity. plenty easy to get a sunburn from just reflection on water. i cant recall the other sources but they were in the mid to low 90’s. still have them someplace. Swanson’s paper also discusses emissivities lower than ice.
Again: “Similar rectification effects may occur for the back radiation to the surface, so that for KT97 the errors tend to offset”.
And he has surface absorptivity at 0.86 in fig. 1.
“A good number of people think the greenhouse effect is based upon surface emissivity rather than CO2.”
Surely not, it has nothing to do with the GHE.
“Now I am aware that emissivity varies by temperature for some surfaces.”
You never see that in any tables, and it’s surely negligible for a few degrees change.
Svante, all I said was the emissivity makes it rather messy throughout the budget when we have a good handle on what the total budget is.
Having excessive IR emissions at the surface may pump up MODTRAN if they don’t employ the correct emissivity. Does MODTRAN now employ a surface emissivity factor that one can play with?
You can play with different surfaces here:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/rrtm/
This is the 2nd warmest October on record and marks 17 consecutive months above the trendline. The slope of the trendline has been risen 22 consecutive months increasing by +0.011C/decade over this period to +0.1373C/decade +- 0.0066. The trendline sits at +0.3418C. The 13 month moving average is +0.52C. This is a hair short of the +0.53C value recorded in November 2016.
bdg…”The slope of the trendline has been risen 22 consecutive months ”
And for two years before that it was falling. And for about 18 years before that it was flat.
What’s your point?
Bdgwx, you aren’t going to like what happens next. Why you are concerned with noise is beyond me. We know exactly why the last “17 months” have been warm. We had primarily El Nino conditions starting in late 2018.
In case you don’t understand the El Nino situation it leads to warmer ocean temperatures which then warms the atmosphere.
This heat source has now been cut off. It took several months for the warm water to eventually cool but that now appears to be happening.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/d3-gfs-grta-daily-2020-11-01.gif
Follow the red line as that is the one that shows the ENSO effects. Even though the last El Nino ended last May the warm waters persisted across the Tropics for many months.
What happens next is the Tropics will stay cool and slowly lead to cooling over the extra-tropics. How much cooling will depend on how long the current La Nina lasts. If it lasts for 2-3 years then there’s a good chance all the recent El Nino driven warming will fade away completely. To follow this process keep an eye on SSTs.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/offset:-0.2/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to:2018.1/offset:-0.2/trend
You can see what happened to the previous El Nino and where we are now. The SSTs will again start to fall just like they did in 2018. I would not be surprised to see us right back down to that same 2018 low point by the summer 0f 2021.
Yes. I expect a drop below the trendline soon as well. In fact, I think there is a good chance the 13-month mean could go lower than it did in 2018. The data supports 0.4 excursions below the trendline so a dip below 0.0 could even be in the cards still. And if the coming La Nina is well timed with a VEI 6+ eruption we could go well below 0.0.
I think it is pretty certain they will fall a long way below below 2018. That year was only a weak La Nina. If the NASA model is correct, this will be the first “very strong” La Nina since 1950 (other models suggest only “strong”), so I think it a high chance we will get negative values, with an outside chance of -0.2.
And Richard will switch from finding excuses to claiming that this is “proof” that the climate has not warmed. Apparently there have not been countless periods over the last 40 years where we have not had weak “El Nino conditions” which we can use as a comparison.
The average ONI for the last 15 months is just 0.2 degrees C. See
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Hardly consistent with “We had primarily El Nino conditions starting in late 2018”, unless you are suggesting that a weak El Nino in late 2018 (peaking at 0.9 degrees in Nov 2018) and predominantly neutral conditions since is still driving our weather.
More importantly, right now, the UAH data is showing a similar 13 month average to the peak in spring 2016: by the corresponding month (Oct) of 2016, the 13 month UAH average was lower than now, yet that same 15 month preceding period in that year had an average ONI of 1.4 degrees: now that is El Nino!
Dave, the link you provided shows (El Nino) occurred for 14 of the 18 months from Oct. 2018 through March 2020.
In reality the El Nino conditions lasted from mid Sept 2018 until the first week of May 2020 but the way NOAA does the averaging allowed cool months before and after that to change the 3 month averages of the end points. That doesn’t change the actual fact that the temperature of the Nino 3.4 area was above .5 C until that early May date.
This link shows the monthly data. Notice April 2020 above .5 C. If you want to do an average you need to use the actual monthly (or weekly) data and not the ONI seasonal data.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices
The effect of the last 6 months of lower Nino 3.4 temperatures is just starting to take hold. Keep and eye on the SSTs. Looking at the SH gives you more insight. As you can see we are already starting to see a drop.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2014/to/offset:-0.2/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2014/to:2018.1/offset:-0.2/trend
Thanks to Roy for getting this data out.
I have no questions about the integrity of UAH or of Roy or John Christy. I think they are both scientists of courage and integrity. Having said that, the data since about 2015 is far too regular in its oscillation about the red running average and I see nothing like it anywhere else on the range. It also makes no sense since the weather/climate I have experienced is nothing like it.
I would like to ask Roy if this data is retrieved directly from the satellites or whether it goes to NOAA first and is passed on to UAH.
I am asking because there is ample evidence that NOAA has fudged the surface data. Recently the head scientist was demoted for writing a letter to the government agent in charge and pretty well accusing the government of misrepresenting the science put out by NOAA. I thought he had a nerve for claiming that and that it was right to demote him. I wonder what took so long.
The argument from the tinfoil hat.
All signs clearly point to a rapidly warming world. Satellites, thermometers, sea ice, ice sheets, glaciers, plant and animal ranges, and many other proxies all point to dramatic warming.
… ARGO, AIRS, LBLRTMs, climate models, surface IR measurements, decreasing snow cover, increasing WV, sea level rise, …
robert…”All signs clearly point to a rapidly warming world.”
Signs are not science, Robert. And there is evidence, lots of it that NOAA is fudging the temperature record.
Data doesnt make sense when it doesnt fit my own point of view?
eze…”Data doesnt make sense when it doesnt fit my own point of view?”
No…data doesn’t make sense when the real data gathered from thermometers is regarded as being wrong and requiring adjustment (fudging). Also, when you have genuine reporting stations and you slash 90% of them since 1990 then synthesize data for the missing stations using a climate model.
You must be out of touch.
Gordon, I’ve heard rumors that all the election data for tomorrow’s presidential election will go to NOAA for a quality check before they are published. Can you confirm that?
Rune Valaker
Ha ha haaa. Excellent reaction.
This Robertson guy really is plain paranoid…
J.-P. D.
The POTUS has similar concerns.
rune…”Gordon, Ive heard rumors that all the election data for tomorrows presidential election will go to NOAA for a quality check before they are published. Can you confirm that?”
NASA GISS will feel neglected. Can’t confirm but I have heard the Democrats are busy falsifying ballots.
And I know – as a matter of fact – that the concept of systematic voter oppression is solely a Republican objective. Just like the orange orangutange will challange the Pennsylvania SCOTUS decision that votes can be counted until recieved three days after the election.
Gordon,
Why do you pick 2015 as a cutoff for the perceived (alarming) regularity of the data around the running average?
To me it looks like the preceding 3 or 4 years (to 2015) also have very little variance around this mean. Perhaps it’s worth considering the possibility that the 13 month running mean (as is clearly Roy’s intention in computing it) gives a pretty good description of the overall trend on a yearly basis?
Yes, it’s an at (or close to) an all time high in the instrumental record. But that’s empirical data for you.
dave…”Why do you pick 2015 as a cutoff for the perceived (alarming) regularity of the data around the running average?”
The IPCC admitted in their 2012 review that no warming had occurred over the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012. The UAH graph confirms that. Based on the trend following 2012, it is obvious the trend was flat for another 3 years, then suddenly the 2016 warming began.
Gordo repeats the usual denialist cherry picking of data.
If the trend calculation is started with the warm spike in 1998, continuing thru about 2015, the result would indicate only a small warming. Begin the calculation in 1999 and there’s a positive trend. Of course, Gordo the denialist would have us ignore 2016, for the same reason he wants to begin with the spike in 1998, as it adds to the positive trend over the record.
Not much of a pause in ocean heat content, where 90% of the energy goes:
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html
I have no questions about the integrity of UAH or of Roy or John Christy. I think they are both scientists of courage and integrity. Having said that, the data since about 2015 is far too regular in its oscillation about the red running average and I see nothing like it anywhere else on the range. It also makes no sense since the weather/climate I have experienced is nothing like it.
Why in hell does any inteligent person imagine that the weather in their back yard is going to be the same as global climate fluctuations?
The mix of hubris and ignorance is something to behold.
There’s Gordon for you ☺
barry says:
Why in hell does any inteligent person imagine that the weather in their back yard is going to be the same as global climate fluctuations?
The mix of hubris and ignorance is something to behold.
Yeah Barry, H.L. Mencken’s hobgoblins are always over there, just under the surface and around the next corner, you’ll see, just wait!
The last few months of 2016 were all below 0.5, and included a reading below 0.3. So, unless November and December are significantly lower than October, it would appear that 2020 will be the warmest year ever.
Maybe not. UAH TLT was +0.53C in 2016. For 2020 to be higher Nov and Dec would have to come in at 0.60 each. Lower Arctic sea ice may put positive pressure on temperatures, but a looming La Nina will probably more than offset that. I’m expecting a decline in TLT temperatures for Nov and Dec. We’ll see though.
Wow! over 4000 comments on the last month report post (coming up to approx 130 per day). Way to go! I wonder, if that record can be beaten…?
Could someone just in a sentence summarize what that was all about?
The Moon is not rotating and there is no greenhouse effect, according to the resident lackwits.
Plus trolls asking others to stop trolling,
idiots calling the rest of us “idiots”
and Gish galloping “no GHE, corrupt science”.
EM,
You mean the bananas effect dont you? Bananas absorb and emit IR. Scientific fact. Or is the greenhouse effect something totally different which also has nothing at all to do with greenhouses?
I suppose bananas could be grown in greenhouses. Why not call it the bananas greenhouse effect?
It doesnt really matter what you call something that cannot be observed or described, or supported by experiment, does it?
“It’s about roughly a dozen idiots and trolls trying to pervert science to fit their false religion.”
That’s the one sentence. Some of the more interesting perversions of science, from last month:
* Ice can warm sunshine.
* Two ice cubes are hotter than one ice cube.
* Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
* Something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.
And one of the funnier ones is the realization that the leading example of the GHE nonsense, the infamous “steel greenhouse”, indicates Earth should be much warmer than it is. 303 K, to be exact. Meaning CO2 must be doing a lot more cooling than we thought….
Sren F
Simply try to post a comment about Newton’s words in his Principia concerning Moon’s rotation about its axis (being, according to Newton and many other science [wo]men before and after him, the reason why it always shows the same face to us).
Typical answers:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-537818
or
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-548075
*
You might say: Why the heck to you react to such comments anyway?
Answer: it’s hard to ignore people endlessly propagating their pseudoscientific narrative, because you know by experience that many people in the background start believing in such narrative when it does not get contradicted enough…
J.-P. D.
My comment that you linked to was not written in response to you posting a comment on Newton’s words. Stop making stuff up.
Pseudomod
Please stop whining, you perfectly know how deep you are involved in this Moon spin denialism!
J.-P. D.
JD gets so confused because he can’t understand his own links. Newton was the one that proved what orbital motion is. It’s the same as a ball on a string, or Moon. One side always faces the inside of the orbit. That’s pure orbital motion. If a body is orbiting AND rotating about its axis, you would see all sides of it from inside the orbit.
I’m not whining. Just correcting you, as usual.
Thanks all!
You’re welcome ☺
sren….”Could someone just in a sentence summarize what that was all about?”
Coturnix is envious that several of us on the blog enjoy posting.
No, but I do feel respect for dr. spencer, it is not easy to develop such an outstanding community of numbskulls spewing hundreds of kilobytes of gibberish every day. Is he performing some kind of sociological experiment? Who knows, maybe he does.
Brainlet minnows swimming around in a shallow pond until someone chums the water.
The moon is not rotating and Indian science proves it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s3DvJJEfBE&feature=youtu.be
"The moon is not rotating…"
…on its own axis.
bluepilled bruh.
The moon does rotate, about the Earth/moon barycenter. The motion is referred to as “revolution”, or “orbiting”. The moon does not rotate on its own axis, i.e. about its own center of mass.
Just like Indian science says bruh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s3DvJJEfBE&feature=youtu.be
OK, Tyson.
TPTB says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j91XTV_p9pc
comments not as funny as India science.
OK, Tyson.
Can anyone explain why there is a lag between La Nina/ El Nino ocean surface cooling/ warming in the nino 3.4 region and the lower troposphere global temperature?
I remember an explanation previously but can not find it or remember it.
AJS
Everybody speaks/writes about a 4-5 month lag between ENSO surface signals and the tropospheric reaction to them, but.. that to really explain doesn’t seem to be quite simple.
A good start in the stuff IMHO is this:
.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/20/14/3580/31327/The-Tropical-Atmospheric-El-Nino-Signal-in
J.-P. D.
Roy Spenser gave a lecture with a picture of receding glaciers showing tree stumps that were hundreds of years old when the glacier killed them. So if we only now see them then it is normal (or happened at least 7 times in Glacier National park) to have worm periods wormer then now or as worm for hundreds of years at a time. Which means that what is happening is normal even if man was not involved. Personally I suspect that if cold air moves south then warm air has to replace it so that a warmer artic may be a reflection of a colder America. Warmer there, colder here.
Indeed. It is convincing evidence that given a big enough nudge the climate can shift dramatically. The climate system is being nudged pretty hard right now.
What you describe at the end has a name. WACCy = Warm Artic Cold Continent. Anomalous warmth in the Artic can push the cold air down the latitudes. This is may be related to the hypothesized quasi resonant amplification of planetary waves and ensuing breakdown of the polar vortex. The NH is still warmer overall, but the distribution of the heat gets WACCy as a result.
R Jenson, I think you have the cause-and-effect reversed.
Satellite measurements have found that the Tropics are in surplus and the Poles are in deficit in energy annual energy flow. As a result, there’s convective energy transfer between the lower latitudes and the Arctic, as warm, moist air flows poleward and cold, dry air returns back toward the south to satisfy the deficit. This effect is strongest during the winter half of the year, when the cold, dense air masses collide with the warmer, wetter air along frontal boundaries, resulting in storms, particularly in the mid latitude regions, such as the U.S. From this simple model, one might expect to see stronger cold air masses and more intense winter storms as the tropics warm from AGW.
The official La Nina was not declared until 3+ months after La Nina like conditions were already affecting the ocean/atmosphere.
The ocean temperature in the Tropical Pacific doesn’t suddenly cool(or warm) to La Nina(El Nino) overnight………like the change of an air mass with the passage of a cold front.
It take months of gradual cooling(warming). During that time, the impact downstream on the weather grows more powerful with time as the temperature anomalies grow closer to reaching La Nina(El Nino)……. but it started months before the water temperature crossed the La Nina(El Nino) temperature threshold.
This was a huge factor in the drought out West, that increased this past Summer…….. which of course played a huge role in the wild fires.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/59093/
By metmike – Oct. 29, 2020, 6:32 p.m.
“People continue to insist wrongly that this drought and the wildfires were caused by climate change………..calling them “climate fires.
Let me repeat this again.
Global warming/climate change causes the Pacific Ocean temperature to warm up. It happens in tandem with more El Nino’s, which is a warming at the surface in a key area of the Tropical Pacific.
El Nino’s cause MORE precipitation in much of the US. They help protect the US from droughts.
El Nino’s= more precip/less droughts in the US = more frequent during global warming/less frequent during global cooling
La Nina’s = Less precip/more droughts in the US =less frequent during global warming/more frequent during global cooling
We are having a La Nina right now!
The US Cornbelt has had only 1 widespread severe drought in the past 32 years, in part because of this climate change. That drought was in 2012 and was started by the La Nina drought the previous year that spread east and ended late that Summer when ENSO readings moved into the El Nino side of Neutral.
The drought before that was way back in 1988, during a strong La Nina.
Only 1 drought in 32 years in this key location………..when that location should have seen around 4 droughts based on prior historical records from the “OLD” climate.
Why is every drought, turned into headline news and from human caused climate change but having the record least number of droughts in the highest corn/bean producing area of the planet for over 3 decades………..not worth a mention?
El Nino’s help protect from droughts and there will be more El Nino’s and less droughts with global warming/climate change.
La Nina’s cause many widespread droughts in the US. There are LESS of them during global warming. The drought which we have out West right now has been caused/worsened by La Nina conditions in the Tropical Pacific. This is the complete opposite of the affect of global warming and climate change.
You can’t blame something bad on a dynamic that actually helps prevent that something bad from happening.
This can’t be from climate change.
I hope this is clear because the opposite and wrong, anti science message is being told by……….almost everybody.
Roy A Jensen says:
The problem is that those glaciers are nowhere near equilibrium. The have great thermal inertia and will continue to recede for decades or centuries even if global warming stopped now.
S,
A glacier is a river of ice. Rivers flood, dry up, change course. No equilibrium. The Antarctic was ice free. No equilibrium.
swenson…”A glacier is a river of ice. Rivers flood, dry up, change course. No equilibrium. The Antarctic was ice free. No equilibrium.”
A glacier is also dependent on precipitation at its source. Variations in precipitation can explain glacier recession. Precipitation also affects deserts but alarmists consider that as normal.
Yes.
S,
Glad you agree with reality. Its a change.
Something like 20% of all glaciers are growing because of increased precipitation. The rest are shrinking.
You got a source for that Nate?
I mean Svnate! Ooops Svante
Here: https://tinyurl.com/ybu6hta8
Click on Record and find glaciers on the right.
Twenty random samples should give you the picture.
I looked at your link Svante and only found 8 glaciers listed with records ending in 1994 or 1997 and one atg 2010.
Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place
There are 454 glaciers there.
Thanks found it. I flipped through about 30 of them and noticed current shortening of the glaciers are almost all decelerating particularly since the 1930’s.
A good number show a lot of recent flattening with a few getting longer.
I found 3 that might be accelerating visually looking at the slopes but the slopes are very similar to declines found in the first half of the 20th century.
Biggest problem I saw in the 30 I looked at randomly was no data beyond 2010 and some haven’t been updated since 1994. Why the heck is that? Is this an abandoned database?
Definitely not an impressive database for accelerating CO2 emissions. Looks more like an LIA recovery with a gently decreasing rate of decline. No wonder we don’t hear much about glaciers anymore. I was interested in seeing if Qori Kalis, the equatorial glacier, that Dr. Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State, and NAS claimed was going to disappear about 5 years.
The prediction was made 13 years ago and I have been monitoring its length by satellite imagery as it hasn’t shortened in any substantial way since the Thompson prediction. But it isn’t even listed.
Yes it was a one off copy and it’s old.
I’m sure you can find better data if you spend a little time searching.
The skeptic community has too much trouble getting any funding for something that isn’t going to help the case of climate change alarmism. Politics tends to cause the talented to find new avenues for doing their work, leaving the few old guys around that do it just for the love of it.
I could get into that as I am still working but my direction of work is in a different area.
I’m sure there there are plenty of funds you could apply to if you want to research. The data is available for download no doubt, had you not been so busy doubting it here.
Nope, just had a slow month because of meeting cancellations, but thats coming to an end now as virtual meeting replacements have been put in place. Been already cutting my time here down to less than an hour.
roy jensen…”Which means that what is happening is normal even if man was not involved”.
The point is that normal causes for our current condition will not be investigated as a whole because the funding for such research is aimed solely at the catastrophic theories related to anthropogenic warming.
The current La Nina NINO3.4 SST is already below -1.5C, and may likely hit -2.5C at its lowest point early next year. It could even rival the 1974~1976 La Nina cycle which was the strongest on record.
Global SST are falling globally, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, and the North Atlantic is also cooling:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
The Northern Hemisphere will be brutally cold this winter and likely next winter, too.
Given the above, UAH 6.0 will rapidly start falling from next month and will likely hit -0.2C~-0.3C by around April of next year.
Once the PDO and AMO reenter their respective 30-year cool cycles and global temp trends start falling for 30 years, CAGW wackos will have some explaining to do…
Regardless, the insane CAGW dire predictions are completely devoid from reality.
It take typically around three years between el nino peak and la nina trough, we are only one year in so we have two years to go before any getting conclusions
Meanwhile you can relax and maybe kill time by endless arguing about moon spin
eben…”Meanwhile you can relax and maybe kill time by endless arguing about moon spin”
This is an important discussion. It reveals the inability of alarmists to observe reality rather than appealing to authority. Unfortunately, you have joined them on Moon orbital properties and we may have to evict you from the Skeptical Society.
The satellites have been hacked to stop Trump’s re-election by showing more warming.
BTW. I have another new way to prove the moon is spinning that nobody else brought up.
it goes like this
The planetary body can have stable spin only about one single axes , that’s basic fizzix.
now spin the moon about axes in the direction of the orbiting motion , represented as an arrow – int the direction of the motion (called Y axes), the axes / arrow will now point in the same spot in the sky as it goes through the orbit, also it will show all faces to the earth, got the picture ?
now simply stop that spin , the moon has now no spin on any axes and as it orbits it still points in the same point in the sky ,
That is a zero spin orbit about any axes and shows all the faces to the earth as it orbits.
now , spin the moon again but 90 degrees off as if rolling on the surface (called X axes), the moon will now still show all faces to the earth except in one condition which is when the orbit takes the same time as the spin rotation in which case it will keep showing only one same face to the earth you can connect it with a string to the earth and everything checks out.
https://vibralign.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/XYZ-4.png
The moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, not on its own axis. The motion is known as “orbiting”…you may have heard of it before. Orbital motion (without axial rotation) involves the same side of the object continuously facing towards the center of the orbit, whilst it moves. Axial rotation is then separate to that motion.
The Earth both orbits and rotates on its own axis. The moon only orbits.
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
So far DREMT only demonstrated he himself cannot distinguish orbiting from spinning and that they are two different kinds of motion
No, I understand that they are two different kinds of motion, in fact that is what I was trying to explain to you.
The difference between us is in how we each describe orbital motion. I see it as motion in which the same side of the object is always facing towards the center of the orbit. You see it as motion in which the same side of the object is always facing towards the same distant star.
Axial rotation is then the spin of the object about its own axis, distinct from how we each define orbital motion.
Try watching the video I linked to further down-thread.
Eben
I guess now you understand what I mean…
J.-P. D.
eben…”in one condition which is when the orbit takes the same time as the spin rotation in which case it will keep showing only one same face to the earth you can connect it with a string to the earth and everything checks out”.
Try it. Take two coins, one stationary representing the Earth, and the other moving and representing the Moon. Now try to complete one rotation while keep a marked face on the moving coin always pointing at the centre of the stationary coin and at the same time, rotate the moving coin through 360 degrees.
Impossible. NASA thinks it is, however. You need to distinguish between a though experiment as you have just visualized and the reality.
“Orbital motion (without axial rotation) involves the same side of the object continuously facing towards the center of the orbit”
Both Newton and Feynman sat up in their grave/tomb and screamed ‘Bullshit!’, or an Elizabethan equivalent.
Just stop posting disinformation!
So far nobody has has disputed anything I said didnt even try
Both DREMT and GR put out a word salad where they use words rotation orbit and spin as it it was all one thing.
The movie DREMT posted is made by a village idiot who debunks himself right on his own video, he is spinning his paper moon by his finger and saying see it looks like I have to spin it with my fingers to make the same side face the earth – but it is not spinning.
Look at what the moon is doing when it is on the apparatus, and he is saying "this is normal orbital motion". It is revolving about the Earth, in one smooth motion, with the same face always pointing towards the Earth as it moves. This is "orbital motion without axial rotation". When you add in axial rotation, so that the moon now orbits and rotates on its own axis, you see all sides of the moon from the Earth.
Its as if he has never seen the many rebuttals of his claims.
First of course by Newton, 300 y ago, as Binny quoted.
So intellectually dishonest!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-548221
Some geniuses seem to think that Arctic sea ice loss only happens during at best one summer month.
So let us split the record into single months, here for ice extent:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fBLALblvCsBn5UgKkSGOvl63ctAYPhbB/view
As we can see, none of the months shows any sea ice increase, and so are the linear estimates: all negative.
Lowest trend in October: -0.85 +- 0.07 Mkm^2 / decade
Highest trend in May: -0.37 +- 0.03 Mkm^2 / decade
The picture for the Antarctic of course shows totally different.
J.-P. D.
Source: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
binny…”As we can see, none of the months shows any sea ice increase, and so are the linear estimates: all negative.”
Put your math and graphs in a dark place and LOOK!!!! For most of the winter, the Arctic Ocean is covered in ice up to 10 feet thick, from the North Shore of Canada right across to Siberia. For natural reasons, the North Pole, right in the middle of the chaotic ice flows, tends to warm at times in winter,
There is a reason for that which seems to have escaped you. For well over half of the Arctic year there is little or not solar input.
Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to measure sea ice extent. The ice is in constant motion and when large sheets collide they form pressure barriers which push the ice 40 feet or more vertically. Arctic ice on the AO are riddled with such barriers and it is impossible to estimate the area they involve. In other words, there is ice that satellites cannot estimate…lots of it.
Also, at the eastern end of the Arctic Ocean, ice is constantly dumped into the Atlantic.
Gordo repeats his denialist rant. HERE’s my previous reply.
And then historically, before satellites it was measured by where sailing ships could go and not go. At 15% sea ice extent, it’s not good for sailing a ship up there.
Eben
” … except in one condition which is when the orbit takes the same time as the spin rotation in which case it will keep showing only one same face to the earth you can connect it with a string to the earth and everything checks out. ”
Good grief… You are terribly optimistic!
Your idea sounds pretty good, but what you probably didn’t anticipate is that none of the usual suspects (I mean the ‘ball-on-a-string’ clan) will ever believe you on the base of what you wrote.
The only way IMHO is a simulation per software, using three coordinate systems (heliocentric, geocentric and selenocentric), and to compute second by second, using coordinate transformation matrices, the heliocentric trajectories of an observer on Earth and of one of the retroreflectors on the Moon.
You do the simulation twice: one without Moon spin, and one using the known spin of about 4.62 m/sec, and compare the output after 14 days…
J.-P. D.
This might help you understand. Who knows?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw&feature=youtu.be
Pseudomod
There is nothing to understand in the video, excepted the fact that it is a dumb, trivial, misinterpreting view of the reality.
The Moon does NOT AT ALL turn around us like shown in the video!
Due to
– the different planes of Earth’s and Moon’s orbits around the Sun resp. the Earth
– the different inclination of the axes passing thru their poles
– their differing speeds on their respective orbits
– their differing rotation speeds
the exact movements of the observing point on Earth and the observed point on the Moon in the common, heliocentric coordinate system are much more complex than you think.
55 years ago, I was an ace in 3-dimensional trigonometry and analytical geometry; unfortunately, all that went lost because I never used it in any later professional context.
Otherwise I would have written that small piece of software long time ago.
What about YOU doing that instead?
What about learning C++ or Python, and how to implement orbits and coordinate transformation?
J.-P. D.
JD, you always toss out facts that prove you wrong. You reject reality. You can’t learn. You can’t construct proper English sentences, even with your endless “blah-blah”.
Are you related to Norman?
It’s simplified, because they are making a simple point.
The video takes you through three scenarios.
Firstly, an object rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
Secondly, as per our moon, an object not rotating on its own axis, orbiting only.
Thirdly, an object rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbit.
Pay attention to where he is demonstrating “normal orbital motion”. By this he means, “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You’ll get there.
Binny,
So you have forgotten all your 3D trig and analytical geometry? Pity.
Mind you, you dont need them to understand Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation. Newton found that observations of the Moons movement supported his initial speculation. No angels needed to push the Moon in its elliptical orbit. Just one force. Gravity.
A large perpetually falling object. We mostly only ever see the bottom of it, because we are underneath. We see a little more, both in latitude and longitude, by getting out of its line of direct descent. Libration, which makes it appear that some mysterious force is rocking the moon from side to side, and up and down, is just our viewpoint changing.
Flynnson
As usual: dumb stuff lacking any relation to what Newton himself wrote in his Principia. Book 3, Prop. XVII, Theorem XV.
You simply prefer to ignore what doesn’t fit to your own narrative.
How poor…
J.-P. D.
No JD, it is YOU that simply prefers “to ignore what doesn’t fit to your own narrative”.
And trying to “appeal to authority” by mentioning Newton, who you don’t understand, clearly reveals the shallowness of your tactics.
Newton was the first to clearly identify the effect gravity had on an orbiting body. If the body has only pure orbital motion, no axial rotation, then one side always faces the center of the orbit. That’s the same motion as a ball on a string, which you don’t like because it “doesn’t fit to your own narrative”. The motion of a ball on a string is the same orbital motion as Moon.
You pretend to know the issues, but you’re only fooling yourself and a few of your fellow cult members. You’re an exact duplicate of Norman–you know nothing about the science, are addicted to your keyboard, and search for things on the Web that you believe supports your beliefs, but can’t understand what you find. Then you lash out at others, as if your ignorance was their fault!
Like Norman, and others of your cult, you’re a complete fraud.
ClintR
” Newton was the first to clearly identify the effect gravity had on an orbiting body. ”
Correct.
” If the body has only pure orbital motion, no axial rotation, then one side always faces the center of the orbit. ”
Wrong.
Never did Newton write that anywhere. That is your own invention.
I think I’ll now follow Mark Whapples’ invisible wish, and will stop discussing this Moon rotation problem on Roy Spencer’s newest thread.
J.-P. D.
Binny is confused again.
He has apparently invented some new physics, abandoning Newton. Maybe Binny still believes that some supernatural forces propel the Moon around the Earth.
Nope. Just gravity, as expressed in Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation.
Just perpetual falling. Satellites fall as well. The Earth falls towards the sun, but moves far enough along its orbit as it does, that it never falls into it.
How did the Earth achieve its initial velocity? Why does it spin on its axis at the rate and inclination it does? Why are alarmist donkeys so intent on denying reality?
I dont know. Does anybody?
Wrong again, JD.
Newton’s work proved that orbital motion would keep one side of the body facing the center of the orbit if the body were NOT rotating about its axis. That’s the motion of Moon, orbiting but NOT rotating about its axis. That’s the motion of a ball on a string.
Cassini got it wrong, and it never got corrected. Idiots just continue to cling to the nonsense.
And you won’t stop commenting about Moon. Like Norman, you can never do what you claim you will do, because of your addiction.
“Newtons work proved that orbital motion would keep one side of the body facing the center of the orbit if the body were NOT rotating about its axis. ”
Idiot trolls making up their own ‘facts’ again.
Lets see Newtons ‘work’ on this.
The force of a ball on a string is applied at the point of contact, ie the point on the surface of the ball where the string touches..
The force of gravity on a moon is applied to every point on the moon. To a first approximation, that force can be treated as being applied at the center.
A force applied off-center can cause a torque to an object.
A force applied at the center cannot cause a torque.
A string DOES force the same face toward the center.
Gravity DOES NOT force the same face toward the center.
These are simply facts. This means that “a ball on a string” is a weak analogy for orbits. A ball on string behaves fundamentally differently than a moon. A ball on a string will never be able to accurately, full describe how gravity causes orbits.
This does not settle the “spinner” vs “non-spinner” debate. But it does say that “appeal to analogy” is insufficient.
That’s a lot of your usual “blah-blah”, Tim. And it’s all in a failed effort to save your perverted cult. The ball on a string is NOT rotating about its axis. The ball is only orbiting. It’s the same motion as Moon — orbiting but NOT rotating about its axis.
The issue was settled back with Newton. It has not been corrected because responsible scientists know it has no value. To land on Moon, you don’t need to take into account something that isn’t happening. Moon is only orbiting.
The issue hangs on within the cult because they fear reality. In fact, they have imagined a huge amount of “tidal locking” nonsense to support the issue. They will cling to their cult beliefs until the last drop of the purple koolaid.
“The issue was settled back with Newton. It has not been corrected because”
Newton was correct then. He stated clearly that the “Moon revolves on its own axis”.
Tim Folkerts
You are too intelligent for this group. They are mindless contrarians and will oppose established truth regardless of any evidence proving them wrong or any intelligent logical thought. I always like to read your posts. It is sad that some people cannot be reached. Three posters come to mind.
That’s right Norman, I forgot Tim was one of the “holy gurus” of your cult.
How many ice cubes will you need to heat your house this winter? According to Tim, it only takes 4 ice cubes to boil water.
(What a bunch of idiots!)
ClintR
I believe you are the only one who attributes anyone to the idea that 4 ice cubes will boil water. You have attributed it to me, Tim Folkerts and I believe Bindidon. Not one of us has remotely suggested this at anytime. Like I have stated you are not very smart and you certainly do not possess logical thinking ability.
The claim made (based upon all established physics) is that energy from a cold object can be absorbed by a hotter object. If the two objects are the same material then the hotter object will absorb the energy from the colder one.
From that statement it is not logical or rational to assume this means that ice cubes can boil water. I really do not know how you come to that conclusion based upon the actual physics.
Norman, are you denying the “great science” from your cult hero? Two ice cubes are over 90F hotter than one ice cube!
How dare you!
Not only are you an idiot and a troll, but you don’t even make a good cult follower. You’re a loser at every thing.
ClintR
Again. Do you have a link to a previous post that made any claim that ice cubes will cause a temperature increase.
All I see is an ignorant poster with no logical thought process attempting to act smart but shows only a very low comprehension of any physics.
If you have 4 ice cubes at the same temperature, the total amount of energy emitted by them will be 4 times greater but that in NO WAY would mean that the energy is somehow increasing the temperature. I really do not follow your thought process on this point. It seems really stupid and childish and no one mad such a claim. If you believe (falsely) that Tim Folkerts has made such a claim then link to such a post.
You are the same irrational poster that believes that scientists think adding water at the same temperature will double the temperature. It is correct the energy is doubled but at the same time the mass is doubled so nothing changes. I have already attempted reasoning this out with you. I can never grasp just how ignorant, illogical and childish your thought process is. I just get reminded when you post again.
Norman, I’m really enjoying your denial. It reminds me of rats leaving a sinking ship.
Are you denying the discussions about “flux adding” back on the September Update? Are you denying that your “Exalted Guru Maximus” (or whatever your cult calls him) claimed that ice would add to sunshine? He even gave several examples. You like doing searches. Are you telling me you can’t find the comments?
Riiiiiiiiight.
Hope you can swim really good. You’re a long way from shore….
ClintR
No I am not in denial. Just amazed how ignorant and illogical you are.
You can’t understand what is being discussed. You fly off on some tangent that no one is talking about and make illogical points from your incredible ignorance.
Yes fluxes add, that is a factual statement. No it does not mean ice cubes will boil water. Your connections are most bizarre and irrational.
Yes Tim Folkerts is correct. You are not. You can’t understand what he says. Most people with logical thought process are able to follow the logic. You fail at that.
Maybe this will help but it probably will not. Your strange mind will understand what I am saying in an illogical manner and come up with some strange conclusion that I am not saying.
If you have a heat lamp heating an object in a cold frigid still Arctic air the object will reach a certain temparature. Now if you surround that object with walls adding IR to the object along with the heat lame the object will get warmer than it was in the frigid air. (Tim Folkerts eliminated the other heat transfer mechanisms to simplify like conduction or convection). That would be like the ice warming the surface with sunlight. Or you could have the warmer walls and no lamp. The object will reach a steady-state temperature with the surrounding walls much above the outside temperature. Now if you turn a heat lamp on towards the object it will get warmer. It is really simple logic for most. I think most do not realize how difficult logical thought is for you.
Is Norman running from the nonsense, or still trying to cling to it?
He doesn’t know himself….
ClintR
I am actually being a logical rational thinker that understands physics. Maybe you should try it for a change.
As I predicted, you are not smart enough to understand what I posted. You seem unable to logically process ideas. You seem to read a snippet, don’t grasp what you read then reply with a stupid childlike comment.
Norman, here are a few samples of what you idiots believe:
* Ice can warm sunshine.
* Two ice cubes are hotter than one ice cube.
* Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
* Something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.
* Earth’s surface temperature should be 303 K.
* 160 W/m^2 can magically turn into 640 W/m^2.
Don’t blame others for your stupidity.
OK, Well here are a few samples of what Clint and the TEAM believe:
The Earth really is Flat
Harry Potter wands really work
Bigfoot, 2024!
Dems eat Repub babies
We can play this silly game all day.
I provide real examples of the nonsense idiots believe.
Troll Nate makes up more nonsense, to pervert reality.
And, so it goes….
ClintR
Once again you show you are not a smart person and your mind is devoid of logical processing ability. I am not sure Contrarian is the correct word for you mental process. I believe irrational would be a closer fit.
You have a list of your own created nonsense that you claim rational people are saying. The truth is you are not logical enough to understand what intelligent people are actually talking about. Your list is a product of how your irrational mind views valid science.
Strange indeed.
Norman, you can’t have it both ways. You either deny the nonsense, or you own up to it. You can’t swallow crap and then try to deny you didn’t.
Grow up.
ClintR
You once again prove you are not logical but also quite predictable.
You again respond in a childlike fashion and then retort for me to “grow up”. Odd thing to do, post in childish fashion then ask for an intelligent rational adult to “grow up”.
I guess if you post some things you think it has value. Your words are basically illogical and irrational. Not sure what drives you, it is difficult to determine the drives of irrational and illogical people. Science is not part of your equation.
Well Norman, if you believe you can respond as an adult, then tell us which of the following cult beliefs you either support or disavow?
* Ice can warm sunshine.
* Two ice cubes are hotter than one ice cube.
* Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
* Something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.
* Earth’s surface temperature should be 303 K.
* 160 W/m^2 can magically turn into 640 W/m^2.
Let’s see if you can perform as a responsible adult.
binny…”There is nothing to understand in the video, excepted the fact that it is a dumb, trivial, misinterpreting view of the reality”.
No, Binny, what it reveals is your utter inability to observe reality and the frustration you feel when reality contradicts your preconceived notions.
See the bold emphasised paragraph above…
The ClintR/DRsEMT sockpuppet troll shows it’s colors again:
Time 7:01pm – ClintR says: ***
Time 7:03pm – Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says: ***
Keep stalking us, E. Swanson.
There’s always a chance you might learn something.
This might also help you understand…from 1:54 onwards if you want to avoid the preamble:
https://youtu.be/6s3DvJJEfBE
DREMT
Please, please let us stop polluting this new thread.
I’ll answer at the bottom of the previous one.
J.-P. D.
This thread has been ‘polluted’ already. The Spinners broached the subject yet again, so now we’re discussing it. You may as well answer here.
Sorry, no.
OK then.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-548522
So he links to his comment anyway, thus continuing to ‘pollute the thread’.
Look the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q&list=PLurjkZV1ykGbNB_B1l1mz0IcxUTUui8RX
The first animation shows what the moon looks like if it was not rotating on its own axis (0:06 to 0:24) That’s called translation.
The second animation shows the moon rotating 8 times on its axis per one orbit.
The last animation slows the rotation from 8 times on its axis per one orbit to one time on its axis per one orbit, which the tin hat crowd calls an “illusion”. They can’t understand translational movement, nor do they understand the inertial reference frame.
When one small group claims only they know the truth, it’s usually the sign of a cult.
The first animation is not orbital motion without axial rotation. The motion shown in the first animation is discussed in both videos I linked to.
Orbital motion without axial rotation is motion in which the same side of the object is oriented towards the center of the orbit throughout.
In the first animation, that moon is exhibiting translation. It is not rotating on its axis at all. Learn some physics, and quit making up your own definitions.
I have linked to my definition of revolution, further up-thread. You need to find a link which supports your definition of it.
I do not need to see a definition of translation. We are talking about orbital motion, and axial rotation.
An orbit is simply a path. All three of the animations show the moon orbiting along a path. In the first animation the moon is simply translating. I can’t help it if you don’t get simple kinematics.
The animation makes the same mistakes.
But, it’s actually really easy. If the same side always faces the center of the orbit, the object is NOT rotating about its axis.
“I have linked to my definition of revolution, further up-thread. You need to find a link which supports your definition of it.”
As if that hasnt been done 47 times before!
So dishonest!
“Rotation usually refers to something rotating on its axis.
Revolution usually refers to something orbiting something else (like Earth around the Sun).
Both terms have specific uses and meanings in science and mathematics.”
If one reads the whole damn article, it is clear that DREMT has grossly misrepresented it.
No surprise.
“An orbit is simply a path.”
An orbit is not “simply a path”. The orientation of the moon is included. You “Spinners” see orbiting as motion in which the same face of the object remains oriented towards the same fixed star throughout. There you go, now you understand your own argument.
“Non-Spinners” see orbiting as motion in which the same face of the object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout. Rotation about an external axis, in other words.
The only difference is, “Non-Spinners” can actually support their definition with direct references that specifically describe orbiting as a rotation about an external axis. The best “Spinners” can come up with is vague definitions that an orbit is “just a path” or “just a trajectory” and then couple that with kinematic references that do not mention “orbiting” or “revolution” anywhere.
“An orbit is not ‘simply a path’. The orientation of the moon is included.”
Declaration without evidence.
Show us any source that claims ‘orientation’ is included in ‘orbit’.
Once again:
“In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object”
No rotation is specified in trajectory.
If you have a definition of trajectory please show it.
The idea that orientation is specified for any orbit is simply invented by you guys.
It is falsified by
a. No mention of orientation in any definitions of ORBIT
b. Planets have many different relationships between their ORBITAL motions and their orientational motions (spin).
c. The Moon’s orientation does stay aligned with its orbital path.
‘does NOT stay aligned’
Nate says:
The idea that orientation is specified for any orbit is simply invented by you guys.
It is falsified by
a. No mention of orientation in any definitions of ORBIT
b. Planets have many different relationships between their ORBITAL motions and their orientational motions (spin).
c. The Moons orientation does stay aligned with its orbital path.
———————————–
Nate you need some kind of reference that proves that nonsense you are posting amount to a hill of beans.
I mean who are we to believe? You or Isaac Newton?
Clint,
The animation makes no mistakes. You just don’t understand simple kinematic concepts like translation.
Look at the following animation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The moon on the right is exhibiting translational motion. All rotation about its own axis has ceased. The moon on the left is rotating once on its own axis per every one orbit, which is why the same face presents itself to the center of orbit.
These simple kinematic concepts sometimes confuse the simple minded.
“that proves that nonsense”
Which part is nonsense Bill, and why?
Lets just put this idea
“An orbit is not ‘simply a path’.”
to bed once and for all:
“Orbit – Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org wiki Orbit
In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object, such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=trajectory+definition&oq=trajectory+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.6324j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
“trajectory
noun
1.
the path followed by a projectile flying or an object moving under the action of given forces.”
SGW, another simple kinematic concept is rotation about an external axis. An object that is rotating about an external axis keeps the same face oriented towards that external axis whilst it moves around it. The moon on the left in your gif is an example of an object rotating about an external axis. Hence the moon on the right in your gif is an example of an object rotating about an external axis in the counter-clockwise direction whilst rotating on its own axis, clockwise, once per orbit.
I use the word “orbit” because “orbit” is another word for a rotation about an external axis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“A rotation is a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation. A three-dimensional object can always be rotated about an infinite number of imaginary lines called rotation axes (AK-seez). If the axis passes through the body’s center of mass, the body is said to rotate upon itself, or spin. A rotation around an external point, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called a revolution or orbital revolution, typically when it is produced by gravity. The axis is called a pole.”
“I use the word ‘orbit’ because ‘orbit’ is another word for a rotation about an external axis.”
False. Hasty generalization.
‘a rotation about an external axis’ is simply one possible orbit.
Like saying since orbits are elliptical, and a circle is an ellipse, then all orbits are circular. And of course they are not.
Nate,
Per NASA:
“An orbit is a regular, repeating path that one object in space takes around another one.”
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orbit-58.html
A trajectory is a path as well.
Nate,
Never mind. The issue was with DREMT, not you.
SGW, as I said, an orbit is not simply a path. Obviously, it is a path, but that is not all there is to it. The orientation of the object is included, too.
For instance, your own argument for what an orbit is includes orientation! You think an orbit involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards the same fixed star throughout. Hence you think the moon on the right, in your gif, is orbiting only, and not rotating on its own axis. If your own internal definition of orbit did not include orientation, then you would not be able to say which one of the two objects in your gif is or is not rotating on its own axis!
“simply a path. Obviously, it is a path, but that is not all there is to it. The orientation of the object is included, too.”
No facts/evidence to support you? Just declare them anyway!
Pathetic…
“The only difference is, ‘Non-Spinners’ can actually support their definition with direct references that specifically describe orbiting as a rotation about an external axis.”
Nope. This is demonstrably FALSE. When asked to show a legitimate definition of ORBIT that clearly states that it includes ORIENTATION, nothing is offered up.
“The best ‘Spinners’ can come up with is vague definitions that an orbit is ‘just a path’ or ‘just a trajectory’ and then couple that with kinematic references that do not mention orbiting or ‘revolution’ anywhere.”
That has clearly been addressed. See the two different definitions above of ORBIT.
So do we really to continue with the pretense that this is an ongoing controversy?
Do can we be done with this argument? And move on to genuine controversies..
#2
SGW, as I said, an orbit is not simply a path. Obviously, it is a path, but that is not all there is to it. The orientation of the object is included, too.
For instance, your own argument for what an orbit is includes orientation! You think an orbit involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards the same fixed star throughout. Hence you think the moon on the right, in your gif, is orbiting only, and not rotating on its own axis. If your own internal definition of orbit did not include orientation, then you would not be able to say which one of the two objects in your gif is or is not rotating on its own axis!
“path, but that is not all there is to it. The orientation of the object is included”
Nope. No evidence provided. No credit. No matter how many times you repeat it.
…crickets…
Dude good video. Found this there too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrzWzMUhQfw&t=62s
the comments are hilarious: those alien carefully adjusted the rotation speed of the moon to hide their base on the backside
Those aliens are sneaky alright!
A wooden horse firmly bolted towards the outside edge of a rotating merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. It is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, same as every other part of the platform.
Draw a small circle in chalk on another part of the platform’s floor, towards the outside edge. Is the part of the floor within the chalk circle rotating on its own axis, just because the platform is rotating? Of course not! It is just rotating about the center of the merry-go-round.
Revolving about an axis external to the body (external to the horse, or the chalk circle, for example) is just another way of describing orbital motion. I linked to a definition of revolution earlier that described it in those exact terms.
“firmly bolted”
Is the Moon firmly bolted to anything?
No. So why should anyone care?
Is the Moon moving in a circle?
No. So its not even LIKE a firmly bolted thing on a MGR.
So why should anyone care?
Just stop spreading fertilizer.
They really hate the simple analogies.
Wooden horse, bolted to the floor so the idiots have no way of claiming it’s rotating about its axis.
Ball on a string.
Chalk circle.
The list goes on and on….
When the real world fails to meet your expectations, go all-in on simple analogies.
If someone says the Moon-Earth is not a rigid body, you can say its just a simple analogy!
Its brilliant because it can never be falsified!
“They really hate the simple analogies”
Yes, they hate anything that simplifies and makes the debate clear cut. All they want to do is obfuscate. They also enjoy misrepresenting our position by pretending the analogies are meant to be 100% accurate models of the moon’s motion, capturing every nuance of the orbit (including orbital eccentricity, libration etc.) when that is not their purpose.
“They also enjoy misrepresenting our position by pretending the analogies are meant to be 100% accurate models of the moon’s motion”
Lets all just stop pretending that an analogy is just as good as a model.
Where is the model, and how has it been tested?
What makes it a better model than the standard, universally applicable, one that Astronomy and Newton have used for 300 y?
If it can’t explain the details, but the standard model straightforwardly can, then what the f*ck is your model good for?
Let’s just say an analogy is not an argument.
You can say what you like, blob. The chalk circle, wooden horse and ball on a string are all not rotating on their own axes.
And yet they are not the Moon, or a good model of it…
DREMTPY,
The challenge then is to make an argument about the Moons rotation without using analogies.
Care to take a crack at it?
Epic failure eminent.
No, blob. Now is the time that you admit you think the chalk circle, wooden horse and ball on a string are rotating on their own axes. Because unless you’ve suddenly changed your tune, that’s what you think. And I have enough of an effort arguing about that, with various people, without even getting on to the moon.
Admit that you were wrong, previously, about the chalk circle, wooden horse, and ball on a string, and we can move on to the moon.
DREMPTY,
Nope, not going to do it, wouldn’t be prudent.
The facts of the matter are the wooden horse, chalk circle, my little pony, and the ball on a string are all rotating on their axes.
The proof is to hang from the rafters above the merry-go-round on a rope trapeze and grab hold of the my little pony, and see if you spin or not.
If you don’t spin, then you are correct, but if you do spin, well then I am correct.
Or you could try the basketball and baseball test I suggested earlier.
Grab a baseball and hold it without changing your grip and move it in an orbital motion around the basketball, if you can do three revolutions without separating your shoulder, you win, if you have to go to the hospital, I win.
And the rule is, a change in orientation can only occur if you rotate about your axis.
No more analogies, time for experimentation, if you won’t experiment, you lose.
If you don’t do either test, you lose.
blob, the wooden horse is rotating, but not on its own axis. It is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, same as every other part of the MGR. Same as the chalk circle.
Such an object that is rotating about an external axis changes its orientation, i.e. it faces through N, E, S and W…but it does so without rotating on its own axis. It is not physically possible for the wooden horse or chalk circle to rotate on their own axes, so they do not.
Thus both your examples miss the point. Feel free to declare victory if you want, I know not to waste too much time with you. You will just go on and on.
bobdroege says:
The facts of the matter are the wooden horse, chalk circle, my little pony, and the ball on a string are all rotating on their axes.
—————————-
Of course they do Bob. Their axes are the axle of the merry-go- round. Its taken you a long time to get there.
================
bobdroege says:
The proof is to hang from the rafters above the merry-go-round on a rope trapeze and grab hold of the my little pony, and see if you spin or not.
If you don’t spin, then you are correct, but if you do spin, well then I am correct.
—————————
Eureka! You even figured out how to prove it!
Except you didn’t allow for losing your grip as the pony jaunts away from you, those merry-go-rounds can 40 or 50 feet in diameter. Doubt you have arms that long.
So you need to first install a rotating disk on the rafters so you can hang from the same radius from the axle as the pony and you will be good to go and be able to hang on and watch the walls of the room rotate around you.
Good job Bob, there is hope for you yet!
When you ask them for a real model they just
“No, blob. Now is the time that you admit you think the chalk circle, wooden horse and ball on a string are rotating on their own axes. ”
continue to talk incessantly about red herring analogies.
The jig is up.
"Good job Bob, there is hope for you yet!"
It’s funny how many of the "Spinners" will argue that a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis, or that the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis…or even the chalk circle!
In fact, bdgwx beats them all, I think…he was talking about a record that is spun so fast that it actually disintegrates. He was suggesting that the pieces of the record are rotating on their own axes before the record disintegrates! So…before they are even pieces. Before it is physically possible for them to rotate on their own axes!
You can’t reason with people like that. You can’t even get on to discussing the moon if people won’t understand the simple analogies.
All "pieces" of the record are rotating about an axis in the center of the record, prior to disintegration, and not on their own axes.
“s. Before it is physically possible for them to rotate on their own axes!”
NOT ‘physically possible’?
As Inigo Montoya famously stated: I do not think that means what you think it means.
Rotation about their own axes is a description of a MOTION that is possible.
That this motion of the pieces are all synchronous, is a separate issue.
Their INDEPENDENT rotation is what not possible, until the breakup.
…and as we just saw down-thread, bdgwx also thinks the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis! No point trying to move onto discussing the moon with such people. They will never, and can never, learn.
Bill Hunter,
Took a long time to get there, no way dude, been there from the start, the moon, the chalk circle, the my little pony, and the ball on a string are all rotating around two axes.
That has been my position since eighth grade, when I had the same argument with my eighth grade science teacher, she at least thought about it and admitted she was wrong, and that the Moon does spin on its axis.
If any one wants to meet me under the worlds tallest arch and do the baseball basketball experiment I’m game.
The conditions:
If you can hold the baseball in a solid not moving grip and revolve it around the basketball three times keeping one face pointed towards the basketball with no damage to your arm, I’ll pay all your expenses to travel, and I’ll post on this blog that the non-spinners are right and never post on this cite again.
If you can’t then you post on this cite that you were wrong, the Moon spins on its axis through the body of the Moon, and revolves around another axis near the Earth Moon barycenter.
And there is a point above the merry go round that would always be the same distance from the pony, perhaps if you knew any trigonometry you would be able to figure that out.
Time for the non-spinner to put up or shut up.
“Took a long time to get there, no way dude, been there from the start, the moon, the chalk circle, the my little pony, and the ball on a string are all rotating around two axes.”
One axis, in the center of the orbit.
DREMTY
“Such an object that is rotating about an external axis changes its orientation, i.e. it faces through N, E, S and Wbut it does so without rotating on its own axis.”
That’s just impossible for something to change its orientation without rotating.
Impossible.
You have taken an impossible position.
“That’s just impossible for something to change its orientation without rotating.”
For the 1000th time, it is rotating. Just not on its own axis.
https://tinyurl.com/yyyrhzow
Odd fellow, Svante.
Handwaving, your speciality.
Could you stop trolling, please? Many thanks.
Referring to the following animation again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q
At 29 seconds into the animation, the moon makes one orbit, rotating 8 times on its own axis. For the sake of argument, lets slow it down to 1.5 rotations on its own axis per one orbit. After making one orbit at that rotation rate, let’s further slow its rotation until it reaches 0.5 rotations on its own axis per one orbit. When it slowed from 1.5 rotations to 0.5 rotations per orbit, did it stop rotating on its own axis as it reached the 1 rotation mark?? According to DREMT and ClintR, yes it did.
Returning back the merry-go-round. Let’s bolt the horse to the center of the merry-go-round. Since he is bolted firmly, there is no way he can rotate on his own axis cuz he is freakin’ bolted. (according to DREMT) Poor horse can’t spin if he tried.
(No animals were harmed in the construction of this model)
“When it slowed from 1.5 rotations to 0.5 rotations per orbit, did it stop rotating on its own axis as it reached the 1 rotation mark?? According to DREMT and ClintR, yes it did.”
What you consider to be 2 CCW rotations per CCW orbit, we consider to be 1 CCW rotation per CCW orbit. What you consider to be 1 CCW rotation per CCW orbit, we consider to be 0 rotations per CCW orbit, yes. What you consider to be 0 rotations per CCW orbit, we consider to be 1 CW rotation per CCW orbit. What you consider to be 1 CW rotation per CCW orbit, we consider to be 2 CW rotations per CCW orbit. And so on.
“Let’s bolt the horse to the center of the merry-go-round. Since he is bolted firmly, there is no way he can rotate on his own axis cuz he is freakin’ bolted. (according to DREMT) Poor horse can’t spin if he tried.”
This is missing the point. Obviously if the CM of the horse is aligned exactly with the CM of the merry-go-round, the horse is rotating on its own axis. That is why I always specify the horse is bolted towards the outside edge of the merry-go-round. With the horse towards the outside edge of the MGR, it is not rotating on its own axis, it is merely rotating about the center of the MGR. To put it into perspective, the moon is 238,900 miles away from Earth.
DREMT,
We are using a numbering system where zero means zero. You have some wacky system where the number 1 means zero. You cannot have it both ways. Something rotating 1.5 times on its own axis stops rotating when it reaches zero, NOT ONE!!!! Your system does not make mathematical sense at all, and it flies in the face of kinematics (An object in an orbit that slows down to zero rotations on its own axis per orbit is translating.)
How can an object in orbit rotating 1.000000001 times on its own axis somehow slow down by 0.000000001 and is considered to be stopped rotating??? It stops rotating when it reached ZERO. That’s how the number system works. You are in some crazy parallel universe.
You offer no explanation. You just repeat your mantra.
Concerning the horse. You said, “It is not physically possible for the wooden horse to rotate on its own axis, since it is securely bolted to the floor.” Which means if it is bolted to the floor at the center of the merry-go-round, it cannot rotate on its own axis. You cannot have it both ways.
You are so messed up its unbelievable! Hilarious.
“You offer no explanation. You just repeat your mantra.”
I have explained it in hundreds of comments. I have linked to videos explaining it. I have discussed it with people that have generated countless gifs to illustrate the motions to anybody reading. You simply choose to either play dumb, or be dumb. Not my problem, either way.
The horse can rotate on its own axis when located in the center of the merry-go-round, because then its center of mass is aligned with the center of mass of the platform that is rotating it. It’s not exactly difficult to understand. The whole “physically cannot rotate on its own axis because it is bolted down” only becomes relevant when the two centers of mass do not align. It’s not just the fact that it is bolted down that is important, it is a combination of its location, and the fact that it is bolted down.
DREMPTY,
Repetition does not imply correctness.
““That’s just impossible for something to change its orientation without rotating.”
For the 1000th time, it is rotating. Just not on its own axis.”
A thousand times wrong is still wrong.
Two axes is correct.
The wooden horse, chalk circle and ball on a string are all rotating about an axis that is external to them. They are not rotating on their own axes.
DREMT,
Let me rephrase. “Your explanations make no sense mathematically”. A system of measurement has to be consistent. You cannot measure a a body that is rotating 1.5 times on its own axis per orbit, then as its rate of rotation is reduced to 0.5 times on its own axis per orbit, turn around and say the object stopped rotating on its own axis when as it reached the “1” rotation mark. That is just plain nonsensical. You can try to explain until you are blue in the face. It’s all nonsense.
Well, I can assure you that there are people on your side of the argument that do understand it. So perhaps you need to try a bit harder.
I admire your ability to post nonsense to the viewing public, not worrying about how foolish you appear. Congrats.
When do kids learn about the number line? Elementary school?
OK, SGW.
“Since he is bolted firmly, there is no way he can rotate on his own axis cuz he is freakin’ bolted. (according to DREMT) Poor horse can’t spin if he tried.”
Good point SGW. Shows the stupidity of their ‘impossible’ argument.
I tried to make this point earlier, rotation about own axis is a MOTION that is possible as you show here.
Whats impossible for a bolted object is INDEPENDENT rotation.
And of course irrelevant to the Moon.
“For the 1000th time, it is rotating. Just not on its own axis.”
The ‘it is impossible for bolted things to rotate on their own axis’ just doesnt work to FALSIFY the Moons axial rotation. As shown above, it is not impossible. Only INDEPENDENT rotation is impossible
Thus where is the proof?
The Moon isnt bolted, so even INDEPENDENT rotation on its axis is possible for the Moon.
ORBIT is DEFINED as a trajectory of an object around the barycenter, and thats exactly what it is, see above.
Then to explain the Moons rotation REQUIRES it to be both orbiting AND rotating on its axis thru its CM.
You simply have not proven this to be incorrect.
Continuing to declare it, without evidence, just doesnt cut it.
So you put an eye-bolt in the rafters above the center of the carousel.
String a rope through the eyebolt, and attach the ends of the rope to each of your feet. The rope is long enough that you will be hanging over one of the carousels ponies, such that you can grab the handles sticking out of each ear.
The carousel start turning.
The spinner hypothesis is that the rope will twist up like the string on a yo-yo.
The null hypothesis is that the rope will not twist up.
Do the experiment.
Spinner take all.
blob proves that the merry-go-round is rotating, and hence the wooden horse is rotating (about an axis in the center of the MGR, not on its own axis).
Well done, blob. You proved what I already agreed with.
DREMPTY,
If you were as smart as a bag of marbles, you would have noticed that I didn’t prove anything, I proposed an experiment.
So, in your prediction, what happens to the rope, does it twist up or not?
You already said: “The spinner hypothesis is that the rope will twist up like the string on a yo-yo”.
Is that what you think will happen?
Proof that the horse on the merry-go-round is spinning on its axis because it is linked to something, the rope, that is spinning on its axis.
Well OK then,
Or did you have something else in mind?
As I said, it proves only that the merry-go-round is rotating, and that the wooden horse is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round.
Nate says:
The ‘it is impossible for bolted things to rotate on their own axis’ just doesnt work to FALSIFY the Moons axial rotation. As shown above, it is not impossible. Only INDEPENDENT rotation is impossible
Thus where is the proof?
The Moon isnt bolted, so even INDEPENDENT rotation on its axis is possible for the Moon.
=================================
You are so servile Nate. Are you in denial that the moon faces the earth’s cog because of the pull of that cog?
You are simply being servile to preferred definitions and selective symbolism. The moon is not rotating around its own center of gravity as there is no force to make it do that.
I came into this forum having no idea the answer was DREMT came up with a convincing science paper for his case and all you do is play with symbols and words.
So I declared DREMT the winner as he was the only one who presented a science case for his position.
“The moon is not rotating around its own center of gravity as there is no force to make it do that.”
Moon doesn’t need a force to do that, moon needs a force to stop that. DREMT has no science case for DREMT’s backwards position that the universe rotates around the nonrotating on its own axis moon.
Ball4 attacks a ridiculous straw man, as usual.
“So I declared DREMT the winner as he was the only one who presented a science case for his position.”
I asked you guys for the proof, for evidence. Where is it?
“simply being servile to preferred definitions”
Look you guys asked us for better definitions of ORBIT and we gave you them. Clear concise ones that show that an ORBIT is simply a path, a trajectory thru space.
DREMT insists on making up his own different definition, to include orientational change (rotation), that supports his side of the argument.
Lets ask neutral observers whether they think making up your own definitions, when the universally accepted ones don’t work for you, is allowed in a debate.
Go ahead and take a survey of your friends and family whether they think, in a debate, if its ok for one team to make up their own, different, definitions of common terms, in order to ‘win’ the debate.
Tell us what you find.
Pondering the issue it seems to me DREMT and Tesla may well have been right on the issue of a moon with no spin flying right into orbit, with no spin and flying right out (if that were made possible) with no spin.
The answer seems consistent with the conservation of angular momentum. Namely that a orbit itself is merely like an ice skater’s speed in rotation. It is already thought everything is orbiting something (no matter if galaxies, solar systems, whatever), if so it has an angular momentum with some very large r value. Reduce the r and the apparent rotation speeds up misleading our spinner folks into believing it must have some kind of independent spin that comes from the ignorant idea of objects starting out flying in straight lines.
Now of course for objects with spins created by collisions or other traumatic events sometime in the distant past, the natural rotation around an object is diverted by the spin into a precession of the axis instead that results in a slower natural rotation of orbiting object in its orbit.
Tesla was an amazing guy. Foresaw wireless charging probably beat Marconi on radio waves. So much inspiration. Seems he was a bit disorganized in his life, but I can see why. . . .so much to work on . . . .so little time.
“Tesla was an amazing guy.”
Sure.
But on this issue, the amazing Newton got it right.
“a moon with no spin flying right into orbit, with no spin and flying right out (if that were made possible) with no spin.”
Sure!
Or flying into orbit with spin, having spin while in orbit, and flying right out (if that were made possible) with spin.
Lets be clear flying in/out with/without spin = flying in/out with/without rotation.
Not consistent, is flying in without rotation, having rotation while in orbit, then fling out again without rotation.
Nate you already lost the argument for failure to produce any science on the topic.
DREMT is the winner as he was the only one who presented a science case for his position by producing the Madhavi paper. Its a ‘no contest’ as the other team hasn’t responded except by whining and handwaving.
Nate says:
Lets be clear flying in/out with/without spin = flying in/out with/without rotation.
Not consistent, is flying in without rotation, having rotation while in orbit, then fling out again without rotation.
=====================================
Nate when it flies out its not going in a straight line, same flying in. It apriori possesses an angular momentum from if anything flying around the galaxy. The only difference in orbit is similar to the skater pulling in her arms. The pull of gravity from earth takes the moon and puts it into a more rapid rotation than it was already in. The exception is traumatic events to objects in the universe that put an axial spin on an object that is bound to stop sometime in the future as gravitational pulls simply end that spin.
The protoUranus example shows a planet with a spin axis parallel with the ecliptic plane has a rotation around the sun with an implied axis perpendicular to the spin axis. But due to the forces exemplified by a top, when spinning on its own axis, the rotation around the solar cog axis is modified into a precession. . . .just like a top. . .when and if the axial spin stops then you are left with a tidally locked planet rotating with its inherent angular momentum that comes from just being in the universe.
To tighten it up a bit here is something to look at:
https://physicsworld.com/a/was-the-universe-born-spinning/
Then look at how angular momentum is calculated with the r factor.
This concept clearly separates orbital spin vs axial spin. The protoUranus example helps fortify it.
“DREMT is the winner as he was the only one who presented a science case”
Hilarious!
Bill, Im not too worried about your view on who the ‘winner’ is. You have already taken sides, and have lost all objectivity.
Just as in the election, the partisan’s view of who won doesnt matter, only the vote count matters.
Here only the neutral observers opinions matter. They are able to objectively see that DREMT has made up his own definitions, and that is not ok.
“It apriori possesses an angular momentum from if anything flying around the galaxy.”
Yes, as I have discussed several times, anything flying past a point has angular momentum, mvr. Even a point mass, which cannot rotate!
“The only difference in orbit is similar to the skater pulling in her arms.’
This is an interesting example, and you have to analyze it carefully.
One skater comes in at a distance r from the center, with momentum, mv, no spin, but still has angular momentum mvr.
The other skater reaches out and grabs her hand, and applies a torque on her.
How do we know that? Because the force he applies to her arm is perpendicular to it.
The torque he applies to her gives her SPIN angular momentum.
Likewise she applies the same torque on him (Newtons 3rd law), and thus give him SPIN angular momentum.
If he lets her go, she would fly off with SPIN rotation, and less mvr angular momentum.
In the case of a Moon fying into orbit, it also has mvr angular momentum.
But gravity has no way of reaching out and grabbing the Moon by its arm and applying a perpendicular force on it. It can only apply a force on the moon parallel to the line between Earth and Moon. This cannot apply torque.
So unlike the skaters, no SPIN angular momentum is applied to the Moon and no rotation. but it does have mvr, orbital angular momentum.
sorry Nate you still lose. You will continue to lose until you post a science paper that supports your position.
Using the words of people who never studied this explicit issue who never issued a science paper on it just don’t qualify. Thats why relying on the fallacy of authority is such a common disqualifed argument.
Its OK to use authority when you provide the science paper to support it.
For instance when my Dr. recommends a prescription I always go home look it up read about it and its side effects and its specific pharmacological use. I then decide if I should take the prescription or not. If it is a life threatening situation, which I have never faced, then I would go get a second of third opinion if what I had read raised concerning questions.
Now Doctors have standards they are in violation of their oath if they make recommendations outside of their specialties. Malpractice is a threat they live with. But who wants to be in the situation of filing a malpractice suit if there are other avenues to take to ascertain what the Doctor has recommended is within the scope of their specialty.
The Madhavi paper is definitely within the scope of wise and unique definitions of rotation. So wise and so definitive its universally applicable. Now the Madhavi paper doesn’t concern itself which way an object might be rotating when bolted to its rotational axis.
Thus regardless if an object is spinning when entering orbit or not in an orbit around a single object but around the galaxie it will at some time be locked to that rotation, like the floating bowls in the larger bowl.
Further this rotation is naturally developed. Saying its just a remaining spin is BS as if it is spinning in the opposite direction it has to stop and then be put into motion in the opposite direction so the ”spin down” argument is nonsense.
Face it Nate. In the absence of a science paper specifically making a case for orbital rotation not being exactly what it appears to be in every case or either a one for one rotation or a precessional rotation slowed down by a natural spin on a different axis Madhavi has the right concept. You lose again.
And I am not biased as you claim. I came into the discussion a few months ago without a thought about it. I was heehawing both directions until DREMT settled the case with the Madhavi paper.
I even didn’t definitively call it until now months later. You and all your doubter buddies haven’t come up with a shred of science to make you case.
So now I am calling it. You lose!!!
Don’t bother arguing it further. You will make zero progress without a paper on the matter.
Certainly if you find a paper then you have justification of bringing the issue back up.
“The Madhavi paper is definitely within the scope of wise and unique definitions of rotation. So wise and so definitive its universally applicable.”
Bill you lose every time you toss out Madhavi, while never specifying what in her course supports your position, though you have been asked 17 times.
She is just presenting standard kinematics which none of us on the spinner side disagree with. That doesnt do a damn thing to support your model.
Meanwhile, you saw what I wrote about your skaters. Tell me what part is wrong or what you dont understand.
“Using the words of people who never studied this explicit issue who never issued a science paper on it just dont qualify.”
Which explicit issue? Orbits? Gravity?
Newton wrote Principia 300 y ago, which explicitly addressed the issue of what an orbit is, and what specifically the Moon is doing, and how gravity is creating orbits. He stated in it specifically that the Moon is rotating on its own axis!
If you think his words dont qualify, then you are very confused.
produce the paper nate if you don’t to be branded a loser.
Sure Im happy to give you what you ask for, Bill.
Now kindly specify what in the Madhavi txtbook supports your position, that you have been asked 18 times.
Thus far, you take the Cult’s word for it that it helps their POV. Lets see you actually use your auditor skills.
What the matter Nate? Can’t read yet? Need mommy to read it to you?
As I repeatedly explained Bill. I have read it.
It is a standard textbook treatment of kinematics. Its not a research paper, dimwit. And since it uses standard definitions, you should be skeptical of it.
In any case, nothing in it supports your position.
But let me remind you that YOU and the cult claim it does.
Why then is it such a heavy lift for you to find the quotes, point them out, and show how they support your position??
Your evasion confirms that you simply take the CULT’s word for it.
LAME!
Meanwhile the CULT makes up its own definition of ORBIT, that is also not to be found in Madhavi.
The objective observers call BS on that.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-1/Introduction
Kinematics is the science of describing the motion of objects using words, diagrams, numbers, graphs, and equations.
Nate, indeed science is what we are talking about, not common definitions that you swallowed whole believing it to be science.
Still not pointing out supportive quotes in Madhavi Bill. What seems to be the trouble? Lets face it, you can’t find any.
“not common definitions that you swallowed whole”
You are being very dumb Bill. As in any textbook, hers is full of definitions. No science can be communicated without using universal definitions.
Hers are consistent with the standard ones. IE Rotation, Translation, Curvilinear Translation, all the same.
DREMTS made-up definitions are not the same as the standard ones.
Specifically ORBIT, AXIS, AXIAL TILT etc.
Please find ORBIT, AXIS, AXIAL TILT defined in Madhavi, or anywhere. You guys have been unable to quote one that agrees with DREMTS in any reputable source.
Yet his entire case is built on that.
That SHOULD bother you. The fact that it doesnt is telling.
“…not common definitions that you swallowed whole believing it to be science.”
Speaking of definitions, here is another link defining revolution as a rotation about an external axis:
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/circular-motion-and-rotational-mechanics/rotation-and-revolution/
“It is important to understand the difference between rotations and revolutions. When an object turns around an internal axis (like the Earth turns around its axis) it is called a rotation. When an object circles an external axis (like the Earth circles the sun) it is called a revolution.”
In fact, the web is full of such definitions. It’s almost like astronomers have kept the terminology, but lost the connection to the fact that a rotation about an external axis is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards that axis whilst it moves.
Still waiting for you to show us a definition of ORBIT that agrees with what youve claimed.
We have provided a couple that show clearly that it is simply a path thru space.
“have kept the terminology, but lost the connection to the fact that a rotation about an external axis is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards that axis whilst it moves.”
Never was such a connection, so nothing lost.
You dont agree with either Newton or Astronomy.
Oh well! Wadda you gonna do?
Take em to court!
“When an object circles an external axis (like the Earth circles the sun) it is called a revolution.
Pretty colloquial terms tossed around here at Brightstar.
‘Circles’ would that be what an eliptical orbit does??
DREMT fails to agree with DREMT’s own source on rotation defn.: “When an object turns around an internal axis (like the Earth turns around its axis) it is called a rotation.”
DREMT words: “the fact that a rotation about an external axis…”
Ball4 does struggle with the English language…
Brightstorm “Our membership targets the high-school age curriculum”
Best you can do?
#2
Ball4 does struggle with the English language
“He was suggesting that the pieces of the record are rotating on their own axes before the record disintegrates!”
Of course they were. Objects do not start spinning on their own accord (Newtons first law of motion). At the moment of disintegration, the orbital angular momentum of the object becomes linear momentum, with the object flying off at a tangent to its radius of orbit. Since the object had spin angular momentum prior to disintegration as well, the object keeps on spinning, with both momentums conserved.
You just don’t get it because you’re a complete idiot when it comes to physics, which is why you are in this small flat earth cult.
SGW, the “pieces” of the record do not even exist (as pieces) before disintegration. The record is one whole unit, all parts of which are rotating about an axis in the center of the record, prior to disintegration.
You just need to learn where the rotational axes are. The record has only one rotational axis when it is whole. When it breaks apart, there are now lots of pieces, which each have their own rotational axis.
If you do not learn where the rotational axes are, you just end up with ridiculous conclusions, like thinking every object on the planet is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating!
Ok, good to know that once pieces are no longer part of a rigid body, they are rotating around their own axes.
So the Moon not being rigidly attached to the EARTH, moving like the pieces of record, must be rotating about its axis!
Makes sense.
But DREMT being DREMT will fail to follow where his own logic leads..
SkepticGoneWild says:
November 3, 2020 at 11:03 AM
Look the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q&list=PLurjkZV1ykGbNB_B1l1mz0IcxUTUui8RX
_______________________________________
Excellent explanation.
Everything should be clear now for everyone.
I see we still have the same guys still figuring angular momentum science on this issue can be settled with the last lesson they actually understood in physics which they learned in kindergarten. . . .”see spot run”
The version 6 fiddle is still wrong. When the UAH data can replicate the actual reading of the Equatorial Pacific moored buoys it might be useful:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3LJuByjstkozrzc
For now it remains a fiddled data set that does not match reality.
RickWill
Your contribution might be of some more interest if you were willing to develop your rather cryptic thoughts.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
RickWill
” For now it remains a fiddled data set that does not match reality. ”
Aha.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-3117974
I rather think your thoughts might need to be adapted to reality…
J.-P. D.
Take some time to look at reality rather than the much fiddled satellite data. These are buoys moored in the ocean:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/drupal/disdel/
Come back to me after you have looked at actual on the spot measurements rather than the contrived data from satellites.
RickWill,
Why are you wanting/expecting UAH to replicate the actual readings of equatorial pacific moored buoys?
The moored buoys were used as the calibration standard for the satellite data. I would like to know why the satellite now departs the moored buoy data. The equatorial moored buoys have had a stable temperature for the last 40 years:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/drupal/disdel/
This is basic physics. The open ocean surface temperature can never exceed 305K and the tropical moored buoys have never exceeded 304K.
At TPW of 38mm the atmosphere goes into daily cloud burst mode. This is responsible for monsoon and tropical cyclone at latitudes above 10 degrees. The resulting highly reflective clouds cool the ocean surface. This is a very powerful thermostat that limits ocean surface temperature to 305K. Rejection of insolation rises asymptotically toward 305K; it cannot be exceeded.
The tropical SST is essentially constant. Slight variation with swings in ocean current but from decade-to-decade it has to be constant. Any temperature measure that shows a long term trend with tropical SST is WRONG.
Can you post a link to literature describing this calibration process for UAH with equatorial buoys? This is the first I’m hearing about it.
This link explains the issues with satellite measurements and why they need correction:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/15/4/353/29742/Toward-Improved-Validation-of-Satellite-Sea
RickWill, That publication is relevant to satellite derived SSTs. UAH does not measure SSTs.
RickWill wrote:
Please note that the moored buoys are NOT USED to calibrate the MSU/AMSU! Each instrument scans cross track, stopping at intervals to measure the microwave intensity. At one end of each scan, the antenna views deep space at around 2.7K and at the other end, it views a heated target with several high accuracy platinum thermometers embedded within. The measure at each position is compared with these values to establish a point on a scale, just like the calibration used to define the Celsius between 0C at water’s freezing point and 100C at boiling. The result was originally called “Brightness Temperature”, though S&C would have us believe the data represents “bulk” temperature of the atmosphere.
That is instrument calibration not the entire process calibration or validation. Having the imstruments calibrated does not mean the instruments in satellites provide anything that resembles surface temperature. The means of inferring a surface temperature or near surface temperature from what is being sensed needs to be calibrated.
MODIS shows global ocean cooling from July 2002 to 2020 apart from the equator where it is constant:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3GJZzfUccCa6osu
Area averaged SST is down by 0.2C.
I would like to see the direct comparison between MODIS SST and the UAH data and understand why they differ.
RickWill,
UAH does not measure SST. They don’t even measure the near surface temperature. Although there is a correlation between UAH TLT and SST on climatic time scales you certainly would not want to calibrate TLT with SST.
I’m not sure how that image you linked to was created. It doesn’t seem to match what I’m seeing with HadSST or ERSST. I’d like to know more about how you created it or where it came from.
I can get you a comparison of HadSST and UAH TLT pretty easily. Sorry, but woodfortrees does not provide a global mean SST derived from MODIS so it would take considerably more work to get that for you. I don’t typically work with the MODIS data unfortunately. https://tinyurl.com/y5m2reke
Yes you are right bdgwx UAH doesn’t measure the surface. But modeling theory believes the lower atmosphere will warm faster than the surface.
RickWill
I have now a bit of time to contradict your somewhat arrogant and boasting attitude.
What you write here is complete nonsense.
The calibration performed using moored buoys solely concerns satellite infrared readings at SEA SURFACES, and have NOTHING to do with temperature readings using O2 microwave emissions in the 60 GHz band, at tropospheric altitudes above 4 km.
Please stop
– misinforming people at WUWT and in this blog
– denigrating the work done by peple like Roy Spencer.
J.-P. D.
The UAH data is purporting to represent surface temperature albeit it is referred to as Lower Troposphere rather than actual surface temperature.
All the satellite data is manipulated to infer a surface temperature or something close to it. The MODIS SST from NEO shows reduction in SST of 0.2C from July 2002 to July 2020. Why isn’t UAH also showing a reduction in SST?
If UAH is showing equatorial SST increasing then it is not a reliable indicator of surface temperature. The Version 6 adjustments are unreliable.
UAH data is not purporting to be surface temperatures. From the very first sentence at the top of this page on the global temperature update:
“The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October…”
Some fool commentators may equate surface temperature with LT, but no one serious does. Certainly not the people who compile it.
One regular commentator on this site tends to equate LT temps with surface, believing the MSU instruments can isolate surface temps from the lower troposphere. But that’s not someone that influences anything.
The geomagnetic field affects the pattern and strength of a stratospheric polar winter vortex. Therefore, the variation of the sea ice in the north and south are different.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_f.jpg
https://geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_s_f.jpg
This is especially true for long periods of low solar activity.
How to simulate the Moons motion in your backyard. Turn a bicycle upside down, so the front wheel is aligned East and West. When you spin the wheel, the valve fitment should eventually settle at the bottom, closer to the Earth (unless some clever bugger has balanced the wheel!). Gravity at work.
Now wait 24 hours. The wheel has orbited around the Earths center. Has it revolved around its axis (the axle)? No. Has gravity kept the valve fitment closest to the Earth? Yes. Is the Moon denser on the side perpetually facing the Earth? Yes, actually. Check it out.
Not an analogy. An example of gravity keeping one side of something free to rotate about its axis facing the surface. Even allowing for the resistance of the air and friction in the bearings. How about that?
The valve only settles because of friction.
S,
Gravity, not friction. Unless you have magical friction which always stops the imbalance closest to the Earth. Maybe the same magical friction which keeps the denser side of the Moon facing the Earth?
Face reality.
They would rotate forever without friction, albeit with a wobble.
S,
I think you mean its rotational speed would vary, as the gravitational force on the valve is weaker when the valve is furthest away from the Earth, greater when it is closer.
Like any physical body, the wheel experiences tidal effects, just like the solid Earth, or the Moon. These generate heat, which radiates away, and the rotation of the body slows in line with various conservation laws.
Eventually, the wheel, the Moon, or the Earth, stops rotating, densest parts closest to each other.
Reality. The bicycle is not an analogy, it is an example. Even if you wish away the reality of friction. In the case of the Moon, you might try wishing away tidal effects, or the evidence of massive and irregular meteor impacts, and the fact that the side facing away from the Earth is totally different in topography.
Yes, tidal effects on the Moon (and on your wheel if you throw it in the ocean). Effective on a million year time scale, no centre of mass offset required.
It is true tidal locking doesn’t require any non-uniformity of mass as a prerequisite. the tidal effect will create one though.
However, its unrealistic to believe that any object doesn’t have mass distribution non-uniformity as an assumption.
A real world example is a volunteer engineer built us a raffle wheel. It was a machined aluminum disk mounted vertically on ball bearings all precisioned drilled with machinery designed for the purpose with pegs mounted. Beautiful piece of equipment. We had some trouble designing a flapper to select the winning slot as the wheel still had an imbalance and with the ultra smooth ballbearings always wanted to fall and make the same number a winner.
In fact folks used to beat las vegas roulette wheels the same way, until vegas started regularly changing wheels to avoid someone surreptitiously compiling the statistics on any particular wheel. You can probably still do it, just that it’s really hard to avoid detection and getting yourself booted, or worse.
It can’t explain longitudinal libration though.
libration in latitude is due to the moon’s orbit being tilted to the ecliptic by 6.7 degrees.
libration in longitude is due to the elliptical nature of the orbit .
Yes, since orbital and rotational speed are different.
The primary pull of gravity is on the ecliptic. But everything in the solar system is relative to the Laplace invariable plane thats off the ecliptic by about a degree and a half, about the same as the precession of the moon in time with the precession of it elliptical orbit.
Bottom line is you guys are hallucinating. If you are on some where in a space ship out near a distant star and you focus a strong telescope, zooming in to fill the glass, with a precision aiming at the center of the moon, you will see it rotating.
Now slowly zoom out and there you see it the earth rotating around the moon.
Svante, Nate, Bob, Mike, Ball4 and Fritz rush out to get a grant to write a multi-author paper that contrary to popular opinion the moon spins on its own axis and the earth orbits around the moon.EOS
No need to write a paper, it’s in every book on the topic.
“zooming in to fill the glass, with a precision aiming at the center of the moon, you will see it rotating.”
Exactly. It IS an observable fact.
“Now slowly zoom out and there you see it the earth rotating around the moon.”
And so what?
Every book on the topic says the Earth orbits the moon!?
I dont think so, Svante.
“libration in latitude is due to the moon’s orbit being tilted to the ecliptic by 6.7 degrees.”
Uhhh…axial tilt.
Bill can’t get anything right. Cuz lets face it, he knows facts just annoyances.
Nate, you are just barfing up inapplicable arguments still completely devoid of a scientific reference that states the moon rotates because the axial tilt proves so. You are just a blind guy in this debate trying to pin the tail on the donkey and everybody is laughing.
“inapplicable arguments”
You are not even trying to support your claims or make sense anymore. Ur done.
No Nate its your lack of argument, lack of science papers to support your view that this argument is done and warmed over.
This paper shows DREMT is correct: https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
This paper shows you are correct: There isn’t one.
You lost Nate. No amount of whining and complaining that Madhavi didn’t specify all the objects that must obey the laws of physics is quite simply . . . .juvenile.
Bill,
The Madhavi publication is a textbook you complete and utter idiot. There is no proof presented anywhere in that textbook regarding the moon.
Furthermore, doesn’t an object rotating on its own axis stop rotating when it reaches zero rotations per orbit??????? (i.e. when it’s translating) You seem to think that an object stops rotating on its own axis when it reaches 1 rotation per orbit.
wrongo you are a complete and utter idiot. We have told the whole lot of you morons the moon rotates . . . .on an external axis.. . .but for only one possible reason that just doesn’t sink in for you guys.
And yes Madhavi is a textbook teaching applied physics. And there is a reason for what she is teaching which is obvious you haven’t figured out yet what it is.
Back when I went to school if you didn’t figure out what the textbook was for you weren’t going to pass the class. Today when you can’t figure it out they give you an ‘A’ for effort as they don’t want to damage your fragile egos.
Bill,
I have not met anyone so stupid. You deflected because you could not answer my question.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis. It has ZERO rotations per orbit. It’s translating. You do know what translation is, right? Of course you don’t because you are a freakin’ idiot.
The moon on the left is not translating, which means it’s rotating on its own axis. Do you know how many times it’s rotating? Of course you don’t, because you can’t count to one!
“You lost Nate. No amount of whining and complaining that Madhavi didn’t specify all the objects that must obey the laws of physics is quite simply . . . .juvenile.’
Clearly you are unable to point to ANYTHING in this rather bland, standard textbook that supports the Cult’s beliefs. This is a myth that grows with every evasion by Bill.
What to do? How can I evade pointing out something that doesnt exist?
Blame Nate! Create a strawman, and just keep posting it.
SGW again confirms that the “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same side of the object remains oriented towards the same fixed star, throughout the orbit. Thanks, SGW.
SkepticGoneWild says:
Bill,
I have not met anyone so stupid. You deflected because you could not answer my question.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis. It has ZERO rotations per orbit. It’s translating. You do know what translation is, right? Of course you don’t because you are a freakin’ idiot.
The moon on the left is not translating, which means it’s rotating on its own axis. Do you know how many times it’s rotating? Of course you don’t, because you can’t count to one!
—————————-
This reference proves you are wrong. Pay attention to Figure 2(b), that is if you have the IQ to read an illustration.
And if you think the reference is wrong, feel free to offer up something that disputes it. If you feel you don’t need a reference then you be the stupid one.
Nate says:
”
”You lost Nate. No amount of whining and complaining that Madhavi didn’t specify all the objects that must obey the laws of physics is quite simply . . . .juvenile.”
Clearly you are unable to point to ANYTHING in this rather bland, standard textbook that supports the Cults beliefs. This is a myth that grows with every evasion by Bill.
What to do? How can I evade pointing out something that doesnt exist?
Blame Nate! Create a strawman, and just keep posting it.
—————————-
Figure 2b works just fine Nate. Where is your reference? Oh thats right it comes straight out of the primordial soup your brain is made of.
“Figure 2b works just fine Nate. ”
Wow. It shows a Rigid Body Rotator. Every textbook on this topic shows such things.
This is saying MGR and record players exist. Yes we already knew that!
But it does nothing for the Earth-Moon system which is two separated rigid bodies.
Nate, the Madhavi is an excellent analogy to the forces acting on the moon.
Your argument amounts to a sentence mentioning the moon rotating around its axis without specifying what that was. e.g. figure 2(b) rotates around its axis.
So maybe the Madhavi argument is the be all end all but at least it is completely consistent explanation for what the moon does.
Right now I am strongly leaning to the idea that your concept of an object flying in a straight line going into orbit would perhaps perform as you suggest until tidal forces brought it under control.
But objects in the universe don’t fly in straight lines. . . .not even photons. L=mvr. From there the earth moon system works like an ice skater as the moon flies into stable orbit from whereever. Perhaps it broke of the earth when the earth was spinning fast, which would also put a spin on it that would be eventually brought into control much faster than the moon slows down the earth.
Bottom line is the only thing that matters is the physics so if you want to advance an alternative argument do it with physics, not statements of physicists. When and if you ever grow up you will know why that’s important.
https://postimg.cc/Mfnb5N6p
This movement is considered general plane motion, which consists of a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation about the center of mass. How many rotations? One per orbit.
This object’s movement does not meet the requirements of your sacred “Figure 2b” in your Madhavi “paper”. As you clowns state, “pay attention to Figure 2b”
And when you figure out what a translation is, let us know.
"This movement is considered general plane motion…"
SGW authoritatively declares that orbital motion is considered "general plane motion", with no support.
“Your argument amounts to a sentence mentioning the moon rotating around its axis”
Well other than all the other arguments, based on angular momentum, kinematic principles, the definition of orbit, the direct observations of a lunar axis, lunar librations.
Well DREMT authoritatively declares that the Moon behaves as fig 2b, a rigid rotator.
But we know the Earth-Moon is not a rigid rotator, not rigid, and the Moon is not doing a simple circular motion (a rotation) around an external point. Far from it.
In the textbook it states that “Any plane motion which is neither a rotation nor a translation is referred to as a general plane motion”
“general plane motion” which consists of a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation about the center of mass.
Yep, it is authoritatively according to Madhavi, the right choice.
“This object’s movement does not meet the requirements of your sacred “Figure 2b” in your Madhavi “paper”. As you clowns state, “pay attention to Figure 2b””
Lol, to you guys, nothing>/b> meets the requirements of Figure 2(b)! Not a ball on a string, not a wooden horse on a carousel, not even the chalk circle!
When you guys can finally bring yourselves to admit that the wooden horse, chalk circle and ball on a string are all in pure rotation, and not rotating on their own axes, maybe we can move on to discussing orbital motion…
“SGW authoritatively declares that orbital motion is considered “general plane motion”, with no support”
I am just using Dr. Madhavi’s paper for support. According to Dr. Madhavi, there are three kinds of motion: Translation, rotation about a fixed axis, and general plane motion.
https://postimg.cc/Mfnb5N6p
The above motion is not translation. It’s not rotation about a fixed axis. So that leaves general plane motion. You lose again.
An orbit is a path, Einstein.
As I said, SGW, according to you, nothing is a pure rotation.
Admit that the wooden horse, chalk circle, and ball on a string are all examples of pure rotation (i.e. they are not rotating on their own axes) and we can discuss whether or not orbital motion should be classed as pure rotation. Until then, I am not interested.
I never said the ball on a string is not fixed axis rotation. (that is the common verbiage) A ball on a string does meet the requirements for fixed axis rotation. But that does NOT mean the ball is not rotating on its own axis. The definitions for fixed axis rotation never precludes that.
Furthermore, Chasles’s Theorem states: “the motion of any rigid body consists of a translation of the center of mass and rotation about the center of mass.” The proof is in the following reference (Appendix 20A)
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-classical-mechanics-fall-2016/readings/MIT8_01F16_chapter20.pdf
The ball on a string is an example of fixed axis rotation, but the motion of the ball can be described as a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation around its center of mass. The ball does rotate about its own axis one time per orbit. It would only stop rotating on its own axis if it were translating.
You are ridiculous. You accept that the ball on a string is an example of an object rotating about an external axis (one motion, no rotation of the ball about its own center of mass)…
…then in the next breath, you insist that it is a translation plus a rotation about the ball’s center of mass (two motions).
You are arguing with yourself.
You are the ridiculous one. You are just a small cult like the flat earth society.
Read Chasles’s theorem again. The motion of ball on a string (rigid body) can be described as a translation of its center of mass plus a rotation around its center of mass.
You are the one that is backwards with all your inconsistencies. How can an object rotating once on its own axis and an object rotating zero times on its own axis BOTH be considered as not rotating on their own axes? Zero rotations MEAN zero rotations. ONE rotation actually means one rotation.
There are things that are in pure rotation, like a MGR, a record on a record player.
There ya go. Be happy.
But not the Moon.
So now can we be done?
SGW, a ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis. I do not know why this confuses you so much.
Dr Em T,
I don’t know why Chasles’s Theorem confuses you. Read it again.
The ball on a string is not the moon, nor is in the case of a wooden horse on a merry-go-round. The string confuses you, though. Just remember, an object stops rotating on its own axis when it translates.
And remember, 2 rotations means 2 rotations, 1 rotation means 1 rotation. Zero rotations means zero rotations. Numbers have actual meanings. And one does not equal zero.
You cannot have an object in orbit rotating two times on its own axis per orbit slow its rotation down to 0.5 rotations, and claim it stopped rotating at the one rotation per orbit mark. Makes ZERO sense. Very dumb.
I’m sorry you find the “Non-Spinner” position so puzzling. It really is as simple as “orbital motion without axial rotation involves the same side of the body remaining oriented towards the center of the orbit throughout”. A ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis. If you applied Chasles’s theorem to every situation then you would be doing away with such pure rotation altogether.
An orbit is a path, usually elliptical. An object has zero axial rotations when it exhibits translation. The moon is not translating. It is not even translating curvilinearly.
Sorry this is beyond your mental capacity.
“An object has zero axial rotations when it exhibits translation.”
Or, when it is purely rotating about an external axis.
SkepticGoneWild says:
Read Chasles’s theorem again. The motion of ball on a string (rigid body) can be described as a translation of its center of mass plus a rotation around its center of mass.
——————————
Of course it ”can be”. Madhavi has several examples of that. And she notes one exception.
“It really is as simple as “orbital motion without axial rotation involves the same side of the body remaining oriented towards the center of the orbit throughout”.
The Flat Earth really is as simple as the Earth is flat.
Simple does not equal correct.
Again, you keep declaring a definition of ORBIT:
a. Youve never provided evidence to support.
b. Youve been repeatedly shown evidence that it is FALSE. An ORBIT is defined as a path thru space. There is NOTHING in the definition about a side facing inward.
c. All observed astronomical parameters of the Moon require it to have axial rotation on a tilted axis.
d. Your belief requires you to state that observable things (ie Lunar Poles) simply do not exist!
As noted, with your belief long since FALSIFIED by standard definitions and direct observations, to continue to believe it and to continue to falsely claim it is still true puts you squarely in the Religious Zealot category.
"An orbit is a path, Einstein."
1) If an orbit was just a path, you would not be able to describe how an object that was orbiting whilst not rotating on its own axis remains oriented.
2) Your position can only logically be that such an object remains oriented towards the same fixed star, whilst it moves.
3) Our position can only logically be that such an object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, whilst it moves.
4) The motion described in 3 can also be labelled "a rotation about an external point, or axis".
5) You can find plenty of definitions on the internet describing an orbit, or revolution, as a rotation about an external point, or axis.
6) You can also find plenty of definitions on the internet describing an orbit as a path…but then you need to go through 1 – 5 again.
“1) If an orbit was just a path, you would not be able to describe how an object that was orbiting whilst not rotating on its own axis remains oriented.”
Kinematics does not concern itself with the “why” or “how” of motion. The topic has been whether or not an object is rotating on its own axis or not. The “why” or “how is not important. One does not need to know that to describe the motion of a body.
I repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response.
Continuing evermore in deep denialism.
“1) If an orbit was just a path, you would not be able to describe how an object that was orbiting whilst not rotating on its own axis remains oriented.”
An orbit is just a path, a translation thru space. There is no rotation. Period. So it remains fixed in orientation to the stars.
The Earth’s motion is described as ORBITING the SUN and Rotating on its Axis, JUST as Madhavi describes, it is a general plane motion, it is a combo of CM translation and rotation around the CM. And you have no problem with this for the Earth. Same goes for the Moon.
“3) Our position can only logically be that such an object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, whilst it moves.”
An object oriented towards the center has Rotation. An ORBIT without rotation contains NO rotation.
Not logical.
This is YOU changing the definition of ORBIT to suit your preconceived hypothesis.
A big NO NO in science.
#2
I repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response.
Irrelevant to the argument.
If the wheel has rotated once in 24 hours, the axle has rotated once in 24 hours.
If the wheel has not rotated, nor has the axle.
In either case the wheel does not rotate relative to the axle.
Entropic man: It seems that you’re not a cyclist. As one who has built up many a bicycle over 60 years of cycling, I can assure you that the wheel axle on a bicycle is fixed to the frame, and does not rotate. The wheel rotates about the axle via ball bearings.
Noting the earlier comment about the tyre valve settling at the bottom of a spun wheel due to gravity, it’s worth noting that this only happens if the wheel bearings are of high quality, well adjusted, and friction thereby minimal.
The debate now about building bicycles
Very good
Do yellow submarines rotate about their axis?
J.-P. D.
Eben: the debate is not now about building bicycles.
Entropic man commented that ‘if the wheel has rotated once in 24 hours, the axle has rotated once in 24 hours.
If the wheel has not rotated, nor has the axle.
In either case the wheel does not rotate relative to the axle.’
It’s not a debate as you suggest. My comment was a statement of fact.
rick will…”The version 6 fiddle is still wrong. When the UAH data can replicate the actual reading of the Equatorial Pacific moored buoys it might be useful:…For now it remains a fiddled data set that does not match reality”.
Don’t be daft. The sat scanners cover 95% of the surface, including all the ocean surfaces. Why would you want to compare a handful of buoys to the precision? Besides the bouys are affected by the water in which they are immersed, sea spray, and bird poop.
The moored buoys provide a direct temperature measurement using directly calibrated instruments. The thermometers are 1m below the surface. Bird poop does not penetrate. The casings do get covered with sea growth but that only dampens the response – a better average.
All satellite data is fiddled to infer a surface or near surface temperature. The only way the measurement can be validated is against insitu measurements and the moored buoys provide the best reference.
If moored buoys show zero trend but the satellite data shows a trend then I wonder how the data is fiddled and why it departs reality.
The MODIS data supplied by NEO shows the SST has reduced by 0.2C from July 2002 to July 2020. It has zero trend on the equator. Why isn’t UAH also showing this cooling.
rick will…”The moored buoys were used as the calibration standard for the satellite data. I would like to know why the satellite now departs the moored buoy data”.
Where did you get that fiction? One calibration set point is done by pointing the instrument at deep space. They have an on-board warm target for the other set point. Why the heck would anyone want to use an ocean-bound buoy?
The instruments on the satellite are calibrated but the process of inferring a surface or near temperature from those calibrated instruments is a fiddle that needs calibration or validation against inset measurement. That is the fundamental problem with remote sensing; the process infers a temperature rather than actually measuring a temperature.
The Version 6 fiddle for UAH does not appear to reproduce reality, whereby the equatorial SST shows no trend over the last 40 years.
RickWill
1. ” The UAH data is purporting to represent surface temperature albeit it is referred to as Lower Troposphere rather than actual surface temperature. ”
NO.
Only ignorants (one of them regularly posting such nonsense here) think that UAH, RSS or NOAA STAR would be ‘purporting to represent surface temperature’. This is by no means the case.
Roy Spencer for example has clearly explained the bias associated to a processing of O2 microwave emissions near surface, especially above the oceans. This is, if I’m well informed, the reason for adding, into the averaging for the lower troposphere, a tiny bit of the lower stratosphere data.
*
2. ” All the satellite data is manipulated to infer a surface temperature or something close to it. The MODIS SST from NEO shows reduction in SST of 0.2C from July 2002 to July 2020. Why isn’t UAH also showing a reduction in SST? ”
You have been explained that at WUWT, but continue to ignore the fact that nothing implies that temperature estimates coming from data collected at about 4 km altitude must reproduce surface temperatures, let alone at sea surface.
Simply because in the troposphere, we see weather and climate patterns differing by a lot from those existing at the surface, especially in the Tropics. There, temperatures are mainly driven by the planet’s highest convection and subsequent poleward advection streams.
At best you can see, despite the somewhat different trends, a nice correlation between UAH6.0 LT in the region 20N-20S — 155W-105W with the corresponding evaluation of the British HadISST1 sea surface series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19gzp9vYb7RbNU56opfCzalGXGx5PGrdv/view
A last remark: while for the region mentioned above, the UAH and HadISST1 series show, for the period 1979-2020, the following trends in c/ decade:
– UAH: 0.09 +- 0.02
– Had: 0.02 +- 0.02
But their trends move, for the period 2002-2020, up to
– UAH: 0.17 +- 0.06
– Had: 0.20 +- 0.07
*
3. ” If UAH is showing equatorial SST increasing then it is not a reliable indicator of surface temperature. The Version 6 adjustments are unreliable. ”
Please stop discrediting people’s work on the basis of your superficial thoughts, merely based on what I call ‘unsound skepticism’.
J.-P. D.
To sum up what you are stating here – UAH temperature data is a meaningless number unrelated to conditions experienced by people living on the planet.
It could bear some relevance to people living at 4km altitude.
Can you please add trend lines for the two tropical Pacific data sets. They look close to zero trend, which would match the buoys?
That would confirm the data sets are not entirely useless as they match the reality of the buoys.
This is SST data for the Nino 34 region of the Pacific:
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/nina34.data
It is has zero trend.
This is UAH for the same region for the same period:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itlt_60_-120–170E_5–5N_n.png
It has an upward trend of 0.08C/decade.
That means the UAH LT data is a useless reading for surface temperature. It needs to be fiddled more to get it closer to reality.
RickWill,
Here is a plot of your linked SST data for the Niño 3.4 region:
https://i.postimg.cc/vZXPncSR/Nino3-4-SST.jpg
Hmmm … 0.08C/decade.
To be compared with the UAH data set you need to start in 1980 and finish in 2021 so you get the same data range as the UAH data.
The start and end points matter when the trend is near zero and the data has yearly and decadal variability.
On that basis the trend becomes 0.013C/decade – in fact the trend from 1982 to present is negative.
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3j-MHBpf4wRGuhf
So there is no significant trend through the period of the satellite record.
RickWill,
If you want a comparison of UAH to a directly sensed dataset then you’ll want to use radiosondes. The University of Washington maintains such a comparison.
https://tinyurl.com/v5ux75g
bdgwx
” … then youll want to use radiosondes. ”
Hmmmh. Indeed, but… it works only when using highly homogenised radiosondes like the RATPAC set.
And due to the fact that this homogenisation was performed at the Vienna university by using satellite data (see RICH and RAOBCORE), you will, in some sense, compare satellite data with itself.
Using all radiosondes of the whole IGRA set (of which RATPAC is, with 85 of over 1500 units, a minuscule subset) won’t give anything valuable because IGRA’s averaging at 700 hPa (i.e. 3.7 km altitude) is way above RATPAC and e.g. UAH.
J.-P. D.
Interesting. That is good to know.
I read the Spencer Christiy paper on that site and it is clear that they need a Version 7 that is closer to reality if they want to produce a record that has any relevance to sea surface temperature. Why bother if it is jus a meaningless number; unrelated to anything on the surface.
The Nino34 data shows a cooling trend through the satellite era:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3j-MHBpf4wRGuhf
They don’t want to measure the surface temperature nor would it even be feasible with microwave sounders. We have various other datasets that measure the surface temperature already (including satellite derived like AIRS). And just because a bulk temperature centered around 700mb’ish isn’t meaningful to laypeople doesn’t mean isn’t meaningful to scientists.
So just a meaningless number unrelated to anything that happens on the surface or in the atmosphere.
700mb is in the atmosphere. And it is correlated to what happens at the surface.
The sun 9sn’t anywhere near the surface, and it sure is related to what hapens on the surface. Clouds are well above much on the ground, yet have great significance with respect to temperature.
Data regarding such is useful to understading weather and climate, as are the temperatures at various layers of the atmosphere.
For example, the long term cooling of the lower troposphere is evidence (a ‘fingerprint’) of greenhouse warming.
Interannual variability of surface and LT temperatures are very tightly correlated. Long term trends a bit less so, and short term trends even less so. The comparisons can be useful, but no one is saying LT temps are also surface temps.
You mean long term cooling of the upper troposphere?
Actually I mean cooling in the mid to upper stratosphere, having forgotten that ozone depletion is tied to lower stratospheric cooling, and it’s difficult to separate out the relative contributions in that layer.
As far as I’m aware the upper TROPOSPHERE is warming.
Yes, Roy’s tropopause trend seems to be +0.02 C/decade.
Can anyone explain the Mudflood Theory to me? As I understand it there was a cataclysmic globe-wide event of biblical proportions for which, conveniently, there is no recorded evidence. The mud was caused by a natural event by liquefaction/mud volcanoes/fell from the sky/rose uphill from the sea/sentient mud. The event happened in the mid-19th century/1812/1815/2-300 years ago/every couple of hundred years.
The mud was caused by man-made means by sound weapons/nuclear fusion/plasma weapons, the instigators being, or combinations of, the Illuminati/bankers/NASA.
The evidence is based purely on research from You Tube videos, google pics of basements that make no sense, no builder would do that, you only ever build on level ground, no Architect would design that. Any basement building regardless of whether they fit in with any of the above timelines even less than 10 years old are evidence, anything that does not fit into any of the timelines can be simply explained away as lies, however any evidence from a similar source that fits into any of the timelines can be accepted as the absolute unquestionable truth.
High values of galactic radiation indicate a very weak solar wind.
ttps://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Sorry.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
The axle is attached to the frame and the frame is sitting on the ground. The wheel is held in position by the weight of the valve. The wheel and axle are either stationary if you look at them from ClintRs viewpoint or rotating every 23 hours 56 minutes relative to the stars(24 hours relative to the Sun)
Either way the wheel and axle both share the Earth’s rotation rate and the wheel will not rotate on the axle.
Which reveals the months of pointless haggling about the moons rotation as being about a distinction without a difference. It all depends on whether you define the axis as rotating or not.
dan…”Which reveals the months of pointless haggling about the moons rotation as being about a distinction without a difference. It all depends on whether you define the axis as rotating or not”.
No, Dan, the point of the Moon debate is to demonstrate that climate alarmists lack the ability to use good scientific logic. They lack the same scientific logic in their support of the inane anthropogenic theory.
The debate has nothing to do with definition of axes or any other definition. It was originally stated by JD (not binny) as a simple statement: the Moon does not rotate on its axis. He made it clear the axis in question was the local axis through the Moon about which it would rotate if it did rotate.
The alarmists have used every type of argument to get around the simplicity of the obvious. They have tried inertial frames, appeals to authority, ad homs, and insults. They have even tried re-defining rotation.
Exactly.
It’s a frame of reference problem.
The non-rotators have chosen the only frame of reference in which the Moon does not rotate. The rest of us regard this as a special case and prefer a Sun-based or inertial frame of reference.
Let’s use polar coordinates (r, a) where r is radius and a is angle.
1)Using an inertial reference frame with r=0 through the center of mass of the moon and a=0 always pointing towards the same distant fixed point (like a star), the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis. In reality, it is not.
2) Using an inertial reference frame with r=0 through the Earth/moon barycenter and a=0 always pointing towards the same distant fixed point (like a star), the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter (a motion known as "orbiting", or "revolving"), and not rotating on its own axis.
You have to "zoom out" your inertial reference frame from 1) to 2) in order to have the complete picture, such that you can "see" the moon is not rotating on its own axis.
Frame #2 does not go through the Moon’s center of mass so it is not in reference to “its own axis”. Thus that frame cannot be used to answer questions regarding the Moon’s rotation about its own axis. Frame #1 is acceptable though. And the angular velocity in this frame happens to be 2.6e-6 rad/s which is non-zero.
You cannot judge if the moon is rotating on its own axis or not from Frame 1).
Consider a wooden horse securely bolted towards the outside edge of a merry-go-round. The wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, it is merely rotating about the center of the merry-go-round. It is not physically possible for the wooden horse to rotate on its own axis, since it is securely bolted to the floor.
If you looked at that from a Frame 1) type reference frame, with r=0 going through the center of mass of the horse, it would appear to be rotating on its own axis. However, we already know that in reality it physically cannot do so. If you “zoom out” your inertial reference frame to a Frame 2) type, you get to see the bigger picture. There you can see that the wooden horse is merely rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
You have that backwards. Frame #1 is the only frame by which you can answer questions regarding the angular velocity of the Moon about its own axis. Its the same situation with the wooden horse on a mgr. If you “zoom out” (which is just a euphemism for changing the position of the r=0) and use a different frame you are then no longer answering questions regarding that body’s angular velocity about its own axis.
We’ve already determined the crux of the debate here. The debate centers around the disagreement of the definition of “rotate about its own axis”. Astronomers define this as angular velocity in a frame where r=0 goes through the center of mass and a=0 is fixed to a distant point. That definition has been around for hundreds of years and is accepted nearly everyone (sans a few posters on this blog) so it’ll be an exercise in futility and frustration trying to convince everyone to change.
That’s correct bdgwx, DREMT has it always backwards. DREMT is a backwards warrior as demonstrated elsewhere. DREMT’s writing insisting the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis means the universe of stars is observed to rotate about the moon. DREMT’s argument is backwards being thoroughly defeated long ago and continually defeated around here as you do.
My previous comment refutes your response.
What would you do to determine the Earth is spinning on its axis? Would you put the origin in the sun?
No, you would put it thru the Earths cm.
Same for moon
#2
My previous comment refutes your response.
DREMT, where are you thinking we should put the r=0 point to determine Earth’s “rotation about it’s own axis” if not through Earth’s center of mass?
You can put it through the center of mass of the sun.
You can then see that the Earth presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.
Unlike with the moon, which only presents one side to the Earth throughout its orbit, proving that it does not rotate on its own axis.
DREMT,
Well in that frame the average angular velocity of points on Earth’s surface is 1.99e-7 rad/s which works out to 8765.8 hours. Do you really think the Earth spins once on its own axis once every ~8766 hours?
BTW…the figure I calculated for angular velocity is the average because in the frame you selected all points on Earth have changing angular velocities. Points nearest the Sun even have negative velocities in this frame. Don’t you find it odd that this frame gives you varying quantities of angular velocity for Earth’s “rotation about its own axis”?
#2
You can put it through the center of mass of the sun.
You can then see that the Earth presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.
Unlike with the moon, which only presents one side to the Earth throughout its orbit, proving that it does not rotate on its own axis.
Right…so the Earth spins once on its own axis every ~8766 hours? That’s your final answer?
The discussion always has to be on your terms, doesn’t it, bdgwx? How about you respond to what I am saying, instead of attacking obvious and ridiculous straw men about the length of a day!?
You’re saying put r=0 through the center of the Sun right? That’s what I’m responding to.
I am saying this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-550107
Do not bother responding unless you are actually going to discuss specifically what I said in that comment. That means the bit after the first sentence.
Yeah. You say…
You can put it through the center of mass of the sun.
So I do that and I get an average angular velocity for points on Earth of 1.99e-7 rad/s.
Are you disagreeing with this figure?
That means the bit after the first sentence.
“You can then see that the Earth presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.”
You can then see that the Moon presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.
There fixed that for you!
Except the moon is orbiting the Earth, and the Earth is orbiting the sun, so looking at it the way you have just described makes no sense.
If you judge that the Earth is rotating on its own axis by the fact that it presents all of its sides to the sun, then you should judge if the moon rotates on its own axis by whether or not the moon presents all of its sides to the Earth. It does not, therefore it is not rotating on its own axis.
Bob complicating it isn’t helping you. Just adding to your confusion.
Find a science paper that supports your point of view with a discussion of why the view you hold is a preferable view and at least you will be in the discussion as science moves forward. Either that or it leaves without you.
DREMT said: That means the bit after the first sentence.
We can certainly discuss the other stuff if you like. But if your definition of Earth’s “rotation about its own axis” is to use radius r=0 fixed to the center of the Sun and results in a rotational period of ~8766 hours then we’re already at a cross roads. I guess I’m one those people that accepts that Earth’s own axis should…ya know…go through Earth’s center of mass and not the Sun and that Earth’s rotational period is actually ~23.93 hours and not ~8766 hours.
bdgwx, the Earth’s axis does indeed go through the center of mass of the Earth, and I am not arguing otherwise. Obviously, I do not think that the Earth rotates on its own axis once every 8766 hours. So, what are you missing? You are missing that I am not discussing how to calculate Earth’s angular velocity. I understand that you are very keen to discuss that, yourself, but try to grasp that other people have different intentions when they bring up a subject.
I have been discussing why the moon issue is not simply a frame of reference problem. Most people who argue that the moon issue is a frame of reference problem argue that the inertial reference frame is the correct frame of reference to use to determine if the moon is rotating on its own axis, or not. I am merely pointing out that there is not just one “inertial reference frame”. You can have an inertial reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the center of mass of the moon. You can also have an inertial reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the Earth/moon barycenter.
The second point is, if you focus on the reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the center of mass of the moon, you lose the necessary context to determine whether the moon is actually rotating on its own axis, as opposed to merely rotating about an external axis (and not on its own axis). By “zooming out”, and focussing on the reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the Earth/moon barycenter, you are then able to make that judgement. Or, to put it another way:
“You can then see that the Earth presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.
Unlike with the moon, which only presents one side to the Earth throughout its orbit, proving that it does not rotate on its own axis.”
Bill and DREMPTY,
You guys totally missed the point.
I’ll repeat my post and explain what I meant in more detail.
XXXYou can then see that the Earth presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.XXX
You can then see that the Moon presents all of its sides to the sun throughout the orbit, proving that it does rotate on its own axis.
There fixed that for you!
DREMTY tried to show that the Earth is spinning by comparing it to a non-inertial reference frame. Stating that the Earth rotates because it presents all sides to the Sun, is false because that is a non-inertial reference frame.
The way to determine whether something is rotating is to compare it to an inertial reference frame.
So DREMPTY just doubles down on stupid
“Except the moon is orbiting the Earth, and the Earth is orbiting the sun, so looking at it the way you have just described makes no sense.
If you judge that the Earth is rotating on its own axis by the fact that it presents all of its sides to the sun, then you should judge if the moon rotates on its own axis by whether or not the moon presents all of its sides to the Earth. It does not, therefore it is not rotating on its own axis.”
So your premise is wrong, that makes your conclusion not proven.
But since the Moon presents all sides to a point in an inertial reference frame, that means that the Moon rotates.
“But since the Moon presents all sides to a point in an inertial reference frame, that means that the Moon rotates.”
blob, the sun is no more “a point in an inertial reference frame” than is the Earth.
“Stating that the Earth rotates because it presents all sides to the Sun, is false because that is a non-inertial reference frame.”
Wrong. A reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the sun is an inertial reference frame. From such a reference frame, you can see if the Earth presents all sides to the sun or not. It does, 365.25 times over.
bdgwx, the earth does have a one year rotation around the sun and the rotation is defined as the mean axial tilt as it precesses around perpendicular to the pole of the ecliptic. that would be in addition 365.25 annual spins on its axis.
“A reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the sun is an inertial reference frame.”
To clarify this, I will add:
“A reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the sun and a=0 points towards some distant star is an inertial reference frame”.
DREMPTY,
Nope, the Sun at your r=0 is not an inertial reference frame because the Sun is rotating around the Milky Way galaxy, so it is accelerating, therefore not an inertial reference frame.
Pick another reference frame, try and figure out what an inertial reference frame is.
You are failing so far.
And the cherry on the cake, is that in two successive posts you contradict your self!
“blob, the sun is no more “a point in an inertial reference frame” than is the Earth.”
Versus
“A reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the sun is an inertial reference frame.”
How can you keep coming to be shown that you are wrong time and time again.
I agree with bdgwx on what constitutes an inertial reference frame. Once again, you can argue it out with him.
Plus, there is no contradiction between my two statements. I will clarify this one for you:
“blob, the sun is no more or less “a point in an inertial reference frame” than is the Earth.”
DREMPTY,
So if this is true
“A reference frame where r=0 is fixed on the sun and a=0 points towards some distant star is an inertial reference frame.”
It’s not, but for now, that means, that since the Moon rotates with respect to that reference frame, it means the Moon is spinning on its axis.
Since it doesn’t keep one face towards the Sun, now does it.
Keep on losing.
To compare like for like, you must compare the Earth orbiting the sun from a reference frame in which r=0 goes through the sun, with the moon orbiting the Earth from a reference frame in which r=0 goes through the Earth. Both of those are inertial reference frames when in each case a=0 is pointed at some distant star.
DREMPTY,
bdgwx is using a non-inertial reference frame for his arguments, and you are calling those reference frames inertial.
So I am not making the same argument as bdgwx, but I am not in disagreement with his arguments.
You can use a non-inertial reference frame to prove that the Moon is spinning, that is a more rigorous argument than saying the Moon doesn’t face the same direction all the time, therefore it is spinning.
You need to look up the difference between a non-inertial and an inertial reference frame.
“bdgwx is using a non-inertial reference frame for his arguments, and you are calling those reference frames inertial.”
We are both discussing the same frames. They are certainly not “non-inertial reference frames”.
If bdgwx is willing to concede that the frame in which r=0 is fixed on the center of mass of the moon and a=0 is pointed at some distant star is a “non-inertial reference frame”, then great. I would love to hear that from him. I could then use that to argue against MikeR and his gifs.
Only kidding.
The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will soon be split.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f24.png
Re calibrating thermometers etc.
There are people who are apparently using so-called air temperatures to claim that the Earth is warming. A dodgy inference at best.
However, measuring air temperature is itself a very tricky exercise. Thermometers measure their own temperature, which may or may not be the temperature of the surrounding air.
Far worse, the thermometers in use have not been calibrated using air of a known temperature. Historical temperatures are generally based on thermometers calibrated against liquids of a known temperature, or a reference thermometer so calibrated.
So air temperatures are an exercise in wishful thinking, if accuracy is required. Air temperatures are taken in the shade, and essentially represent the radiative temperature of the inside of the shading structure.
Trying to compare absolute temperatures from different measuring systems is just silly. As an example, John Tyndall expressed his comparative measurements of heat radiation in degrees of rotation of a magnetic needle, which he spent some months trying to find a null position which would give equivalent readings, both positive and negative.
At least Dr Spencer appears to be aiming for reproducibility and consistency, in a comparative sense. The measurements of Brahe and Kepler (and others) were enough to demonstrate that Newtons Law of Gravitation was valid. First the measurement, then the curiosity. Look for existing reasons. If there dont seem to be any that fit, take a guess and see if experiments support it.
Easy?
Well Norman, if you believe you can respond as an adult, then tell us which of the following cult beliefs you either support or disavow?
* Ice can warm sunshine.
* Two ice cubes are hotter than one ice cube.
* Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
* Something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.
* Earth’s surface temperature should be 303 K.
* 160 W/m^2 can magically turn into 640 W/m^2.
Let’s see if you can perform as a responsible adult.
Not sure what is meant by “ice can warm sunshine”. However if you have both ice emitting energy and sunshine reaching the same surface, the surface will reach a higher temperature than it would with just sunshine or just ice.
The two ice cubes is not reasonable and no one has made such a claim. Two ice cubes, at the same temperature, will emit more energy to the surroundings than one ice cube.
Sun and 800,000 K is not intended to be any real world phenomena. It was just a demonstration of an abstract idea. You should not take abstract concepts and confuse them with real world physics.
I have Moon rotation fatigue. It is obvious you and DREMT or Gordon Robertson will continue to believe what you do. I realize that no amount of debate will change this so I drop out of that endless debate.
The Earth’s surface with the GHE alone would be much warmer than 288 K. It would exceed the 303 K you came up with. Convection and evaporation keep the surface much cooler.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
I don’t know what your last one means or indicates. “Magic” turning one flux to another. I have no idea where you got that one from.
By the way your twin is posting again on PSI blog. You might be interested to know that someone else thinks like you do
https://principia-scientific.com/audio-recording-this-is-why-they-wont-debate-me/#comment-41518
norman…”However if you have both ice emitting energy and sunshine reaching the same surface, the surface will reach a higher temperature than it would with just sunshine or just ice”.
You continue to cling to that textbook nonsense that shows two bodies of different temperature interception the radiation of the other having a two way effect on heat transfer.
Tell me something, have you ever seen a practical example of this used in a real problem? No. They always use hypothetical examples with no values that can be measured.
They can’t be measured for a couple of reasons:
1)There is no instrument that can measure a two-way heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures.
2)Quantum theory explains that electrons in a hotter body are at too high an energy level to be affected by radiation from electrons in a cooler body.
That backs the 2nd law which also claims heat can never, by its own means be transferred cold to hot.
Gordon Robertson
You are ignorant.
1) Yes a handheld IR instrument definitely measures two way flow of energy (you keep changing the key word to HEAT which is not claimed!). You can take an IR measuring device and point it at a hot object and it will give you some temperature reading (use a normal thermometer to confirm this reading to see how close your IR instrument is to the thermometer value). Now turn the IR device 180 degrees to the colder object. It cannot receive any IR from the hotter object in this configuration, the energy is coming from the colder object. Measure the temperature of the colder object with a thermometer to determine the temperature of the colder object. Your point is just wrong on all levels. Read a textbook it might help you.
2) NO QUANTUM theory Does not say that. Only you do. You make up things and then think they are true. I have gone over this you many times, why do you bring it up with me. You don’t understand chemical bonds, how they work what goes on in molecular vibrations.
Gordon Robertson
Read this to try and understand molecular vibrations.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-mcc-organicchemistry/chapter/infrared-spectroscopy/
Chemists identify unknown compounds by using IR spectroscopy. They can tell the type of bonds in a compound based upon what IR bands are absorbed.
Will Gordon get it this time?
Place your bets.
Gordon,
You are talking about atomic orbitals.
In polyatomic molecules and solids there are molecular orbitals that are able to abbbbbsorb the lower energy radiation from colder objects.
Were way beyond Bohr here, you should study up.
N,
Your appeal to the authority of Dr Spencer falls flat.
He wrote –
* The greenhouse effect usually refers to a net increase in the Earth�s surface temperature due to the fact that the atmosphere both absorbs and emits infrared radiation. *
One does does not logically follow from the other. The Kiel-Trenberth cartoon is nonsensical, of course. Radiative intensity may have little to do with the temperature of the emitter. Pointing an IR thermometer at the sky is meaningless. The instrument merely measured the heat it receives, directing it through less atmosphere results in a lower reading. Lowering towards the horizon increases the amount of heat from a greater thickness of atmosphere. And so it goes.
His definition of the GHE is insufficient. His initial assumptions are faulty, and some of his statements do not accord with observed fact. Like John Tyndall, he may have changed his views during the intervening years, as new information came to light.
Your other comments just indicate your general level of ignorance. Learn some physics. Face reality. Submerging an ice cube in a bowl of water warmed by the sun will not result in the waters temperature increasing. The ice is radiating thermal energy, but it has no heating effect on a hotter body. Reality.
Swenson
Dr. Spencer did an actual experiment, REALITY, showing your ideas are NOT reality. They are some made up version of your deluded reality you think it correct. Your examples of ice cubes in warmer material are not valid to what is being stated. They are a false presentation of valid concepts that you are not able to understand because you HAVE not and probably never will learn physics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
One obvious problem with so many arguments you contrarians bring up proving cold cannot increase the temperture of a heated object deal with room temperature surroundings. And in this case ice would NOT increase the temperature of a heated object. The walls surrounding the heated object are emitting more IR toward the object than the ice would and the ice would block this greater energy with its own lesser energy and hence cool the object in these surroundings. If the surrounding were far colder than the ice, then the presence of ice and sunshine would increase the temperature of the heated object. You have to understand the whole problem and not just a couple segments.
Swenson, like ClintR and Gordon Robertson you are just not a very smart person. Posters can attempt to explain the science but you are not capable of understanding what is being said.
Norman, your mission was to tell us “which of the following cult beliefs you either support or disavow”. I knew you couldn’t answer as a responsible adult. You’re still trying to have it both ways. You’re trying to dodge reality, instead of facing it.
Notice I can answer clearly and succinctly: All six beliefs are bogus.
See how easy it is.
ClintR
In your limited thinking ability and lack of logical thought process they are wrong. In real world physics the correct answers are more complex. I can’t explain them to you. You are not smart enough to understand anything about science and you hold strong opinions on issues regardless if they be wrong and bad physics.
I did attempt to reason with you. It will always be a failed attempt. You are not smart enough to grasp the ideas and are very limited in thought and you also tend to form irrational conclusions based upon limited understanding of the topic of discussion.
As I said you are not a smart person.
Norman, we know you can go on forever, typing and insulting, but can you own up to the nonsense your cult puts out?
Notice I can make a clear statement: “All six beliefs are bogus”.
You either have to clearly accept the cult beliefs, or reject them. But, you can’t do it because you know two ice cubes aren’t going to be hotter than one. You don’t understand science, but you know two ice cubes aren’t going to raise each other to a higher temperature. But, you won’t reject your cult beliefs. If you did, you would have nothing else to cling to.
ClintR
There is no nonsense and NO CULT. Science is opposite of cult thinking. Science is established by evidence and facts. I have already presented you with sufficient evidence that the energy from a colder object can increase the temperature of a heated object. This is an established fact verified by experiment. Again is shows you are not very smart. You can’t understand evidence and rely only on your confused opinions on things. I spent time explaining your points. I can’t do more than that. You can’t understand what I post so why do you persist in posting about these matters?
I have never claimed two ice cubes are hotter than one. Two ice cubes emit more energy than one. That is a fact. Why would two ice cubes raise each others temperature? They both emit and absorb the same amount. You need to continuously supply new energy to the ice to maintain a temperature or they will cool off.
Again you demonstrate illogical and irrational thinking. You believe that legitimate science is a Cult but the reality is your brand of thinking is the only Cult around. You make statements (largely just your illogical opinions on science) and think they are absolute truths. You do not accept any evidence that proves you opinions wrong. Yes you are the classic definition of cult mentality. Science is not.
Here is information on Cults
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
Your posts are cult mentality. You do not think the moon rotates one time as it completes an orbit. This is established physics that only cults question. You don’t accept the well founded heat transfer equation between objects. Again this is cult mentality.
Most your posts are cult-like. You never support any of what you claim. Just opinions and beliefs and mostly opposed to established physics (that is actually based on experiments and observations with logical rational thought and expressed in the language of mathematics).
Yes Norman, we know you belong to a cult. That’s why you can’t reject their beliefs.
ClintR
Again you prove you are not smart. Nor are you logical. I linked you to the current understanding of cults. You are not logical or smart enough to apply this understanding to posters on this blog.
The logical view is you are a cult minded person belonging to a contrarian cult that opposes established views regardless of evidence.
In logical thought you would not call someone belonging to a cult that understands established physics, can reason ideas with rational thought process, relies on evidence to support their views (something you do not do). Logically you belong to a cult of contrarian thought (you are not the only one who thinks like you do) and logically I do not. I follow real world evidence. You should try it some time.
Norman, you can’t convince anyone you’re not a braindead cultist if you can’t reject the cult nonsense:
* Ice can warm sunshine.
* Two ice cubes are hotter than one ice cube.
* Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
* Something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.
* Earth’s surface temperature should be 303 K.
* 160 W/m^2 can magically turn into 640 W/m^2.
Your endless typing fits won’t convince anyone, except your other cult members.
Reject the nonsense and accept reality.
ClintR
I already addressed all those with this post.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-549166
Wrong again, Norman.
All you’ve done is your usual “blah-blah” evasion. Your mission was to tell us “which of the following cult beliefs you either support of disavow”. But, you can’t do that.
If you reject the nonsense, then you admit you have been an idiot. If you accept the nonsense, then you admit you are an idiot.
You can’t win when you fight reality.
ClintR
Once again it is obvious you are not a smart person. You think I am evading your list when I actually answered them in intelligent and logical fashion using known existing physics. I cannot be blamed that you lack intelligence to understand the answers I have given you.
Nomran, once again you are evading the issue.
Any responsible person could quickly deny that nonsense. But, you can’t. You can’t leave your cult.
tim folkerts and skeptic…Tim…”A string DOES force the same face toward the center.
Gravity DOES NOT force the same face toward the center”.
Skeptic… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q&list=PLurjkZV1ykGbNB_B1l1mz0IcxUTUui8RX
The first animation shows what the moon looks like if it was not rotating on its own axis (0:06 to 0:24) Thats called translation”.
********
In Tim’s post he claims correctly that gravity acts on all sides of the hemisphere facing the Earth, hence no torque to produce spin (local rotation). Remember, gravity acts in a relatively static field while a string on a ball acts at one point only. The motion of the ball, however, does emulate that of the Moon if the downward force of gravity is disregarded. The string not only supplies angular momentum for the ball it raises it against gravity.
In Skeptic’s vid, they show a depiction of the Moon in orbit with the same hemisphere always pointed toward the Earth, yet they claim it rotates exactly once about its axis per orbit.
Can they not see the obvious? The inner face and the outer face are always moving parallel to each other, meaning they can never rotate about the axis since it is moving parallel to the inner and outer faces.
This is curvilinear translation not rotation about an axis.
WRONG GORDON.
Gordon STILL has not learned what curvilinear translation is. The seat of a ferris wheel is an example of curvilinear translation.
“Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves”
[ http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
Yes. The inner and outer face are moving parallel to each other in the vid you referenced. HOWEVER. The outermost point on that moon and innermost point are NOT moving on congruent curves, therefor they are NOT exhibiting curvilinear translation. Those two points are moving on concentric curves.
The demarcation line between the red and white areas of that moon rotate one time wrt the inertial reference frame, and that rotation is about its own axis.
You really need to study a kinematics text book, because you CONTINUALLY screw up kinematic definitions.
binny…”nothing implies that temperature estimates coming from data collected at about 4 km altitude must reproduce surface temperatures, let alone at sea surface”.
This cements in my mind that you are an effing idiot, not just for the post cited above but for your entire denigration of Roy’s work in your post You have no idea how the instrumentation works and you are regurgitating nonsense from the likes of Barry.
The instruments on the sat are sensitive to frequencies generated by oxygen at any altitude. The frequencies generated are proportional to temperature and the temperature profile of the atmosphere wrt altitude is well known.
You can’t have a separate instrument for each frequency generated so the frequencies of all O2 emissions are sampled by the instruments. However, the instrument receivers are set up to sample emissions in frequency bands (channels) and each receiver receives frequencies centred at a certain frequency. That means adjacent receiver channels will sample the same frequencies which can be compared to the centre frequencies.
The waveforms produced in each frequency band are called weighting functions for some reason. I presume it means that various frequencies are weighted according to the centre frequency of each channel. Channel 5 receives O2 emissions right down to the surface but you cannot measure it directly, You have to measure it through an algorithm proportional to the centre frequency level and known frequencies expected at each altitude.
That does not mean, as you stupidly suggest, that all UAH data is measured over a 4 kilometre altitude. The surface O2 emissions are measured at or near the surface, just as surface station boxes measure atmospheric temperature at various altitudes.
The difference is that the sats can measure temperatures where there are no surface stations, at all altitudes and surface areas.
Robertson
A>s usual, you behave as a complete ignorant, buttkissing Mr Spencer where he even wouldn’t agree with you!
Why don’t you try to inform yourself instead of pretending your utter egocentric nonsense?
The longer your comments, the less useful contents they show, independently of what you write about: Moon’s spin, troposphere, Clausius, viruses, Einstein, etc etc.
Stop filling this blog with your endless bullshit!
J.-P. D.
JD, are you trying to copy Norman? You sound just like him — no facts, only opinions and hatred.
You need a better role model.
Gordon is saying that the satellite MSU instruments that UAH rely on for their atmospheric temperature data also provide global surface temperature data.
This is patently false, as even Roy Spencer has said. Bindidon is right to castigate Gordon for continually pushing this msinformation.
Roy Spencer:
“For those channels whose weighting functions intersect the surface, a portion of the total measured microwave thermal emission signal comes from the surface. AMSU channels 1, 2, and 15 are considered “window” channels because the atmosphere is essentially clear, so virtually all of the measured microwave radiation comes from the surface. While this sounds like a good way to measure surface temperature, it turns out that the microwave ’emissivity’ of the surface (its ability to emit microwave energy) is so variable that it is difficult to accurately measure surface temperatures using such measurements. The variable emissivity problem is the smallest for well-vegetated surfaces, and largest for snow-covered surfaces. While the microwave emissivity of the ocean surfaces around 50 GHz is more stable, it just happens to have a temperature dependence which almost exactly cancels out any sensitivity to surface temperature.”
rich will…”The instruments on the satellite are calibrated but the process of inferring a surface or near temperature from those calibrated instruments is a fiddle that needs calibration or validation against inset measurement. That is the fundamental problem with remote sensing; the process infers a temperature rather than actually measuring a temperature”.
What do you think a mercury thermometer does? It measures expansion of mercury in a vial. Temperature was invented by humans based on the freezing point and boiling point of water. It is a measure of heat which is the kinetic energy of atoms.
What does it matter how you infer temperature? It is a measure of heat and as such any measure that works compared to the freezing/boiling point of water will work.
It just so happens that oxygen emits microwave radiation near 60 Ghz and the frequency varies with the temperature of the oxygen. So, O2 near the surface will emit at a frequency commensurate with the lower altitude whereas O2 at 4 km will radiate a different frequency, again, commensurate with altitude.
It’s a matter of collecting this data and relating it to the altitude from which it was collected. The temperatures inferred have been compared to radiosonde data and there is a good match.
Gordo continues to demonstrate his lack of understanding of science. The emissions from O2 molecules occur in bands centered on one frequency, which does not change with temperature. What does happen is that the O2 bands exhibit “pressure broadening”, which is to say, there is greater emission from the sides of the bands at higher pressure than at lower pressure. It’s the emissions from these higher pressure, lower altitude regions which are measured by the MSU 2, because they can exit the top of the atmosphere, and this frequency is used to calculate the UAH MT. The same is true for MSU 3 used for the UAH TP and MSU 4 used for the UAH LS products. These instruments measured radiance at specific frequencies which is said to be a function of the black body emissions and therefore represent “bulk temperature”, i.e., a weighted average from the entire atmosphere. For example, the UAH MT emission profile includes some radiance from the surface and the Stratosphere, as well as that near the pressure height of peak weighting.
One thing is for sure: in mid-latitudes, dry air cannot trap rapid heat radiation into space during winter (due to the large vertical temperature gradient).
Sorry you are all wrong about bike wheels.
The bearings in my thirty year old bike finally collapsed in the summer and my wheel will not spin at all.
Now we need to discuss if technically and functionally speaking it’s still a wheel, Mark! 🙂
So you are riding along in a straight line on your bike, and you push the handlebar forward on one side and backward on the other side.
This introduces an unstable condition where the front wheel is now rotating on four difference axes.
One of two things will happen, the bike will adjust and continue rotating on three axes, or a chaotic situation will arise when it all rotates on five different axes which will conclude with the wheel rotating on one axis and your brand new spandex bike shirt will be ripped to shreds.
Gordon Robertson
Since you are not able to accept the concepts of brilliant chemists on the nature of molecular vibrational energy I bring to you Linus Pauling. I have his book General Chemistry printed by Dover Press.
Page 369. Quote: “We have so far discussed the quantum states of motion corresponding to five of six degrees of freedom of the hydrogen chloride molecule: the three translational and two rotational degrees of freedom. The motion associated with the sixth degree of freedom, the distance r between the tow nuclei, is the vibrational motion of two nuclei relative to one another, or, more accurately, their synchronous vibrational motion relative to the center of mass.”
I hope that you at least consider what Linus Pauling says. There is more in the book but it has figures and explanations. If this does not work for you then nothing will.
Can anyone explain to me the theory behind using jade amulets to protect from Covid-19 decease? It seems legit.
There is a new study, Can Traditional Chinese Medicine provide insights into controlling the COVID-19 pandemic: Serpentinization-induced lithospheric long-wavelength magnetic anomalies in Proterozoic bedrocks in a weakened geomagnetic field mediate the aberrant transformation of biogenic molecules in COVID-19 via magnetic catalysis.
The studys first author is Moses Bility, an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health who studies infectious disease.
Bility and his group connected the February and March timingclose to the spring equinox, which he says is associated with changes in the geomagnetic fieldto that of rising COVID-19 case numbers in the US. In the paper, he and his coauthors propose that SARS-CoV-2 is a preexisting, endogenous virus in the human genome that is reawakened by the effects of changes in the Earths magnetic field, but that the virus doesnt cause the pathology seen in COVID-19. Rather, they suggest, the disease comes about due to other chemical reactions in the body catalyzed by the magnetic field. Asked whether the SARS-CoV-2 sequence has been found in the human genome, Bility says, Im not a genomic expert. That was just something I did want to look at, but I did not look at that.
The study also suggests, without experimental evidence, that jade amulets might protect wearers by countering the effects of the long-wavelength anomalies, an idea Bility says he based on records of practices by ancient people in China and elsewhere during a period when geomagnetic conditions were similar to what they are now.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 3, 2020 at 2:40 PM
“The moon is not rotating”
on its own axis.
Nate says:
November 5, 2020 at 6:40 AM
Newton:
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb
”””””””””””””””””””
One of you has to be wrong, but who?
DREMT is correct.
Nate is taking Newton out of context. Newton was referring to Moon’s orbital motion. The orbital motion confuses idiots like Nate. They believe because Moon would “appear” to be rotating about its axis, if viewed from outside the orbit, that it really is rotating about its axis. They get fooled by the appearance, and by the fact that many organizations and institutions have never corrected the mistakes made by Cassini, centuries ago. It’s not a high priority, because an “apparent” motion does not affect anything.
But the interesting thing about the discussion is the fight the idiots will put up to reject reality. That’s why they’re idiots.
“Moon would “appear” to be rotating about its axis…”
___________________________
It IS rotating.
Once as it orbits the planet.
Thats called “synchronous rotation” or “bound rotation”.
Best wishes to USA. Germany suffers with You.
Fritz Kraut.
Is the ball on a string rotating about its axis?
It has that appearance, but it is not actually rotaing about its axis. If it were, the string would be wrapping around the ball.
Obviously you have not been following all of the comments here.
“Is the ball on a string rotating about its axis?”
____________________________
It ist.
Same as the hammer when hammer-throwing. And same as moon when orbiting. And all of them keep their rotation, after released.
One more time, just to give you a chance to avoid being an idiot:
“It has that appearance, but it is not actually rotating about its axis. If it were, the string would be wrapping around the ball.“
ClintR, wrong statement 8:28am yet again, corrected statement of observation: If ball was rotating on its own axis more or less than once per rev., the string would be wrapping around the ball.
Ball4, wrong statement 10:22am yet again, corrected statement of observation: If ball was rotating on its own axis at all, the string would be wrapping around the ball.
Which is not observed DREMT 11:08, go ahead you can at least trust your own eyes, the ball rotates once on its own axis per rev. and the string does not wrap since your eyes are not lying to you, like many of your comments.
Which is not observed Ball4 1:59, go ahead you can at least trust your own eyes, the ball does not rotate on its own axis, and the string does not wrap since your eyes are not lying to you, like many of your comments.
Great imitation of the backwards warrior DREMT which can be done; however all sane warriors prefer to ride their horses facing forward. Especially the mgr horses turning once on their own axis per orbit.
Great imitation of the backwards warrior Ball4 which can be done; however all sane warriors prefer to ride their horses facing forward. Especially the mgr horses not rotating on their own axis whilst orbiting.
Our resident clown states:
“If ball was rotating on its own axis at all, the string would be wrapping around the ball.”
So that means that with a non-rotating ball, the string would not wrap around it per Dr Empty. Let the ball on a string translate around the circular orbit. One can see right away that with the ball held at the same orientation throughout its orbit, the string will wrap around the ball, which is not rotating on its axis, because its translating. So wrong-way, backwards Dr Empty loses again.
SGW again confirms that the “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same side of the object remains oriented towards the same fixed star, throughout the orbit. Thanks, SGW.
Poor Backwards, wrong-way Dr Empty sees everything backwards, which is why he cannot understand what translation is. He’s confused because he does not use the inertial reference frame. He’s just plain backwards and wrong.
When Dr Emp T makes a left turn in his car, he thinks he’s going straight and the road is rotating under him. I don’t know how he can drive a vehicle.
Regardless of reference frame, a ball on a string is an example of pure rotation. It satisfies the requirements of Madhavi Fig. 2(b). It is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis.
No responses so far, from anybody that I am responding to…
”
The issue is far more fundamental than any of that.”
DREMT tries to escape to
his comfort zone, when caught in a free fall from reality.
His model cannot explain the observations, so he he simply denies them!
What could be more fundamental than that?! The idea that theory MUST explain observations.
At least the major religions understand that their beliefs are not testable with science.
The TEAM fails to even understand that.
#2
No responses so far, from anybody that I am responding to…
ClintR says:
November 6, 2020 at 8:28 AM
but it is not actually rotating about its axis.
__________________________________
Of course moon ist rotating around its rotation axis. Otherwise it had none. And without rotation axis it had no poles. Or do you also deny the moon poles?
Astronomers (mostly) believe the moon rotates on its own axis, so of course they have decided where on the moon they believe this axis passes through (based on how the moon moves in its orbit), and thus they have determined the location of a North and South Pole. So, yes, these poles exist, in the sense that they are physical locations on the moon which the astronomers have labelled the North and South Pole. But the “axis” passing through them – the moon does not rotate about it. The moon only orbits (rotates about the Earth/moon barycenter)
DREMT’s comment means the moon does not rotate about own axis, it is the universe of stars and galaxies et. al. rotates around the moon. The moon only orbits (rotates about the Earth/moon barycenter), it’s the universe that is rotating about the moon. Wrong as usual DREMT.
Ball4 attacks a ridiculous straw man, as usual.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 7, 2020 at 7:09 AM
“Astronomers (mostly) believe the moon rotates on its own axis, so of course they have decided where on the moon they believe this axis passes through…”
_____________________________________
My question was not, what You believe what astronomers believe.
Poles of any planet or moon are clearly defined as intersection of surface and axis of rotation. Astronomers KNOW it. Its not a matter of believe.
Do YOU deny existence of moon-poles or do You not?
Simple question.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 7, 2020 at 10:19 AM
Ball4 attacks a ridiculous straw man, as usual.
______________________________________
Ball4 made a good point.
Either the skyglobe is rotating, or the moon is rotating.
No the skyglobe is not rotating. The moon is rotating around the COG of earth.
If the moon is rotating on its own axis the sky globe isn’t rotating but it would entail the earth orbiting the moon instead of vice versa that we know to be the case. . . .for several reasons
bill gets it right, Fritz gets it wrong.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 8, 2020 at 10:01 AM
bill gets it right, Fritz gets it wrong.
____________________________________________
Fritz is still waiting for an answer to his simple question. Again: “Do YOU deny existence of moon-poles…?”
Yes or No?
And of course bill is right, when he states, that moon is orbiting round the earth. But that was not the point.
Yes, there are physical locations on the moon which astronomers have labelled the North and South Pole. No, the moon does not rotate about the “axis” passing between these Poles.
As bill tried to explain to you, but you have misconstrued, the moon does not rotate on its own axis (its own center of mass), it rotates instead about the Earth. It is rotating about an axis that is external to the body of the moon. Such a motion involves the same face of the body remaining oriented towards the external axis whilst it moves. In other words, the moon is only orbiting, not rotating on its own axis.
The Earth both orbits and rotates on its own axis.
The moon only orbits.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 8, 2020 at 12:38 PM
Yes, there are physical locations on the moon which astronomers have labelled the North and South Pole….
__________________________
Why do you avoid a straight and clear answer?
Third time: “Do YOU deny existence of moon-poles…?”
YOUR opinion please.
“Do YOU deny existence of moon-poles?”
OK, I will answer your question for the third time. No, I do not deny the existence of the moon’s Poles, because there are physical locations on the moon which astronomers have labelled the North and South Poles. However, the moon does not rotate about the “axis” passing between those Poles.
I am happy to repeat this answer as many times as you wish to repeat the question.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 8, 2020 at 2:01 PM
No, I do not deny the existence of the moon’s Poles
_________________________________
So You finally cant deny the axis of rotation.
Without axis of rotation there would be no poles.
And without rotation, there would be no axis of rotation.
Fritz from the stars a pony on a merry-go-round looks like it rotating. And it is, but not on its own axis but on the axis of the merry-go-round.
Fritz is funny. I repeat the exact same response to him three times, and on the third time he acts like something has changed. Once again:
Yes, there are physical locations on the moon which astronomers have labelled the North and South Pole. No, the moon does not rotate about the “axis” passing between these Poles.
” axis, so of course they have decided where on the moon they believe this axis passes through (based on how the moon moves in its orbit), and thus they have determined the location of a North and South Pole.”
The poles that are observed and located behave just like our poles. They are the coldest, darkest places on the Moon. They point to the same stars during an entire orbit. Where they point precesses as predicted by physics for an axis.
So Poles are not belief-based like a relgion. Weird. They are observable facts. They can be falsified, but thus far you guys have failed to do that.
Nate continues to blow hot air without a single reference.
Take a bicycle wheel which is a good simulation of the gyroscopic effect of an orbiting tire.
So without scientific references and a paper defining precession as only applying to a rotation on an internal axis is just so much hot air and completely and absolutely unsupported.
Here is a description of a geosynchronous satellite precessing around 3 axes. Its own, the ecliptic, and moon’s orbit axis.
https://www.amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2013/Orbital_Debris/ROSENGREN.pdf
Start with the last sentence on the first page.
Also,
https://youtu.be/bzbVwiIeM0M
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 8, 2020 at 5:06 PM
Fritz is funny. I repeat the exact same response to him three times
__________________________________
Three times you repeated the same. But never You answered my question.
I did ask You, if You admit the existence of moon poles. But You always talked something about places, “labeled” by astronomers as “Poles”. Thats not what I asked for and uninteresting.
Astronomers dont “label” any poles. They “identify” it. A pole IS a pole, however someone labels it.
You realy dont know the difference between, for example, earths northpole and the city named and labeled on maps as “North Pole” in Alaska?
So in Your thinking the earth must have at least THREE poles: One in Antarcica, one in the Arctic Sea, and one in Alaska.
Why dont You just ask Dr Spencer? He knows it. I am certain.
“You realy dont know the difference between, for example, earths northpole and the city named and labeled on maps as “North Pole” in Alaska?”
Yes, I know the difference, thank you for asking.
The difference between the Earth and the moon is that the Earth really does have Poles, because the Earth is rotating on its own axis. The moon does not really have any Poles, because the moon is not rotating in its own axis.
“The moon does not really have any Poles, because the moon is not rotating in its own axis.”.
Something observable doesnt fit with my belief?
Then it doesn’t exist.
Peak denialism.
And Bill goes off on weird tangents..
“Astronomers dont “label” any poles. They “identify” it. A pole IS a pole, however someone labels it.”
Sure, they identify what they think is a pole on the moon, because they believe it is rotating on its own axis. Then they label it a Pole. Unfortunately, they did so in error, because the moon does not rotate on its own axis. However, their labelling is still useful. It is still useful to have the moon all mapped out nicely with a North Pole, a South Pole, an equator, and everything in between.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 10, 2020 at 5:54 PM
“The moon does not really have any Poles”.
_________________________________________
The first time You give a realy clear statement to this point.
Dr Roy Spencers DREAMTEAM denies the existence of moon poles!
Remarkable.
Not at all remarkable. In fact, it goes without saying. Obviously, if you argue the moon does not rotate on its own axis, then automatically you are arguing that there are no poles, because there is no axial rotation.
” Obviously, if you argue the moon does not rotate on its own axis, then automatically you are arguing that there are no poles, because there is no axial rotation.”
Strange that the locations on the Moon labeled as Poles have all the same properties of the Earths poles.
Averaged over an orbital period, they are the darkest places on the Moon, they are the coldest places on the Moon, and permanent ice has been detected at the Poles. During an orbit, they point to a fixed set of stars.
DREMT should be explaining how his model accounts for these properties. But he won’t.
You see DREMT views it as a religious issue, not a science issue.
Observations don’t change beliefs in religions, because they can’t be falsified with any observations. In science of course they can and do.
When the observations contradict your belief, well, the observations must be wrong. Hence the Moon has NO Poles.
"…then automatically you are arguing that there are no poles, because there is no axial rotation."
Although, you shouldn’t forget that the moon is orbiting the Earth, and the Earth is orbiting the sun. So there will be places on the moon which receive less sunlight than others, averaged over time, due to their location on the moon relative to the moon’s orbital plane. Nobody is denying that the moon is oriented a certain way, relative to its orbital plane, as it moves through its orbit.
“the moon is orbiting the Earth, and the Earth is orbiting the sun. So there will be places on the moon which receive less sunlight than others, averaged over time, due to their location on the moon relative to the moon’s orbital plane.”
So far so good…
“Nobody is denying that the moon is oriented a certain way, relative to its orbital plane, as it moves through its orbit.”
Yes, yes you are.
It is oriented a certain way as it moves thru its orbit, that means there are two points on the Moon pointing to (oriented to) a fixed place in the sky. That place is at an angle of 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis.
We all agree that the Moon is rotating wrt the stars. That means that all points on the moon are changing their orientation to the stars…Except the two points at the Poles.
This can ONLY BE TRUE if all points on the Moon are rotating in concentric circles around a line that passes thru the Poles. The rotational axis.
No responses so far, from anybody that I am responding to…
Nate says:
It is oriented a certain way as it moves thru its orbit, that means there are two points on the Moon pointing to (oriented to) a fixed place in the sky.
We all agree that the Moon is rotating wrt the stars. That means that all points on the moon are changing their orientation to the stars…Except the two points at the Poles.
This can ONLY BE TRUE if all points on the Moon are rotating in concentric circles around a line that passes thru the Poles. The rotational axis.
—————————————-
Incorrect Nate. The points you are talking about are scribing ellipses in sky. The places you are talking about are not fixed.
Hint: True axes are found consistently approximately one au and 0.002569 au distant from the arcs so drawn. So you are on the right track just that you keep reciting another myth that gets passed around among the ignorant. The myth is that the moon’s so-called axis points at a fixed place in space.
The only thing going on here is out of your complete inability to make a case in situ you have made up mythical spots in outerspace and all you are translating there is the same error you have in situ.
Bottom line Nate a moon at rest with a lever arm simulating gravity is hit dead center. The moon will rotate around the earth with zero lunar axial rotation because no torque was applied on the moon’s internal lever arm. EOS.
“Incorrect Nate. The points you are talking about are scribing ellipses in sky. The places you are talking about are not fixed.”
Huh??
Why? You think Cuz its orbiting in an elliptical orbit???
Then why does Earth’s axis and N Pole point always to Polaris, regardless of its elliptical orbit??
If thats what you think then no wonder you are confused, Bill.
Here’s some evidence.
The Lunar South Pole points to the same fixed star during its whole orbit. Currently that star is
Delta_Doradus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Doradus
“Currently this star is the Moon’s south pole star”
Of course the axis precesses around a small circle in the sky, returning to this star every 18.5 y….much longer than the Lunar orbit of 27 days.
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_of_astronomical_bodies
You can see here exactly where the Lunar axis points in the sky
Object North pole South pole
RA Dec Constellation [3] RA Dec Constel.
Sun 286.13 +63.87 Draco 106.13 −63.87 Carina
Mercury 281.01 +61.41 Draco 101.01 −61.41 Dorado
Venus 272.76 +67.16 Draco 92.76 −67.16 Dorado
Earth +90.00 Ursa Minor −90.00 Octans
Moon 266.86 +65.64 Draco 86.86 −65.64 Dorado
These are specific locations on the Celestial Sphere.
Do you think Astronomy is just making up these numbers or what?
According to the raving mavens , unlike the earth or any of the planets, the poles of the earth’s moon are not aligned with it’s rotation axis.
One savant (the idiot is assumed) said it is useful to have the moon all mapped out nicely with a North Pole, a South Pole, an equator…. .
I can’t disagree with this amazing insight, but how was 90 degrees N ( and the corresponding other selenographic latitudes) chosen so that the selenographic equator is 1.54 degrees to the orbital plane of the moon (and 6.68 degrees with respect to the ecliptic)?
According to this fellow, this was a simple mistake resulting from a belief that the moon rotated on its axis.
This begs the question. Was 1.54 degrees chosen at random or did the value arise as a result of a dream? Maybe a lucky dip was used to choose the value or the number was plucked out of an orifice situated in a place that never sees sunlight (hence the misnomer – the dark side of the moon).
Very few of the numerous orbitally locked moonsin the solar system have been mapped in detail so there are opportunities galore for those people, who believe these moons are not rotating, to nominate poles at random.
Personally I would prefer to wait until the rotational axes of the moons have been measured.
“I can’t disagree with this amazing insight, but how was 90 degrees N ( and the corresponding other selenographic latitudes) chosen so that the selenographic equator is 1.54 degrees to the orbital plane of the moon (and 6.68 degrees with respect to the ecliptic)?”
Other way round, MikeR. 6.68 degrees with respect to the orbital plane of the moon, 1.54 degrees with respect to the ecliptic. Must have been chosen by studying the moon moving in its orbit, and looking at the libration of latitude.
Actually they must have been chosen by studying the moon moving in its day/night cycle rotating on its own axis. DREMT hasn’t come to terms yet with the sun illuminating all faces of the moon instead of a nonrotating on its own axis moon staring one face at the sun.
Remember from verified link ref.s provided by DREMT the origin of the day/night cycles on the moon:
“The Moon..rotates about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth. This results in it always keeping nearly the same face turned towards Earth” but not the same face towards the sun.
I linked to a Wikipedia article. This, according to Ball4, means that I linked to and “verified” what is written in a completely different article on Wikipedia to the one I actually linked to. It’s just Ball4 being Ball4. A troll, in other words.
“Object North pole South pole
RA Dec Constellation [3] RA Dec Constel.
Moon 266.86 +65.64 Draco 86.86 −65.64 Dorado
Astronomers has observed that the Lunar Poles point to these oddly specific point in the sky.
And of course these numbers are well documented accepted by IAU.
So it looks like we’ll have to add these specific numbers to the growing list of things that the TEAM believes Astronomers have not actually observed, but just ‘believe in’.
“moving in its day/night cycle”
Orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis, in other words.
And Bill, what of: “The places you are talking about are not fixed.”
Bill’s gone into ‘silent running’ mode.
DREMT linked to a Wikipedia article he thought supporting his opinion that didn’t actually do so. This means that DREMT linked to and others “verified” what is written in that article in a referenced article on Wikipedia supporting the one DREMT actually linked to with this detail support for “moons”:
“The Moon..rotates about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth. This results in it always keeping nearly the same face turned towards Earth” but not the same face towards the sun.”
Great ref. DREMT, thanks for the link.
You are a liar and a troll, Ball4.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 11, 2020 at 7:58 AM
“..if you argue the moon does not rotate on its own axis, then automatically you are arguing that there are no poles…”
_____________________________
Indeed, consequently You have to deny moon poles, when You deny moon rotation.
So my question was superfluous.
I just hoped, mentioning the moon poles would make You thinking.
OK, Fritz.
Yes Fritz.
We understand that in science we are led by the facts, the observations, to the correct model or theory.
DREMT will not allow himself to be led by the facts..
His belief must be TRUE. This leads him to conclude that a growing list of contradictory observations cannot be true.
Of course, any objective observers out there can see right away that this is a religious POV, not science.
#2
OK, Fritz.
Thank you DREM,
Yes the tilt angle of the rotational axis is 6.68 degrees to the orbital plane.
Anyway it makes absolutely zero difference to the argument of course.
Where did this value originate? Why not 6.67 or 6.69 degrees or perhaps any value between 0 and 90 degrees?
DREM, you have no answer of course, just an immensely stupid statement that this was just a guess by astronomers who, in your deluded mind, falsely believed the moon rotated.
I already gave you an answer…and we have already discussed this before anyway.
Ok DREM,
Yes you have given your answer which I have succinctly summarised above. Nothing else to contribute?
No, I did not say they guessed it.
MikeR,
He says he already explained how Astronomy has gotten the 6.7 degree axial tilt all wrong?
Did he really, ever?
He certainly never explained why Astronomy gets these equally specific points in the sky that the lunar Poles point to, all wrong either.
N Pole S Pole
RA Dec RA Dec
266.86 +65.64 Draco 86.86 −65.64 Dorado
It is simply a mystery.
Or maybe, its just pure denialism.
That doesnt require any explanation.
Ok DREM,
How did they calculate the value of 6.68 degrees?
Maybe you could provide the details. 😅
…based on observations of the moon in its orbit, and the librations of latitude.
If you think they did it another way, please enlighten us.
Nate says:
Astronomers has observed that the Lunar Poles point to these oddly specific point in the sky.
And of course these numbers are well documented accepted by IAU.
So it looks like well have to add these specific numbers to the growing list of things that the TEAM believes Astronomers have not actually observed, but just believe in.
=============================================
Nate is just about one step away from getting comitted to the looney bin.
I can assure you Nate, scientists have not observed any kind of pole pointing at constellations on the face of the moon. You can fly out there yourself in your imaginary superman outfit and check it out for yourself. There is no ‘pole’ there to observe.
DREM,
I guess they also worked out where the exact orientation of the north pole in celestial coordinates* by latitudinal libration.
It just proves how clever astronomers are. If they managed to work that out, then do you really believe the astronomers were so dumb that they could not work out that the moon was not actually rotating**?
Also assuming this technique was employed, then the other authority Bill Hunter disagrees with you about the orientation of the axis of non rotation . Good to see a bit of dissension in the ranks.
p.s. the orientation of the moons rotational axis has been measured routinely using retroreflectors on the moon’s surface for 40 years***.
* R.A. 266.8 Dec +65.64 Draco
**direct measurement of the rotation speed of the moon is found here
– https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A%26A…343..624C/abstract
*** nutation of the moons rotational axis measured here
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL082677.
So you think they have only labelled the moon’s “poles” in the last 40 years!? How do you think they did it before that?
Yes, DREM prior to 40 years ago astronomers knew the direction of orientation of the axis of rotation but not to the precision that has been available since the advent of lunar laser retroreflecting technology.
See paper titled –
“Determination of the lunar orbital and rotational parameters and of the ecliptic reference system orientation from LLR measurements and IERS data”
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A%26A…343..624C/abstract
Your link does not work.
Yes WordPress has mangled the link. Try this instead
https://tinyurl.com/y5feh6r4
The issue is far more fundamental than any of that. The issue is simply that the “Spinners” mistake any change in orientation of the moon, whilst it orbits, for axial rotation.
A wooden horse, securely bolted towards the outside edge of a merry-go-round, is merely rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis, as it moves in a circle. It is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis, regardless of how it might appear to be moving, from a specific reference frame.
Now, the wooden horse points through e.g. N, E, S and W whilst it revolves. “Spinners” mistake this change in orientation, for axial rotation.
This mistake is going to be part and parcel of any model used in determining the moon’s rate of supposed “axial rotation”, or in determining the orientation of the moon’s “poles”.
Gosh DREM that was quick. You managed to read and fully comprehend that densely written mathematical paper in less than 20 minutes. I am impressed.
You need to let the three authors that their work undertaken over several years is pointless garbage as the moon does not rotate due to horses on merry-go-arounds that aresecurely affixed to their bases.
Let me know how that turns out.
Apropos of the above. DREM when your arguments are blown out of the water, you tend to respond by going on a gish gallop ( this time on wooden horses) recycling zombie arguments that have been discussed and debunked ad nauseum.
Again DREM have you (or any of your colleagues that have gone AWOL) anything new or even vaguely interesting to bring to the table? I suspect not.
Good night.
Good point(s) MikeR, DREMT uses a failed analogy where an object is forced to rotate on its own axis once, and only once, per rev. to draw incorrect conclusions about the moon’s free rotation on its own axis. DREMT should read the paper closely (and obtain the pre-req.s to do so) to gain correct physics/math knowledge about the moon’s orbital and rotational parameters instead of using a merry-go-round.
A Gish gallop involves overwhelming the opponent by bombarding them with many different arguments all at once. On the contrary, I wrote down one remarkably simple argument, about how “Spinners” confuse a change in orientation, with axial rotation, which you have certainly never “debunked”. In many ways, linking to a series of complex papers is more of a Gish gallop technique.
Ball4 proudly parades his ”they told me so” understanding of science.
”
I can assure you Nate, scientists have not observed any kind of pole pointing at constellations on the face of the moon.”
Well, coming from you, Bill, that is reassuring! 😉
Notice I provided evidence to back up my claim.
You have Evidence???
Ha, Ha , Ha ….silly me. Of course you dont have any.
Because facts and evidence really are irrelevant when youve got BELIEF.
“The issue is far more fundamental than any of that.
DREMT tries to escape to
his comfort zone, when caught denying reality.
His model cannot explain the observations, so he simply denies them!
What could be more fundamental than that?! The idea that theory MUST explain observations.
At least the major religions understand that their beliefs are not testable with science.
The TEAM fails to understand the basis of their belief is not science.
And the full depth of Nate’s argument for this is ”see spot run”
DREM , I think your latest contribution is either a Gish Gallop of the circular variety ( just repeating the same nonsense, as if this makes it true) or just touching base for a subsequent sequence of stale arguments .
For the former, vast amounts of time have been wasted on wooden horses alone ( see the last few month’s discussion*), let alone moon spokes, plates rotating about pivot points etc…
If the latter, then the next Gish Gallop would be to touch base with the planes, trains, automobiles arguments that have all been done to death**. Later bases that DREM is likely to revisit will include balls on strings etc…
Unfortunately DREM has never made it to first base as DREM and a couple of his mates seem to be the only ones that think any rigid body analogy is appropriate to the earth/moon system.
Despite the concept being so ridiculous, this whole mlong winded discussion, might have been useful if there had been any practical significance to believing the moon doesn’t rotate.
NASA put man on the moon and other space agencies have put numerous probes on the moon without believing the moon does not rotate.
The lack of utility of the concept indicates that it is just a “wank” designed to satisfy delusions of grandeur.
This also suggests that DREM’s stubborn disregard of facts, is just reflective of an emotional overcommitment to this nonsense.
So once again, DREM unless you have something new to contribute then further discussion is pointless.
* 324 references to wooden horses and 202 references to merry-go -arounds in just one month! i.e. July’s discussion.
** Also hundreds, if not thousands of comments over the last two years.
OK, MikeR.
“And the full depth of Nates argument for this is ‘see spot run’
Bill ASSURED us that the Moon’s poles dont point to specific spots on the celestial sphere, as astronomy has observed.
Strong statement.
I asked him to show us evidence.
And….nothing, nada, zilch.
Bill’s credibility was already low, now its taking a nose dive.
#2
OK, MikeR.
“emotional overcommitment to this nonsense”
For sure. His ego is all wrapped up in it.
#3
OK, MikeR.
“Best wishes to USA. Germany suffers with You.”
Thank you Fritz, we’re gonna need it.
I’m going with Nate on this one since he quoted Newton’s Proposition XVII, Theorem XV verbatim.
Yes, the issue Newton was discussing was “libration”, which is due to orbital motion.
One way to understand is with a wooden horse mounted on a merry-go-round. The horse cannot rotate about its axis, because it is securely fastened to the platform. But, to someone standing off the platform, the horse “appears” to be rotating on its axis. The apparent motion is caused by the “orbital motion” of the platform. The wooden horse is NOT rotating about its axis. It’s the same as Moon.
you sound… confused?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to lay too much reality on you at once. I’ll go slower.
What was it that confused you? The “merry-go-round”?
Bruh, are you alright?
You moon guys are funny. Maybe this has been covered, I’ve only read a few of these threads. But it seems to me that if we consider what happens to the moon if the earth were to suddenly disappear it might convince someone.
So if the earth was suddenly vaporized what happens to the moon. Does it go off in a straight line rotating on its own axis once a year or does it go off without rotating? If it doesn’t rotate after the earth disappears it seems to me that it never was rotating. If it is still rotating then it must always have been.
Yes, what does Tim Peake think:
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
Silly Svante believes that video is “proof” a ball on a string is rotating about its axis. It’s been explained to him that the video demonstates Newton’s 3rd Law. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis before release.
Silly Svante can’t learn. We shouldn’t laugh at him, so it’s a good thing no one can see or hear me….
Ogre, or the converse.
Suppose we use rockets to push a “moon” to Venus (chosen because there is no moon to interfere). The rockets push this moon so it is heading in a straight line and not rotating with respect to the distant stars. At the right moment, the rockets are turned off and the moon begins to orbit in a circular path.
Will the moon begin to orbit:
a) maintaining its original fixed orientation with respect to the stars?
b) maintaining the same face toward Venus?
I was laughing so hard at silly Svante, I forgot to answer Ogre’s question.
If Earth’s gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would go hurling into space (or into Sun) in a straight line, with no axial rotation.
The answer to Tim’s question is “b”, just as Moon does now.
Ogre,
A good illustration of this is courtesy of the Slow Mo Guys.
https://youtu.be/n-DTjpde9-0?t=193
In the video you can see that as the record dissociates the individual pieces continue to rotate (conserve their angular momentum) as they fly off at tangents.
Wrong again, bdgwx. You found a video that clearly demonstrates conservation of angular momentum. In the video, the entire record has angular momentum before it breaks. After the record breaks, that angular momentum is conserved.
That is NOT what would happen to Moon if Earth’s gravity were turned off. Moon does not have angular momentum. Gravity does not provide angular momentum to Moon. So if Earth’s gravity were suddenly turned off, it would fly off without rotating about its axis. Angular momentum would still be conserved. Angular momentum is ALWAYS conserved.
And bdgwx, have you sobered up enough to deal with the mess you left here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544505
You can admit you had too much wine. Or maybe you were just having a “bad hair day”. But, you need to take responsibility for spewing such crap. Otherwise, you won’t ever learn about honesty and human decency. You’ll always be a sleezebag.
bdgwx believes the pieces of the record are rotating on their own axes before the record breaks apart! In other words, before it is physically possible for them to rotate on their own axes!
To extend his “logic”, that means every atom of the record is rotating on its own axis before the record disintegrates, as is every possible 1 nanometer-squared sub-division of the record, as is every possible 1mm-squared sub-division, as is every possible 1cm-squared sub-division, etc etc. All rotating on their own axes, just because the record itself is rotating!
In reality, every part of the record, before disintegration, is rotating about an axis in the center of the record, and not on its own axis.
Of course the moon continues to rotate as it flies off.
And the Venus ‘moon’ continues to not rotate if inserted into orbit wwithout rotation.
Again just ask Newton, and his First Law applied to rotation.
The TEAM wants observers to believe them over Newton on both counts.
Nate provides his inaccurate, inconsistent, and ignorant opinion.
Did I mention “worthless”?
As expected from the chief-resident Dimwit-Troll, no answers, just insults.
Puzzling why he thinks anyone out there would find that to be a convincing rebuttal???
DREMT said: bdgwx believes the pieces of the record are rotating on their own axes before the record breaks apart! In other words, before it is physically possible for them to rotate on their own axes!
I accept that each piece has non-zero angular velocity about its own axis (r=0 through its center of mass) wrt to a rotationally inertial reference frame (a=0 fixed to distant point). That is not a “belief”. It is an undisputable mathematical fact.
…and yet, the pieces cannot even move independently of each other before disintegration.
“and yet, the pieces cannot even move independently of each other before disintegration.”
Dr Em T’s pea sized brain in action. Rotation is measured wrt to the inertial reference frame, you idiot, not to the rotating reference frame.
Regardless of reference frame, the pieces cannot move independently of each other before disintegration.
“Its been explained to him that the video demonstates Newtons 3rd Law.”
Let me correct his quote:
“Its been explained to him that the video demonstates Newtons 3rd Law….by a complete and utter idiot.”
The video demonstrates Newton’s first law of motion. An object cannot start spinning around its own axis on its own accord. The ball in the video was already spinning on its own axis prior to release. Tension in the string cannot induce a torque to cause its rotation upon release.
Einstein insists an object cannot rotate wrt to a rotating reference frames its attached to. Wow! Amazing! Lets get a paper published! Brilliant!
It has nothing to do with reference frames. It is simply a question of “which axis is the object rotating around?”
TYSON MCGUFFIN
You are right, and all four commenters persistently denying on this blog Moon’s rotation about its interior axis (Robertson, ClintR, DREMT and bill hunter) are wrong.
1. No one knows why they deny all the historical work done during centuries by e.g. Mercator, Cassini, Mayer, Newton, Lagrange, Laplace, Delaunay etc.
2. No one knows why they deny all the contemporary work done since over 60 years by e.g. Habibullin, Rizvanov / Rakhimov, Calame, MacDonald, Chapront, Eckhardt, Migus, Moons, Beletzkii etc.
No one knows why they deliberately ignore facts like what was written for a hearing in The House’s Committee on Science and Astronautics .
https://tinyurl.com/ycmbzd2z
Therein, you can read:
” The 26-degree separation of sets of sites is based upon the following rationale. Since the acceptable landing zone is 90 degrees wide and the Moon rotates at approximately 13 degrees per day, ideally the launch window for landings at a particular subset of sites within the zone is 7 days.
In actuality, the window is restricted to 3 days. This is due to the requirement for optimum lunar lighting conditions at a landing site (Sun angle of 7 to 18 degrees) and a 2-day launch pad recycle time if a launch opportunity is missed. Thus, if a launch opportunity is missed, the Moon will have rotated 26 degrees and the favorable lighting conditions will have moved 26 degrees across the Moon to another landing site.
*
These denialists will tell you:
” That’s all wrong, they completely misunderstood everything, we know that. ”
And of course: Newton perfectly knew that the optical libration in longitude was due to Moon’s rotation about the axis passing thru its center of mass.
It is written in Book 3, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV in the Third Edition of his Principia Mathematica, published in 1726, and translated in 1729 by Andrew Motte, republished in the US in 1846:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_(1846)/BookIII-Prop2
J.-P. D.
JD, did you work all day compiling that nonsense? At least it keeps you off the streets, where you could really do some harm.
You included Newton, but forgot to mention Galileo. Those two are the ones you need to be learning from. If you could learn.
You and Svante are so stupid you don’t realize “TYSON” is just another attempt by “Snape” to hide. You idiots are so easily fooled….
Libration.
This is because the Moon’s orbit is elliptical. The Moon rotates clockwise around the Earth/Moon line at perigee and anticlockwise at apogee.
It amuses me that according to ClintR the Moon is Not Rotating at different speeds at different points in its orbit.
Poor ClintR who thinks no one would have dioscovered his sockpuppetry…
Don’t try to teach me about Galileo Galilei, who was one of the most important astronomers (yes, ClintR: those discredited and denigrated in many posts by hunter and… Robertson, the pseudoengineer).
He was the ‘father’ of what we term heliocentrism, and helped the World to get rid of the dark age introduced by the Catholic Church.
But his work concerning the Moon was less relevant compared with those I mentioned.
*
The one who refutes learning from Newton: that’s you, exactly as has been JD*Huffman one year ago.
I repeat what you permanently ignore:
Proposition XVII, Theorem XV
” That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I.
Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25½ days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.
These things appear by the Phænomena.
The spots in the sun's body return to the same situation on the sun's disk, with respect to the earth, in 27½ days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25½ days.
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
Neither you nor DREMT, bill hunter, Flynnson, let alone the ridiculous ignorant guy nicknamed Robertson can hide that away or even misrepresent it.
That IS Newton, ClintR: the indestructible mirror of your unscientific thinking.
J.-P. D.
Entropic man and JD, whenever you see the word “libration”, you need to realize two facts:
1) It is an apparent motion, due to Moon’s non-circular orbit, as seen from Earth.
2) Moon is not actually rocking back and forth.
(I bet neither can understand.)
Yeah, it’s because orbital and rotational speed are different and distinct from each other.
The moon orbits at varying speeds whilst it changes its orientation at a steadier rate.
"Changing orientation" does not equal "axial rotation".
“The moon orbits at varying speeds whilst it changes its orientation at a steadier rate.”
Very good. You inadvertently acknowledge that orbiting and orientional change ARE INDEPENDENT MOTIONS.
Finally..
ClintR
Oh I suddenly see you writing in a comment one more of your typical lies…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-549541
*
The truth is here:
Bindidon says:
November 2, 2020 at 7:07 PM
hunter
You don’t seem to really understand the concepts of Moon’s libration and rotation.
The (longitudinal) libration Lagrange mathematically proved to be a consequence of Moon’s rotation IS NOT REAL: it is solely an optical artefact resulting from many different things.
Continue to lie, ClintR! Fits so perfectly to you.
J.-P. D.
JD, I know you are desperate, but maybe you could find someone to help you with your sentence composition.
Bindidon decided to “pollute the thread” some more, after all.
DREMT: you are polluting it as well as ClintR and others.
When you stop writing unscientific nonxsense, I’ll stop reminding you about what e.g. Newton wrote
J.-P. D.
The difference is, I didn’t say I was going to stop.
Didn’t JD say he wasn’t going to comment about Moon anymore?
Or was that Nomran? I get them confused.
I think both Nomran and JD said they were not commenting on the moon any more.
That’s a shame about Nomran, because at least he was one of the few “Spinners” that understood the wooden horse and chalk circle are not rotating in their own axes, regardless of reference frame.
I was thinking that JD and Nomran might be the same person. They have so many similarities–Poor writing composition, lack of science training, addicted to their keyboards, hateful, and completely committed to their cult.
But, JD has put out some poor quality graphs. I’ve never seen Nomran attempt any homemade graphs. If Nomran ever shows us a poor quality graph, then we know for sure.
clint…”I was thinking that JD and Nomran might be the same person”.
Binny did go off in a hissy-fit a couple of years ago only to reappear as a woman. He claimed it was his girlfriend but he has never satisfactorily answered the question as to why she would suddenly appear as a poster shortly after Binny departed.
Gordon says, “Binny did go off in a hissy-fit a couple of years ago only to reappear as a woman.”
Cross-dressing? The perverts love perversion.
ClintR
More evidence you are not a smart person nor do you have good logical thought process. Now you think Bindidon and Norman are the same poster. There is vastly different characteristics of our posting styles. Bindidon seems to be very knowledgeable of temperature data sets, how to collect them from official sites and produce graphs. I studied Chemistry in college and to update my knowledge of heat transfer I read textbooks on the topic to make intelligent posts that are based on real science.
Nomran, you can’t deny the similarities. Of course, all cult members eventually lose their individuality. Each one just sounds more and more like the others.
When you avoid reality, the eventual outcome is always tragic:
https://www.history.com/topics/crime/jonestown
Seems the lunatics are back on their hobby horses.
I will see if things have improved from their previous efforts.
This is a depiction that stumped Bill Hunter and let’s see if the brains trust can work out the answer.
https://i.postimg.cc/DzpjgvTZ/Rotations-ABC.gif
For the above, what is the rotational period of each of the objects A,B and C in the above, in seconds. Doesnt have to be accurate, just a rough estimate will do*? So DREM , ClintR and Gordon what are your estimates**?
* counting “cats and dogs” will do.
** Will they evade? If so how?
https://postimg.cc/k2HTXcc8
The above gif helps explain what I was getting at further up-thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-549411
The little boxes on the left represent what you see from the inertial reference frame where r=0 is going through the center of mass of the moon (Frame 1) The images with the Earth and moon on the right represent what you see from the inertial reference where r=0 is going through the center of mass of the Earth (Frame 2). You cannot judge whether or not the moon is rotating on its own axis from Frame 1, you need to “zoom out” your reference frame by looking at Frame 2.
From looking at Frame 2, we can conclude that A is rotating on its own axis, once, in the same direction as the orbit. B is not rotating on its own axis, like our own moon. C is rotating on its own axis, once, in the opposite direction to the orbit (so that it appears to be not rotating on its own axis). If that confuses you, try watching this video, which goes through these three different scenarios, in that order:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw&feature=youtu.be
DREM,
I take it from your reply that you cannot calculate the rotational period for the three cases!!!
You still want to argue your case if you are incapable of this task that would not tax the average 8 year old (or even Donald Trump).
Game over.
p.s. still waiting for ClintR And Gordon’s calculations.
"I take it from your reply that you cannot calculate the rotational period for the three cases!!!"
You can take it that I have explained why you don’t have a point.
DREM,
You are either clearly terrified of answering the above or incapable.
In the latter case it is very, very simple. Just count in your head how long it takes for each object to rotate once. If you can’t do that then you can use the stop watch function of your mobile to time it.
Surely there must be an adult around that can help you or lend you a phone. Are you really incapable of doing this on your own?
Even Bill managed to do it for one of the three objects. If you are still struggling then maybe Clint or Gordon help you.🙂
I have explained why you don’t have a point, and what’s more I have been through this with you twice before already. Stop baiting and trolling.
Yep just make your point Mike and stop playing games.
Bill and DREM,
The point I am making, apparently very effectively, is that none of you can measure the rotation of the objects, something that the average schoolchild would be capable of.
And you guys want to be taken seriously?
As I said in my comment of 6:57am:
“From looking at Frame 2, we can conclude that A is rotating on its own axis, once, in the same direction as the orbit. B is not rotating on its own axis, like our own moon. C is rotating on its own axis, once, in the opposite direction to the orbit (so that it appears to be not rotating on its own axis).”
It takes roughly 5/6 seconds for A and C to rotate on their own axes. B does not rotate on its own axis.
Note that I am referring to your gif k2HTXcc8. Obviously you cannot correctly separate axial rotation from orbital motion from your Rotations-ABC gif.
DREM – “Obviously you cannot correctly separate axial rotation from orbital motion from your Rotations-ABC gif.”
Correct, and that is why, for this extremely obvious reason, I did not ask you about orbital motion.
All I asked was simply about the rotation!
Again, what is rotational period of the three objects? To make it even easier, so you don’t have to get a stop watch or count seconds in your head, here is a slightly modified depiction that includes a clock.
https://i.postimg.cc/Fs4M1JwN/Rotations-ABCClock.gif
I suggest because of your difficulties, you can start with measuring the rotation period of the second hand of the clock.
Once you have done that you could count the number of rotations over a fixed period (say 60 seconds) for A,B and C.
Once you have shown you are capable of accomplishing this simple task, then we could look at the something more complicated such as orbiting.
Baby steps DREM, baby steps.
“Correct, and that is why, for this extremely obvious reason, I did not ask you about orbital motion.
All I asked was simply about the rotation!”
You deliberately “misunderstand”. You can’t correctly determine the rate of axial rotation from a “Frame 1” inertial reference frame as portrayed in your Rotations-ABC gif. You need to “zoom out” your inertial reference frame to a “Frame 2”. I have already given you the rates of axial rotation for the objects in this gif:
https://postimg.cc/k2HTXcc8
Where you can see both a “Frame 1” in the boxes on the left and a “Frame 2” in the images to the right. Task completed.
It is interesting that both Bill and DREMT run as fast as they can from answering your exceedingly simple question.
What are they afraid of?
Its as if they know that answering it honestly will get them into yet another logical pickle that they have no way out of.
At this point they have run out of logic, and they are just here to poke people with a stick.
Yes Nate,
DREM is desperately trying to hold the fort* as the others have absconded**.
There are a number of obvious rejoinders to DREM’s latest contribution, via slightly different depictions, but it is late here in Oz, so it will have to wait for the morning.
* taking a cue from the bloviating cult leader, St.Donald the patron saint of lost causes.
** finally a sensible move from DREM’s colleagues.
Task completed.
and MikeR and Nate are still bloviating without a single scientific reference between the two of them to support their case.
Bill, in your desperation you have regressed and are now an obstreperous child.
“without a single scientific reference between the two of them to support their case.”
Bill, seek and thee shall find. A two minute search with Google reveals the following.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
and the 41 references contained within.
See also
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
and the 24 references contained within.
DREM,
“Task completed”
In your dreams, DREM. Here are the obvious rejoinders that I promised. These are depictions that are ” zoomed out” to reveal Frame 2.
https://i.postimg.cc/QM0Cs6GP/rejoinder1.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/cLf8qMJy/rejoinder2.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/ZKtdwMTF/rejoinder3.gif
Notice that the objects at the left side that show the rotation around the centre of mass are identical in al three rejoinders and also identical to the depiction
https://i.postimg.cc/DzpjgvTZ/Rotations-ABC.gif
that DREM is totally bewildered by.
None of this is surprising of course as rotation around the centre of mass and the orbiting of the centre of mass are independent and can be measured independently.
In contrast DREM’s answer to the rotation period of the objects is worth repeating –
“From looking at Frame 2, we can conclude that A is rotating on its own axis, once, in the same direction as the orbit. B is not rotating on its own axis, like our own moon. C is rotating on its own axis, once, in the opposite direction to the orbit (so that it appears to be not rotating on its own axis).
It takes roughly 5/6 seconds for A and C to rotate on their own axes. B does not rotate on its own axis.”
DREM has resorted to this highly amusing interpretation as he is too incompetent to able to measure the rotation period directly.
Game over, yet again.
😀😃😄😁😆😅🤣😂🙂😊
You seem to have gone to an awful lot of effort to help make my point for me. Thanks for that, MikeR. You really do need to “zoom out” that reference frame in order to correctly determine the rate of axial rotation.
DREM, as is shown above see the rotational period is the same for all orbital conditions. Therefore it can be measured* without any knowledge of the orbital characteristics!
You clearly don’t need the zoomed out perspective that includes the orbital information. Even you in your brief moments of lucidity have agreed that the two motions are independent.
So DREM the game is over and stop doing a Trump**.
* measured by anyone with at least half a brain using a stop watch or by simple observation.
** are you plannjng to argue your case in the Supreme Court? Rudi Giuliani will cost you a fortune.
No, they do not all have the same axial rotational period.
For example, in your Rejoinder 1.gif, A has an axial rotational period of about 2.5 seconds.
Whereas, in your Rejoinder 2.gif, A is not rotating on its own axis.
So the zoom in is necessary.
Zoom out, I should have said.
Ok DREM,
For Rejoinder 1 that has no orbital velocity, I agree with your estimate of 2.5 seconds for Object A. What rotational periods do you get for Objects B and C in this case>
For Rejoinder 1:
A = 2.5 seconds.
B = 5 seconds.
C = not rotating on its own axis.
For Rejoinder 2:
A = not rotating on its own axis
B = rotating on its own axis, in the opposite direction to the orbit, twice per orbit = 2.5 seconds.
C = rotating on its own axis, in the opposite direction to the orbit, once per orbit = 5 seconds.
DREM,
I am glad we agree about rejoinder 1, as it means you are actually capable of calculating the rotational period directly by the time honoured system , using a watch. That’s a relief.
However your insistence that the rotations ,which by direct measurement are identical , are different for rejoinder 2 (and presumably rejoinder 3) is where , it is impossible for any agreement between ourselves.
Fundamentally our point of dispute is your “interesting” claim that you cannot calculate the rotational period without knowing the orbital characteristics (i.e. zooming out in my depictions) . So, according to you, rotation about the centre of mass and orbital motion of the centre of mass are not independent.
This contradicts your own statements, that I seem to recall, that recognise this independence*.
Anyway, here are some appropriate references that explicitly explain the independence of the motion of the centre of mass and rotation around the centre of mass.
https://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/science/physics/center-of-mass
and
https://www.lehman.edu/faculty/anchordoqui/chapter20.pdf
See section 20.1 for a simple illustration.
In particular see Example 20.5 where the two motions are treated independently for an orbiting body. This is remarkably pertinent.
Also Appendix 20A gives more detailed explanation, in this case for translation ( linear or curvilinear) and rotation about the centre of mass.
* if this misrepresents your position let us all know.
The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.
The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.
“The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.”
Wrong. Actually:
The “Non-Spinners” earlier & elsewhere define “pure orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.
The non-spinners defn. changes regularly. The moon is not pure orbital motion since it has day/night cycles so moon rotates on its own axis.
Ball4 never has anything worthwhile to contribute.
As DREM has just gone into repetition mode and is unable to respond sensibly to comments, it is time to wrap it up neatly. I am also assuming DREM is in agreement with my previous comment.
Summary.
1. Rotation around the centre of mass and orbiting of the centre of mass are two independent motions that can be measured independently ( see physics text book references in previous comment ).
For further confirmation see –
https://i.postimg.cc/L8Q4sYYx/Variable-Orbital-Velocity.gif
2. In the following depiction, case B is rotating with a period of 5.66 seconds which is the same as it’s orbital period.
https://i.postimg.cc/8zkLwSCV/Moon-Orbital-and-Rotational-Motion.gif
B is rotating and is displaying the same face to the earth.
3. In reality yhe orbital period matching the rotational period is not a coincidence as it is a consequence of the physics of tidal locking.
Claims about the orbital interactions giving different rates of rotation are just zombie arguments by the usual suspects.
I now expect DREM and or his accomplices to
(a) raise , via gish gallops to other zombie arguments that have already been dealt with extensively elsewhere
or,
(b) Simply repeat trademark slogans and other material that we are all aware of (see DREM’s last comment).
or
(c) refer to dubious material from Tesla from early last century or YouTube videos that are, and have, been easily debunked.
It would be totally out of character for DREM et al. to instead admit the error of their ways and move on. I think they are too emotionally invested in their crackpot theory.
Is there something I am supposed to be responding to?
I’m sorry your whole bit with the “zooming out” didn’t work out for you. Better luck next time!
Yes, MikeR, the DREM Team is unable to respond sensibly or substantively to many comments because they know “they are too emotionally invested in their crackpot theory.”
No emotional investment here. I have just spent a bit of time talking to MikeR, recently, as he appears to be lonely and apparently wants somebody to talk to. This subject seems to fascinate him, so I obliged his curiosities and tried to help him understand. Unfortunately it does not seem as though he has the capability to learn. Oh well.
Correspondence is now closed as DREM et al. have nothing new to add.
I know DREM, in his role as a troll , will continue on unabated.
If DREM and his disciplee ever think of something new I might resume but the likelihood of that happening is very remote.
p.s. At least our correspondence has kept DREM ‘s PSTs under control, at least for this month.
Yes, MikeR, that’s more evidence the DREM Team is unable to respond sensibly or substantively to comments.
I wonder if Ball4 will ever respond sensibly and substantively to comments?
Ball4 as a postscript to my comments above.
I should have added option (d), DREM will do a Trump and continue to claim victory despite all evidence to the contrary.
However as long DREM is kept occupied and enuretically warm, who cares?
On that topic I have pissed myself laughing at the DREM brigade’s incompetent attempts to overthrow well established concepts in both Physics and Astronomy. Along with DREM, Gordon of course deserves particular mention but shoutouts to ClintR and Bill for their efforts.
Lonely Mike still wants someone to talk to.
“No emotional investment here. ”
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Denialism invades all areas of DREMTS psyche.
#2
Lonely Mike still wants someone to talk to.
norman…re Pauling…”The motion associated with the sixth degree of freedom, the distance r between the tow nuclei, is the vibrational motion of two nuclei relative to one another, or, more accurately, their synchronous vibrational motion relative to the center of mass.””
Obviously, you cherry picked that paragraph without understanding what he was saying. He is talking about the vibrational motion between two nucleii, not some mysterious property attributed to molecules by some.
Do you know of any nuclei that coexist without electrons and share a mutual vibration? Pauling wrote the book on the covalent bond which is a means of bonding nucleii with electrons. No electrons – no bond. No bonds – no vibration.
The electron action in the bonds is integral to the vibration. Two nucleii, having positive charges would push each other apart. If some electrons are shared between two nuclei, they orbit both nuclei and that is what Pauling is talking about re degrees of freedom.
In orbiting both nucleii the electrons are attracted to the positively charged nucleii but their momentum prevents them being sucked into the nucleii. It is this mutual attraction/repulsion between the nucleii and the electrons that cause the vibration.
If you have a macro amount of such pairs, in a gas, liquid, or solid, and you add heat, it is the electrons that absorb the heat and jump to higher orbital energy levels. That increases their kinetic energy, causing the vibration to increase. Conversely, if you remove heat, the electrons lose kinetic energy and drop to lower energy levels.
Gordon Robertson
It is quite clear what Linus Pauling was saying. There is more that I did not type and will not type since you are not going to accept anything anyone says about it.
The bonding electrons only (not the rest) act as spring tension holding the atoms of the molecule (the nuclei) from flying apart when IR energy is absorbed. The IR energy causes the nuclei to try to move farther apart than the would do with just positive charge, it is the IR energy becoming kinetic. The bonding electrons are stretched but will only break if they have a specific amount of energy, then then atoms of the molecule break the bonds and go off their own way.
You have your Chemistry wrong. An electron that moves to a higher orbital does NOT gain kinetic energy, the kinetic energy actually goes down, it gains potential energy, that is what gets converted to visible light when the electron drops back to a lower state. Electron transitions and molecular vibrations are different forms of energy. Molecular vibrational states are lower energy than electron transitions.
Here: “Although dot-density diagrams are very informative about the potential energy of an electron in an orbital, they tell us nothing at all about its kinetic energy. It is impossible, for example, to decide from Figure 5.6 whether the electron in a 1s orbital is moving faster on the whole than an electron in a 2s orbital, or even whether it is moving at all! Fortunately it turns out that this difficulty is unimportant. The total energy (kinetic + potential) of an electron in an atom or a molecule is always one-half its potential energy. Thus, for example, when an electron is shifted from a 1s to a 2s orbital, its potential energy increases by 3.27 aJ. At the same time the electron slows down and its kinetic energy drops by half this quantity, namely, 1.635 aJ. The net result is that the total energy (kinetic + potential) increases by exactly half the increase in potential energy alone; i.e., it increases by 1.635 aJ. A similar statement can he made for any change inflicted on any electron in any atomic or molecular system. This result is known as the virial theorem. Because of this theorem we can, if we want, ignore the kinetic energy of an electron and concentrate exclusively on its potential energy.”
Source:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Book%3A_ChemPRIME_(Moore_et_al.)/05%3A_The_Electronic_Structure_of_Atoms/5.12%3A_Electron_Density_and_Potential_Energy
I have given you actual science information on electron kinetic energy. What is your source? Will you produce one or is it just you made up stuff?
tyson…”Can anyone explain to me the theory behind using jade amulets to protect from Covid-19 decease? It seems legit”.
First of all, we need to find the virus. No one has ever seen it, just like HIV. When they could not properly isolate alleged viruses like HIV and covid, they came up with a new method which is not based on the scientific method, but on agreement.
This is not a conspiracy theory, the scientist credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, admits he has never seen HIV, that he inferred it. Furthermore, he now claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system. Ironically, some idiots are now bringing out a new test for HIV that you can use at home. Oh, how the money rolls in.
There is obviously something hurting people throughout the world but every time something like that comes along, scientists go looking for a virus right away. If they can’t find direct evidence, they make it up.
I’d hold off on your jade amulets for a bit till intelligent scientists have a chance to assess the situation rather than the wannabees collection big bucks re funding and patents. Then again, that could take a century. One day, we’ll be the laughing stock of future generations.
Gordon Robertson is a BS artist. Stronger response below.
binny…”The 26-degree separation of sets of sites is based upon the following rationale. Since the acceptable landing zone is 90 degrees wide and the Moon rotates at approximately 13 degrees per day, ideally the launch window for landings at a particular subset of sites within the zone is 7 days”.
The Moon rotates about 13 degrees in a day. Divide 360 degrees by 13 degrees/day and you get 27.7 days. That is roughly the time the Moon takes to orbit the Earth wrt the stars.
Obviously the rotation referenced here is the rotation of the Moon we refer to as orbiting. IF it was rotating at 13 degrees per day on its axis, the same face could not possible always point at the Earth.
There is no such thing as synchronous rotation under those conditions.
Robertson
Your brazen denialism doesn’t help you.
You have shown all the time that you keep ignorant of nearly everything, and prefer to show up with your own narrative.
When these people write ” … and the Moon rotates at approximately 13 degrees per day … ” : do you think I rather would believe a zero-knowledge guy like you?
And when they write:
Because the Moon’s rotation is locked to the period of its orbit of the Earth, it spins once a month and the Sun traverses the lunar sky at a rate of 12 deg in 24 hr, which required the backup sites to be spaced 12 deg apart in lunar longitude so that the illumination would be right for each day’s delay in launch.
do you think again I rather would believe a zero-knowledge guy like you?
Feel free to speak about ‘appeal to authority’ – that has been your last ‘refugium’ all the time.
Luckily, ignorant boasters like you were never and will never be involved in the management of any spacecraft mission!
J.-P. D.
JD claims: “Luckily, ignorant boasters like you were never and will never be involved in the management of any spacecraft mission!”
See ignorant JD actually believes the hoax of Moon’s axial rotation would actually have any impact on real situations. He actually believes something that is totally imaginary will affect real life. Moon only orbits, it does NOT also rotate about its axis. That’s why we only see one side of it.
JD is an idiot.
Gordon Robertson says:
November 5, 2020 at 10:29 PM
“First of all, we need to find the virus. No one has ever seen it, just like HIV. When they could not properly isolate alleged viruses like HIV and covid, they came up with a new method which is not based on the scientific method, but on agreement.”
“Then again, that could take a century. One day, we’ll be the laughing stock of future generations.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LMFAO! I’m gonna call BS on this one. I will research Electron Microscopy applications in Clinical Microbiology just for my own education since this is not my field of expertise.
Regarding jade amulets, never mind. The paper has been retracted due to high BS content.
Tyson: here’s a link to a detailed description of COVID-19 and what’s currently known (and not known) about it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554776/
There’s no need to have an in-depth knowledge of virology, you’ll get a general picture from the article.
All this is the result of using established molecular biology technology by experts around the globe, but Gordon as before will of course simply dismiss it all as fiction.
Tyson: here’s an article about the HIV virus which Gordon doesn’t believe exists:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4924471/#:~:text=The%20viral%20envelope%20is%20composed,(CA)%20%5B26%5D.
Biologically complex, but as with the COVID-19 description, you’ll get an overview without having to go into huge detail.
It doesn’t exist? Yeah, right…..
Fritz Kraut says:
November 6, 2020 at 6:47 AM
“Moon would appear to be rotating about its axis”
___________________________
“It IS rotating.
Once as it orbits the planet.
Thats called “synchronous rotation” or “bound rotation”.
Best wishes to USA. Germany suffers with You.
Fritz Kraut.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yes, it is rotating. It is not trivial but if the moon did not rotate as it orbits earth we would be able to see the far side at times during its monthly orbit.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004400/a004442/orbit_2019_850p30.mp4
I appreciate your best wishes, I have family in Germany and we all suffer together.
If the moon were rotating on its own axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
please expand on that line of thought.
I’ll save you some typing by stipulating your earlier post
“Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 5, 2020 at 12:44 PM
Lets use polar coordinates (r, a) where r is radius and a is angle.
1)Using an inertial reference frame with r=0 through the center of mass of the moon and a=0 always pointing towards the same distant fixed point (like a star), the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis. In reality, it is not.
2) Using an inertial reference frame with r=0 through the Earth/moon barycenter and a=0 always pointing towards the same distant fixed point (like a star), the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter (a motion known as “orbiting”, or “revolving”), and not rotating on its own axis.
You have to “zoom out” your inertial reference frame from 1) to 2) in order to have the complete picture, such that you can “see” the moon is not rotating on its own axis.”
When an object rotates around an external point (revolves, or orbits), you always see the same side of the object from that external point, whilst it moves around it. That is simply what “rotation around an external point” is. That is what that motion involves.
The orbital paths of the particles comprising an object that is rotating around an external point form concentric circles. For example, the rectangle in Fig. 2(b) at the below link is rotating about point O, and not on its own axis (not about its own center of mass):
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
So, from the Earth, we should always see the same side of the moon if it is not rotating on its own axis, but merely rotating around an external point (in this case, the Earth/moon barycenter). If the moon was both orbiting and rotating on its own axis, then you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Correcting the always wrong DREMT: If the moon was both orbiting and rotating on its own axis more or less than once per rev., then you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Incorrect, as explained.
“When an object rotates around an external point (revolves, or orbits), ”
These 3 are not equivalent!
And you know it.
Stop posting misleading, false information!
#2
Incorrect, as explained.
Your point then is that (1) as I sit facing my desk, which sits in front of a large window through which I can see a distant tall building, (2) if I get up and circle the desk with my gaze fixed on that distant building, (3) my back will never turn towards the desk.
No, that’s not my point at all. If you continue to face the distant building whilst circling your desk, you back will at points be turned towards the desk.
Try reading my comment again.
DREMT CAN get it right, if you continue to face the distant building (not rotating on your own axis) whilst circling your desk, you( r) back will at points be turned towards the desk showing all sides to the desk, just like if the moon were not rotating on its own axis.
Since that is not observed for the moon, the moon is rotating on its own axis once per rev. of Earth presenting the same side to Earth the whole rev.
In order to continue to face the distant building whilst circling the desk, you need to rotate on your own axis.
Pure orbital motion only presents one side to center of orbit. It’s the same motion as the ball on a string. It’s the same as Moon.
Wrong as usual DREMT because as you wrote no rotation on your own axis because: “you continue to face the distant building”.
Yes, ClintR, ball on string, moon all are similar motions, one rotation on object’s own axis per rev. for no string wrap and same face to orbit center.
#2
In order to continue to face the distant building whilst circling the desk, you need to rotate on your own axis.
ClintR moaned,
“Pure orbital motion only presents one side to center of orbit. Its the same motion as the ball on a string.”
Looks like N Tesla has been resurrected, or perhaps Jay Dee Huff***. They were the only two clowns who used that made-up term. An orbit is a path, Einstein.
SGW, your own argument for what “pure orbital motion” is (orbital motion without axial rotation) includes orientation! You think “pure orbital motion” involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards the same fixed star throughout.
I never use the term “pure orbital motion”.
Who cares what you call it!?
Yes, Earth rotates about its axis, but Moon does not, as evidenced by your link. Earth presents different sides to center of it orbit (Sun), but Moon only presents one side to center of its orbit (Earth).
NASA got something right.
Thanks, Snape.
November 5, 2020 at 12:58 PM
Bruh, are you alright?
There’s no doubt you’re an idiot.
The question is: Why do you thrive on being an idiot?
Bruh, are you alright?
I didn’t mean to trigger ya.
You didn’t answer the question.
Why do you thrive on being an idiot?
You didn’t answer the question.
Why do you thrive on being an idiot?
Snape, are you alright?
(Rhetorical question, of course. We know you’re an idiot.)
Snape, are you alright?
(Rhetorical question, of course. We know you’re an idiot.)
Don’t think it’s Snape, ClintR. Appears to be just some random troll.
Nah, it’s Snape, Doris, Romona, now Tyson. I recognize the immaturity.
But, he/she is definitely a troll.
Is ClintR rotating around his own axis?
Not if he’s sitting on the wooden horse, which is itself securely bolted towards the outside edge of the merry-go-round…
…then he would only be rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on his own axis.
Picture that.
OK, Svante, I will.
It does make sense, sort of.
Glad you finally agree.
you cant debate somebody like DREMT who cannot distinguish orbit from spin and just calls both of them rotation. its an eartflatter circular argument
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
Eben, before you start with your false accusations, you should have done just a little research. DREMT has defined all the motions, numerous times, just for idiot trolls like you.
In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether.
Not in the case of the rotating once on its own axis per orbit moon, chalk circle, bolted wooden horse, and ball on string where an axis of rotation exists inside of the object as well as outside the object.
No, there is only one axis in those examples, about which the objects rotate. Those objects do not rotate about their own centers of mass, they rotate about an external axis – they are orbiting/revolving only. No axial rotation.
DREMT’s comment then means the universe is observed revolving about the object that DREMT states isn’t rotating on its own axis as in case of the moon. For the ball on string, the room is revolving once per rev. about the ball that isn’t rotating on its own axis once per rev. True backwards warrior comment DREMT, completely wrong as usual.
Ball4 attacks a ridiculous straw man, as usual.
If you are bolted to something that is rotating, then you are rotating.
Agreed…but not on your own axis. The wooden horse, bolted towards the outside edge of the MGR, is rotating…but not on its own axis. It is rotating about the center of the MGR.
It’s a nice day for trolling, huh G-500?
UAH is gold standard. CDAS is notoriously cold and is a model initialization product but still gives us a pretty good idea of where things are headed. So you can look every day. For the US. I think the PRISM product is best. Those are on our site at weatherbell.com. I have noticed that in the saddle seasons ( spring, fall) there are bigger discrepancies but in the heart of winter and summer, they are usually much closer. Still put it this way.. CDAS is like a poll, UAH is the result, though unlike some of the shenanigans we see now in that aspect is beyond reproach with Dr Roy and the helm
Joe,
How do the long term trends compare between CDAS and others?
And dont you think its a serious issue that there are big differences in the trends produced by the various groups, RSS and UAH, others, looking at the same data?
Joe,
What convinces you that UAH should be the be-all end-all gold standard?
Don’t you find it odd that other datasets with near full spatial coverage like GISTEMP, Berkeley Earth, and ERA generally agree with warming rates from 1979 to present of +0.1916C/decade, +0.1905C/decade, and +0.1911C/decade respectively yet UAH is only +0.1368C/decade?
bdgwx, you’re going to have to stop drinking and trolling. You’re just becoming a complete wreck, as here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544505
Get some help.
Clint,
Lets get real here. None of the real skeptics who actually understand meterology such as Joe, Spencer. Christy, agree with you that there is no GHE, no back radiation, fluxes dont add, etc.
Nate, let’s get real here–you can’t understand physics, you make things up, and you’re an idiot.
Let me know if anything changes.
https://tinyurl.com/ClintR-says
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Nate is so servile he isn’t aware that science moved on past the grade school model precisely because fluxes don’t add some 53 years ago. He even serves up the paper describing it without even knowing what the paper says.
Lets we the surface is radiating 396w/m2 the sky 290w/m2. How come they don’t add? Or did they already add? And which added which to which?
Another way to demonstrate the moon spins nobody presented is like this.
Change the moon orbit from round to a square , now go around in four distinct lines , in order to keep the same face of the moon pointing into direction of the motion you have to spin the moon on its axes 90 degrees in every corner in four distinct steps , a clear proof the moon has to spin on its axes ,
Only difference when the orbit is round is that the orbit and the spin is progressing simultaneously and smoothly.
Idiot, learn how gravity “turns” an orbiting body.
Oh sorry, I forgot. Idiots can’t learn.
Oh well, happy trolling!
Eben, orbital motion (without axial rotation) already involves the orbiting object changing its orientation. So, for example, an orbiting object (without rotating on its own axis) already faces through N, E, S and W in order to complete an orbit.
So your point proves nothing…and in fact it has been tried several times before.
Nothing new.
“learn how gravity turns an orbiting body.”
We are all eager to learn how that works. Do tell.
Nate,
The Moon is perpetually falling. From the Sun, say, you can see every side of the Moon, because the Moon is falling towards the Earth, which is falling towards the Sun.
See how simple it is?
Falling not/= turning.
A cannonball has no nose that needs to point forward.
Nate,
You wanted to know how it works. I told you. Now you talk about noses pointing forward.
You cant understand the answer. Or were you just trying for a gotcha?
Flynson,
As usual you are confused.
Clint/DREMT claims gravity causes cannonballs or planets to turn, as in reorient.
But it is simply declared. They offer no evidence.
Nate wanted to know why the moon can appear to rotate while continuously falling towards Earth. I told him. He doesn’t believe me.
Nate is not terribly bright, and refuses to believe that Newtons Law of Gravitation, combined with Newtons Laws of Motion, explain the motion of the Moon!
I prefer Newtons explanation. Nate can choose to believe supernatural forces simultaneously wobbling the Moon up and down, and side to side, whilst simultaneously pushing it in an elliptical orbit, but that is so pre-Newton.
“already involves the orbiting object changing its orientation.”
Nope. Debunked.
eben…”Another way to demonstrate the moon spins nobody presented is like this”.
Your thought experiment, if false, will produce a false answer. Einstein fell prey to the same thing in his thought experiments re relativity when he based time on the hands of a clock. Had he checked a little deeper he’d have learned that position of the hands of a clock are relative to the rate of rotation of the Earth, a constant.
You cannot use a square because the Moon’s orbit is a resultant of its linear momentum and the effect of the Earth’s gravitational field on that linear momentum. The position the Moon faces the Earth is determined by a radial line that always points to a point in an elliptical orbit which is slightly off the Earth’s centre.
The Moon must maintain its linear momentum or it will fall out of orbit. As Clint pointed out, the effect of gravity applies a very slight downward acceleration to the Moon which is compensated by the Moon’s far greater linear momentum. Therefore the Moon is being constantly nudges into a resultant elliptical orbit, in which its orientation changes through a full 360 degrees.
A close look at that orientation reveals that the near face and the far face are always moving parallel to each other and not rotating about the centre. The Moon is always propelled by linear momentum but the resultant path becomes curvilinear translation due to the nudging of gravity.
Did somebody order a word salad ? what dressing you use with that ?
Gordon blubbered:
“The Moon is always propelled by linear momentum but the resultant path becomes curvilinear translation due to the nudging of gravity.”
WRONG! With translation no line in the body can rotate per the definition of translation. An example of curvilinear translation is the seat of a ferris wheel. A translating object cannot change its orientation. The moon is not translating.
Orbital motion is unlike any other motion. That makes it hard to describe using usual terms of motion (kinetics or kinematics).
One solution is to say Moon is “instantaneously translating, while being steered by gravity”. Or Moon is “translating but incrementally changing direction due to gravity”. Either description works, but neither involves “rotating about its axis”, because that is not what is happening.
“One solution is to say Moon is instantaneously translating, while being steered by gravity.
Of course one could say that. But it would be wrong. And please define “instantaneous translation”, and find me a reference confirming that definition.
You guys continually redefine terms to support your position.
Crickets as usual.
https://tinyurl.com/ClintR-says
Tyson, please stop trolling.
With the winds of change blowing, a good time to test predictions of change.
Eben says:
May 5, 2020 at 7:04 PM
“The temperature will be dropping so fast from now on you will have to wear a parachute just looking at it”
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2020.2
——————————————————
Scott R says:
July 10, 2019 at 6:31 AM
“El nino update:
…Seems to me, the leaders are saying we are going into a La Nina.”
And…
Scott R says:
September 13, 2019 at 7:07 AM
“ENSO update:
…This confirms once again the trend is lower as of today. Still heading towards La Nina.”
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
swannie…” What does happen is that the O2 bands exhibit pressure broadening, which is to say, there is greater emission from the sides of the bands at higher pressure than at lower pressure”.
I’ll give you on thing, you excel at bsing your way through a subject. What is an O2 band? Oxygen does not behave like the Sun, which emits a very broad range of frequencies, it emits one specific frequency depending on its temperature, hence altitude. Near the surface it will emit a different frequency than at 4 km.
The AMSU receivers over 15 bands are tuned so each band has a centre frequency between 50 Ghz and 58 Ghz. The emissions they receive from oxygen come from frequencies generated at different altitudes based on the temperature of the oxygen.
Although oxygen in the atmosphere exists as a diatomic molecule, an emissions from the molecule come from the electrons in individual atoms. Microwave is still an electromagnetic field and the only particle in an atom/molecule that can emit EM is the electron.
Furthermore, the only way an electron can emit EM is by transitioning to a lower energy level and the frequency of its emission is temperature dependent. Hence, hotter O2 molecules at lower altitudes will emit higher frequency microwave than cooler O2 molecules at higher altitudes.
You know the centre oxygen emission frequency of channel 5 is located at 4 km, therefore any other oxygen emissions received in that channel will be proportionately below that centre frequency. By determining the amplitude of a non-centred frequency wrt the centre frequency amplitude, you can establish its frequency and the altitude where it was emitted.
Gordo wrote:
Here we have another blast of Gordo’s delusional physics. I suggest that Gordo needs to understand molecular spectroscopic analysis, including the definition of “lines” and “bands”. One place to begin is THIS WIKI link about HITRAN, though much deeper reading on the subject would be necessary to achieve full understanding. While I certainly don’t claim to be an expert on the subject, it’s important to understand that the same physics applies to the emission bands for O2 and the CO2 bands involved with Global Warming.
binny…GR…”The Moon rotates about 13 degrees in a day. Divide 360 degrees by 13 degrees/day and you get 27.7 days. That is roughly the time the Moon takes to orbit the Earth wrt the stars.
Obviously the rotation referenced here is the rotation of the Moon we refer to as orbiting. IF it was rotating at 13 degrees per day on its axis, the same face could not possible always point at the Earth”.
********
You still haven’t answered my point. The rotation of the Moon referenced by NASA or anyone involved with spacecraft trying to land on the Moon are obviously talking about the Moon rotating about the Earth, not its local axis.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The rotation of the Moon referenced by NASA or anyone involved with spacecraft trying to land on the Moon are obviously talking about the Moon rotating about the Earth, not its local axis.”
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
How do you figure? Asking for a friend.
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/dat/lunar_cmd_2005_jpl_d32296.pdf
Snape, landing on Moon has NOTHING to do with an imaginary motion. The orbital motion of Moon is well known. That’s all that is needed to land on its surface.
You’re chasing ghosts. The belief in Moon’s axial rotation is from astrology, centuries ago, and has never been corrected.
ClintR says:
November 7, 2020 at 8:53 AM
“Snape, landing on Moon has NOTHING to do with an imaginary motion. The orbital motion of Moon is well known. That’s all that is needed to land on its surface.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You must be with the Indian space program.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/26/782890646/2-months-after-failed-moon-landing-india-admits-its-craft-crashed
Back in September, India’s hopes for a historic first ended — inconclusively.
High hopes had been riding on its Chandrayaan-2 orbiter. The spacecraft was sending a landing vehicle down to the moon — an operation that, if successful, would be the first robotic mission at the moon’s unexplored south pole and that would make India only the fourth country in history to make a moon landing.
Unfortunately, it was not to be. At the time, the Indian Space Research Organisation didn’t offer much explanation for the operation’s failure besides an ill-timed loss of contact, adding little more than a terse, “Data is being analyzed.”
Not relevant, Snape.
You’re still chasing ghosts.
https://tinyurl.com/kb4xjzo
Now you’re a child, chasing ghosts.
Grow up.
ClintR says:
November 7, 2020 at 1:34 PM
Now you’re a child, chasing ghosts.
Grow up.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Here’s a reenactment:
NASA: you gots to consider Spin-Orbit Resonance which occurs when there exists a simple integer ratio between the time period of rotation and the orbital time period corresponding to a single body. The Moon has a spin-orbit resonance ratio of 1:1. This means that the time taken by the moon to complete one rotation about its spin axis is equivalent to the time taken by it to complete one orbital revolution around the Earth. Because of this phenomenon, Moon is tidally locked to the Earth and only one side of the Moon faces the Earth at any given time.
India Space Agency (ClintR says):”Snape, landing on Moon has NOTHING to do with an imaginary motion. The orbital motion of Moon is well known. That’s all that is needed to land on its surface.
You’re chasing ghosts. The belief in Moon’s axial rotation is from astrology, centuries ago, and has never been corrected.
Cut to 2019… womp womp womp!
https://tinyurl.com/kb4xjzo
If you don’t account for the moon’s spin you will land about three miles off from your intended target
Eben, what spin?
Moon moves in its orbit about 2200 mph.
Like most idiots, you have no clue what you’re talking about.
Make stuff up, Snape.
That’s what you have to do when you’re going against reality.
But, reality always wins. Which makes you a loser.
” ClintR says:
November 7, 2020 at 11:34 AM
Make stuff up, Snape.”
w00t.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Robertson
I gave you lots of answers during the last two years.
You, Robertson, refused all of them, without the tiniest bit of a scientifically valuable argument — and answered with dumbest blah blah instead.
Here is one of many examples.
*
Even if you are shown, in the context of the Apollo 11 mission, an image that shows a circular arrow around an axis, that clearly indicates rotation of the sphere below about that axis, you brazenly pretend it hasn’t anything to do with Moon’s spin:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B-M3FSEtA3ZmMzcJuCDsn349P1Amv8wY/view
You even deliberately ignore the text near the image, though it perfectly explains that a rendez-vous maneuver of an ascending lunar module with the orbiting module evidently has to take account of Moon’s rotation of about 4.62 m/sec during the 21 hr 30 min stay
– what shifts the absolute lunar module’s ascent position at Moon surfaceby over 350 km wrt its absolute position at landing time
and thus
– evidently requests a change of the orbiting module’s plane, in order both modules to meet again without excessive use of propellant by the ascending module.
*
How is it possible to deny that, to behave so stupid, giving the impression of a stubborn, 10 year old child?
You do behave that way because
– you are a reckless and respectless Contrarian and denialist;
– you cowardly lag behind a fake ‘real’ name, so that you can tell the stupidest bullshit without being recognized by relatives, friends or acquaintances.
There is NO WAY to convince people like you and some others, and you all know that.
I repeat: luckily, ignorant and denying people like you, ClintR, DREMT, hunter or Swynnson were never and will never be involved in preparing any spacecraft mission!
LUCKILY!
J.-P. D.
JD, that “4.62 m/sec” is due to Moon’s orbit. If it were really rotating about its axis we would see more that one side of it. But, we only see one side.
The simple analogy of a ball on a string has you beat. It’s called “virkelighet”.
Virkeligheten, ClintR, er dessverre ikke på din side.
Snarere prøver de å skjule virkeligheten.
Hvorfor du gjør dette, hvorfor du forakter så mye historisk og moderne kunnskap, bare du kan vite.
J.-P. D.
Nettopp.
JD, if only you had as much appreciation for physics and reality as you do for languages….
I repeat: luckily, ignorant and denying people like you, ClintR, DREMT, hunter or Swynnson were never and will never be involved in preparing any spacecraft mission!
Anything else, ClintR, is secondary.
You can answer anything to this comment: you won’t change a bit to the facts you deny.
J.-P. D.
That’s a nice straw man you built, JD.
Be careful when you shoot down your own straw men, you don’t shoot your foot off.
Perhaps my warning was too late….
https://tinyurl.com/ClintR-says
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Tyson: here’s an article about the HIV virus which Gordon doesn’t believe exists:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4924471/#:~:text=The%20viral%20envelope%20is%20composed,(CA)%20%5B26%5D.
Biologically complex, but as with the COVID-19 description, you’ll get an overview without having to go into huge detail.
It doesn’t exist? Yeah, right…..
Right on. I’ll take a look.
A tropical storm will hit Cuba and Florida.
Climate craziness was voted out.
Hope republicans can find an intelligent alternative next time.
Roy, any idea why UAH US48 has gone upwards for the last 2 months, while USCRN has gone downwards
They usually behave in a similar direction.
spike55
I replied last month on a nearly identical comment of yours.
You didn’t answer.
But of course, this blog’s most ignorant and most boasting commenter urged in posting his usual lies:
binny … ”But the worldwide GHCN daily data set contains the raw data for all USCRN stations”.
Which raw data are you looking at, the fudged data or the actual data received by GHCN from people actually reading the thermometers?
You are still in denial that NOAA takes the raw temperature data and fudges it. They not only fudge in real time they fudge retroactively to the point where GHCN data is absolutely worthless.
Not only that, they have discarded 90% of the GHCN reporting stations since 1990 and use climate models to recreate the discarded data from adjacent stations up to 1200 km apart.
That’s over land, who knows how they fudge the SST.
*
I therefore suppose that you preferred to believe in Robertson’s lies, didn’t you?
Good grief, spike55…
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Well that was a totally meaningless and empty rant.
Pertaining to absolutely nothing, and totally off topic non-response
Well done.
Quite frankly, I’m not interested in ranting non-answers from raving scientifically-empty loonies.
But do keep going, for everyone to laugh at.
LMAO!
Seems the 13 month average (the red line in the top graph) has equalled the 2016 peak. There is a possibility it will rise even higher, because as the 13 month window moves forward each month, the first month of the window will be warmer each time. That will be the case for the next four months. To offset this, the coming four months must all be colder than the last, and the first would ideally be at least 0.1C colder than the current one (October).
Just checking in for those ‘skeptics’ who vowed temps would drop from 2016 onwards, and who said the red line was never getting back up as high.
As the old saying goes: “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
The UAH October Global value is “0.54”, basically puts us a half degree above the 12-13 year pause. Up and down, as all the factors continue to move toward that illusive equilibrium.
But we recently got some new “science”. It seems that two ice cubes are hotter than one ice cube. No one knew that! But it kinda explains why the Arctic is melting–too much ice. Antarctic just hasn’t learned about the new “science”, yet.
And if anyone remains skeptical that ice can warm itself, here’s the actual calculation from a “PhD”:
((273)^4 + (273)^4)^0.25 = 325 K
Two ice cubes at freezing will result in a temperature of 325 K (51.9C, 125.3F)
(Idiots actually believe such nonsense.)
ClintR says:
“all the factors continue to move toward that illusive equilibrium.”
Elusive because we keep emitting GHGs.
Silly Svante chimes in: “Elusive because we keep emitting GHGs.”
Thankfully!
We need more cooling CO2 to counter the warming from all that ice.
Translated from the lunatic reference frame: less CO2 to save all the ice from melting.
Silly snowflake Svante, are you now denying you own cult nonsense?
Surely you wouldn’t doubt a “PhD”? That’d be like thinking for yourself!
Cultists don’t do that.
Your comment last time was also a pointless load of irrelevant garbage.
Maybe you didn’t read or understand the question.
Or maybe you are just not very intelligent
Try again.. Answer the question.. or just rant mindlessly !
——-
Roy, any idea why UAH US48 has gone upwards for the last 2 months, while USCRN has gone downwards ?
They usually behave in a similar direction.
It’s not that unusual for them to depart from each other.
CRN anomalies: https://tinyurl.com/y5yzvoer
UAH anomalies: https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo
Pick the first six months of a range of years and you’ll see they do go in the opposite direction from time to time. Temps in the lower atmosphere do not track temps perfectly on the surface, and least of all when you get to regional level, when local cloud cover and weather can have more of an influence on the result.
No, they generally go the same direction, just by different amounts , Sometime one will stay steady while the other changes.
I can’t see any place where they have gone in totally different directions for two months in a row.
https://i.postimg.cc/1zWFxbMS/USCRN-et-al.png
Its just interesting, is all.
Nearly every year there is at least one month where they go in opposite directions. Some years there are 2 successive months where they go in opposite directions. Happens twice in 2008. It happens less frequently globally, but it does happen from time to time. It’s normal. The surface and the lower troposphere don’t track each other perfectly. No reason for them to do so.
Also Jan->Feb-Mar 2009, if you want a clear example.
Aus->Sep->Oct 2010 as well.
Also Jan->Feb-Mar 2009, if you want a clear example.
Aus->Sep->Oct 2010 as well.
=> Barry
these are very small discrepancies
the last two months have been a very large discrepancy.
An anomaly of some sort or other.
Lets see what happens next month
Sure.
I did a bit of eyeball counting (don’t have my usual software with me). 24 times (not including recent) over the CRN record that UAH/CRN temps deviated in sign. That’s 12% of the time.
Double month sign deviations, including recent, are about 2% of the time.
There have been some equally strong deviations, but not necessarily in sign. Looks like an anomalous event last couple of months, but not outside the bounds of anomalous events.
barry
Nice to see you commenting here again.
You have it clear right, even if I seriously owe spike55 an apology for my really superfluous comment posted last night!
But sometimes it’s a little hard to stay in control when you’re constantly confronted with stubborn views about things that were explored centuries ago.
*
Nonetheless, I had one more time some interest for a today’s comparison of the CRN corner within GHCN daily not only with UAH in the LT, but with the entire GHCN daily data set for CONUS as well.
{ I use the GHCN daily raw data for CRN, because the adjusted CRN and USHCN corners never interested me, as they are US local; you can’t compare them with data outside of the US. }
Here are the three:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nIMDGEXuDv7KpO5j5g2olHg_–v_05dS/view
I’m a bit surprised about the differences between spike’s graph and mine, but this might be due to both different reference periods, and spike using adjusted CRN data.
I choosed 2019-2019 because 140 of the 233 CRN stations had sufficient data for building departures from the mean of that period.
What I’m less surprised about is the difference, for 2004-2020, between the estimates for the GHCN CRN corner and all GHCN CONUS stations: 0.54 +- 0.11 C / decade vs. 0.31 +- 0.13, the latter being a far better fit to UAH48 in the same period (0.27 +- 0.10).
The reason for such a difference might be due to the fact that while the CONUS average relies on about 7,000 stations each year located in 170 2.5 degree grid cells, the CRN average is obtained by yearly no more than 140 stations located within 100 cells.
Rgds from near Berlin in Germoney
J.-P. D.
Hello Bindidon,
It’s been a busy year. I’m currently in Aukland, New Zealand, heading back to Sydney in a couple of weeks. Sure has been an interesting year. I think it gets the title ‘Annus Horribilus.’
Yes, I saw that you had misunderstood spike. I also figured that you would realize and acknowledge it. These things can happen when the temperature rises (hope you don’t mind the pun). It’s been quite good being too busy to participate here.
Stepping away has also given some perspective on the endlessly cycled arguments. Not just that they are a form of madness, but also clarity on them. Eg, any valid moon rotation difference is purely about differences in frame of reference, and everything else is guff. I had that opinion before but coming back and coolly reading the comments makes it even more obvious.
So I don’t plan to get too invested in these arguments.
Hope you are well and that the year has not been too unkind to you.
Wrong barry, Moon rotation is NOT about “differences in frame of reference”” That’s why the simple analogies are so hated by you idiots. The wooden horse is not rotating about is axis, because it is bolted to the floor. And if the ball on a string were rotating about its axis, the string would wrap about the ball. “Rotating about its axis” is not based on frame of reference, it’s based on reality.
But thanks for letting us know why you “don’t plan to get too invested in these arguments” — you know your side is wrong.
Get off your high/wooden horse ClintR.
Another day of trolling, for the childish snowflake Svante.
I agree with Bindidon, and don’t waste your time on people like ClintR/JDHuffman/g*e*r*a*n/geran (anger).
I do appreciate it when you correct people like Bindidon and me.
Silly Svante, you require constant correcting.
You figure out how to turn your 160 W/m^2 into 640 W/m^2 yet?
Hint: It can NOT be done!
You’re such an idiot.
Thank you.
barry
Thanks for the answer, we are fine. Rose had a battle with cancer a few years ago, so caution is advised, we avoid unnecessary contact.
Hope you all do well too in your downunder corner!
J.-P. D.
bill hunter says:
Good advice, make sure your sources are scientific and not from some blog.
Absolutely Svante. Blogs are a good place to find relevant scientific references. For example, DREMT was the only one to provide a scientific reference for the moon rotating around the earth’s COG. All the other bloggers are just self-flagellating. I had never considered this issue until here but listened to the arguments and mostly asked why it matters. DREMT produced in the
form of a reference why it matters and nobody else did.
DREMT produced nothing in the form of a reference on moon rotation Bill. Madhavi paper does not mention the moon at all. Try again to find a science paper supporting the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
DREMT has provided some great research. But it gets ignored by the idiots that believe the wooden horse bolted to the rotating platform is nevertheless rotating about its axis. You just can’t help stupid.
The ball on a string is the direct evidence that Moon is not rotating about its axis. But, that gets ignored also.
The science behind the issue comes from Newton. He noticed that some orbiting bodies rotated about their axes, while Moon did not. To determine what effect gravity had on Moon, Newton had to develop calculus. From his work, we know that orbital motion is the same as a ball on a string. Gravity does not induce axial rotation. A body without axial rotation aways has the same side facing the center of orbit.
DREMT has provided no great research. Analogies are not research. Use Newton’s words not yours.
“he science behind the issue comes from Newton. He noticed that some orbiting bodies rotated about their axes, while Moon did not.”
FALSE. He explicitly stated the opposite. And you know it douche bag, troll
Youve lost on the facts. Oh well. Whats left? Just lie.
Ball4, I remember you. You were the one that kept claiming the wooden horse was rotating about its axis. That’s why we had to specify the horse was securely fastened to the platform and couldn’t rotate. But, you continued to claim it was rotating about its axis. That’s when we knew you were an idiot.
And, nothing has changed….
Analogies are not moon research ClintR. Bolted or not bolted wooden horses are immaterial, they are not the moon. Come up with some moon science research as your position is long lost. Use Newton’s words not your words.
Oh oh, here comes the argument that wooden horses reside in their own universe with their own set of physical laws. LMAO!
Your mom must have given you a pony ride when you were little and you never got off riding that little pony in circles forever.
You’re an idiot, Ball4.
In order to not be an idiot, you have to accept reality. You have to admit that the bolted wooden horse is NOT rotating about its axis. You claim the wooden horse is immaterial. Then why can’t you admit it is not rotating on its axis? You can’t accept reality because the horse has the same motion as Moon.
So, you’re trapped in your own nonsense, by reality.
Being immaterial, nothing matters about wooden horse rotation ClintR. It is a failed analogy.
Throwing out evidence that doesn’t support your beliefs, Ball4?
That’s why idiots don’t make good scientists.
No, throwing out failed analogies. Perhaps ClintR can actually use the moon when discussing the moon motion kinematics. I doubt it because then ClintR would find the evidence doesn’t support ClintR’s failed no moon rotation on its own axis beliefs.
Ball4 says:
DREMT produced nothing in the form of a reference on moon rotation Bill. Madhavi paper does not mention the moon at all. Try again to find a science paper supporting the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
===============================
The Madhavi paper has relevance throughout the engineered world. She mention millions of things she could have mention. She is teaching principles here that don’t change from object to object.
And, still, Prof. Madhavi does NOT mention moon rotation. ClintR runs back to wooden horses and balls on string instead of research on the moon. Very telling that ClintR and bill know they are wrong, in fact the moon does rotate on its own axis once per rev. of Earth contrary to their cult’s failed position.
The sun rises and sets on the rotating on its own axis moon just like the rest of the stars.
Ball4,
Once again its a paper on physics. Physics papers don’t mention every one of the billions of objects that fall into the purview Ball4. Your argument is vacuous and stupid.
Newton’s work showed that an orbiting body, with no axial rotation, would have one side always facing the center of the orbit, just as Moon.
That’s why the idiots hate the simple analogy of a ball on a string.
Here’s the moon on a string for you.
https://www.britannica.com/video/185629/role-gravity-Earth-hemisphere-planet-Moon
They got the fact that only one side faces Earth correct. The “bulging” nonsense is easily debunked, but not by idiots:
“If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.”
To someone that understands gravity, this is farcical. But I bet not one of the idiots can find what’s wrong with it. Bindidon, bdgwx, bobdroege, Ball4, Norman, Snape, Svante, Nate, barry, SGW, E. Swanson, not one can find what’s wrong.
Idiots.
“Newton’s work showed that an orbiting body, with no axial rotation, would have one side always facing the center of the orbit, just as Moon.”
Nope, by now everyone here has seen Newton’s quotes, and knows that you are simply straight up lying.
Keep up the good work that got you banned twice before.
Three more to invite to take part in the challenge: Eben, Fritz Kraut, and Tim Folkerts.
I think that’s all?
bill 8:33am you wrote: “DREMT was the only one to provide a scientific reference for the moon rotating around the earth’s COG.”
DREMT has NOT ever done so, THAT is a vacuous and stupid argument as the Madhavi science ref. provides NO demonstrable reference to the moon rotation on its own axis or about earth cg despite your repeated comments to the contrary. Sure, it’s a kinematics paper not an astronomy paper which you (or your cult) have yet to produce to try & support your failed position that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Demonstrably the sun rises and sets on the rotating on its own axis primary moon of Earth just like the rest of the stars.
ClintR 8:53am it is immaterial for anyone hating or loving any failed analogy for the moon rotating on its own axis to where you often run away. Produce an astronomer’s accurate moon science ref. for your failed position, you won’t because you can’t. Hint: Prof. Madhavi doesn’t even mention the moon.
Ball4
Madhavi is laying out physics principles Ball4. She doesn’t need to name everything.
Are you claiming Newtonian gravity doesn’t apply to you because Newton didn’t name Ball4 in his work?
Of course not, no one is claiming Newton mentioned that. bill is wrongly claiming: “DREMT was the only one to provide a scientific reference for the moon rotating around the earth’s COG.”
DREMT provided nothing of the sort. ClintR uses his own words for what ClintR claims Newton wrote; DREMT uses his own words for what DREMT claims Madhavi wrote. These types of comments from ClintR and DREMT (and bill) prove vacuous and stupid.
Just read the paper Ball4. Figure 2(b) is an illustration of rotation on an external axis.
Those are only your words bill, not Madhavi’s, yes, you really should read the paper.
Madhavi: “the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
There you go bill; now you can accurately quote Prof. Madhavi. bill has no further excuse for inaccuracy. Demonstrating this earlier comment of bill’s is vacuous and stupid: “DREMT was the only one to provide a scientific reference for the moon rotating around the earth’s COG.”
DREMT only linked a kinematic science ref. that wrote: “the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
Ball4 says:
the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles on an external axis.
All the particles are going in concentric circles Ball4.
All spin and thus angular momentum has to be assigned an axis. If you start up a merry-go-round all torque is in relationship to the merry-go-round axle.
You must supply the ponies on the merry-go-round their own torque on their own axle. And of course when you do that, no torques is applied to the merry-go-round axle. So it should be easy for you to use Madhavi and then know how to build a merry-go-round. If you can’t figure that out, then find a different career.
Well, isn’t that special.
Bill claims that DREMPTY found a scientific reference that shows that the Moon rotates around the Earth’s center of gravity.
That’s special.
You guys need some serious help.
Since you can’t seem to find it here you are again Bob.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Bill,
I think you linked to the wrong source.
Would you be so kind as to try again.
Anyway, the Moon orbits the Earth-Moon barycenter.
Is that what you meant by the Earth’s center of gravity?
But none of that is in Dr. Madhavi’s textbook.
Dumshiit.
I know Newton talked about apples Bob. Did he talk about peaches and avocados?
bill,
Did you even read the paper????????????????????????????
How about finding a quote from it with the word “Moon”
According to this quote, the text proves the Moon rotates
Fig.6 Rotation of a rigid body about a fixed axis
The motion of a rigid body rotating about a fixed axis AA is said to be known when its angular coordinate
can be expressed as a known function of t. In practice, however the rotation of a rigid body is seldom defined
by a relation between More often, the conditions of motion will be specified by the type of angular
acceleration that the body possesses. For example, α may be given as a function of t, as a function of, or as a
function of ω. –
Of course Bob. Bottom line failure to mention a certain class of objects is broadly taken in physics to include all objects within connected systems. If it doesn’t then a science paper is required to establish such divisions.
Bill,
Yeah right,
Madhavi proved the Moon is rotating on its axis because it spins like in fig 6.
Actually, figure 2(b) is perfectly suited to demonstrating that an orbiting object keeping the same face to the object being orbited is also rotating.
It also demonstrates that the ball on a string is rotating.
It shows a plate rotating about an external axis, and is clearly marked as “rotation.”
Gotta love these reputable sources.
Yes, barry. The plate in Fig. 2(b) is rotating, but not on its own axis. It is rotating about point O. You’re starting to get it.
UAH TLS came in at -0.74. This is the coldest October on record by a considerable margin.
In terms of TLT minus TLS the October value was +1.28C which is second place to the September value of +1.33C.
Yes, Solar Minimum has ended, about 6 months later than NASA prediction.
Gordon Robertson says:
November 5, 2020 at 10:29 PM
“First of all, we need to find the virus. No one has ever seen it, just like HIV. When they could not properly isolate alleged viruses like HIV and covid, they came up with a new method which is not based on the scientific method, but on agreement.
This is not a conspiracy theory, the scientist credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, admits he has never seen HIV, that he inferred it. Furthermore, he now claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system. Ironically, some idiots are now bringing out a new test for HIV that you can use at home. Oh, how the money rolls in.
There is obviously something hurting people throughout the world but every time something like that comes along, scientists go looking for a virus right away. If they cant find direct evidence, they make it up.
Id hold off on your jade amulets for a bit till intelligent scientists have a chance to assess the situation rather than the wannabees collection big bucks re funding and patents. Then again, that could take a century. One day, well be the laughing stock of future generations.”
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
It is settled, Gordon Robertson is a bullshit artist. The first clue is when he says “When they could not properly isolate alleged viruses like HIV and covid, they came up with a new method which is not based on the scientific method, but on agreement’ as if science was some kind of Democracy where the majority rules; he obviously does not understand that science is a cruel dictatorship where evidence dictates.
Exhibit 1 is when he says “This is not a conspiracy theory, the scientist credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, admits he has never seen HIV, that he inferred it.”
Why say something that can easily be verified with a simple internet search? He may be a pathological liar. In his Nobel Prize lecture Montagnier said “On January 3, 1983, I received a biopsy of a patient with cervical adenopathy, a symptom already recognized as an early sign of AIDS. we could propagate the virus in cultures of lymphocytes from adult blood donors as well as in lymphocytes from cord blood. This allowed characterization of the virus Electron microscopy of sections of the original lymph node biopsy, as well as those from infected cultured lymphocytes, showed rare viral particles with a dense conical core The same type of virus was isolated from patients of different origins The Jay Levy group in San Francisco also isolated the same kind of virus, followed by many other laboratories.”
Montagnier’s lecture is here: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/montagnier_lecture.pdf
Gordon Robertson goes on to say “Furthermore, he now claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system.” I have found no evidence that Montagnier ever said this but based on the evidence I doubt it.
I do agree with one thing Robertson said, “One day, we’ll be the laughing stock of future generations” if by we he means Gordon Robertson and his enablers, and if by one day you mean right now because I’m LMFAO.
tyson…”Why say something that can easily be verified with a simple internet search?”
Then again, why should anyone listen to an idiot who changes his nym constantly. Snape disappears and tyson appears.
In your quote, Montagnier did not claim to have seen HIV, on an electron microscope, he stated…”This allowed characterization of the virus Electron microscopy of sections of the original lymph node biopsy…”
One of the members of his team, Baree-Sinoussi, sat on a panel at the Louis Pasteur Institute in which they laid down the framework for isolating a virus. The first step was isolating the virus and the next step was purifying it. Looking at a slice from a lymph node and claiming dark spots on the slice as a virus is neither isolation nor purification.
In fact, Montagnier has admitted he has never seen HIV. He admitted they tried to isolate and purify the virus but when they looked at the isolated specimen on an electron microscope they saw no virus. The specimen was too contaminated.
It’s all here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyPq-waF-h4
So, you are now saying that Fig. 2 from Montagnier’s lecture is a fabrication?
what figure 2?
You can understand why these threads get so off-topic. With the Green Plate (and thus House) Effect debunked, AGW is finished. So it was inevitable we would move on to discussing other things.
And DREMT is just as wrong about AGW as DREMT is wrong about the other things.
Green Plate Effect proponents claim:
Plates pushed together = 244 K…244 K
Separate plates by 1mm = 262 K…220 K.
An increase of 18 K in the blue plate, and a decrease of 24 K in the green, merely by separating the plates!? No change in power in or out, which remains at 400 W in, 400 W out, in both cases!?
Don’t be silly.
Radiative energy transfer and conductive energy transfer are fundamentally different processes & eqn.s DREMT with different results.
See, they actually try to defend it!
The funniest one is their claim that two ice cubes are warmer than one. By their “science”, 4 ice cubes would boil water!
Idiots.
ball4…”Radiative energy transfer and conductive energy transfer are fundamentally different processes…”
Tripping all over yourself because you can’t use the word heat, as in heat transfer. According to you, heat is the name of the transfer process and not the energy transferred. Yet anyone with half a brain knows the energy transferred is heat. So, you think heat is a process that transfers heat.
I don’t think that Gordon, what you wrote makes no thermodynamic sense. I know heat is the total KE of the object’s constituent particles – see Clausius 1st memoir for the formula and exact def. wording.
“The funniest one is their claim that two ice cubes are warmer than one. By their “science”, 4 ice cubes would boil water!”
They do come out with some classics.
In memory of Alex Trebeck and also to poke at the non-spinner crowd here is a question from Jeopardy show # 4222 of December 31, 2002, Double Jeopardy round for $ 400:
“The number of times the moon rotates on its axis during each trip around the Earth”
https://j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=2899
Snape, you don’t have to use game shows for your nonsense. You can go directly to NASA. The Moon nonsense started with Cassini and his astrology. It has never been corrected, and is now promoted.
If you copy a mistake 100 times, how many mistakes do you have?
Duly noted!
I need to give you a nick name too. I’ll think of a good one!
tyson…”The number of times the moon rotates on its axis during each trip around the Earth”
So, now science is based on questions from jeopardy. Climate science is based on how many people think the anthropogenic theory is correct.
The current US election has been decided by Associated Press. A buffoon on CBC television, Adrienne Arsenaux, was outraged when Trump claimed he won. She indignantly claimed it was not up to him to make the decision, it was up to Associated Press.
The so-called covid virus has been claimed by consensus. No one has ever seen the virus on an electron microscope, it was inferred, like HIV, based on retroviral theory, which has been questioned since its introduction in the 1970s. Now they are rushing out a vaccine that can affect human DNA based on consensus.
Chief scientist Bill Gates has approved the vaccine. He learned about it from computer viruses.
You sound a little unhinged this morning; don’t go spinning out of control now!
snape…”…dont go spinning out of control now!”
I’m fine, it’s you I’m worried about. You seem to have reached the stage where you have become a thought experiment.
Your posts make less and less sense, but regardless, I think you mean to call me Snopes don’t you, since I’ve outed your BS beyond all doubt.
ClintR
” The science behind the issue comes from Newton. He noticed that some orbiting bodies rotated about their axes, while Moon did not. ”
*
Why do you permanently try to ignore and hide what Newton wrote about the Moon?
From Newton’s Principia Scientifica, Book 3, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV
Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25½ days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.
…
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
*
Is is evident from Newton’s words that he
– understands with the word ‘revolve’ a rotation, and not an orbit;
– deduced, out of both Cassini’s empirical laws and Mayer’s observations, that Moon’s orbit and rotation periods must be identical (he told Mercator in 1675 about that).
*
You can insult anybody here by naming her/him an idiot, ClintR, like does your friend-in-denial Robertson. No problem.
But your & his endless trials to distort Cassini’s, Mayer’s, Newton’s, Lagrange’s and Laplace’s work will ever fail.
J.-P. D.
JD, you really have no clue about orbital motion. You’re just like Norman. You search the Web until you find something that you believe fits your beliefs. Then, you start another keyboard exercise leading to nothing.
If Moon were really rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth. But, it is ONLY orbiting, not rotating about its axis. You can’t figure it out.
ClintR
” You search the Web until you find something that you believe fits your beliefs. ”
No. I simply reproduce the official English translation (by Andrew Motte in 1729), of Newton’s original work written in Latin, and published in 1726:
https://tinyurl.com/yytuurr9
You can lie, lie and lie again as long as you want, ClintR, if you feel such a need to be viewed as a liar.
But Newton’s work you can’t misinterpret, let alone distort.
*
” If Moon were really rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth. ”
This is what ignorants like you and some others say, and is perfectly similar to what Flatearthists pretend about Earth not being a sphere. That is exactly the same, stupid discourse.
*
You are so stubborn that even if I would perfectly reproduce — by using e.g. MATLAB’s differential motion equation solver — Earth’s and Moon’s orbits and spins, and show you that we see one side of the Moon JUST BECAUSE it rotates in the same time as it orbits, you still would stay in denying the fact.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you don’t know crap about physics or orbital motion. Anyone with a basic knowledge of either could find what is wrong with this:
“If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.”
Show us you’re not an idiot, JD. Tell us what’s wrong with that nonsense.
ClintR
No, no, no…
You behave here exactly like the two deniers ge*r*an and JD*Huffman.
Stop sitting comfortably in the teacher’s chair without explaining anything, and telling everyone that what s/he wrote is wrong. That is too simple.
You, ClintR, will show us today you are not an idiot, by telling us EXACTLY what is wrong with that sentence you posted above.
I guess I’ll have to wait for a while before obtaining a really scientific explanation from your side.
Allez, ClintR, un peu de courage, et au travail!
J.-P. D.
JD, I knew you couldn’t figure out the obvious flaws. You don’t have a clue about physics or orbtial motion.
Thanks for confirming the obvious.
ClintR
You just confirmed above what I had anticipated:
” I guess Ill have to wait for a while before obtaining a really scientific explanation from your side. ”
Mange takk!
J.-P. D.
You just cannot expect real debate with Clint.
He simply lies, cheats, obfuscates, twists your words, plays childish games, and ultimately gets banned. He is only here to troll.
Gosh Nate, full of hate, maybe you can tell us why this is wrong:
“If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.”
We both know that’s not going to happen….
Cuz its made up physics. Maybe you can explain why you lie so much?
No idiot! That’s the nonsense your cult believes in. That’s the nonsense explaining “tidal locking”.
You don’t even understand your own cult’s teachings!
No wonder you’re full of hate, Nate. You can’t learn anything.
binny…” If Moon were really rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
This is what ignorants like you and some others say, and is perfectly similar to what Flatearthists pretend about Earth not being a sphere. That is exactly the same, stupid discourse”.
I have proved it and you have offered nothing to disprove my proof. All you can offer is ad homs, insults, and obscure references to ancient science.
fritz…”Do YOU deny existence of moon-poles or do You not?
Simple question”.
I do and I have proved why, not believed why, but proved why. No one has disproved what I have claimed, that a radial line through the Moon from the Earth’s centre, has a perpendicular tangent line at the near face and the far face that are always turning in parallel. That rules out rotation about a local axis. Furthermore, you can see it in any of the models that have been presented.
Hey, astronomers are still talking about the Big Bang, a ludicrous theory that claims the present universe emerged from nothing in a Big Bang. They are constantly discovering planets around distant stars that no one has seen.
Robertson
” I do and I have proved why, not believed why, but proved why. ”
YOU never proved here anything. You were showing up with an egocentric claim based on NOTHING scientific!
binny…”YOU never proved here anything. You were showing up with an egocentric claim based on NOTHING scientific!”
How would an idiot like you, who cannot function without appealing to the authority of ancient scientists, understand anything about real science? I gave you a dumbed-down version of real physics and you still don’t get it.
In fact, I have never heard any physics from you. What are you, a wannabee statistician? You’re not even good at that.
bdgwx
” UAH TLS came in at -0.74. This is the coldest October on record by a considerable margin. ”
This is correct; but a look at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qZX7wJQwavMbcBsY6IjAhwAOpAkSY8Rf/view
might be interesting as well.
What was the cause of this sudden, high LS peak?
J.-P. D.
There was blog post about that.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/australia-bushfire-smoke-now-warming-the-lower-stratosphere/
Austrian wildfires was a hypothesis.
bdgwx
You are right, I now remember the discussion.
J.-P. D.
barry…”any valid moon rotation difference is purely about differences in frame of reference, and everything else is guff”.
What is it about frames of reference you fail to understand? What you are claiming is essentially this: if you are walking down a street in your neighbourhood, that in some other frame of reference you are not.
Frames of reference are for the convenience of the limited human mind. If the Moon is not rotating in is local frame of reference, which included the 2-D orbital plane centred on the Earth then it is not rotating in any frame of reference.
You are suggesting there are sci-fi frames of reference where reality can change. You are talking about relative motion as perceived by a human mind and how the human mind can see anything it wants, even if it isn’t real.
GR,
We’ve already established that the disagreement is primarily with the definition of “rotate about its own axis”.
It is universally accepted (sans a few posters on this blog) that it is defined as non-zero angular velocity in a frame where radius r=0 goes through the body’s center of mass and angle a=0 if fixed to a distant point like another star or feature on the CMB.
The contrarians on this blog uses a different definition though. The most common is that it is non-zero angular velocity in a frame where radius r=0 goes through the body’s center of mass and angle a=0 is fixed to the body being orbited (instead of the body itself). Another definition thrown out on this blog is where radius r=0 goes through the orbited body (instead of the body itself) and with angle a=0 being fixed to a distant point.
It is important to understand that neither side disputes the angular velocities being computed in the various frames being discussed. The dispute is over which words to use when describing motions in these different frames.
And to summarize this more succinctly…
If body A is the body in question and body B is one that A is orbiting then…
#1 (widely accepted): Radius r=0 goes through body A and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant point like a far away star or feature on the CMB.
#2 (contrarian): Radius r=0 goes through body A and angle a=0 is fixed to body B.
#3 (contrarian): Radius r=0 goes through body B and angle a=0 is fixed to to a distant point like a far away star or feature on the CMB.
I’m seeing #2 being used most frequently by the contrarians here.
The discussion is not about frames of reference. It is simply about two opposing ways of defining “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.
The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.
Upthread, I have been trying to explain to you why looking at an inertial reference frame where radius r=0 goes through the orbiting body’s center of mass and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant point will lead you to the wrong conclusion over whether an orbiting object is rotating on its own axis or not. Frankly, you are not listening to me.
I am listening to you. I’m just putting it into a more formal mathematical description.
Non-spinners are using…
Frame #1 (orbital motion): r=0 at the Sun and a=0 fixed at a distant point
Frame #2 (axial motion): r=0 at the Moon and a=0 fixed at the Earth
…while the spinners are using…
Frame #1 (orbital motion): r=0 at the Sun and a=0 fixed at a distant point
Frame #3 (axial motion): r=0 at the Moon and a=0 fixed at a distant point
…that’s the difference. Non-spinners and spinners alike get 0 rad/s for frame #2 and 2.66e-6 rad/s for frame #3.
The discrepancy is regarding which frame (#2 or #3) we use for “axial motion” or “rotate about its own axis”.
Neither of us are more right than the other in regards to the value we obtain for angular velocity in our respective frames.
But your assertion that the Moon is “not rotating” is valid only in the sense that you’ve defined “rotating” differently than everyone else.
It’s not that we don’t accept the claim that the Moon doesn’t change orientation wrt to the Earth. We actually do. It’s that we don’t accept the demand to use the word “rotate” when describing this concept because that word already has a long established history of being used for a completely different concept.
And there’s a good reason for sticking with frame #2 as the convention. It is an inertial frame which means angular momentum is conserved in this frame. That can and often is exploited. Frame #3 is non-inertial so angular momentum is NOT conserved in this frame (with caveats) which could lead to wrong conclusions regarding the behavior of the body’s orientation wrt to its gravitationally bound host under conditions in which its orbit with that host body is perturbed by an outside force.
You claim you are listening, and then write a comment proving you are not listening.
I repeat:
The discussion is not about frames of reference. It is simply about two opposing ways of defining “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.
The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.
My gosh bdgwx, what a disastrous attempt at distortion!
No wonder you idiots hate simple analogies.
DREMT,
You just said the same thing I did. You just did it with less mathematical formalism. I’m trying to help you out here by translating your language to the mathematical language that the rest of us use.
Wrong, bdgwx. We are not saying the same thing.
You also might like to correct the other errors in your post:
1) Nobody is putting r=0 through the center of mass of the sun, as you have written. You presumably mean the Earth/moon barycenter, as the moon is revolving around that.
2) What you have labelled Frame #2 and #3 you mix up during your discussion. Presumably you mean Frame #3 is an inertial frame but you write that it is non-inertial.
bdgwx, here’s another example of your “mathematical language”:
“So you made up some model where a sphere with 1 m^2 surface area which is supplied a 240 W input must somehow emit 480 W/m^2. You then decided that Earth must emit 480 W/m^2 as well because…I don’t know…reasons I guess. Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K. Just remember…you came up with the ficticious 303K and 231.7K figures.”
You can’t make sense out of your own “mathematical language”, AKA “bull excretment”.
DREMT said: 1) Nobody is putting r=0 through the center of mass of the sun, as you have written. You presumably mean the Earth/moon barycenter, as the moon is revolving around that.
Yikes. Absolutely. I definitely mean the Earth/Moon barycenter on that. My apologies for that mistake.
DREMT said: 2) What you have labelled Frame #2 and #3 you mix up during your discussion. Presumably you mean Frame #3 is an inertial frame but you write that it is non-inertial.
Yikes again. Absolutely. In my last paragraph I switched #2 and #3 inadvertently. I really need to be more careful.
Ok, with these corrections do you agree that we are talking about the same thing?
No, because as I explained, the one thing the "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners" absolutely do not agree on, is how "orbital motion without axial rotation" is defined. And by "defined" I mean – what the orientation of the orbiting object is, whilst it moves through its orbit. You are writing as though we both agree on orbital motion, but disagree on how axial rotation is defined. More or less the complete opposite of what I’m saying, I’m afraid!
Hmm…ok. Would you mind defining (mathematically) what you call “orbital motion”? In other words, how do I calculate it?
DREMPTY,
NOPE!
“The Spinners define orbital motion without axial rotation as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.”
We don’t define either that way.
We define an orbit as a path around another object.
We define rotation as Modhavi does
Fig.6 Rotation of a rigid body about a fixed axis
The motion of a rigid body rotating about a fixed axis AA is said to be known when its angular coordinate
can be expressed as a known function of t. In practice, however the rotation of a rigid body is seldom defined
by a relation between More often, the conditions of motion will be specified by the type of angular
acceleration that the body possesses. For example, α may be given as a function of t, as a function of, or as a
function of ω. –
"We don’t define either that way."
Actually, you do, blob. I know you won’t understand, but this is your argument:
"The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit."
…and you’re stuck with it.
We define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as…
abs(Wo) > 0 rad/s AND abs(Ws) = 0 rad/s
…where
– Wo is the angular velocity on the frame where radius r=0 goes through the gravitational host body (or the mutual barycenter) and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant point
– Ws is the angular velocity on the frame where radius r=0 goes through the body itself and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant point
DREMPTY,
Nope, that term is your cult’s term, you got to live with it, I don’t accept it as valid definition.
Try reading an Astronomy textbook and see if it is used there.
We keep the definitions of rotation and orbiting separate, always have, always will.
And by the way, you lost the argument a long time ago.
"We keep the definitions of rotation and orbiting separate, always have, always will"
Yes, indeed. Us too. And in order to separate them, you need to state how the orbiting object is oriented when it is orbiting without rotating on its own axis.
"The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.
The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout."
It’s that simple. And, because it’s that simple, you have to try to obfuscate. You especially, bdgwx.
DREMT, something isn’t clicking here. As we’ve already established the disagreement is with the definitions. In an effort to provide clarity on the matter I just provided the definition we and every other scientific institution has adopted. Yet your response is essentially “nuh-uh”. I’m not expecting you to accept the definition (though you should). I’m only expecting you to be able to understand it. Is there something I need to clarify?
I understand it, that’s why I’m correcting you.
"The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit."
DREMPTY,
Nope, that’s how we define something that isn’t rotating.
It could be orbiting, or not orbiting, moving or not moving.
blob, you sure do “nope” a lot.
The reality is:
"The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.”
Whether you accept that, or not!
Nope
nope
nope
nope
you’ve been pwned.
OK, blob.
DREMT and Clint lost the argument when they asked people to believe they were right and Newton was wrong about the moon’s rotation.
bdg…”It is universally accepted (sans a few posters on this blog) that it is defined as non-zero angular velocity in a frame where radius r=0 goes through the bodys center of mass and angle a=0 if fixed to a distant point like another star or feature on the CMB.”
When you can’t explain something, resort to bafflegab and red-herring arguments.
Once again, if the Moon is not rotating about it’s local axis in one frame of reference it is not rotating about its axis in any frame of reference.
The Sun appears from our frame of reference to rise in the east, cross the sky and set in the west. Does that mean the Sun is rotating around the Earth, like the Moon?
You need to distinguish between the mind’s propensity for illusion and the actuality of the real universe. Most of living beings don’t give a hoot about the illusions of the human mind. When we humans get to that state, and we can through awareness, then we are free to look at actuality without the distortions.
Go back and look at the Moon from that perspective, without the illusions, and it becomes plain that it is not rotating on a local axis.
What you are doing is expecting to find a local rotation and you are finding it, albeit as an illusion. Look harder and you will see the near side and far side are always moving parallel to each other along the orbital path. It stands out like a sore thumb once you get past the illusion that both sides are rotating around the centre.
Gordon says: “…the near side and far side are always moving parallel to each other…”
Exactly. The near side is like one rail of a train track. The far side is the other rail. The train track makes a large oval. The train is then orbiting but not rotating about its axis. It’s the same motion as the ball on a string.
GR said: When you cant explain something, resort to bafflegab and red-herring arguments.
What are you not understanding about radius r=0 going through a body’s center of mass and angle a=0 fixed to a distant point?
GR said: Once again, if the Moon is not rotating about its local axis in one frame of reference it is not rotating about its axis in any frame of reference.
That just simply isn’t true.
Frame #1: radius r=0 goes through the Moon’s center of mass and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant star. The angular velocity in this frame is 2.66e-6 rad/s.
Frame #2: radius r=0 goes through the Moon’s center of mass and angle a=0 is fixed to the Earth. The angular velocity in this frame is 0 rad/s.
As you can see we different answers depending on how the frame is chosen.
GR said: Go back and look at the Moon from that perspective, without the illusions, and it becomes plain that it is not rotating on a local axis.
With radius r=0 through the Moon and angle a=0 fixed at a distant point the angular velocity of the Moon is 2.66e-6 rad/s. This is a period of 27.3 days.
GR said: What you are doing is expecting to find a local rotation and you are finding it, albeit as an illusion.
The Moon’s rotational period of 27.3 wrt to a rotationally inertial frame is not an illusion. It is real.
Sorry bdgwx, but you are simply ineducable. The discussion has nothing to do with reference frames. Once again:
The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit.
The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.
That’s not how we define it.
“orbital motion without axial rotation” is defined as…
abs(Wo) > 0 rad/s where Wo is the angular velocity defined in the frame where radius r=0 goes through gravitational host body and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant point. Wo is said to be the orbital angular velocity.
AND
abs(Ws) = 0 rad/s where Ws in the angular velocity defined in the frame where radius r=0 goes through the body in question and angle a=0 is fixed to a distant point. Ws is said to be the spin angular velocity.
And to summarize…
“orbital motion without axial rotation” is the condition Wo > 0 rad/s AND Ws = 0 rad/s.
"That’s not how we define it."
Yes, it is.
bdgwx lost it long ago. He doesn’t even understand his own comments.
He keeps hiding when asked to explain this nonsense:
“So you made up some model where a sphere with 1 m^2 surface area which is supplied a 240 W input must somehow emit 480 W/m^2. You then decided that Earth must emit 480 W/m^2 as well because…I don’t know…reasons I guess. Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K. Just remember…you came up with the ficticious 303K and 231.7K figures.”
DREMT said: Yes, it is.
No it is. What you are writing and I’m writing are not equivalent.
I’ll repeat, we define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as the condition where abs(Wo) > 0 rad/s AND abs(Ws) = 0 rad/s where Wo is the angular velocity in the frame centered on the gravitational host (or mutual barycenter) and Ws is the angular velocity in the frame centered on the body itself.
It’s just a definition. Like I said above I’m not expecting you to accept it (though you should). But I am expecting you to understand it.
I understand it, that’s why I’m correcting you.
"The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same face of the orbiting object remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout the orbit."
barry…”Just checking in for those skeptics who vowed temps would drop from 2016 onwards, and who said the red line was never getting back up as high”.
You are checking in to gloat, I wonder if you’ll be around if ans when the anomalies go back toward the baseline in a serious way.
This skeptic has only ever claimed that any warming is not caused by a trace gas in the atmosphere. We have a dynamic atmosphere-surface-ocean interface that is not at all understood as to its eccentricities. No one knows what is going on right now.
I’ve already said that it is quite possible there will be a temporary dip below the baseline.
I’m not here to gloat. It just so happens that ‘skeptics’ are on the wrong side of physics, so they keep making the wrong predictions. Confronting deniers of science with their failures is satisfying. Who knows, maybe they might stop denying science when they see their predictions continually fail. They would, if they followed the scientific method, right?
Robertson
” I have proved it and you have offered nothing to disprove my proof.
All you can offer is ad homs, insults, … ”
*
For the umpteenth time:
1. YOU, Robertson, are the one who insults others. I insult you BACK. Stop insulting me and others, and I’ll then stop insulting you.
*
2. You NEVER and NEVER did prove anything scientifically valuable on this blog, regardless what you wrote about. You post ridiculous claims, solely based on your egocentric narrative, and that’s all, Robertson.
*
3. It is not MY job to disprove your trivial scienceless nonsense; it is YOUR job to disprove complex, scientific matter discovered and described by Cassini, Mayer, Newton, Lagrange and Laplace.
But that is exactly what people like you are absolutely unable to do.
You are not even able to do the simplest job of downloading temperature data from anywhere and to make a graph out of it.
All you are able to is to discredit and to denigrate what is done by others, instead of correctly contradicting it by using own, similar work.
What could we expect form a person denigrating theoretical work done by Lagrange, while not even knowing and understanding basics like an integral?
And do you really want, using your simple-minded coin example, to contradict persons who were educated to understand and set up differential equations describing all motions of celestial bodies?
Pfff.
And the very best is when you are brazen enough to add, SPEAKING ABOUT NEWTON’ WORK:
” … and obscure references to ancient science. ”
This is really the most ignorant fuss I have ever read.
You are such an ignorant coward, Robertson …
J.-P. D.
JD, we know you can lash out at people outside your cult. We know you can type endlessly on your keyboard. We know you can search for irrelevant things on the Web.
And we also know you are ignorant of physics and orbital motion, as is the rest of your cult.
The majority of first year college physics students could find the problems with this nonsense:
What’s more, this gravitational tugging would have influenced the moon’s rotation rate. If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.
But your cult can’t find any problems with it, yet they all pretend to be experts on the subject.
That’s why you’re all idiots.
Pfff…
ClintR, Sie sind ganz einfach krank im Hirn.
J.-P. D.
Without some correct answers, you have no credibility.
ClintR
” We know you can search for irrelevant things on the Web. ”
And such a dumb, incompetent fuss you write, though it concerns what the genial scientist Newton wrote.
But you nonetheless expect ‘correct answers’ ?
Try first to have some more respect for Newton, ClintR!
J.-P. D.
No answers, no credibility, JD.
Sorry.
I don’t know why so many people hope to soon see a strong La Nina ahead, but I think they might be disappointed:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/nino_fcst/indices/indexninofcst.html
According to the prediction above, ENSO will very probably come back into neutral state by June 2021.
J.-P. D.
the history of NOAA’s predictions on what you are guessing at is essentially zero skill. May as well be flipping a coin.
hunter
As usual, you read and understand about 5% of what matters: that is due to the fact that, like Robertson and some others, you are only interesting in your own narrative.
I’m not at all interested in NOAA predictions (MEI excepted), let alone in your meaning about what I think.
J.-P. D.
Typo: ‘interesting’ -> ‘interested’
bill,
That’s not right. Scientific ENSO predictions FAR surpass coin-flips in terms of skill. In fact, even simple forecasting models like persistence and climatology are superior to coin-flips. And skill for more advanced statistical models is higher than that of simple models. And skill for the even more advanced dynamic models is higher than that of the statistical models. Forecasting skill for ENSO is reasonably good given the complexity. Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying the skill is 100% perfect. It’s not and never will be. But it is the exact opposite of “essentially zero” because it is literally not zero.
I will say that I think this may be just another one of your off-the-cuff remarks that even you don’t actually believe. I hope so anyway.
bdgwx
Thanks for your help.
My impression is that people limke hunter have no idea about the competence of the Japanese Meteorology Agency.
J.-P. D.
I think part of it is that some people think that if a model cannot make predictions with 100% perfection then it must therefore have zero skill and is useless.
bdgwx, since you’re quilty of so many off-the-cuff remarks, maybe you could explain just this one sentence of yours:
“So you made up some model where a sphere with 1 m^2 surface area which is supplied a 240 W input must somehow emit 480 W/m^2.”
b,
You are dreaming, or maybe living in a fantasy world.
You are confusing skill with luck. ENSO forecasters will boast about their successes, not so much about their failures. Just as compulsive losing gamblers, financial planners, economic forecasters, and all the other fortune sellers do.
You mention climatology as a simple forecasting model. What rubbish! Even the IPCC admits that it is impossible to forecast future climate states. Go back to sleep. Sweet dreams!
You guys are some piece of work. If its published you believe it.
LMAO!
At NOAA knows what the problem is. Here read it yourself.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/spring-predictability-barrier-we%E2%80%99d-rather-be-spring-break
Of course you probably won’t read it and will back here proclaiming spring predictions to be reliable.
Yes bill, we already know that ENSO forecasts aren’t perfect.
LOL! Indeed bdgwx. Its bad enough when even NOAA admits they probably should taking a spring break rather be working on forecasts.
Check out last Oct, Nov, and Dec forecasts here:
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/2019-October-quick-look/
and compare the results of AMJ, MJJ, JJA, JAS, and ASO here:
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Then if thats not enough continue on back another year Oct 18 through Apr 19 and look at the projections for the summer of 2019 with projections of a 2 year El Nino. And if thats not enough then just keep going back. Its the May forecasts that start getting back on track when you can start seeing some signs.
Just a month or two ago Bindidon was projecting imminent emergence of more red and what was the result? A consistent decline of red to a point there is now 5 months more lack of red in just the past 45 days. Nice job on your forecast Binny! And it isn’t even spring yet!
bill’s article had some remarks pertinent to Bindidon’s post that started this thread.
“Now let’s shift our attention to making an ENSO prediction for the coming winter season (for the November-January seasonal average). How useful are the models? Well, if you’re running a model using October data as input, then you’re in pretty good shape as you can expect close to 90% of the winter ENSO fluctuations to be predicted.”
Thanks bill, for helping us understand that ENSO models have 90% skill at this time of year for the coming months, about which, Bindidon was commenting.
barry says:
”bills article had some remarks pertinent to Bindidons post that started this thread.”
—————————-
Barry you need to actually read from the top. The prediction I was criticizing wasn’t this winter’s prediction which Bindidon didn’t make. It was this prediction:
”According to the prediction above, ENSO will very probably come back into neutral state by June 2021.”
NOAA’s success rate there is dismal. I have spoken many times about the spring predictability barrier. NOAA does a good job after ENSO events get underway. But ENSO events tend to form in the spring and decline in the late winter.
My mistake, Bill. Forecasts that far ahead do have little skill. I confused myself with when Winter is (Jun-Aug where I live). Not the first time I’ve done that, either.
My mistake too. I thought the claim was that the entire enterprise of ENSO forecasting had essentially zero skill. I see now bill was talking about extended range forecasts through the “spring barrier”. And yes I agree…those do have much lower skill.
bill…”the history of NOAAs predictions on what you are guessing at is essentially zero skill. May as well be flipping a coin”.
Even if we get a strong LN and temps drop below the baseline, NOAA will fudge the record to show more warming.
Another way to prove the object that only orbits and does not spin keep showing the same face in one direction and all faces to the center of orbit goes like this.
Hang a ball with a paint spot on a long string pretend it is a Moon if you want , now swing the ball into a circular motion (by grabbing the string above the ball so as not to put any spin on the ball)
the ball will now run in the circle orbiting the center and showing all faces to it while the spot constantly facing into one same direction.
That is orbiting without spinning.
This may be the simplest proof yet and so easy anybody can actually do it at home – and video it
Now watch the word salad the Eartflatters will construct to trying to dispute it